Pre Election, Prime Ministerial Debate 2

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The general feel of the election following the first debate (which didn't seem that inspiring at the time) is quite amazing looking now, with potentially a three horse race that was unthinkable before it!

The second debate is on Internationl affairs, so there is the potential for a leader to drop a clanger in this one.

Has Clegg peaked too soon, what with 2 further debates and weeks of mind numbing programes or can he carry his fine form into the next debate and cement his face and the promise of change into the back of people's minds? Writing down each questioner's name last out, what clever ploy with Nick use this time?

Can Cameron perform any worse and look less nervous this time, whilst still trying to resist ripping an arsehole out of Brown due to 'negative effect' it seems to have on voters. Will any of the idea's put forward by Dave last the night to become real ever lasting Tory policy?

Brown - this must be the debate he fears the most considering it will no doubt focus mainly on the war in Iraq and Afghanastan and considering his already poor standing in the press and general public, what can he hope to gain anyway? If only he could be drawn away on 'important business' leaving Ed Balls to face the music!

Discuss, Debate and vote (after the TV show not before this time please) away...

[Flynny]

Cameron could win this one, Clegg will get battered for his EU policy, Brown will be too moderate and close to how things already are to make an impact. Everyone loves a bit of Europe bashing.

If Clegg moderates his rhetoric and explains very clearly his policies he could still come off okay but he's most vulnerable here I think.

In fact having thought about it, as an incumbent Prime Minister, Brown could come across quite statesmanlike given his international experience, so predicting anything is pointless.

[marbelladave]

Cameron could win this one, Clegg will get battered for his EU policy, Brown will be too moderate and close to how things already are to make an impact. Everyone loves a bit of Europe bashing.

If Clegg moderates his rhetoric and explains very clearly his policies he could still come off okay but he's most vulnerable here I think.

In fact having thought about it, as an incumbent Prime Minister, Brown could come across quite statesmanlike given his international experience, so predicting anything is pointless.

Clegg is the 'shiney new toy'. Unknown to many voters he simply stood to one side and let Cameron / Brown show themselves up as the tired political hacks that they are.

The 'bounce' this gave the Liberals in the polls was pretty amazing but it will not last. Clegg's shine will rapidly wear off as the voters become more familiar with him and realise that he is just another lying, cheating politician who will say and do anything for a crack at power.

However given the British voters' almost complete ignorance of the issues it is just possible that Clegg and his party hang on to sufficient support to bring about a hung parliament and it is this and the constitutional crisis that will ensue that just might force real electoral change for the first time in nearly a century.

At this point it is worth remembering the old adage, "If voting actually changed anything it would not be allowed", at this point. The British establishment / government is a remarkably complex and resilient institution and the changes to the voting system envisaged in some quarters will change nothing.

The only hope is that the crisis is so deep that the seismic changes that are required to give this country a government that rules in the best interests of the country and the majority of the population actually become possible.

[Sir Fynwy]

Clegg is the 'shiney new toy'. Unknown to many voters he simply stood to one side and let Cameron / Brown show themselves up as the tired political hacks that they are.

The 'bounce' this gave the Liberals in the polls was pretty amazing but it will not last. Clegg's shine will rapidly wear off as the voters become more familiar with him and realise that he is just another lying, cheating politician who will say and do anything for a crack at power.

However given the British voters' almost complete ignorance of the issues it is just possible that Clegg and his party hang on to sufficient support to bring about a hung parliament and it is this and the constitutional crisis that will ensue that just might force real electoral change for the first time in nearly a century.

At this point it is worth remembering the old adage, "If voting actually changed anything it would not be allowed", at this point. The British establishment / government is a remarkably complex and resilient institution and the changes to the voting system envisaged in some quarters will change nothing.

The only hope is that the crisis is so deep that the seismic changes that are required to give this country a government that rules in the best interests of the country and the majority of the population actually become possible.

A hung parliament will most probably lead to the Cons and Lab changing leaders and a new election within 1 year, Cameron failing to win this election would make his position totally untenable and Brown is a dead man walking anyway (he won't be Lab leader in a years time whatever happens imo), this won't be a constitutinal crisis and the system won't change.

[marbelladave]

A hung parliament will most probably lead to the Cons and Lab changing leaders and a new election within 1 year, Cameron failing to win this election would make his position totally untenable and Brown is a dead man walking anyway (he won't be Lab leader in a years time whatever happens imo), this won't be a constitutinal crisis and the system won't change.

The British Constitution has no mechanism for dealing with a minority government, only with a majority government consisting of a single party or a stable coalition.

A weak coalition formed as a result of a hung parliament would, as you yourself suggest, be obsessed with leadership and other party political issues. In the face of mounting pressure from economic (and other) issues it is entirely possible that any coalition would collapse leading to another election. If this election also fails to produce a stable government.......... You see where I'm going on this.

I also say quite clearly that the British Establishment / Government is a powerful and resilient organisation, at no point do I state that this will happen, I have too much respect for the repressive powers of the state, but float the idea that such a crisis, should it happen, would open the way to the kind of reform that would bring us to the kind of genuinely representative government that we so badly need.

To paraphrase the Chinese curse, "we may yet be living in interesting times!"...

[Sir Fynwy]

The British Constitution has no mechanism for dealing with a minority government, only with a majority government consisting of a single party or a stable coalition.

A weak coalition formed as a result of a hung parliament would, as you yourself suggest, be obsessed with leadership and other party political issues. In the face of mounting pressure from economic (and other) issues it is entirely possible that any coalition would collapse leading to another election. If this election also fails to produce a stable government.......... You see where I'm going on this.

I also say quite clearly that the British Establishment / Government is a powerful and resilient organisation, at no point do I state that this will happen, I have too much respect for the repressive powers of the state, but float the idea that such a crisis, should it happen, would open the way to the kind of reform that would bring us to the kind of genuinely representative government that we so badly need.

To paraphrase the Chinese curse, "we may yet be living in interesting times!"...

I see what you are getting at but I don't think there is any serious chance of there being an on-going problem with minority or coalition government, the likelihood is that if there is a coalition after the election one of the two bigger parties will sort itself out and win some form of majority in a snap election. The LD's may hold some power for a while but the swing needed to give them any real say is massive under the first past the post system and neither Lab or Con will change this system unless they are forced to (whatever Mr. B says). A crisis would be a good impetus for change so it is in the interests of the major players to make sure one doesn't happen.

[Flynny]

Clegg is the 'shiney new toy'. Unknown to many voters he simply stood to one side and let Cameron / Brown show themselves up as the tired political hacks that they are.

The 'bounce' this gave the Liberals in the polls was pretty amazing but it will not last. Clegg's shine will rapidly wear off as the voters become more familiar with him and realise that he is just another lying, cheating politician who will say and do anything for a crack at power.

However given the British voters' almost complete ignorance of the issues it is just possible that Clegg and his party hang on to sufficient support to bring about a hung parliament and it is this and the constitutional crisis that will ensue that just might force real electoral change for the first time in nearly a century.

At this point it is worth remembering the old adage, "If voting actually changed anything it would not be allowed", at this point. The British establishment / government is a remarkably complex and resilient institution and the changes to the voting system envisaged in some quarters will change nothing.

The only hope is that the crisis is so deep that the seismic changes that are required to give this country a government that rules in the best interests of the country and the majority of the population actually become possible.

I have to say that as much as the Liberal Democrats are not complete outsiders, I think this is a touch too cynical. People have not signed up to be Liberal Democrat MP's because they genuinely thought that they'd get into government, which means that much of them are far more idealistic and genuinely would like a change. An article in the Guardian the other day pointed out that in the event of the Lib Dem's surging a few more percent it would be the first time in decades that Rupert Murdoch was locked out of the British Political process, which is hilarious to witness as the Sun becomes ever more scathing of them.

As much as being in Politics and having a genuine shot at power will wear down this idealism, there really are a lot of vested interests that would be upset by a Lib Dem win or a substantial Lib Dem presence in parliament, and they're probably the best chance we'll have for a while for at least a slight clean-up of Politics. Campaign finance rules, a slight move towards PR if not an outright shift, the number of MPs, the House of Lords - all these are things subject to change if the Lib Dems have the amount of bargaining power that 30%+ of the vote would give them.

Maybe all the 'excitement' is too much but I think even calculatedly that they're a better bet than the main two.

[Jon the Hat]

Maybe all the 'excitement' is too much but I think even calculatedly that they're a better bet than the main two.

Strongly disagree. Their policies have been forged through being the third party, and not therefore sufficiently tested. Moving from third party to Government would be a disaster. That said, a Lib Dem opposition and the resulting collapse of the Labour party would be absolutley hilarious. I could see a swathe of Labour MP's decamping to the Lib Dems if that were to happen.

[Flynny]

Strongly disagree. Their policies have been forged through being the third party, and not therefore sufficiently tested. Moving from third party to Government would be a disaster. That said, a Lib Dem opposition and the resulting collapse of the Labour party would be absolutley hilarious. I could see a swathe of Labour MP's decamping to the Lib Dems if that were to happen.

'Tested?'

[l444ry]

The Lib-Dems have got to go a long way yet before they can be classed anywhere near the Tories for dishonesty.

This video shows that on the environment, the NHS, bank levies and gay rights, Cameron says one thing to the British press whilst high-level representatives of his party say the opposite.

More and more people are recognising that the lightweights Cameron/Osborne are just a front for the Nasty Party and fool nobody but the diehard and assorted idiots. Hence, Labour still being in the race and Clegg popularity despite hardly anyone being aware of what his party stands for.

[MC Prussian]

Strongly disagree. Their policies have been forged through being the third party, and not therefore sufficiently tested. Moving from third party to Government would be a disaster. That said, a Lib Dem opposition and the resulting collapse of the Labour party would be absolutley hilarious. I could see a swathe of Labour MP's decamping to the Lib Dems if that were to happen.

Just out of curiosity, what made you leave the UK and move to Florida?

[Sir Fynwy]

Strongly disagree. Their policies have been forged through being the third party, and not therefore sufficiently tested. Moving from third party to Government would be a disaster. That said, a Lib Dem opposition and the resulting collapse of the Labour party would be absolutley hilarious. I could see a swathe of Labour MP's decamping to the Lib Dems if that were to happen.

The fact you are even contemplating this is hilarious, have you seen the level of swing to LD and Con that it would take to get this to happen, our moronic electoral system means that labour would have to get less than 20% of the vote to fall to 3rd.

[Flynny]

The fact you are even contemplating this is hilarious, have you seen the level of swing to LD and Con that it would take to get this to happen, our moronic electoral system means that labour would have to get less than 20% of the vote to fall to 3rd.

In fairness that depends on uniform swing from the last election which is complicated by all three parties being contenders and a likely higher turnout, especially amongst 18-30's. Also if the Lib Dem's somehow got to 32-34% they'd start to eat into Labour's share of seats quite considerably.

[Jon the Hat]

Just out of curiosity, what made you leave the UK and move to Florida?

Had to think about that for a minute I am not in Florida, but my company servers are.

[Jon the Hat]

'Tested?'

Challenged. No one has cared enough to look at them very closely.

[Jon the Hat]

The fact you are even contemplating this is hilarious, have you seen the level of swing to LD and Con that it would take to get this to happen, our moronic electoral system means that labour would have to get less than 20% of the vote to fall to 3rd.

I know that. Just dreaming... On the other hand, I can see the Labour party collapsing after a defeat.

[Sir Fynwy]

I know that. Just dreaming... On the other hand, I can see the Labour party collapsing after a defeat.

I think a strong showing for the LD's and a hung parliament could see a lot of blood letting in both Lab and Con, some career politicians may need to be planning their new careers.

[Benji]

I see cameron's been egged by a student, very clever

[FoxyPV]

I know that. Just dreaming... On the other hand, I can see the Labour party collapsing after a defeat.

and return as New New Labour: stronger, faster and more right wing than ever

Egged just doesn't look right when it is written down

[marbelladave]

I see what you are getting at but I don't think there is any serious chance of there being an on-going problem with minority or coalition government, the likelihood is that if there is a coalition after the election one of the two bigger parties will sort itself out and win some form of majority in a snap election. The LD's may hold some power for a while but the swing needed to give them any real say is massive under the first past the post system and neither Lab or Con will change this system unless they are forced to (whatever Mr. B says). A crisis would be a good impetus for change so it is in the interests of the major players to make sure one doesn't happen.

I accept that my scenario is pretty unlikely but circumstances could come about that causes such instability.

For example, It has been suggested that the LibDem's best tactic at this point is to come out clearly and rule out the possibility of any coalition or pact with the Labour party. Ignore for the moment that the LibDems are largely a left of center party and just consider what could happen. the most obvious being that Tory voters could safely use tactical voting to remove Labour MPs in constituencies where they themselves have no chance of winning and of course they would gather votes from any anti Labour voter.

This could largely negate the built in advantage that Labour has built for itself in the constituency changes and boost the total of LibDem seats into three figures. The resulting LibCon government could position itself as a 'government of national government' and this would give the LibDems essential experience in power.

If this was to go well through a combination of sensible government and improving economy then the Labour party could be destroyed in it's current form with the following election being fought out between the two parties that have together brought the country out of recession and now having a reputation for sound government.

Throw in a bit of electoral reform and we might even end up with a government that represents the people! (God Forbid...)

[Benji]

I have to say this tory tactic at the minute of telling people to vote them only to avoid a hung parliament is starting to annoy me.

I want to vote for their politics, not scaremongering

[FoxyPV]

rule out the possibility of any coalition or pact with the Labour party.

theresulting LibCon government could position itself as a 'government of national government' and this would give the LibDems essential experience in power.

I think Clegg did that today as he called Brown 'desperate' and said the LDs would not share power with NL.

It'd be like the 1930s - goodness I'm getting nostalgic.

[Flynny]

Personally I wouldn't mind a Lib/Con pact, I think Clegg is a socially left-wing libertarian at heart and there isn't much difference between Clegg and Cameron's worldviews. It's only their party's bases that are quite far apart. If we ended up with Cameron as PM with Cable as chancellor and Nick Clegg doing something like Foreign Secretary (he's a clever bloke and speaks five languages) then that wouldn't be too unrepresentative of what people will actually be voting for.

Only thing that concerns me about Clegg is his European views, but I'd imagine the current Greek crisis will have moderated those somewhat.

[Guest Bilo]

I have to say this tory tactic at the minute of telling people to vote them only to avoid a hung parliament is starting to annoy me.

I want to vote for their politics, not scaremongering

Totally agree and I've mentioned this about Labour on another thread. There seems to be an ethos of party leaders telling us why we shouldn't vote for another party rather than telling us why we should vote for them. There needs to be a lot more positivity from the party leaders imo.

[Guest Bilo]

Personally I wouldn't mind a Lib/Con pact, I think Clegg is a socially left-wing libertarian at heart and there isn't much difference between Clegg and Cameron's worldviews. It's only their party's bases that are quite far apart. If we ended up with Cameron as PM with Cable as chancellor and Nick Clegg doing something like Foreign Secretary (he's a clever bloke and speaks five languages) then that wouldn't be too unrepresentative of what people will actually be voting for.

Only thing that concerns me about Clegg is his European views, but I'd imagine the current Greek crisis will have moderated those somewhat.

In all fairness I do think that this is the best realistic outcome this year, seeing as the Lib Dems are very unlikely to get enough votes to form a government on their own. This kind of coalition wold also freeze out the Thatcherite dinosaurs of old, which can be no bad thing.