UK Election Debate No. 3

Euro_Kraut

evercloserunion wrote: »

Eh do you think the BOE randomly pulls numbers out of a hat to determine interest rates? They set interest rates in response to macroeconomic factors over which the government would have some control.

I am well aware of how the BOE sets it interest rates. Hense my surprise that Gordon Brown, the man that made the Bank independent in his first day in office, would say 'I kept interest rates low'

If he meant that he kept inflation low than he should have said that.

For me Brown is a bully. All he did last night has tell us why the Tories should not be in power. Its the politics of fear and hope he gets whats coming to him. He has set the cause of Social Democracy in Britain back 15 years.

Having said that I am not excited by the prospect of Conservative government. Perhaps in coalition with the Liberals there socail polices might be reigned in.

ejmaztec

Unfortunately, Gordon Brown has less personality than a brick, and if he were truly interested in the future of the Labour Party, he would have stepped down long ago. He's Michael Foot (a disastrous choice that they made earlier) in a suit.

Election night's going to be painful viewing.

BroomBurner

Let's not lose hope just yet!

You're right about Brown. He was perfectly suited to be Chancellor, and offered a good opposite for Blair. However, as party leader, he just isn't dynamic enough. He's a figures man.

Exile 1798

Here's The Guardian's snub of the Labour Party and endorsement of the Liberal Democrats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

The key point of their editorial:

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.

I agree with what BroomBurner said, in a world of awful newspapers and Murdoch media The Guardian holds an important place. People do take it seriously, their endorsement will have an effect.

BroomBurner

It's a shame the Times have come out on the side of the Conservatives. Still, they're not the kind of paper to get involved in hopes and dreams politics.

mike65

As of yesterday


Adjusted swing, seat numbers


Polling tracked since start of campaign


So then, the Tories could form a minority government with or without help of some assorted others, a Lib Dem/Lab coalition is also possible but could a deal be done? How desperate are Labour? Might they actually be happy to let the Tories take power for a short lived administration and then pick up the pieces without Brown?.

Exile 1798

mike65 wrote: »

So then, the Tories could form a minority government with or without help of some assorted others, a Lib Dem/Lab coalition is also possible but could a deal be done? How desperate are Labour? Might they actually be happy to let the Tories take power for a short lived administration and then pick up the pieces without Brown?.

That seems like the best case scenario for Labour.

This election dosen't at all seem like the Thactercherite or New Labour "revolutions" that delivered long term Tory and Labour governments respectively.

It's just a Party that has been in power too long and it at the end of it's run. The Tories have nothing great to offer, so them winning is better for Labour then the Liberal Democrats sweeping the vote.

amacachi

BroomBurner wrote: »

It's a shame the Times have come out on the side of the Conservatives. Still, they're not the kind of paper to get involved in hopes and dreams politics.

Not a surprise though, it's just The Sun with a smaller typeface.