Hung parliament or a coalition?

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The public perception of the Tories now, compared to Labour in 97 are not comparable.

I don't know anyone who puts the same faith in David Cameron as they did Tony Blair - irrespective of the hindsight we now have about the latter, and irrespective of which party you would normally vote for. If Cameron wins the next one, will there be the same scenes of joy and jubilation across the country, the same cause for hope for a new start? Of course not.

I don't think there will ever be the same jubiliation at the electiing of a new PM, certainly not for the next 20 years. But that doesn't mean that the electorate wont be voting to get out Labour and bring in the Conservatives.

Blair's victory was based on a despised Tory Government and Tony Blair appealing to middle Britain, the ones that make the difference. Now we have a despised Labour Government and Cameron who has appeal within middle Britain.

 

[BLOCK F]

If you lived outside of the Home Counties then you would realise that massive swathes of the country dont particularly like the Conservatives.

Granted,but thankfully rather more people dislike the oppressive,interfering incompetent Labour bunch even more.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Another resignation today!!!

 

[happypig]

In my opinion, Miliband is ambitious but I think he sees the leadership as a poison chalice at the moment; he'd prefer Gordon to lose the next election and then have a run at leadership from the opposition benches.

 

[The Large One]

I don't think there will ever be the same jubiliation at the electiing of a new PM, certainly not for the next 20 years. But that doesn't mean that the electorate wont be voting to get out Labour and bring in the Conservatives.

Blair's victory was based on a despised Tory Government and Tony Blair appealing to middle Britain, the ones that make the difference. Now we have a despised Labour Government and Cameron who has appeal within middle Britain.

I agree to a point, but I don't think there won't be the same swing to the Tories this time as there was to Labour in 97.

In 1992, the Tories got in with a majority of 20. By the time the 1997 General Election came, it was a majority of one - although the Tories were largely relying on support from the Ulster Unionists for their mandate. Labour ended up winning by 179 seats.

However, while the parallel of despised administrations (Tories in 97, Labour now) is correct, the veracity of appetite for the HM Opposition to become HM Government is not as strong as in 97. Hence I don't believe in the same swing to the Tories now as there was to Labour in 97. There will be a swing of course, but not the same one. We shall see.

Prior to Tony Blair, the previous Labour Party General Election victory was in 1974, and the difference between Labour in 1974 and Labour in 1997 - personnel notwithstanding of course - was huge. The difference between the Tories in 1992 (their last election victory) and now is far from huge. To many, it's almost the same.

In other words, the Tory Party that has lost - quite comprehensively - the past three General Elections is largely the same Tory Party that might well win the next one. What does that say about the state of British politics today?

 

[Trufflehound]

Vote for Ron Jeremy and have a well-hung parliament.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

In other words, the Tory Party that has lost - quite comprehensively - the past three General Elections is largely the same Tory Party that might well win the next one. What does that say about the state of British politics today?

I've got to diagree with you there again. The tory party of today is far more electable than the previous incarnations, certainly those of Hague and IDS. I give myself as an example of this. Despite being able to vote since 97 and regarding myself as a natural conervative voter (just right of centre) yesterday was the first time that I had voted conservative.

I doubt that I am alone in not wanting to cast a vote for previous Tory leaderships who pandered to their core vote, just so that they remained popular.

I was very glad when Cameron won over David Davies as it signalled that the conservative had woken up to the fact that the same type of person wouldn't work.

I'll grant you that it's not in the same league of revolution that Tony Blair achieved with reforming the Labour party, but its presents a very different proposition to the tory party of the late 90's and early 00's

 

[Danny-Boy]

Would that be possible?? As a Politics student I've been taught that the party that wins the most seats, even if they do not win an outright majority, are the ones who will make up the next government because of the mandate given to them by the public.

Therefore would the tories not seek a coalition with the Lib Dems if they won the election, which is the most likely outcome IMO.

The LibDems would NEVER (IMHO) enter a coalition with the Blue Meanies. Labour possibly but I think the Tories wil have a clear majority myself.

 

[The Large One]

I've got to diagree with you there again. The tory party of today is far more electable than the previous incarnations, certainly those of Hague and IDS. I give myself as an example of this. Despite being able to vote since 97 and regarding myself as a natural conervative voter (just right of centre) yesterday was the first time that I had voted conservative.

I doubt that I am alone in not wanting to cast a vote for previous Tory leaderships who pandered to their core vote, just so that they remained popular.

I was very glad when Cameron won over David Davies as it signalled that the conservative had woken up to the fact that the same type of person wouldn't work.

I'll grant you that it's not in the same league of revolution that Tony Blair achieved with reforming the Labour party, but its presents a very different proposition to the tory party of the late 90's and early 00's

Not so sure.

While Cameron might want to say he is moving away from the Thatcherist dogma in order to have a broader appeal, he might not be allowed to take his party along with him, in a way that Neil Kinnock, then John Smith, then Tony Blair did after Labour effectively jettisoned much of its traditional core support from the mid 80s onwards in order to try and gain mass appeal.

However, in opposition, you can say an awful lot and just not mean it, if it makes you more popular. It's once you're in power that a person is to be judged.

I don't think the main problem with the Tories and their appeal to the electorate at present is Cameron and his supporters. I think it's STILL Thatcher and her supporters. And until that changes, Cameron will always have the spectre of Thatcher hanging over him.

Whether he is happy with that is, of course, another matter.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Well if they couldn't form a majority then it would be irrelevant. They could operate a minority adminstration but that wouldn't last too long.

What happened in 1974 was that Wilson operated a minority administration.

It wasn't intended to last long. Wilson won the second 1974 election with a campaign that was largely based on the slogan of "give Labour a proper majority and the country will be better governed".

My guess is that a Tory minority government would use the same approach. At the same time, Labour would be campaigning with a slogan of "You've seen enough of this Tory government in the last few months to know that it was a mistake to vote them in".

A coalition government would run the risk of destroying the credibility of any party that took part in one. The Lib Dems would be VERY wary of allowing that to happen - unless they got a genuine concession to introduce proportional representation.

And if proportional representation did come in ... there's a serious likelihood that both Labour and the Tories would fragment into smaller factional parties that would never again be capable of winning an overall majority.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Not so sure.

While Cameron might want to say he is moving away from the Thatcherist dogma in order to have a broader appeal, he might not be allowed to take his party along with him, in a way that Neil Kinnock, then John Smith, then Tony Blair did after Labour effectively jettisoned much of its traditional core support from the mid 80s onwards in order to try and gain mass appeal.

However, in opposition, you can say an awful lot and just not mean it, if it makes you more popular. It's once you're in power that a person is to be judged.

I don't think the main problem with the Tories and their appeal to the electorate at present is Cameron and his supporters. I think it's STILL Thatcher and her supporters. And until that changes, Cameron will always have the spectre of Thatcher hanging over him.

Whether he is happy with that is, of course, another matter.

I think you could also apply that to the Labour Party in that there have always been a pretty sizeable number of very left Labour MP's who disagreed with the New Labour project (John McDonnell and his ilk) and wish that the party would revert to the way it used to do things. IMO their political ideals are equally as damaging to Labour's hope of mass electoral appeal as Thatchers are for the Conservatives.

Wasn't old enough in the 80's to really know what was going in with Labour, but I always thought that the defining moment for the transformation of Labour was the clause four debate Clause IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[glasfryn]

It matters not a jot who gets in, within two years they will have their snouts in the trough again.
far right to far left and everything in between they are all at it
It does seem to me that we should be voting for the person NOT the party, if you can trust the person to be straight what does it matter what party he/she is in.
And if all else fails
VOTE GREEN.

 

[The Large One]

I think you could also apply that to the Labour Party in that there have always been a pretty sizeable number of very left Labour MP's who disagreed with the New Labour project (John McDonnell and his ilk) and wish that the party would revert to the way it used to do things. IMO their political ideals are equally as damaging to Labour's hope of mass electoral appeal as Thatchers are for the Conservatives.

Indeed you could, but with Labour, they didn't or don't have one person to pin that ideology on - only the ideology itself.

The left doesn't have a Thatcher equivalent, which can be both a blessing and a curse.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

What happened in 1974 was that Wilson operated a minority administration.

It wasn't intended to last long. Wilson won the second 1974 election with a campaign that was largely based on the slogan of "give Labour a proper majority and the country will be better governed".

My guess is that a Tory minority government would use the same approach. At the same time, Labour would be campaigning with a slogan of "You've seen enough of this Tory government in the last few months to know that it was a mistake to vote them in".

A coalition government would run the risk of destroying the credibility of any party that took part in one. The Lib Dems would be VERY wary of allowing that to happen - unless they got a genuine concession to introduce proportional representation.

And if proportional representation did come in ... there's a serious likelihood that both Labour and the Tories would fragment into smaller factional parties that would never again be capable of winning an overall majority.

And for ever more we would be condemmed to weak coalition Governments.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

And for ever more we would be condemmed to weak coalition Governments.

Just like Italy....

 

[Buzzer]

Not a chance, Marcus. The Tories will romp home.


(coupled with the fact that Clegg won't make a coalition with Labour as it currentl stands).

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Shameless bounce!!!

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Exit polls show its on the cards...

 

[BensGrandad]

Exit polls suggest it will be a hung parliament with Tory the largest party. Will Cameron have to suck up to Clegg.

 

[beorhthelm]

Will Cameron have to suck up to Clegg.

going in to some sort of electoral reform from a position of (relative) strength of being only just short might prove to be a shrewd longer term success. agreeing to review the purpose and possible replacement of nuclear deterent would be a middle ground between the two. Agreeing to a referendum on deeper European involvment would suit both (the Liberals are pro, but promise us the choice). what hot blooded Tory would turn down 10k tax allowance, or a house halfway there, at the expense of dropping some inheritance tax threashold. on many other issues theres not alot of difference, ideologically.

i think theres a deal to be done if these four points can be resolved.