Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #6 - Leaders Debate 3

[snowychap]

Labour received a big blow from the Guardian newspaper today .The broadsheet, traditional a Labour-backer, said it was switching allegiance to the Lib Dems.

Wow. I think the Grauniad's editorial (here) is pretty amazing. Really quite good and balanced. Yes, they've gone for the Lib Dems and that's hardly a shock but their comments about the other parties, I believe, suggest that it is a decision taken after analysing everything. They don't paint either of the two main parties whom they don't support as demons.

Funny, though, some labour bird on Newsnight was trying to say that this editorial was only supporting the Lib Dems 'tactically'. I may have got that wrong but that's how she came across.

[leviramsey]

Meanwhile the Libertarian Party of the UK has released their manifesto

Highlights/lowlights as I see them from skimming:

* Personal income tax allowance to be raised to 12k pounds with a flat rate of 31% on income above that, including NI

* Abolition of inheritance and capital gains taxes

* Replacement of VAT and council taxes with national and local sales taxes

* Creation of a transparent points-based system for immigration while the welfare state exists; with the abolition of the welfare state, there would be no limits on immigration

* Police chiefs to be locally elected with funding also set based on local needs

* DNA to be retained only on conviction and to be discarded after conviction is spent

* Legalisation of all narcotics

* Enacting of a formal constitution to reassert the 1689 Bill of Rights

* Electoral reform with the goal of preserving the relationship at the constituency level of FPTP but eliminating or limiting wasted votes and tactical voting

* Fixed parliamentary terms

[Awol]

BTW, what was this stuff that Gordo was going on about in his interview with Paxman, that he thought the Rochdale granny was 'talking about expelling all university students in this country who were foreigners'.

But on his Jeremy Vine interview he said he'd found her question "annoying" and has said elsewhere that journo's stopped him giving a proper reply to her question, when clearly he gave her a full reply which sought to balance her view by describing Brit's living in Europe.

It quite simple mate, Brown is a pathalogical liar.

[drat01]

No - they just run BluGov polls telling YOU whom YOU support. Much more subtle that way.

YouGov's CEO Nadhim Zahawi is standing as a Conservative MP for Stratford Upon Avon in the 2010 General Election.

Impartial?

[Awol]

Anyway, things must be getting desperate when Labour decide to wheel out Saint Tony of Basra.

Blair says a vote cast for Clegg is 'not serious'

Tony Blair tries to shore up Gordon Brown’s flagging election campaign today with a warning that a vote for Nick Clegg is “not a serious thing”.

With five days to go, the former Prime Minister makes his first serious intervention since Labour’s slump in the polls. He tells The Times that the Liberal Democrats would be flaky partners in government and that a hung Parliament is a “thoroughly bad idea”.

To voters considering backing Mr Clegg, he says: “The fact that it might seem an interesting thing to do is not the right reason to put the keys of the country in their hands.”

Amid warnings from senior Labour figures that a poor showing next week will threaten the future of the party, Mr Blair pitched himself into battle for the minds of voters seduced by Mr Clegg.

More on link

I do however agree with him on the hung Parliament issue. I realise it's not a popular sentiment on here but unless one party wins decisively on May 6th I do think the markets are going to go after Sterling and our Gilts in a big way.

Set against the - allegedly - dire warnings from Mervyn King of what needs to happen post election then a hung Parliament could be disasterous. The ability of whoever is in Government to force through the necessary programme of spending cuts and tax rises is likely to be the only thing that keeps our nuts out of a vice.

In terms of how the electorate feel about this, I think for once Matthew Parris has absolutely nailed it in the Times today:

We squawk for change – but we don’t mean it

The ugly truth is that change means cuts, cuts and more cuts. That’s why we are so angry with politicians.

Change you can believe in,” promised Nick Clegg at the start of this election campaign.

“And now,” said Gordon Brown on becoming Prime Minister, “let the work of change begin.” David Cameron’s slogan is simpler still: “Vote for change.”

Change is the buzz-word; change the chorus; change the cry. “This,” declared a communications industry friend of mine in sonorous tones, “is the change election.”

No it isn’t. It’s the anything-but- change election. It’s the head-in-the- sand election. It’s the block-your-ears- and-screw-up-your-eyes election. The Argentine middle classes bang saucepans; the Greeks riot; and the British splutter that they’re so fed up they’ve a good mind to vote for that Liberal Dem-whatever fellow in the nice tie on TV who says he hates the politicians as much as they do.

Change is the last thing the British people want. They want things to carry on as they are. They are losing confidence in their politics to arrange it. That’s why they’re angry. Do you imagine change is what the Greek mob want? No, it’s change they fear.

We are in the same condition as the benighted Greeks, but not so far down the primrose path: dimly aware of the truth, scared of the truth, angry with the truth, and howling for the head of any politician who threatens to admit the truth.

The truth is simple: we’re living beyond our means. The change — if change were what we were really prepared to embrace — is simple: we will have to live within our means.

What are we doing to do next, when whatever government we get tells us we can’t have what we want? Bang our heads against the nursery wall until the IMF gives us some money? Hold our breath and go blue in the face until the Government borrows a few billions more?

Nick Clegg is a better man than the easy-riding populist he has been morphing into as the three TV debates unfolded, so I hope he won’t take what follows personally: but I have the unsuppressible feeling that for the pollsters’ respondents, saying they’re ruddy well going to vote for that Clegg fellow is a kind of dirty protest. In other countries they spoil their ballot papers. Everyone is talking about the political process. Changing the process is displacement activity: a substitute for change.

I’ve been wanting to write this since the election campaign began, but felt cowed by the unremitting screech for change, from press and politicians alike. It was the one thing everyone seemed to agree on: that what the voters wanted was change.

But whenever I asked what it was that the populace desired to change from, and what they desired to change to, I received no answer. And still the screech grew: change, change, change. So was there an idea, a potential plan, a revolution in our governance, for which the electorate really do yearn: some inchoate new shape to policy that they struggle to articulate? If so, I’m damned if I know what it is. It has become the cliché of the hour to complain that, asked to complete, in 30 words or fewer, the sentence “A Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem government will . . .”, few door- knocking activists in any party could persuasively reply. Well, let’s try the boot on the other foot. Why not require a cross-section of the anti-politics “we want change” mob to complete, in 30 words or fewer, the sentence: “We want change to a Government which would . . .” Would what? They’ve no idea.

David Cameron has made repeated attempts to articulate a new philosophy of government that does imply change: self-help, or “the Big Society” as it’s now being marketed. From the focus groups he has received a raspberry for his pains. If I’ve heard the yelp “We don’t want to run a school. We just want the Government to provide a good school,” once, I’ve heard it a dozen times.

To which a tempting response would be: “I dare say you do, chuck. And you want a good hospital too. And a good inflation-proofed pension. And more police. And more nurses. And lower taxes. But I want doesn’t get.” It’s the kind of response that, were I still in politics, unwittingly miked-up and broadcasting live from the back of a car, I might have given. And then had to apologise profusely for my “gaffe”.

For, make no mistake, the electorate’s anger at their politicians is mirrored by the politicians’ anger at the electorate. You will not hear it expressed in public (except when a microphone has been left on) but it is there. The anger of our politicians is the anger not of the master but the servant: the impotent rage of the slave. They have been routinely abused, insulted, called liars, accused of vast and multifarious corruption and had their honour and their sense of public duty dragged through the mud. They have been told to promise the “delivery” of what they know cannot be delivered; and when any among them has been rash enough to suggest that a nation must cut its coat according to its cloth, the pollsters have told him he’ll be punished for it.

But this, the politicians know, is a democracy. The voter is boss. Those who run for office must persuade their abusers to vote for them, or perish. So they grin and take it, bowing and scraping to the electorate and trying to ingratiate themselves into their abusers’ affections. During the TV debates the snivelling deference showed by all three party leaders to their questioners was toe-curling. Gordon Brown’s sick, whey-faced smile as he confessed to the lynch mob outside Mrs Duffy’s front door that he was “a penitent sinner” summed it all up.

That’s why, for all their squawking for change, none of the party leaders will tell us what we will lose, rather than gain, under a new government. And when next week this new government is in place, and orders the cuts it must, the scream of the mob will intensify — this time with a new complaint: “You never told us.”

No, they never did. And we’d never have voted for them if they had. It is we, the people, who are demanding a false prospectus. Now we’ve got three to choose from. And in due course, we’ll get the betrayal we richly deserve.

[drat01]

Matthew Francis Parris (born 7 August 1949 in Johannesburg) is an English journalist and former Conservative politician.

I wonder if he's biased too?

[Awol]

Matthew Francis Parris (born 7 August 1949 in Johannesburg) is an English journalist and former Conservative politician.

I wonder if he's biased too?

Do you disagree with the substance of Parris' comment piece?

? I'm just curious because I think he raises some very good points that are worth exploring.

[PauloBarnesi]

The Guardian backs the Liberals

General election 2010: The liberal moment has come

If the Guardian had a vote it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. But under our discredited electoral system some people may – hopefully for the last time – be forced to vote tactically

(1754)

Tweet this (1746)

Comments (1087)

Editorial

guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 April 2010 18.43 BST

Article history

Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. It would be cast in the knowledge that not all the consequences are predictable, and that some in particular should be avoided. The vote would be cast with some important reservations and frustrations. Yet it would be cast for one great reason of principle above all.

After the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have waged over this past month, for which considerable personal credit goes to Nick Clegg, the election presents the British people with a huge opportunity: the reform of the electoral system itself. Though Labour has enjoyed a deathbed conversion to aspects of the cause of reform, it is the Liberal Democrats who have most consistently argued that cause in the round and who, after the exhaustion of the old politics, reflect and lead an overwhelming national mood for real change.

Proportional representation – while not a panacea – would at last give this country what it has lacked for so long: a parliament that is a true mirror of this pluralist nation, not an increasingly unrepresentative two-party distortion of it. The Guardian has supported proportional representation for more than a century. In all that time there has never been a better opportunity than now to put this subject firmly among the nation's priorities. Only the Liberal Democrats grasp this fully, and only they can be trusted to keep up the pressure to deliver, though others in all parties, large and small, do and should support the cause. That has been true in past elections too, of course. But this time is different. The conjuncture in 2010 of a Labour party that has lost so much public confidence and a Conservative party that has not yet won it has enabled Mr Clegg to take his party close to the threshold of real influence for the first time in nearly 90 years.

This time – with the important caveat set out below – the more people who vote Liberal Democrat on 6 May, the greater the chance that this will be Britain's last general election under a first-past-the-post electoral system which is wholly unsuited to the political needs of a grown-up 21st-century democracy.

Tactical option

The pragmatic caveat concerns the danger that, under the existing electoral system, switching to the Liberal Democrats in Labour-Conservative marginal constituencies might let in an anti-reform Tory party. So, voters who share this principled enthusiasm for securing the largest possible number of Liberal Democrat MPs next Thursday must, in many constituencies, weigh the tactical option of supporting Labour to prevent a Conservative win.

Hopefully, if this really is the last election under the old system, such dilemmas between head and heart will apply less in future. For now, however, the cause of reform is overwhelmingly more likely to be achieved by a Lib Dem partnership of principle with Labour than by a Lib Dem marriage of convenience with a Tory party which is explicitly hostile to the cause and which currently plans to redraw the political map for its own advantage. The momentum for change would be fatally undermined should the Conservatives win an overall majority. The Liberal Democrats and Labour should, of course, have explored much earlier and more explicitly how they might co-operate to reform the electoral system. During the campaign, and especially since the final leaders' debate, the appetite for co-operation has clearly increased and is increasing still. Mr Clegg's Guardian interview today underscores the potential for more productive engagement with Labour and is matched by fresh, untribal thinking from his potential partners.

This election is about serious choices between three main parties which all have something to offer. David Cameron has done what none of his immediate predecessors has understood or tried to do: he has confronted the Conservative party with the fact that it was out of step with the country. He has forced the party to become more diverse and to engage with centre-ground opinion. He has explicitly aligned himself with the liberal Conservative tradition which the Thatcherites so despised during their long domination of the party. He has promoted modern thinking on civil liberty, the environment and aspects of social policy.

Mr Cameron offers a new and welcome Toryism, quite different from what Michael Howard offered five years ago. His difficulty is not that he is the "same old Tory". He isn't. The problem is that his revolution has not translated adequately into detailed policies, and remains highly contradictory. He embraces liberal Britain yet protests that Britain is broken because of liberal values. He is eloquent about the overmighty state but proposes to rip up the Human Rights Act which is the surest weapon against it. He talks about a Britain that will play a constructive role in Europe while aligning the Tories in the European parliament with some of the continent's wackier xenophobes. Behind the party leader's own engagement with green issues there stands a significant section of his party that still regards global warming as a liberal conspiracy.

The Tories have zigzagged through the financial crisis to an alarming degree, austerity here, spending pledges there. At times they have argued, against all reason, that Britain's economic malaise is down to overblown government, as opposed to the ravages of the market. Though the Conservatives are not uniquely evasive on the deficit, a large inheritance-tax cut for the very wealthy is the reverse of a serious "united and equal" approach to taxation. Small wonder that the Cameronisation of the Conservative party sometimes seems more palace coup than cultural revolution. A Cameron government might not be as destructive to Britain as the worst Tory regimes of the past. But it is not the right course for Britain.

If this election were a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives – which it absolutely is not – the country would be safer in the hands of Labour than of the Tories. Faced in 2008 with a financial crisis unprecedented in modern times, whose destructive potential can hardly be exaggerated, the Labour government made some absolutely vital calls at a time which exposed the Conservatives as neoliberals, not novices. Whether Labour has truly learned the right lessons itself is doubtful. Labour is, after all, the party that nurtured the deregulatory systems which contributed to the implosion of the financial sector, on which the entire economy was too reliant. How, and even whether, British capitalism can be directed towards a better balance between industry and finance is a question which remains work in progress for Labour, as for us all. At the highest levels of the party, timidity and audacity remain in conflict. Nevertheless, Labour, and notably Alistair Darling, a palpably honest chancellor who has had to play the most difficult hand of any holder of his office in modern times, deserves respect for proving equal to the hour. Only the most churlish would deny the prime minister some credit for his role in the handling of the crisis.

Labour's failings

But this election is more than a verdict on the response to a single trauma, immense though it was. It is also a verdict on the lengthening years of Labour government and the three years of Gordon Brown's premiership. More than that, any election is also a judgment about the future as well as a verdict on the past. A year ago, the Guardian argued that Labour should persuade its leader to step down. Shortly afterwards, in spite of polling an abject 15.7% in the European elections, and with four cabinet ministers departing, Labour chose to hug Mr Brown close. It was the wrong decision then, and it is clear, not least after his humiliation in Rochdale this week, that it is the wrong decision now. The Guardian said a year ago that Mr Brown had failed to articulate a vision, a plan, or an argument for the future. We said that he had become incapable of leading the necessary revolution against the political system that the expenses scandal had triggered. Labour thought differently. It failed to act. It thereby lost the opportunity to renew itself, and is now facing the consequences.

Invited to embrace five more years of a Labour government, and of Gordon Brown as prime minister, it is hard to feel enthusiasm. Labour's kneejerk critics can sometimes sound like the People's Front of Judea asking what the Romans have ever done for us. The salvation of the health service, major renovation of schools, the minimum wage, civil partnerships and the extension of protection for minority groups are heroic, not small achievements.

Yet, even among those who wish Labour well, the reservations constantly press in. Massive, necessary and in some cases transformational investment in public services insufficiently matched by calm and principled reform, sometimes needlessly entangled with the private sector. Recognition of gathering generational storms on pensions, public debt, housing and – until very recently – climate change not addressed by clear strategies and openness with the public about the consequences. The inadequately planned pursuit of two wars. A supposedly strong and morally focused foreign policy which remains trapped in the great-power, nuclear-weapon mentality, blindly uncritical of the United States, mealy-mouthed about Europe and tarnished by the shame of Iraq – still not apologised for. Allegations of British embroilment in torture answered with little more than a world-weary sigh. Large talk about constitutional change matched by an addiction to centralisation. Easy talk about liberty and "British values" while Britain repeatedly ratchets up the criminal justice system, repeatedly encroaches on civil liberties, undermines legal aid and spends like there is no tomorrow on police and prisons. Apparent outrage against the old politics subverted by delay, caution and timid compromise.

There are reservations too, though of a different order and on different subjects, about the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats are a very large party now, with support across the spectrum. But they remain in some respects a party of the middle and lower middle classes. Labour's record on poverty remains unmatched, and its link to the poor remains umbilical. Vince Cable, so admirable and exemplary on the banks, nevertheless remains a deficit hawk, committed to tax cuts which could imply an even deeper slashing of public services. Though the party has good policies on equality, it has not prioritised the promotion and selection of women and ethnic minority candidates.

Matched priorities

Surveying the wider agenda and the experience of the past decade, however, there is little doubt that in many areas of policy and tone, the Liberal Democrats have for some time most closely matched our own priorities and instincts. On political and constitutional change, they articulate and represent the change which is now so widely wanted. On civil liberty and criminal justice, they have remained true to liberal values and human rights in ways that the other parties, Labour more than the Tories in some respects, have not. They are less tied to reactionary and sectional class interests than either of the other parties.

The Liberal Democrats were green before the other parties and remain so. Their commitment to education is bred in the bone. So is their comfort with a European project which, for all its flaws, remains central to this country's destiny. They are willing to contemplate a British defence policy without Trident renewal. They were right about Iraq, the biggest foreign policy judgment call of the past half-century, when Labour and the Tories were both catastrophically and stupidly wrong. They have resisted the rush to the overmighty centralised state when others have not. At key moments, when tough issues of press freedom have been at stake, they have been the first to rally in support. Above all, they believe in and stand for full, not semi-skimmed, electoral reform. And they have had a revelatory campaign. Trapped in the arid, name-calling two-party politics of the House of Commons, Nick Clegg has seldom had the chance to shine. Released into the daylight of equal debate, he has given the other two parties the fright of their lives.

A newspaper that is proudly rooted in the liberal as well as the labour tradition – and whose advocacy of constitutional reform stretches back to the debates of 1831-32 – cannot ignore such a record. If not now, when? The answer is clear and proud. Now.

[PauloBarnesi]

Can't the North Of England be removed from the south in a political sense. We don't want the Tories in up here.

Not sure the map shows it that way

[drat01]

the bulk of blue up north is rural areas - lower populous

[PauloBarnesi]

Matthew Francis Parris (born 7 August 1949 in Johannesburg) is an English journalist and former Conservative politician.

I wonder if he's biased too?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But is Adam Boulton of Sky biased because he’s married to Anji Hunter?

[PauloBarnesi]

the bulk of blue up north is rural areas - lower populous

The original argument was that the north was all non Tory; it clearly isn’t. Yes those areas are low populous; farming areas, but are we to dismiss them? I suspect that it would suit some to dismiss the countryside, because it isn’t like them, but would it right if it were like the old days and the rich countryside MP ruled the roost and dismissed the cities...

[drat01]

Matthew Francis Parris (born 7 August 1949 in Johannesburg) is an English journalist and former Conservative politician.

I wonder if he's biased too?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But is Adam Boulton of Sky biased because he’s married to Anji Hunter?

That old chestnut - so because you are married to someone you take their political views? - Me thinks your employer in Boulton's case dictate his style more than his wife

The point that you again picked up on was in reference to previous ones re press impartiality - Parris as an ex-Tory politician is a very good certainty to maintain his Tory views

[drat01]

the bulk of blue up north is rural areas - lower populous

The original argument was that the north was all non Tory; it clearly isn’t. Yes those areas are low populous; farming areas, but are we to dismiss them? I suspect that it would suit some to dismiss the countryside, because it isn’t like them, but would it right if it were like the old days and the rich countryside MP ruled the roost and dismissed the cities...

who said we should dismiss them?

You say it would suit some - who?

The simple fact that you are missing is that for the high populous areas the bulk of people do not support a Tory regime.

[PauloBarnesi]

The simple fact that you are missing is that for the high populous areas the bulk of people do not support a Tory regime.

The original quote:

Can't the North Of England be removed from the south in a political sense. We don't want the Tories in up here.

I questioned that as parts of the North clearly do notfeel that way.

The majority of voters may not want a conservative government, probably on election day they won’t want a Labour one either. The same will go for say the South west, or Wales, Scotland, etc. Vast parts of the country will not be red or blue or be the colour of Govt.

What do you want in the end? Independence for parts of the UK? That would make the richer richer, the poorer poorer. It would be a disaster.

[drat01]

Why the aggressive style Paul? - The original point seems proven by the fact that the mass populous areas - i.e. the majority are not in favour of a Tory regime. The only person to mention Labour is you.

Who has said anything about independence? Again only you?

I fail to see your point - if the idea of the map was to show some mass support for the Tory party in the North for example then that argument is flawed as pointed out.

There is very much regional trends in voting for particular parties, its been like that for a long time. The true test of a fair gvmt is then how they balance wealth and prosperity across all parts of the UK rather than the SE centric system that affects not only politics but also a lot of other areas of UK life

PR is the way forward

[PauloBarnesi]

Ok let me reverse it.

The south of England doesn’t want Labour. Can they be separated from the North? The majority of people south of the Watford Gap don’t want Labour or the Liberals.

Such sweeping statements might be pleasing to hear for some. I mentioned independence, because if you are divorced politically, you will be effectively divorced in all ways. Taxes raised in the south will be spent in the south, taxes raised in the north will be spent in the north. As I said the rich would get richer, the poor get poorer.

That Britain is SE centric, I am afraid is the way it is. Its the same in every country; the capital is the most ‘important’ place in the country. Yes we can find examples where this isn’t true, but often the largest city is the dominant area (NYC). I am not sure how we can change that?

I showed the map because it shows that things aren’t black and white. I also show it because I would hope that people can see that the nation has diversity. The north whilst mainly red is also blue in parts. Do the Blues lose the right to a voice? The same in the south; should we dismiss the reds in the south?

I think in the end we will agree to disagree.

[Awol]

PR is the way forward

If you can stomach having BNP MP's in Parliament then yes PR would be more representative. It would certainly represent a more balanced cross section of political opinion and might even stimulate the growth of new parties.

[PauloBarnesi]

PR is the way forward

If you can stomach having BNP MP's in Parliament then yes PR would be more representative. It would certainly represent a more balanced cross section of political opinion and might even stimulate the growth of new parties.

That would represent the rights of the European Beaver?

[Gringo]

Matthew Francis Parris (born 7 August 1949 in Johannesburg) is an English journalist and former Conservative politician.

I wonder if he's biased too?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But is Adam Boulton of Sky biased because he’s married to Anji Hunter?

Of course he is - he married the close personal assistant of a then tory PM.

I would say he is a lot more partial than Parris, who left parliament many years ago and is one of the more sensible political commentators and who often lays out a balanced set of views.

As to whether marriage is more likely to make one partial to your spouses views, we have the example of Harriet Harman. For many years she has campaigned for all-women shortlists when selecting candidates for winnable labour seats, but managed to go against the strength of her convictions to support Jack Dromey's candidacy for the Erdingon seat. Luckily Jack happens to be married to Harriet.