Politics

[armb]

Tom Tomorrow sums up Obama's Nobel prize - it was actually won by the idea of Obama:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/10/13/tomo/index.html

Meanwhile, why are the Conservatives so far ahead in UK opinion polls? Does anyone really think they would have kept us out of recession by putting stricter controls on the banking industry? Kept us out of Iraq? I'm starting to think they might be a slight improvement on civil rights and privacy issues, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Because they're not Gordon Brown, nobody much believes the LibDems will ever actually achieve government (though gods, I wish), and there's no other credible alternative. But mainly because they're not Gordon Brown.

The small fact that they will do everything crap that Gordon Brown does but more so is one that will dawn on everyone soon after election day, unfortunately.

[crazyscot.livejournal.com]

I was reading last week that our electoral system is sufficiently biased that the tories need about a 12% poll lead to gain a majority.

[armb.livejournal.com]

Though that would change if Scotland leaves the UK, which Charlie Stross thinks is a serious possibility:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/politics_1.html
"On the one hand, to give them their full title, they're the Conservative and Unionist Party, dedicated to preserving the union. But if they cut Scotland loose, then, in a 650 seat parliamentary system, they lose 80 seats, 78 of which belong to their rivals. Leave aside the fact that Cameron is committed to reducing the number of constituency seats in the UK: the 10% of them elected by Scotland are overwhelmingly not conservative. Ditching them will give the Conservatives an electoral lift that will last for a generation."

[keristor.livejournal.com]

They aren't Labour. The Lib Dems don't stand a chance, and never have under our electoral system, their support is more evenly distributed (I remember when they were first formed, and gor almost 25% of the vote -- which came out as 1% of the seats, because they had around 25% in each area which wasn't enough to get them a majority in almost all areas).

Certainly from what the Tories are saying[1] about cancelling the ID system (or large parts of it) etc. they do seem to be better about civil rights, and about dismantling and narrowing some of the overly broad laws Labour have brought in.

Although they could kill their prospects with the recently announced "positive discrimination" toward women and ethnic minorities in the candidate lists (they are talking about "all female" lists). For instance, if they remove my MP they are almost certain to lose the seat, because most people vote for him not the party (the Lib Dems would get it: Labour don't stand a chance, they get a minute proportion of the vote, but a lot of the people who vote Tory for MP vote LD for council elections). But if they only do the "all female" lists in marginal areas that might cause a backlash as well...

[1] Does anyone still believe that what a political party says before an election has anything to do with what they will actually do if they win?

[armb.livejournal.com]

I believe the Tories probably will cancel the ID system. But then I also suspect if Labour did manage a miracle and stay in they'd spot that it was an expensive thing that many people would be happy to see cancelled and let that override not wanted to be seen to climb down on it.
On the wider front, I'll wait and see.

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

I think it fairly unlikely they'd have put stricter controls on the banking industry. That said, I'd think it fairly likely we'd have been starting the crisis on a much smaller budget deficit and with a much less bloated State spend.

I also have a suspicion/memory that it was the "dithering" over Northern Rock - several days of "are our deposits safe or not?" stories, queues around the block etc before the Govt decided to step in - which exacerbated the shock to UK consumer confidence from the banking crisis. And that it's that loss of consumer confidence (and hence spending) which has caused far more of the recession's damage than any shortage of consumer credit.

I too very much doubt they'd have kept us out of Iraq - that said, I'd like to think they might have been less dishonest about why we went in. Which dishonesty, to be honest I find far more reprehensible than the invasion itself (which IMHO we should really have done in 1991 after freeing Kuwait).

YMMV but frankly given the mess & sheer waste Labour have made in education, health, defence, the economy, crime/justice and civil liberties (plus a fundamental inability to ever tell the truth on anything, especially election promises), I'm surprised that *all* the other parties aren't much further ahead than they appear to be.