Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

General Election? - John Lush (24th Sep 2007 - 18:49:53) What are people's thoughts on the prospect of an early general election? Should Gordon call it early to get a fresh mandate from the people and exploit the tories problems or should he hold out to the spring, or even up to 2010? If he goes for an election now, are people worried about turnout? Especially in areas like liphook where the result is a foregone conclusion?

Re: General Election? - Chris (25th Sep 2007 - 06:20:01) Bring it on! "Gordon" has inherited a fiasco of social mismanagement, a failed education experiment and an immigration nightmare. How many other countries in the EEC pay child benefit to migrant workers families that are based in their country of origin? How many other countries in the EEC would allow known criminals to settle and continue with their questionable lifestyles, gaol them, release them, round some of them up and gaol and then release them again? The contents and promises within his speech to curb these problems are too little too late; it should have been said and done 5 or more years back! New Labour will never be able to shake off the mantle of embarrassing political correctness and social "fannying around".

Re: General Election? - John Lush (25th Sep 2007 - 08:55:32) Chris Seems you have fallen for the 'daily star' mentality of populist rubbish about migration - and you fail to mention the big issues that really matter to people and what will decide the election - schools, hospitals and the economy. On these issues the choice will be clear between the parties

Re: General Election? - Chris (25th Sep 2007 - 12:57:22) Not really. I mentioned education and its decline. Labour have had years to deal with the problem of standards and have failed. I also mentioned social issues, by which I mean the breakdown of the family unit which has been a feature of our society over the last 10 years and which, without doubt, has contributed to spiralling gun crime and drugs culture; if that's not a real issue then what is? And to correct you, the fiasco involving the releasing and re-detention and then re-releasing of 1000s of migrant criminals was well documented in all areas of the press with many quality journals penning editorial opinions on the subject. You clearly weren't listening properly to your own leader who realises how daft and out of control the situation is. He mentioned immigration reforms several times in his speech yesterday so he obviously thinks it's an issue!

Re: General Election? - John Lush (25th Sep 2007 - 13:50:54) Yes Immigration is an issue but the vast majority of opinion polls show it is low down on peoples agenda. This wasn't meant to be a party political post!! However you have failed to mention lower class sizes, surestart, minimum wage, tax credits, ten years of consecutive economic growth, more nurses, new hospitals, lower waiting lists and more police on the beat!! as for breakdown of society, we are now paying the price for thatcher's 'no such thing as society' mindset and policies in 80's and 90's( along with a doubling of crime ) which helped create the society we have now - generally the country is in a better state now than in 97

Re: General Election? - Stephen (25th Sep 2007 - 14:40:51) Here's why I shall not be voting whenever the next election is called: 1) Tories will win in our constituency even were they to put up a blue-tongued sheep as candidate. 2) My single vote will not make a difference to whoever wins 3) Parties will continue respond in a knee-jerk manner to whatever issues the media decide to push out 4) Parties have either no policies, or their few policies change depending on which way the wind blows (or the Sun puts in its editorial, above) 5) I have better things to do with my precious Thursday evenings and no faith the a postal vote won't get fiddled 6) I am not going to endorse any one of the mendacious inhabitants of Westminster who are only out to line their own pockets 7) Even if I did support one party, they would only go back on their promises (if they ever made any in the first place).

Re: General Election? - John Lush (25th Sep 2007 - 15:30:05) Stephen That is a very sad, tragic statement you have just given. People DIED for the vot and i would rather see you vote socialist worker or BNP than not vote at all. You clearly need to look at the news today and see whats happening in Burma today - if they could read your statement they would feel sick - if your not going to vote then i don't want to see any negative comments from you, or in fact any opinion from you on here in the future as you will not have the right to. I am in favour of complusory voting like they have in australia!!

Re: General Election? - Chris (25th Sep 2007 - 15:39:33) John...would that be the same Thatcher that was invited to Downing Street last week as Gordon's guest of honour? I know which brand of conservatism I would prefer and it ain't New Labour's. Mind you they say that immitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Re: General Election? - sue (25th Sep 2007 - 23:34:55) Isn't it funny, people strive to fight for what they don't have, achieve it and somehow over time it ceases to be of importance. I at this moment do not have a preference to any party - in fact I would rather shuffle them up and pick at random. (Basically they same the same with the odd tweak here and there IMO) All I miss is the passionate, gut felt beliefs of the old gang (on any side). All our politicians have gone too P.C. and skirt round issues in case of offending people - perhaps a few posters on here should take centre stage, what ever is wrong with having a belief and sticking to it. For all Maggies faults, in the early stages she was spot on - such a shame the men do not have the Ba**s she had!!.

Re: General Election? - Stephen (26th Sep 2007 - 10:17:09) John, think you are out of order stating that I am not allowed to post opinions. You are also a hypocrite since you espouse compulsory voting yet want to ban my freedom to express an opinion that does not correlate with you. As for the rest of you - I'll be first to lie down in front of a tank if required but that does not alter my view that the current system of democracy that results in only 800,000 votes actually affecting the choice of government (choice - what choice anyway!) is fundamentally flawed. What is needed is a full and frank debate on the country's 'constitution'. The government of the last 10 years has neutered the Lords (the only check on Parliament that had existed) and twisting the legal system so that the distinction between state and juducuiary has materially diminished. Now that matters to me, but there's hardly a whimper from anyone. As Simon Jenkins recently said, the electorate is politically lobtimised. I'm not sinking to their level.

Re: General Election? - PhilMN (27th Sep 2007 - 17:52:09) (a) Yes, I would vote (b) Frankly I couldn't care less if Brown calls a General Election, sprouts wings or develops 2 heads (c) The timing will be dictated by quangos, spin-doctors and marketing men (d) I didn't vote Labour, so don't blame me for the state of the country! (e) Two words to scare any politician - Proportional Representation

Re: General Election? - Stephen (28th Sep 2007 - 09:14:46) At the risk of talking to deaf ears I still wouldn't vote. Now if politics were localised - by that I mean real local power - I would possibly feel enfranchised and would change my view (c.f. Mayor of London) Dictators do not stand for election, therefore lower turnouts do not create dictators. Proportional representation scaring politicians - now I like to see scared politicians And how many people voted Labour at the last election: only 25% of the population of the UK I recall. And the majority of American votes were cast for Al Gore, not Dubya last time.

Re: General Election? - James Arbuthnot (7th Oct 2007 - 14:05:45) So, John, was he right? Could he perhaps have handled it better? Is there, in fact, any respect in which he could have handled it worse? [editor note - Mr Brown's announcement to the BBC's Andrew Marr programme that there would not be an election came as a poll published by Sunday's News of the World suggests the Tories are ahead by 6% in marginal seats, with the party overall at 44% against Labour's 38%.]

Re: General Election? - Mike Grimes (7th Oct 2007 - 21:26:23) I think it had got to the point where if he had called a "snap" election he had been dithering and if he didn't he'd be a coward. We now know which.

Re: General Election? - John Lush (8th Oct 2007 - 10:09:59) James I honestly think he has made the right decision - i think he will now wait until autumn 2009 or even spring 2010, just as he is entitled to. I think he has every right to embark on his programme which the british public only elected the Labour Government on in June 2005. By 2009 the british public will have a much clearer choice - by then everyone will be able to say there are clear dividing lines between the parties. The talk of the early election did ensure the tories announced some of their policies earlier than they had planned, and it will take some time to expose those policies - for instance the non-doms policy - firstly inheritence tax effects 6% of the population and as noone is sure how much the non doms actually have it is an extremely ill-thought out policy. I think, and i feel you may agree with me on this one, that we are back to real politics, and i think the next two years will be fun ! On a personal level i wish you best for the next two years - i know you represent the people of North East Hampshire with the highest dignity and you are a very competant constituency MP. John

Re: General Election? - Mike Grimes (8th Oct 2007 - 12:36:56) Interesting that John Lush reckons that "not holding an election" is right this week! An opinion that was not forthcoming last week. Mike

Re: General Election? - John Lush (8th Oct 2007 - 12:48:24) Mike If you look through my previous comments at no point did i suggest i was firmly in favour - my original post was being provactive - the idea was to discuss if he SHOULD hold one. Like many people i was undecided, but as there is two and a half years left of this parliament i think his decision was the best - he has much work to do and the public can properly judge his perfomance in 2009 or 2010. Thanks John

Re: General Election? - Mike Grimes (8th Oct 2007 - 15:25:08) John, Can you explain just what this "much work to do" is and why 10 years as a senior cabinet minister was not long enough to do it? Mike

Re: General Election? - John Lush (8th Oct 2007 - 15:44:21) much to do - completing the manifesto the govt was elected on in 2005 for a 5 yr parliament. as for the 10 yrs comment - a lot has been acheived , but there is a lot still to do - after 18 tory years... Mr Brown was the only chancellor to have presided over 10 yrs of economic growth... i'm sure, as he showed this summer he will make a efficient pm

Re: General Election? - Allan (8th Oct 2007 - 16:10:13) All very interesting stuff, but a very valid point has been raised( not for the first time, I 'm sure ) in todays press and at the press conference called by G.B. today :- why in the cradle of democracy is it o.k. for the date of a general election to be set at the sole discretion of the sitting P.M. (of whatever political persuasion ). It is quite clear that any incumbent P.M. will make a decision based on events past or expected to influence the perception of the electorate in their favour. Undemocratic at best, sharp practice at worst. A fixed term of four/five years surely would provide greater incentive for whichever ruling party to prioritise the needs of the country before saving their own skins by implimentation of choice of when it is in their own narrow best interests to go to the nation. Opinions anyone ? Especially sitting local M.P.'s J. Arbuthnot and A. Tyrie

Re: General Election? - John Lush (8th Oct 2007 - 17:28:40) Allan I must admit i am very sympathetic to the idea of fixed term parliaments

Re: General Election? - Barry Hope (8th Oct 2007 - 17:45:47) Allan I agree with you entirely. It's not often I credit the Lib Dems but that is exactly what they have suggested. Holding office for a fixed term of 4 years is more appropriate and democratic. It happens with all other local authority elections including Parsh, District and County, the leader of these authorities do not have the choice. Gordon was not voted into office by the electorate and I think it is absolutely incredible that one person can pick and choose when to hold the election depending on the polls and political climate at the time, and treat the public with so much disrespect by playing politcal poker with their views. Giving himself and his government time to realise his vision for Britain is somewhat dangerous as the results of some of his actions may well be irreversible by the time we are allowed to reflect our opinions by way of an election. The European Treaty is just one example, with no prospect of a referendum in sight it would be too late to reverse a decision that had already been made. Regards Barry

Re: General Election? - James Arbuthnot (8th Oct 2007 - 20:56:01) I have nothing against the idea of fixed term parliaments. We do have to accept it works perfectly well in other countries. But I do not know the answer to the question - what happens if the prime minister of the day, or the government of the day, loses the confidence of the parliament of the day? Would the parliament get round the fixed term parliament rules by engineering a vote of no confidence, perhaps leading to unnecessary instability? I dare say there could be perfectly satisfactory answers to that problem, which is why this is a question which really doesn't bother me. But it is a question which usually doesn't bother the voters much, either. Why, after all, should they be interested in when an election is held, provided there is no question of going beyond five years? And John, thank you for your kind words.

Re: General Election? - Allan (9th Oct 2007 - 10:40:00) James, On your second point; it must be relatively simple for parliament to propose and enact constitutional mechanisms to deal with just that. But would they ever have the rush of democratic blood to the head to do it. John, In 1997 Labour inherited a resurgent economy and if G.B. deserves credit for anything it's playing it "as you were " On this point, how many times have we read/heard.been told that John Major was the worst/grey/feeble/etc P.M. ever. The state of things after the recessionary years '89 -94/5 bequeathed to Labour in'97 looked pretty impressive to me. Wouldn't surprise me one bit that history comes to the same conclusion.

Re: General Election? - John Lush (9th Oct 2007 - 11:58:07) Allan With all due respect, i acknowledge your opinion but i will have to disagree, everyone remembers 15% interest rates, black wedensday and record unemployment - it was a cycle of boom and bust and John Major's govt has a lot of responsibility for this - and of course remember who was working in the treasury at the time of black weds - a certain mr cameron. People don't have short memories - and i can think even the majority of non labour voters acknowlege the economic acheivements of the last decade - independence of the bank of england, the new deal, the minimum wage - all things the tories voted against yet all have worked. Of course nothing is perfect and there have been mistakes - like the 75p pension increase, and i'm not suggesting this govt is perfect at all, but i take a big intake of breath when i hear you suggest the tories are to thank for our successful economy! I like the debate though - and i think you have raised some very good points, as i mentioned to James yesterday i think 'real politics' is back and that can only be healthy, and fun!! John

Re: General Election? - Mike Grimes (9th Oct 2007 - 15:30:26) John, I admire your clarity of vision, such a waste that you were not on the Hindhead project. Mike

Re: General Election? - Allan (9th Oct 2007 - 18:09:26) Well John, your colours are firmly pinned to the mast, mine not so. I'm really not a party political animal, but self evident truths are hard to ignore. Ten years of Cons. govt. from1979 - 1989 yielded a mixed bag of results. The country was hauled, kicking and screaming from the brink of insolvent anarchy to a sort of recovery, albeit in hock up to it's neck. Then relevant prosperity up to the point at which government arrogance in their policies sowed the seeds of inevitable crisis The rest is well documented history, but I still think that it took exceptional budgetary management to leave things so healthy for Labour in 1979. I'm not point scoring here, but, you mention a high of around 15% in int. rates then. Could you, just to put things in perspective, remind me of the highest rate during the Labour years pre 1979 ? And you are right John, it is good to have interesting debate, whatever your politics or viewpoint, without it getting personal. All the best.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home