State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[french frank]

Always the way, with those last comments that we add, innit!?

Innit? Innit? What kind of comment is that?!!

[Beef Oven!]

Innit? Innit? What kind of comment is that?!!

I'll choose different last comments in future - been spending a bit of time on the jazz threads, lately :-)

[hedgehog]

"Looms"? Well there is still time for this to run its course before the elections. The pattern is not unknown - politicians from other parties defecting - gaining the publicity that they could never achieve in their own party, hoping to have more say etc. These people tend to be either sycophantic and more stupid than the leader of the party to which they join & show the party up for what it is too soon & public support disintegrates, or they are more intelligent and ambitious than the party leader and then tend to disrupt the party and it all blows up.

If by some well organised and expensive campaign run by spin doctors UKIP does manage to get a large number of seats in the 2015 election then the less than interesting prospect is for another coalition. Much as I would hope Labour to come through strong through a rethink on their policies in order to achieve a stronger social democratic base, I'm rather pessimistic that they'll get an outright majority (this large bill from the EU doesn't help their cause). Can't see the Lib Dems getting more seats than at the last election, they'll probably lose out to Labour and Conservatives. So at worst UKIP might force a coalition with the Conservatives. Which will lead to the inevitable break-up and early elections, because of exactly the same reasons as above.

Destructive, time consuming tediousness imo, the UK deserves better.

P.S. Theoretically there would be the notion of a Labour LibDem coalition if Labour emerges as the largest party but without a majority. Best of a bad situation possibly, but the chances are high that this would emasculate rather than strengthen such a government. ConLab coalition? Wouldn't surprise me these days, but in essence this means Labour politicians giving up on social(ism and) democracy for their own (perceived and private) benefit.

[french frank]

I agree with that analysis, hedgehog.

ConLab coalition? Wouldn't surprise me these days, but in essence this means Labour politicians giving up on social(ism and) democracy for their own (perceived and private) benefit.

Interesting, in that that is just what happened to the LibDems. In a coalition the bigger party calls the shots. More intriguing if both major parties were roughly equal, with the Tories relying on UKIP support and Labour having the LibDems/Plaid/Greens onside. NI parties? - presumably Tory.

I would hope that the LibDems having had such a miserable experience (objectively and subjectively!) they wouldn't be tempted to back the Tories EVER again.

[aeolium]

P.S. Theoretically there would be the notion of a Labour LibDem coalition if Labour emerges as the largest party but without a majority. Best of a bad situation possibly, but the chances are high that this would emasculate rather than strengthen such a government. ConLab coalition? Wouldn't surprise me these days, but in essence this means Labour politicians giving up on social(ism and) democracy for their own (perceived and private) benefit.

ConLab coalition? Impossible, imv. Apart from the fact that it would confirm in many people's minds the impression that there is really nothing separating the main parties in policy terms, it would reawaken among die-hard Labour supporters the spectre of Ramsay MacDonald, the Great Betrayal of the 1930s. And it would massively accelerate the haemorrhage of Labour support in Scotland (and probably also Wales). It would be like taking a slow-acting poison which, at the end of five years, would leave Labour on its deathbed, as happened to the Liberals after the first world war (and as, perhaps, will happen with the Tories' current coalition partners).

It does look much more likely now that there will be no outright majority for any party. If Labour are the largest party, then I can only see them in coalition with a mix of Libdem/Green/Plaid (and in extremis, the SNP); if the Tories, then they could join with Ulster Unionists - the interesting question is whether they could bring themselves to ally with UKIP if the latter had say a dozen seats. Either way, it looks like being a messy business for whoever has to form a government in May.

[Flosshilde]

I would hope that the LibDems having had such a miserable experience (objectively and subjectively!) they wouldn't be tempted to back the Tories EVER again.

I think there was a report in the Guardian (probably) that that is exactly what they (or at least Clegg) are contemplating.

(Can't find thge Guardian piece, but ther is this - http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/60...-new-tory-deal)

[ahinton]

ConLab coalition? Impossible, imv. Apart from the fact that it would confirm in many people's minds the impression that there is really nothing separating the main parties in policy terms, it would reawaken among die-hard Labour supporters the spectre of Ramsay MacDonald, the Great Betrayal of the 1930s. And it would massively accelerate the haemorrhage of Labour support in Scotland (and probably also Wales)

But that's already happening, isn't it? Not for nothing have several commentators suggested that, by the time of the next General Election, SNP could well be the third party in UK, even though less than 10% of its electorate would be able to vote for it...

Either way, it looks like being a messy business for whoever has to form a government in May.

Indeed - except that there's no guarantee that any party/ies will be able to do that...

[visualnickmos]

I feel that the whole situation in UK politics now, re. "State of the Parties as 2015 General Election Looms" has brought to the fore the fact the whole creaking set-up is in desperate need of a massive and very long-overdue restructure. Whether this will, or indeed, can ever happen is open to question. The anomalies as highlighted in many of the posts in this thread bear this out.

It is really quite a dire and needless to say chaotic, mess - BIG-time.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and a huge opportunity that will be avoided by every major political party and figure

the issues and challenges ahead are such as to disqualify the present cadre of politicians from any kind of office, the country may well have to endure much turmoil and trouble before new thought and capability coalesces in a party that could be elected to government [desirable or no from any particular point of view]

UKIP will have the attack dogs set upon them with vengeance in the coming months or it will be the end of the Tories ...

Labour needs a new leader before Xmas to have any chance of office ....

[Richard Barrett]

Labour needs a new leader before Xmas to have any chance of office ....

IMO Labour doesn't need a new leader, it needs policies, viz. renationalisation of NHS and railways at least (energy and water to follow), disengagement from the coat-tails of US aggression, truth-telling rather than paranoia about immigration and the EU, reduction (preferably to zero) of tuition fees in higher education, a much more progressive taxation system, etc. etc. instead of the supine Tory-lite stuff they're apologetically peddling now. Obviously I'd be in favour of a lot more than this, but it would be a start.

[Serial_Apologist]

And, judging by The World This Weekend something urgently has to be done about the current lot of BBC political "commentators" and their utter failure to present any kind of alternative to the Tories' take on current affairs that might have a chance of guiding the voter through the financial and ideological quagmires pertaining right now. All objectivity vis-a-vis merits of austerity went to the dogs as, misled off the blocks by Mark Mardell, today's programme looked at France, under pressure for failing to comply with EU spending strictures, and right wing pundit after right wing pundit was brought on to trash the French government and agree, thank you very much Monsieur BBC, that yes, Cameron is quite right not to give in to Commission demands to cough up. I'm sure David Harvey would have been only too willing to have contributed to the... debate. Fat chance!

BBC TV programmes on Sunday mornings - the Andrew Marred (sic) Show, Sunday Morning Live with (ye gods!) Sian Williams, and ex-ST editor Andrew Neil as the Inquisition rhetorically cross-examining non-answering interviewees before a panel of three yes persons - has become what Connolly once described in a different situation as "a carnival of reaction" - but that's another (not unrelated) story.

[teamsaint]

IMO Labour doesn't need a new leader, it needs policies, viz. renationalisation of NHS and railways at least (energy and water to follow), disengagement from the coat-tails of US aggression, truth-telling rather than paranoia about immigration and the EU, reduction (preferably to zero) of tuition fees in higher education, a much more progressive taxation system, etc. etc. instead of the supine Tory-lite stuff they're apologetically peddling now. Obviously I'd be in favour of a lot more than this, but it would be a start.

I think an awful lot of people would agree with your initial manfesto, RB, and a lot of those people probably wouldn't think of themselves s being particularly radical.

[P. G. Tipps]

I agree with that analysis, hedgehog.
Interesting, in that that is just what happened to the LibDems. In a coalition the bigger party calls the shots. More intriguing if both major parties were roughly equal, with the Tories relying on UKIP support and Labour having the LibDems/Plaid/Greens onside. NI parties? - presumably Tory.

I would hope that the LibDems having had such a miserable experience (objectively and subjectively!) they wouldn't be tempted to back the Tories EVER again.

But of course the Lib Dems did not 'back the Tories' ... the two parties simply entered coalition government, which is a different thing entirely!

Clegg is the first Lib Dem leader to give his Party a real taste of power with the resultant inevitability of having to make unpalatable decisions along the way.

It seems some in the same Party would rather keep their hands nice and clean in eternal opposition than getting them dirty in government? Opposition is easy, Government a quite different kettle of fish.

Those who imagine coalition would have been any different with Labour are deluding themselves, imo.

[Flosshilde]

But of course the Lib Dems did not 'back the Tories' ... the two parties simply entered coalition government, which is a different thing entirely!

In what sense? The LibDems decided that they supported Tory policies more than Labour, and that the Tories offered a better 'deal'. By entering into a coalition (in which they were a junior/minority member) they enabled a Tory-led government, which was bound to enact Tory policies. If that isn't backing them, I don't know what is.

[MrGongGong]

But of course the Lib Dems did not 'back the Tories' ... the two parties simply entered coalition government, which is a different thing entirely!

I have always considered the people i've slept with to be more or less people who's views I would endorse.

In what sense? The LibDems decided that they supported Tory policies more than Labour, and that the Tories offered a better 'deal'. By entering into a coalition (in which they were a junior/minority member) they enabled a Tory-led government, which was bound to enact Tory policies. If that isn't backing them, I don't know what is.

Spot on