War families to take on PM at polls (1 Viewer)

[Red_Dave]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5995625,00.html

Is this likely to achive anything? It seams rather futile because

[A] They are unlikely to gain any seats due to the nature of First Past The Post
Another fringe party will cause more division between those who oposse the labour and concervative partys
[C] Blair isnt likely to last long and the concervatives are ahead in the polls

 

[Jay R]

How about the fact that it's a one issue protest party? No-one with any political sense is going to waste a vote on a party that has a single issue to campaign on. What's their economic startegy going to be? What's their Home Office policy going to be? Where do they stand on European integration? How are they going to draw investment into the country? Are they going to adopt an environmental policy?

Let me guess, "Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan 'cause Blair is Bush's poodle." The answer to any question right? :roll:

You're right about the minority parties splitting the vote further but it's of their own making. They all have their own single issue that's more important than anything else but is, in truth, useless in isolation. They can't possibly combine because they will then argue over who's single issue is the most important and that's the end of it.

If your going to go outside the mainstream then you have to do so properly, I've seen nothing that could tempt me away from the main three which is a real shame because I don't want to vote for them, but I'm not going to waste my time with anything that doesn't even have the ambition to write a full policy manifesto. The figure I bear in mind is £15 million, that's about the average spend on a modern general election campaign, if you don't have that ready to go then your not even on the starting blocks to overturning the status quo, might as well forget it. I'd love to have an alternative (In fact I'm getting pretty concerned about it) but it has to be a genuine challenge to the big three.

The Coservatives are no sure-fire thing, Cameron hasn't convinced me and I get the impression that's quite a widespread feeling, he's dropped the only policies that were worth voting Tory for in the current climate. I think were heading toward the lowest turnout in Parliamentary history, and possibly a hung Parliament.

Lastly a prediction. They won't even beat Blair in Sedgefield.

 

[Red_Dave]

How about the fact that it's a one issue protest party? No-one with any political sense is going to waste a vote on a party that has a single issue to campaign on. What's their economic startegy going to be? What's their Home Office policy going to be? Where do they stand on European integration? How are they going to draw investment into the country? Are they going to adopt an environmental policy?

Let me guess, "Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan 'cause Blair is Bush's poodle." The answer to any question right? :roll:

You're right about the minority parties splitting the vote further but it's of their own making. They all have their own single issue that's more important than anything else but is, in truth, useless in isolation. They can't possibly combine because they will then argue over who's single issue is the most important and that's the end of it.

If your going to go outside the mainstream then you have to do so properly, I've seen nothing that could tempt me away from the main three which is a real shame because I don't want to vote for them, but I'm not going to waste my time with anything that doesn't even have the ambition to write a full policy manifesto. The figure I bear in mind is £15 million, that's about the average spend on a modern general election campaign, if you don't have that ready to go then your not even on the starting blocks to overturning the status quo, might as well forget it. I'd love to have an alternative (In fact I'm getting pretty concerned about it) but it has to be a genuine challenge to the big three.

The Coservatives are no sure-fire thing, Cameron hasn't convinced me and I get the impression that's quite a widespread feeling, he's dropped the only policies that were worth voting Tory for in the current climate. I think were heading toward the lowest turnout in Parliamentary history, and possibly a hung Parliament.

Lastly a prediction. They won't even beat Blair in Sedgefield.

Well cameron was ahead in the polls last time i checked, though hopefuly not far enough to get a majority in parliament. The guys a P.R genius. He,s got people to support him despite only comeing up with about 4 coherent policies:roll: . I like alot of his more localist policies [like democratically elected police commisioners] but I wouldnt trust him as far as i could throw him [and im quite a scrawny guy] He,s clearly a dishonest person after writing the concervatives uber-rightist 2005 manifesto then suddenly acting like he,s some sort of liberal enviromentalist tree-hugger.

Why the low turnout? Im considering joining the liberal democrats so im routeing for a hung parliament as this could initiate a lib-lab coalition [i can dream cant i? ] I think a hung parliaments likely due the fact concervative support is going up, labour support is falling and lib-dem support is staying vaugey the same.

 

[Jay R]

A hung Parliament opens up a world of possibilities, so much so that it could be the best outcome we can expect from 2009/10. Majority government by any of the three sounds pointless given the state of them so a split and compromising government could be better. Imagine if the Conservative right feels inclined to break from Cameron's 'Blair version 2.0' direction? That could really spice things up. I think it would be beneficial as we really need a government to confront the conservative issues that the tabloids are (justifiably) having a field day with, Labour under Brown could potentially ally with the Tory right to convince Joe Public and the gutter press that they are together capable of dealing with crime and immigration.

I happened to be visiting old family friends the other day, typical working class household and they were putting the world to rights. It's spooky to see how closely people's opinions match the headlines of the Sun, regardless of political persuasion, convincing that demographic to turn out behind you is a big boost to any campaign, could even be a gamebreaker. I think if he intends to salvage a Labour fourth term post-Blair then Brown is going to have to make some kind of concession to this aspect of the spectrum, and even then he'll have to overcome the argument that the party has had 12 years and can't be relied on to come good. It's the reason I don't rate Cameron at the moment, I think he's deluding himeself if he thinks he can play to the Liberals rather than the traditional Conservatives.

I don't like the Liberals at the best of times but Menzies Campbell is an absolutely laughable choice for potential PM. I wouldn't be suprised if we see another leadership challenge there before the election.

 

[Red_Dave]

A hung Parliament opens up a world of possibilities, so much so that it could be the best outcome we can expect from 2009/10. Majority government by any of the three sounds pointless given the state of them so a split and compromising government could be better. Imagine if the Conservative right feels inclined to break from Cameron's 'Blair version 2.0' direction? That could really spice things up. I think it would be beneficial as we really need a government to confront the conservative issues that the tabloids are (justifiably) having a field day with, Labour under Brown could potentially ally with the Tory right to convince Joe Public and the gutter press that they are together capable of dealing with crime and immigration.

I happened to be visiting old family friends the other day, typical working class household and they were putting the world to rights. It's spooky to see how closely people's opinions match the headlines of the Sun, regardless of political persuasion, convincing that demographic to turn out behind you is a big boost to any campaign, could even be a gamebreaker. I think if he intends to salvage a Labour fourth term post-Blair then Brown is going to have to make some kind of concession to this aspect of the spectrum, and even then he'll have to overcome the argument that the party has had 12 years and can't be relied on to come good. It's the reason I don't rate Cameron at the moment, I think he's deluding himeself if he thinks he can play to the Liberals rather than the traditional Conservatives.

I don't like the Liberals at the best of times but Menzies Campbell is an absolutely laughable choice for potential PM. I wouldn't be suprised if we see another leadership challenge there before the election.

I dont think a departure from cameronism would be wise for the concervatives as it would make them appear even more dishonest. It,ll get to the point where they have done so much political flipp-flopping that no ones going to take them seriously [ild hope].


Menzies Campbell isnt makeing much of an impact so idealy ild like to see a good speaker/debater like lembit opick take over. Lib-dem support went down after Kennedy got axed so i doubt there going to want to appear divided again. Whats wrong with the lib-dems anyhow? Ifs theres ever going to be any progress we need serious consitutional reform. The liberal democrats are the only party likely to bring this about.

 

[Jay R]

The Liberals attract too many supporters of the bleeding heart variety, the kind who want me to give just £5 a month to save someone/something somewhere (probably in Africa). If I suggest to such folks that perhaps throwing money at the problem (whatever it happens to be) has not proved to be effective and that perhaps what's necessary is a little more involvement in the form of boots on the ground they suddenly don't like my input.

Take the situation in Lebanon as a case in point. In the current crisis Liberals will (in my experience) come straight out and demand a ceasefire from Israel. I find that not only patently ridiculous but also ignorant and greatly hypocritical. Regardless of the tragedy befalling Lebanon it is occuring because they harbour a terrorist group, offsetting a civil war between the government and Hezbollah has simply delayed their suffering until the recent provocation of Israel. I stand with the Israelis and pity the Lebanese, but ceasefire? History shows that Hezbollah will use a pause in this conflict to rearm and prepare for more, ceasefire simply offsets war for another day, prolonging the problems in the region. Cauterizing the cancerous problem is the best solution, the fact that it is a bloody and difficult proposition supports this, the right course is almost never the easiest. But a Liberal, (again in my experience) will not see that, they are, for my vote at least, too soft.

[Before you say it, I know our foreign policy at the moment is a disaster but then I thought Iraq was a bad idea. A rare instance when I agree with the Libs on a foreign policy issue.]

I don't know a great deal about Opick beyond the fact he backed the wrong horse in the leadership contest. And that he's a biker, though he rides some prosaic commuter rubbish rather than a balls-out sports bike. As for constitutional reform, I'm all for an end to the Lords and (whisper it) the monarchy, I think a set constitution can wait until the EU either gets it's act together or gives up on further integration. We get along pretty well without one at the moment.

 

[Red_Dave]

The Liberals attract too many supporters of the bleeding heart variety, the kind who want me to give just £5 a month to save someone/something somewhere (probably in Africa). If I suggest to such folks that perhaps throwing money at the problem (whatever it happens to be) has not proved to be effective and that perhaps what's necessary is a little more involvement in the form of boots on the ground they suddenly don't like my input.

Take the situation in Lebanon as a case in point. In the current crisis Liberals will (in my experience) come straight out and demand a ceasefire from Israel. I find that not only patently ridiculous but also ignorant and greatly hypocritical. Regardless of the tragedy befalling Lebanon it is occuring because they harbour a terrorist group, offsetting a civil war between the government and Hezbollah has simply delayed their suffering until the recent provocation of Israel. I stand with the Israelis and pity the Lebanese, but ceasefire? History shows that Hezbollah will use a pause in this conflict to rearm and prepare for more, ceasefire simply offsets war for another day, prolonging the problems in the region. Cauterizing the cancerous problem is the best solution, the fact that it is a bloody and difficult proposition supports this, the right course is almost never the easiest. But a Liberal, (again in my experience) will not see that, they are, for my vote at least, too soft.

[Before you say it, I know our foreign policy at the moment is a disaster but then I thought Iraq was a bad idea. A rare instance when I agree with the Libs on a foreign policy issue.]

I don't know a great deal about Opick beyond the fact he backed the wrong horse in the leadership contest. And that he's a biker, though he rides some prosaic commuter rubbish rather than a balls-out sports bike. As for constitutional reform, I'm all for an end to the Lords and (whisper it) the monarchy, I think a set constitution can wait until the EU either gets it's act together or gives up on further integration. We get along pretty well without one at the moment.

You mentioned the tabloids haveing a field day over issues like crime and imigration and said it was right they where doing this but how so? Imigration laws are much stricter in the uk then elsewhere so all they are really doing is insighting prejudice and hysteria.

As for africa the problem isnt that money is being thrown at it, but drained out of it. This is because foreign "aid" comes in the form of loans with extremely high intrest rates. Thus defeating the object of aid and draining money away from a continent thats falling apart.

Opicks not that well known,he was the lib-dems northern ireland spokesman last time i checked. I heard him speak at a conference and he seamed alot more charismatic then kennedy and cambell and a much better debator. He had quite a good sence of humor as well, he came on straight after Geoff Hoon had been booed of stage and said "im sorry about Geoff he,s really quite nice if you meet him socially" Ultimately if you want a sucessful party you need someone with a degree of charisma like Blair or Cameron. This may not be fair but its part of life.

 

[Jay R]

You mentioned the tabloids haveing a field day over issues like crime and imigration and said it was right they where doing this but how so? Imigration laws are much stricter in the uk then elsewhere so all they are really doing is insighting prejudice and hysteria.

It's all very well having solid laws and procedures but they have to be enforced effectively. Without using said tabloids as evidence I feel that we are not doing so, there have been a couple of leaks (I believe the last was from within Customs and Excise) talking about how they simply do not have the resources or the backing to prevent breaches of immigration policy. Strict law only applies to those who approach the coountry within the legitimate asylum or immigration processes, the illegal side of things (heavily controlled by organised crime, another real concern of mine) circumvents those rules. Then you have the the stupid stuff that just shows up the government as incompetent. Illegal migrants cleaning the Home Office for example.

True the tabloids are rags but the stuff they carry is broadly representative of public opinion, it has to be, they're in the business of selling newspapers. They may spin it up and highlight relatively small individual cases, but the sentiments evoked are genuine reactions, smart government should bear that in mind.

As for crime, I'm concious that the media is selling us scare stories as usual, if fact crime rates overall are (I believe) still falling. But the proportion of crime that is violent and/or sexual or related to narcotics and the associated gang issues in the cities is most certainly increasing. It's all very well for the government to trumpet lower numbers of crime, but if the fewer being committed are of the worst sort then the people, myself included, are not going to care. Then there are the high profile cases that get the hang-'em high brigade riled up, that paedophile from South Wales who kidnapped the little girl being the most recent case in point. Like it or not the law is seen by the majority as being too soft, not only on sex offenders either. I'm firmly of the belief that drink driving related deaths should be treated much more sternly, that while drug addiction is an illness that requires support and treatment drug dealing deserves something much more harsh than it's getting, etc. Then theres the early release programme, a bigger mockery of justice I've not seen in my life, which is compounded by Gordon's refusal to even consider new prisons. As with the NHS it's New Labours obsession with figures over facts that is the problem.

As for africa the problem isnt that money is being thrown at it, but drained out of it. This is because foreign "aid" comes in the form of loans with extremely high intrest rates. Thus defeating the object of aid and draining money away from a continent thats falling apart.

Oh absolutely, I was being glib. Referring to the libs and their character (my perception of it) and not commenting on Africa itself.

Opicks not that well known,he was the lib-dems northern ireland spokesman last time i checked. I heard him speak at a conference and he seamed alot more charismatic then kennedy and cambell and a much better debator. He had quite a good sence of humor as well, he came on straight after Geoff Hoon had been booed of stage and said "im sorry about Geoff he,s really quite nice if you meet him socially" Ultimately if you want a sucessful party you need someone with a degree of charisma like Blair or Cameron. This may not be fair but its part of life.

True. What's the status of the Libs at the moment? Is there any real talk of another leadership challenge? (I'm out of the country right now, limited news sources)