[Closed] Who will win the upcoming General Election?

ps. i'm not a troll, just scunnered with all politicians and looking for some inspiring words to help me further my political view.

The more I think about that question, the more I want to emigrate..........

hung parliament which according to a top investment blokey i talked to recently will ruin the country as it'll undermine confidence and the governments credit rating will be downgraded from it's current AAA level

either way

we're all doomed*

*unless you live in China

A politician. Unfortunately.

Hung Parliament - which means the insipid Liberal Party will dictate policy to the spineless Labour party and the hollow Conservative party.

Happy Days!

There was a poll in the Times last week that suggested 40ish to the Conservatives to 30ish to labour and 20 ish to lib dem.

I'm surprised anyone is thinking of voting labour in again. Even if you believe in the party ideals they need to be kicked out so they can get rid of a few rotten apples and the complacent attitude they've developed.

The two main parties are going to end up running the country in virtually the same way IMO. We're in for some tough times before the economy returns to the "prosperous" * times.

*by prosporous I mean borrowed.

hopefully hung; coalitions dont seem to work so bad for germany, err belgium?? or iraq

I'm surprised anyone is thinking of voting labour in again. Even if you believe in the party ideals they need to be kicked out so they can get rid of a few rotten apples and the complacent attitude they've developed

i think for many lib dems arent a credible option so that leaves you with red or blue, both parties are just as dishonest and out of touch,
i do have to cycle past one of those bilboards of cast iron daves airbrushed smug face every morning and it never fails to nauseate me.

oh and i think torries will win

Labour will win.

Billy Bragg was just on radio 4 and pretty much summed up the problem

The country has been bankrupted by a load of bankers, who are now waving two fingers at us by paying themselves obscene bonuses. And we have all the main political parties in this country united in their silence on the subject, determined to twiddle their thumbs and not do a ****ing thing about it. They're all as ****ing useless as each other

Time for a spot of this

[img] [/img]

No one.

The likely government willbe Tory and with a working but small majority. A tory government will be a coplete disaster. You think Browns lot are rubbish? Just wait

The best result for the country will be a hung parliament as Clegg will extract concessions that will improve the country long term such as proportional representation on councils and so on. The minority governments in scotland over the last decade has made for good governance and has meant the most ridiculous Westminster policies have not made it to Scotland and has also made councils far more democratic thru PR.

For the first time in my life I have zero enthusiasm for the election of a labour government. They have squandered an opportunity, lost their moral compass and alienated all their talent.

So - who wins the next Westminster election? - no one and certainly not the british people. It looks likely that we will be led by a bunch of thick toffs whose idea of reinvigorating Britain is Thatcherism all over again. Be prepared for the end of the UKs public services. Be prepared for a massive financial meltdown. Osbornes ideas as to what to have done in the recent crisis have been adopted by no country in the world and most economists say they would have deepended and legthened the recession.

Cameron is a deeplyu unsettling prospect as Prime minister. Thick, a liar, with no moral fibre or ideaology. Sort of Blair lite. A horryfieng proispect.

[img] [/img]

The more I think about that question, the more I want to emigrate..........

I'm with you.

But since that isn't going to happen, I think we have to treat elections as punishments now. In other words, my hope for this upcoming election is not so much that any one party gets [i]in[/i], but that the current sitting government gets absolutely [i]trounced[/i], and any future career prospects they have obliviated.

Oh, and Ed Balls sent to St Helena.

The more I think about that question, the more I want to emigrate..........

I'm with you.

I am 😀

Not related to the GE in any way, but a happy addition to my reasons for going...

It looks likely that we will be led by a bunch of thick toffs whose idea of reinvigorating Britain is Thatcherism all over again.

as opposed to chippy shopfloormen from bent unions, and an "Im alright Jack" attitude to their comrades; a fabian/statist view of the role of government and the suppression of individual's freedoms for the sake of the party and the state etc etc .

We do so love our generalisations dont we TJ 🙄

Thick, a liar, with no moral fibre or ideology.

Im sorry. For a second there I thought you were critiquing our incumbent PM....

Labour, but by a midge's dick.

Labour will win.

rupert murdoch

Stoner, you beat me to it! Was thinking the very same....!

Labour have wasted their lengthy spell in office, achieving nothing bar fiscal waste, the increase of their client state, entering wars of questionable legality and, er....that's about it.

The Conservatives aren't perfect, I don't think any one party can be, but at least they should be brave enough to cut away the useless areas of government expenditure. For example, stop sending aid to China and India. They're building space programs and aircraft carriers FFS, why are we giving them money? For example, stop any government recruitment advertising. Sounds silly, I know, but the cost of putting those ads through the Guardian have to add up, don't they?

In essence, it will be a Conservative government in power. The usual lefty rubbish will be spouted about toffs and "the nasty party", but ultimately what we need at the moment is leadership from intelligent people who are willing to be as nasty as is necessary for the public purse. Sorry if that means that the transgender lesbian vegetarian outreach community support workers department's annual tofu budget has to be slashed.... 😉

In terms of who will win, I think its still possible that Labour can pull it together to get back with a tiny majority, they just need one or two headline policies that will really connect with ordinary people.

Opinion polls are one thing, but I don't think a majority of the actual electorate who turn out are going to be fooled into voting Tory.

I think it would be foolish to call Cameron thick. You may not like him but he's achieved enough so far in his life that he must have a couple of brain cells to rub together.

Thick, a liar, with no moral fibre or ideology.

Im sorry. For a second there I thought you were critiquing our incumbent PM....

LOL

He used to have an ideaology but somewhere he lost it. I think that might even be worse never having had one

We do so love our generalisations dont we TJ

Except this is actually true - the senoir posts will be going to a bunch of old etonians and an old eatonian is a toff.

Labour have wasted their lengthy spell in office, achieving nothing bar fiscal waste

Sorry but that's bollocks. Yes they have made many mistakes and I am deeply disappointed with them, but there have been some definite improvements.

Criticising Labour for the war is a bit much if you are a Tory supporter - do you really think they would have done any different? They were fully in support IIRC.

Who will win the upcoming General Election?

My money's on "spoiled ballot".

Old adage:

"Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in".

Criticising them for the war is a bit much if you are a Tory supporter - do you really think they would have done any different? They were fully in support IIRC.

I think its difficult to interpolate the conservative support for ostensibly a [i]regime change[/i] war of aggression as opposed to a security driven war of pre-emptive strike which is what was sold to them and us at the time and that which they supported.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

.............

Labour have wasted their lengthy spell in office, achieving nothing

wasted a historic opportunity indeed. However there are accomplishments. The NHS is vastly improved for the extra money. Devolution. I believe on the financail side history wil; be kinder than you ar especially after a tory government who will be damaging.

Its a pretty poor record for all those big majorities tho.

Sorry if that means that the transgender lesbian vegetarian outreach community support workers department's annual tofu budget has to be slashed

Unfortunately this sort of thing occupies a tinmy % of the budget. tiory cuts will mean deaths. Old people without support - that sort of thing. Be clear about that.

It will be a hung parliament IMHO. As much as people will revolt against Labour particularly dyed in the wool labour supporters who probably won't turn out, my feeling is that a lot of people will also feel that the Conservatives can only offer a slight difference to Labours middle of the road politics. And I think that a lot of people are too fearful of trying a party who hasn't already been in power so LibDem probably won't get enough votes to even make it to the opposition.

My feeling - a hung Conservative government.

Be clear about that.

haha. Sounds just like a "Balls" soundbite! 😉

tiory cuts will mean deaths. Old people without support - that sort of thing. Be clear about that.

Terrible spelling notwithstanding......Eh? Tory cuts will mean deaths? Riiiiight. Policy statements to illustrate that, if you please.

One could argue that the underfunding of the armed forces by Brown has also meant deaths. Be clear about [i]that[/i].

I think its difficult to interpolate the conservative support for ostensibly a regime change war of aggression as opposed to a security driven war of pre-emptive strike which is what was sold to them and us at the time and that which they supported.

Surely nobody actually believed that though did they?

And anyway the Tory position has always been to ally strongly with the US Republicans, which is what they would clearly have done.

Policy statements to illustrate that, if you please.

But they don't have any policy statements do they.

The Conservatives aren't perfect

TBH - the economic argument is pretty irrelevant as neither party policy can be tested in isolation. Either party might make a claim for bringing a recovery ahead of forecasts and each will happily pass the buck to the other administration if the economy continues to drag. You can roll out any number of "respected economists" to support or denigrate either policy whenever you like. Economics, despite the mathematics of it's analysis, is not a science, but an art and so has little like a unifying theory to get right or wrong.

Labour will lose their remit as nearly every tired government has - the cumulative number of negatives has overtaken the positives. Negatives arent forgotten, and most positives are rarely remembered.

Labour need a spell in opposition to take a long hard look at themselves and reconsider how to make themselves electable again. How to deliver social imperatives without creating a massive state machinery to do it. The conservatives on the other hand dont have the political conviction to lay out a sufficiently radical programme and reset the scale of the state to deserve more than a term in office this time around.

If UK plc is to make any progress over the next 10 years it will do it as individuals not as an electorate.

Torys and neocons have not been the best bedfellows.

Surely nobody actually believed that though did they?

I think the Dutch inquiry has illustrated that to a certain extent many people did. Some of them even post in here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-interational-law-dutch-inquiry-finds

"In its depiction of Iraq's WMD programme, the [Dutch] government was to a considerable extent led by public and other information from the US and the UK," the Davids report says.

It found that when the Dutch government decided in August 2002 to support the attack on Iraq it treated intelligence about WMD and the legality of an invasion as "subservient"

CFH - sorry about the spelling.

Osbourne has made it clear that there will be massive cuts in budgets for essential services. This will mean deaths. Its simple and obvious. YOu cannot cut social services depts without causing deaths. You cannot have cuts the size that he wants in public services without deaths.

Its not the funding in the Army thats the issue - Its WTF are we doing fighting the people we are where they are - thats what has killed many thousands.

You cannot cut social services depts without causing deaths

Yes you can. You simply cut out all of the useless trash that purports to be social services. Oh, and I think we can look at Hackney Children's Services to see how spunking loads of cash at a social "care" causes deaths as well. There is a vast amount of waste in the public sector at the moment which leaves a large amount of scope for making cuts while still retaining the essential services which prevent those same deaths you claim will be caused.

Its not the funding in the Army thats the issue

Oh, and no need to apologise for the spelling, of course! 🙂

In its depiction of Iraq's WMD programme, the [Dutch] government was to a considerable extent led by public and other information from the US and the UK

Well maybe they should have listened to the UN Weapons Inspectors instead - you know, the ones who were actually on the ground in Iraq.

I and many other people said at the time that the case for war was bullshit, so I would expect that the Torys would have been aware of it too - but I find it very hard to believe they would have done anything differently.

Yes you can. You simply cut out all of the useless trash that purports to be social services.

You really trust the Tories to do that?

If anyone really wants to know what a clueless,meaningless party the Toffries are, just look at their latest nonsense about limiting teaching prospects for those with lesser regarded degrees.Of course, we all know that the ability to communicate with children, be a responsible role model and care about education are all intrinsic elements of a good degree and completely lacking in a third.

God help us.

[i]One could argue that the underfunding of the armed forces by Brown has also meant deaths. Be clear about that.[/i]

I confess that I haven't been following what the proposed policies of the parties are, but does this mean that there is a Tory policy to increase defence funding?

TJ - as the roaring Captain says, cuts in social services do not necessarily lead to deaths - there is a limited capacity for social services to reduce fatalities (there needs to be some appreciation in the media that "Baby Ps" will happen regardless of funding levels) and the total quantum of the current budget that could be said to prevent deaths can easily be protected from cuts to the bulk of the budget.

There's no denying that the more the state spends on a social good, the greater the social benefit of the nation. Where I think our two ideologies diverge is that I argue that the diminishing returns of state social care means that for each incremental pound of expenditure the additional social value to the population falls. You, as would most of Labour, would like to see a huge state apparatus delivering increasingly inefficient gains for the sake of the absolute gains. I would say trim back service to its most efficient additional social benefit and use the reduced cost to the economy to stimulate social benefit through growth. We are never going to see eye to eye on that.

[i]the senoir posts will be going to a bunch of old etonians and an old eatonian is a toff. [/i]

So you're prepared to be prejudiced against someone on the basis of their background and education ?

If it's OK to call public school educated people 'toffs', how would you feel if state school educated people started to become widely known as 'scum' - derogative terms are unacceptable no matter which social group the refer to.

Personally speaking I enjoyed a totally grant funded university education, my highest standard of living, and best employment opportunities under the (hated) Fatcher years - by contrast the subsequent labour governments have provided nothing but muddled (public opinion led) policies, the subsidy of inefficient industries and the squandering of national resources.

On the army my point was not underfunded but overextended. Its only a smidge away from yours. I think the Armed forces are massively overfunded in that we spend far too much on them - but I would reduce the scope of what I want them to do massively. No adventuring overseas and so on thus no need for an new aircraft carrier or two and of course no nukes.

There simply is not teh scope for cuts of the size Osbourne wants out of waste. Waste is there but A is hard to eliminate completely and indeed it can cost to do so and B) is simply not on the scale of the cuts wanted.

Good point stoner.

Hilldodger. You see I believe in public service and I have watched public servicess get damaged under tory governments and healed under labour ones since the 70s.

The improvement in the NHS under labour is huge and obvious and contrast greatly with the damage under tory ones. Nurse are better off under labour. Its only in the last couple of years that Nurses spending power has caught up with its pre thatcher levels.

by contrast the subsequent labour governments have provided ..........the squandering of national resources.

Thanks for adjusting my poor memory, I thought it was Thatcher that had sold off the Nationalised industries.

In essence, it will be a Conservative government in power.

So you don't think there will be any sort of change then?

I must admit I am incredulous about the Conservatives plans for education say that teaching

And to put teaching on the same footing as high-status professions like doctors and lawyers we are introducing a new Licence to Practise with a right for all teachers to get ongoing training and career development. It's time the Tories backed these reforms.

When all through the '80s they did their level best to degrade the profession.

There are things that Labour have done that have been for the good, but to paraphrase CF "they haven't been perfect"

Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe this.

There is a vast amount of waste in the public sector at the moment which leaves a large amount of scope for making cuts while still retaining the essential services which prevent those same deaths you claim will be caused.

No political party has ever managed to deliver on those sort of cuts. All large organisation, public or otherwise, have waste associated with them and it is almost impossible to eliminate.

To be honest my biggest fear is that this country once again gets another elected dictatorship, that is a government with a huge majority and an ineffective opposition. This is essentially what we've had since 1978 (possibly earlier) and it never seems to do much other than harm.

[i]The improvement in the NHS under labour is huge and obvious....[/i]

Not to me, neither as an employee nor 'client'.....

>Policy statements to illustrate that, if you please.

Yeah, like a policy statement is a good indicator of what any future government will do ! - past record is probably as reliable..my concern in the case of the Conservatives is the old (or even new) dinosaurs in the party, in the same way there are in the Labour party, but at least we've seen the Labour party's recent record, some good, some bad.

Vote for who you like, it'll just be a different shade of shite, they'll just bugger up different bits, and the difference is whether they bugger up the bit you're concerned about, irrevocably.

(Personal faves that come to mind - Conservatives privatising the rail network, particularly in such a screwed up fashion, and the 70's labour party/Birmingham council for turning a bunch of smaller grammars comprehensive as part of their political mantra - all it did was turn some excellent schools into mediocre ones, and it was generally working-class kids like myself that attended them anyway !)

The argument for waste saving is simply the rhetoric any party uses to avoid use of the word cuts.

Gordon is using it probably moreso than Osborne.

There are policy statements from Osborne which do touch on the idea of cuts rather than attacking the ephemeral Whitehall waste: taking child benefit and child investment certificate grants away from higher earners and (FFS [i]I[/i] get given money for Stoner Jr. It's daft). Thats a cut not a waste saving.

But I agree, there's no way to couch deficit reduction honestly without talking about taking big chunks out of budgets - and here I dont believe there's any sacred cows either. Cameron has really bolloxed that up by standing by NHS spending pledges - purely to prevent Gordon using it as a massive stick to beat him with in the GE.

How to start a guaranteed 100-post thread...

The one with God on their side will win.

Hilldodger. do you remember the NHS as it was? I do. Waiting lists - massively down. Survival rates up. More treatments funded, outcomes are better. All measured and measurable nd true. Its a simple fact that the NHS is better for the fact that it has more money

Who will win the upcoming General Election?

Just interested in your thoughts and if anyone has any strong opinions on which party will best serve the country.

Two very different questions. A year ago I would have said that the Tories were absolutely certain to win the next general election - specially when they had 20% plus leads in the opinion polls.

However things have now changed (people seem reasonably happy with the way the government has dealt with the global recession) and the Tory lead is now about half what it was. So there is now a slim possibility that Labour will scrap in.

Interestingly enough, during the 'party conference season' back in October, the Tory lead was down to single figures, which suggests that when people look at politics in an in-depth manner, the Tories are at a disadvantage. I suspect this is because it quickly becomes apparent to people that the Tories have no credible alternative policies.

As we enter the general election campaign, I expect this Achilles heel of the Tory Party, to further eat away at their lead. Although I'm fairly confident that just "not being the government" will be sufficient for the Tories to win.

Although only a fool would attempt to predict with any accuracy, the likely political repercussions after the next general election, I personally believe that we are going to enter a fairly exciting period of political turmoil. I have absolutely no doubt that Cameron and Osborne will prove to be utterly incompetent, and the field will be left wide open for any opposition which manages to establish itself.

IMO much will depend how badly Labour does. If the Tories manage to get a huge majority (which doesn't seem likely now) then I fully expect civil war to break out within the Tory Party - Dan Hannan and Ken Clark have almost nothing in common. If Labour are found to be too weak to mount an effective opposition, then I suspect that the unions, amongst others, will look for alternatives. I also expect support for the BNP to grow substantially.

I reckon we are entering interesting times.

elected politicians will be the major winners, and all the unelected shit and hangers on thay they fund will do pretty well I would think. I also see senior public/civil servants as likely to be nicely pensioned/paid off.

whoever gets in the voters will lose.

We'll be taxed till we bleed one way or the other.

This short termist set up penalises politicians who think beyond the next election, long term we always lose.

Democracy isn't the best system, it's the least worst system.

It's quite obvious really! TJ for Prime Minister. You'd get my vote mate!
Unfortunately you are very wrong about the NHS. It is a complete joke and all the decent Doctors, nurses and midwifes have emigrated to Australia. The labour government has spent more on talentless management than frontline healthcare. The conservatives needed to improve, but they would not have put the country in it's present position if they had won the previous general elections. (IMO)

TJ, i was wrong! having read all the thread, your a confirmed pacifist and shouldn't be Prime Minister after all, sorry 😥

It really doesn't matter who wins does it. He who pays the piper calls the tune and they're all paid by the same interests these days. Gone are the days when the trade unions funded Labour and [url=

sold the arms of the manufacturers that funded her.

Oh and absolutely wrong about the armed forces.
No more humanitarian missions, peace keeping etc?
Before Iraq/afg, there was a lot of this going on and a lot of good being done (sierra leone, bosnia, ****stan, nicaragua, kosovo etc etc). Just because Labour wanted to fight some wars; don't let this tarnish the good name of our forces. I think that we should pretend we bought the nukes and save the money!

The future of the armed forces is really a different thread.

quickly put I would like a defence force for these islands and a decent amount of manpower in a true independent peacekeeping force. spend less money than now and spend it far more wisely. No nukes and no big ships.

OK, while we're at it, here's your savings;

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Aid-Statistics/Statistical-release---Statistics-on-International-Development-2009/

TJ, I'm afraid what you have just described is what we actually have at present.

spend less money than now and spend it far more wisely

A couple of nuclear-armed submarines is a lot cheaper and more effective than a conventional army and air force TG.

Very difficult to predict. A quick poll amongst my friends, middle class, middles aged, mostly quite well off have the majority of votes to Tories with a healthy few for the bnp.
I expect if I lived on a council estate or up north most of them would be labour votes.
I think it will be hung, but hopefully labour will be utterly destroyed.

Nope!
Nowhere near and gives no room for anything other than absolute destruction.

Backhander 0.4% of GDP on overseas aid IIRC Going to make a huge difference.

As for the NHS - what do you want to cut? I tell you what I would cut from the forces budgets - the big capital projects for which we have no need in the opinion of very many folk including senior military people.

It depends if you're interested in defence or attack. You only need a conventional army to attack, nukes do all the defending you need, especially as you live on an island.

I suggest [b]voting for change[/b]. Vote for the candiate who has never been an MP. If you want real change, you must change the people.

"Set one foot on our island and we blow your capital city up" as your main tactic? Not very flexible but I see your point. Not my chosen tactic tho.

OK TJ, i was wrong, your not a pacifist! send me £10,000,000 in used notes and i'll start you election campaign 😆

Oh I am a lifelong pacifist and have not hit anyone since I was 7. I am however a realist and understand that true peace can only be an eventual aim and until we reach there I need some form of force to protect me.

Do we look like we can afford to give away £7.2 Billion a year?
I will concede that MOD capital projects are massively wasteful due to Civil servant project managers who are without skill or accountability.

Look at how British military might has been used over the last 10 years. In the interests of right and good or even defence? Not a chance: murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies.

Really Edukator. Our national defence should be a Tactical nuclear strike? Sounds like a trip back to the Cold war to me. Wise up.

Edukator, yeah you're right we should have nuked them all.
read my earlier post and learn something.

Deterrance has worked, works and will go on working. No nuclear-armed state has been invaded and won't be. The threat is enough. You won't see the Yanks in Korea and it's probably to late for them to invade Iran and that despite the fact we know the Yanks are prepared to use nukes offensively as they've already done it twice - but only because they weren't afraid of retaliation. Deterrance works.

Educator the wise.

.......hopefully labour will be utterly destroyed.

It is an unwritten, and yet inescapable rule, in all parliamentary democracies the world over, that there is [u]never[/u] less than two political parties vying for power. So if Labour are "utterly destroyed", then another party will simply emerge to fill the vacuum.

Since the Labour Party is considerably to the right of almost all comparable parties in the Western democracies, and considerably more right-wing than at any other time in it's entire history, it would be fair to assume that any new party to emerge would be substantially more left-wing. And specially if it occurred after a catastrophic failure of a right-wing leadership which had left the old party "utterly destroyed".

A development which I would very much welcome. Others however, might not........careful what you wish for 💡

I did read your earlier posts backhander, what should I have learned?

You clearly did not read mine as I've said nothing remotely close to:

[i]Edukator, yeah you're right we should have nuked them all.[/i]

Nice one Edukator, problem solved. Lets just nuke the Middle east and bring all the troops home. Job done. anyway this is way off post now. Start a new one if you want a dog fight!!

Before Iraq/afg, there was a lot of this going on and a lot of good being done (sierra leone, bosnia, ****stan, nicaragua, kosovo etc etc). Just because Labour wanted to fight some wars; don't let this tarnish the good name of our forces

murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies

Defence does not include nuking the middle east because we need their oil or we don't like their boss. I haven't seen Iraqui or Afghan troops climbing the white cliffs.

Oh, and if Saddam really had had WMDs he could have deployed in 45mins Blair would not have attacked. Interstingly Blair made the 45mins claim the day after Hans Blix had been on European TV channels saying he had visited all the sites on his list and had found nothing - an interview not shown on the BBC as I flicked through the channnels. Blair attacked on the basis there were no WMDs under the pretext there were.

Your examples go back to the 90s backhander, before the murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies started.