A little prediction

[same_difference]

'Labour will win, with a decreased majority, but a significant majority all the same. This will be shortly followed by tax rises.'

Cynical I know, but as I've always said the worst thing about being a cynic is being right almost all of the time. This isn't the result I want, btw, but the problem with democracy is everyone else* getting to vote.

*Everyone else excludes those I respect, i.e. my friends.

Comments

[elmyra.livejournal.com]

LOL! You're probably right... Still amused.

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

Heh - it's only cynicism if you're unhappy with the outcome. ;-) See, my prediction is that Labour will be significantly weakened, but will still remain in government to protect us from the unformed, unprepared policies of the other two sides. Much nicer outcome. :-) I do wonder if we're seeing the ascension of the Lib Dems from here on in, though...

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

I've been unhappy about the outcomes of the last 8 years, I'm not saying I liked the alternatives this time, but in general we would have been much better off if a couple of people had met unfortunate accidents at a young age.

It could have been worse though, a hung parliment meaning a deal between Labour and Lib Dems meant we would probably ended up with the worst of both worlds.

Anyway, get ready to enjoy 4 more years of our economy going down the drain.

*endlessly bitter about the general populace falling for Gordon Brown's economic spin*

Now watch me get into trouble

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

You're the most convientent conservative avalible, so maybe you can explain some things?

Why would Labor have formed a coalition with the Lib dems? there's another center-right party for them to buddy up with. It might lead to the loss of their 50 remaining left-wingers but thats still a substantial increase in the house of commons.

You complain abou gorden browns handeling of the economy (differing by 1% over 4 years from the tory proposals) Do you really think that the government can have a predictable and measurable effect on the economy any more? The world economy is a bit big and complex (in the mathematical sense), with unexpected interrelations; many multinationals command a bigger turn over than national governments.

Obviously there are somethings that our government can do, like cripple the economy by refusing to join the biggest free-trade block in the world, but I don't think anyone's actually offering to let us join in, and there's no guarntee that even somthing as obviously good for an economy as that wouldn't have side-effects.

Can you explain how the conservatives were ever in power, because it is logically impossible. Watch:

Axiom: Conservatives are the party of big business.
so any conservative election manifesto consists of the statement
"Vote for us, we will put the interests of big business ahead of yours." and some padding.

Axiom: Capitalism works because everyone is greedy
Therefore only shareholders and CEOs will vote conservative
Share holders and CEOs are a minority of the voting population

Therefore a conservative election vicotry implys that either 1) they were only pretending to be conservatives or 2)capitalism is a flawed system which does not deserve to be the guiding philosophy of out legislature.

Re: Now watch me get into trouble

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

Start with easy questions:

Why would Labour do a deal with Liberal Democrats?
1)Historically the lib dems have always sided and worked with labour (though Kennedy has being doing a good job to distance his party from labour).
2)Before the elections Labour was making noises (TB especially) about working with the liberals.

My issue with GB's handling of the economy has to do with the everything he has done, in the last eight years, also it's not about what you spend it's how you spend it.

Yes I do believe governments can have an effect on the economy, though I'm not an economist so I can't say how correct this will be. They can to a degree control the interest and therefore inflation rates, that then affects the level of borrowing and expenditure of a country and it's populace which is one of the key factors effecting (or sustaining) this countries economic growth. They can also make decisions that have a direct impact on the state of the economy. For example the current pension crisis which is one of the biggest problems facing the economy, while inevitable, has at least not been helped, but infact probably accentuated, by the government taxing pension funds. Another example, is the high level of the housing market, the rise in house prices had been a result (at least partially) of the government significantly increasing public sector wages. I'm not saying they have total control, or that other factors can't make more significant or immediate changes (for example if someone sets out to devalue our currency; it's been done before btw), but governments can affect the growth of a countries economy and businesses, and the wealth of it's citizens which are three main measurements of capitalism.

Your first axiom is flawed because in the end all major parties are parties of big business, because that's where the MP's secondary incomes come from. This current government has certainly been as pro business as any previous Tory government. Also the interests of big business are not completely disconnected from the interests of the general public (especially with regards to wages and job stability/availability).

Finally capitalism is flawed, but everyone knows that.

Lastly I wouldn't say I'm a conservative, but I would say I was a right wing. I more against labour, and against Don Foster and his liberal democrat council in bath.

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

Brown gave control of interest rates to the bank of england, so its now administered by a professional with a vested interest in long term economic stability rather than an amateur who just wants things to be going well in 4 year's time. (I think) Inflation just happens; it is influenced to an extent by interest rates .

Your correction to first axiom is irrelevant; it just means that none of the others get voted for either.
I'm still not convinced that the government can still have a measurable and predictable effect on a counteries economy, but I guess it might be possible. It used to be the case.
I'm less convinced that it is this argument that causes people to vote in favor of pro-business anti personal rights-in-the-face-of-bussiness policies.

As far as I could tell everyone was going to spend their money on more police in cleaner hospitals. whilst thinking that 'forward not back' was the real alternative.

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

I should point out that left-wing governments and parties tend to increase governments interference in peoples daily lives. So it's anti personal rights in the face of business, or personal rights limited by how the government wants you to behave.

Anyway this whole arguent is vaguely academic, because we only have an approximation of democracy anyway:

Seats in parliments, decide which party form the government. Each seat represents an area of the country and its population. Governments (and certian civil servants) decide, and can change, the size and boundaries (and hence make up) of the voting area for each seat. Hence governments (and certian civil servants) can to an extent control the number of seats a party wins.

For example in this election the electoral role in seats Labour won was smaller than in seats that the Tories or Lib Dems one. So you can conclude that those areas who have strong traditional Labour support get to decide more seats (and have a greater effect on the outcome) than those that support the other party. So effectively Labour won by making it's votes worth more. Hence why labour has over a 100 more seats that the conservatives with only 3-4% more of the vote.

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

The restrictions I think you are talking about are things like the minimum wage, maximum working hours, minimum working age, etc. These restrictions only effect employers; it is illegal to pay less than x pounds an hour, it is not illegal to work for less than x pounds an hour.

As for left wing governments restricting individual actions more than their comparatively extreme right wing counterparts, this is simply not true. Center-left parties simply do not dictate what positions you are allowed to make love in.
Mili, incidentally claims to have been more free under Communism than she is currently. Despite this she still exercises her freedom to consume.

Shifting the electoral boundaries around to give your party an advantage is called gerrymandering. The current case of UK politics, however, has arisen though inaction as the public moved. The only changes since last time was the merging of a bunch of safe Labor seats in Scotland, effectively shrinking the Labor majority before the election started.
Labor /had/ made a manifesto pledge last time to look into the whole system. They even assigned a committee, which said to change the voting system (I think to STV, as is used by Bath SU). Then they waited for a bit. Then a few years passed. Then they had another election using first past the post.

Oh and I forgot to say!

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

don't feel too down; the new Tory MPs are much more like real people than the bulk of the Conservitive Party, and a significent improvement on the rest of the Parlimentry Conservitive Party.

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

But merging the Scottish seats, did make Gordon Brown's Labour seat, much safer by increasing his majority there.

Did they make new seats elsewhere to keep the numbers the same, or are there less seats now?

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

there are 13 fewer seats now, I think.

[prosepina.livejournal.com]

The one thing I found most intriguing was a map feathured on the news showing that the big Labour strongholds appeared to be in and around London. To me I was struck wondering if this implied city business does well out of Labour whereas the larger constituencies across the country were split between Conservative and the Lib Dems and therefore feel neglected? Seems the general populace are disatissfied but the wealthy are okay thanks very much. Rather reinforces the idea that the current Labour government are the true conservative capitalists, no?