I live in Luton which is controlled by a Tory / LD coalition. It’s remarkable how flexible people will be when faced with the prospect of power.
It’s highly unlikely, and I don’t think it’ll happen, but it’s not preposterous. Kennedy has already publicly ruled out a coalition with Labour, and the Tories and Lib Dems have already formed coalitions on local levels (Birmingham City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, etc.). So, unlikely, but if nobody has a majority, it’s possible.
He hasn’t actually called the election yet but he’s bound to do so soon, because the maximum parliamentary term is five years, and anything longer than four years makes it look like the PM is scared to face the voters. Although John Major somehow got away with holding out for nearly the full term in 1992.
Anyway, the word is that it will be Thursday May 5th (it’s always a Thursday). The pundits seem pretty confident about the date, nobody’s denying it, and there aren’t actually that many Thursdays available, there being all sorts of conventions about not holding an election on the Queen’s nephews birthday or god knows what.
Err, he did no such thing. The judge ruled that the reporting of the story had been unfair to George Galloway, in that he hadn’t been allowed to defend himself beforehand (or some such). The judge didn’t rule anything on the veracity of the claims levied against him.
There are local elections taking place on May 5th. So that is another reason why that date has been chosen. Get it over in one go, instead of having voting fatigue.
Errrrrrr…they’d also put you an a collision course with the UN.
Local elections are a common reason for timing the election - this coincidence is viewed as helping the incumbent. Local elections by themselves see low turnouts, and can also encourage ‘unusual’ voting patterns. When somebody has their general and local election ballots in front of them at the same time, they’re more likely to vote in the way they ‘normally’ do. But because of the way these things work, you couldn’t reasonably hold a general election less than a couple of months either side of local elections.
There’s all sorts of other things that affect the timing…the royal stuff has been noted. Winter elections are avoided wherever possible, for logistical reasons (would you prefer to be out campaigning on a May evening or a January night? Plus the potential chaos of snowbound ballot-boxes etc), and also because of the perception that the electorate is fickle enough to be bitter and twisted and vote the government out just because they don’t like the weather.
They avoid the summer months too because of people – not least the MPs themselves being away on holiday. The “normal” election months are April/May and October. If an election is called at any other time it would indicate a government in trouble, like when Edward Heath called one in February '74 during the *Winter of Discontent * or as a consequence of a the government losing a Vote of Confidence in the Commons. I think Blair could get away with delaying until October but that would be risky as the government could become more unpopular for some reason in the intervening period. Basically it’s a case of the incumbents picking the ground.
Oh gubbins, '74 wasn’t the Winter of Discontent, it just felt like it. '77/77 was the W o D and it led to the fall of Callaghan’s Labour government, following a vote of no confidence. Incidentally Thatcher’s victory, in an election which was forced on Labour after four and a half years in power, points to the inadvisablility of holding out to the last possible moment.
Because Britain would be a better place today if there had been a smooth handover to, say, Michael Foot in 1978?
Who?
Labour will win the election convincingly.
Blair, having won three consecutive elections, will then smugly retire and hand over the reins, probably to Gordon Brown.
Although traditionally the main parties ditch any leader who leads them into electoral defeat, the Tories may keep Howard on after they lose, offering the arguments that (a) he did what he could in the time available, but no-one could have made the Tories electable under the circumstances, (b) not exactly a massive field of credible alternative leaders, © it’s time for some stability after the two or three most recent leadership contests, the debacle of the Hague and IDS years, Ken Clarke never being given a chance despite his wealth of credentials and his ability to beat the crap out of Blair at PMQs and so on. But even if they allow “pee-pull” Howard to soldier on, they may be forced to decide that it’s just not going to work, and that they need to find someone else to lead them into the 2010-ish election. That one will be winnable by the Tories, but only because Labour might become a victim of its own success, the rot of complacency might set in, and they might gift it to the Blues. Also, by that time the British electorate might manage to convince itself, as it does from time to time, that “it’s time for the other lot to have a go”.
I was discussing strategy , not politics when I referred to the result of the '79 election. BrainGlutton, Michael Foot was the Labour Party leader after Callaghan. He was never Prime Minister.
No. The substance of the defence was that the papers that ‘proved’ that Galloway had accepted money were forged- that is a fact, they were forgeries. The Telegraph lost because they didn’t exercise due diligence in checking the provenance of the papers, given that they were forged, and didn’t give Galloway the chance to rebut or refute the allegation.
If the judge had believed that the papers were an accurate explanation of the situation vis-a-vis Galloway, money and Saddam, then he would have held there was no libel as the Telegraph could not libel someone by telling the truth.
Although the Telegraph’s mistake was to have failed to fact-check adequately and to have given Galloway a fair hearing, the finding relied on the fact that the papers found in Baghdad were not an accurate picture of the situation, else- no libel.
Todays latest attempt to grab the populist vote, this one from my lot (yes I am a member and will be involved in the campaign - but only at a local level - as I say I live in a very winnable seat): Immigrants nust be tested for diseases. Seems sensible enough to me. There have been the usual cries of outrage from the trots, but give it a week and it’ll be Labour party policy. (this is partly our problem - every time we come up with a vote winner Tony snaffles it - no matter how “un- labour” it may seem.)
As to the leader after the election - there is no will in the party to carry on with Howard - we realise that it was a mistake and that he hasn’t really laid a glove on Blair. The general consensus is that this governement is an open goal and Michael keeps missing it.
Having said that there’s no clear alternative (apart from BORIS of course). I have a horrible feeling we’ll cock it up again and end up with some “compromise candidate” like David Davis, in which case we’ll be screwed. Brown will be a disastrous Prime Minister so we need someone who can deal with him - that’s why I like Letwin - he’s brighter than Brown and doesn’t frighten people. We may be ready to finally elect an Etonian as leader again!
It seems sensible until you look at the small print. The costs are to be dumped on visa applicants - at the same time as there’s a consensus that we need an increase of skilled migrants in many areas. And in any case, are they offering evidence that it’ll make a meaningful dent in the incidence of TB?
I agree, it’s a dumb idea
If you are Joe Immigrant from some dirt poor country, trying to come here, then you aren’t going to be able to afford a proper test, so you’ll go to your local quack and get one for cheap. Then you can come over here and maybe infect lots of people because you are afraid to go to hospital when symptoms first appear. You’d be deported for breaking the rules.
This rule would have the exact opposite effect to the one intended. We’d be better off trying to reduce the incidence of TB abroad via aid (and here via existing methods naturally) programs.
A very right wing, very controversial MP
[/QUOTE]
Just in case it hasn’t been pointed out - Galloway is a very old style left labour politician, the type hated even by other progressives.
‘Europe’ and ‘immigration’ are the UK right’s code words for ‘foreigners, we hatess them too. Vote for uss my preciouss’.
From what I understand the tests would have to be done by doctors/clinics accredited by the British Embassy. It’s common practice elsewhere (Australia, New Zealand Canada etc) so I don’t see why not. I don’t want people with infectious diseases coming here if I have the choice - like I said, give this a week and it’ll be labour policy too.
But it won’t do that. Nobody coming for less than six months is included (I’m no doctor, but I’m pretty sure that’s long enough to pass on a disease), and even the Tories know they can’t force it on asylum seekers. So there’s only going to be one very small sector of immigrants being tested.
Well it’s a start. The phenomenon of health tourism is no myth - it happens rather a lot. Doctors and nurses being basically nice people don’t try and enforce the rules and get foreigners to pay for their treatment. As far as I am concerned if you want to come to this country you should be an assett not a liability - so you should be employable and healthy. It’s what every other country insists on so why not us?