Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirms UK's general election will be held on 6 May.

BBC News - Gordon Brown calls 6 May general election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8603591.stm)

About bloody time. After everything that has happened during Labour's tenure or nearly 12 years (3 terms) it's about time we had a change.

Labour have swung from one side to the other and have now become more Conservative than the Conservatives. (please note this has a different meaning in the UK then in America)
Labour, the party that stood up for workers rights against Big Business are now happy bed fellows with those same big businesses.

I suppose I'm slightly deluded in the fact that which ever Party is "in power" don't really run the country. That job is let to the Senior Civil Servants and Permanent Securities. Governments come and go, but civil Servants prevail.

I suppose I'm slightly deluded in the fact that which ever Party is "in power" don't really run the country. That job is let to the Senior Civil Servants and Permanent Securities. Governments come and go, but civil Servants prevail.


It's what I call the permanent bureaucracy. The larger the government becomes the more entrenched and intrusive it is. Here in the US it is the biggest growth industry ;and the workers are generally paid and receive better benefits than the tax payers that support it.

So why is Brown calling them now ? Is there some strategery involved ? Does he face a challenge to his leadership inside the party ? Is the runaway national debt there an issue like it is here ? Is there an equivalent of an independent movement looking to shake up the status quo ?

I've always looked at it as Labour are similar to Democrats and Conservatives are similar to Republicans in the US.

You are very much correct that much of the power is elsewhere. Very few politicians are able, even when they fully intend to, to do all that they plan, promise, hope to because the power is not their's alone by any means! Sometimes I think that can be a good thing however... :)

So why is Brown calling them now ? Is there some strategery involved ? Does he face a challenge to his leadership inside the party ? Is the runaway national debt there an issue like it is here ? Is there an equivalent of an independent movement looking to shake up the status quo ?
Simply put he HAS to, time is running out on him. UK governments can run for UP TO 5 years, but elections are normally called every 4 and mostly in May just before their summer holidays, ooops meant to say recess, until October.
After 3 terms in office and a recent leadership change, Blair to Brown, labour are losing the confidence of the voters AND business.

Sometimes I think that can be a good thing however

I don't think there is any place for a permanent unelected and unaccountable government . I've noted often here about elected official's agendas being undermined by a non-compliant resistant bureaucracy that thinks it can wait out the terms of elected officials. It is the official that takes responsibility /blame if policy is a failure .Often it is not the policy that is flawed ,but instead the execution of the policy by the rank and file. Here in the states it is cabinet officers... My guess is it is your ministers there who bear the brunt of the blame when often the permanent bureaucracy is intractable.

Don't forget Government and civil Service are two separate parts of the same system

After 3 terms in office and a recent leadership change, Blair to Brown, labour are losing the confidence of the voters AND business.


So he's calling them while there is still a chance he can salvage majority control of the government ?

So he's calling them while there is still a chance he can salvage majority control of the government ?
Or so he hopes, yep.
While the Polls show there's a chance of winning, might as well, but time is not on his side.
Last general was May 2005 so he has very little time left.

To make things more interesting for him, after the recent scandal of expenses misuse there are 114 MP's standing down. This is the largest number since WWII

I think that is good for a government .Here in the US there are too many lawmakers who make a career of screwing up everyone else's lives . I am a big believer in term limits .Hopefully there will be a large turnover in our Congress in November .

Is this for real?. a 50% tax on high incomes ?
High earners hit as 50p tax rate goes ahead - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article7088582.ece)

This reminds me of the thing I was told about the old Soviet Union . A laborer would say (paraphrase )"they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work" .

Yep completely correct.
Anyone paid more than £150,000 basic (about $200k) gets that tax on anything over that amount. Of course, as with US taxes, there's always ways around the system.

Sounds bad, but remember Labour where the high tax party. In the seventies the top rate was 65%.
A like the Russian saying, certainly applies to "high flying" Bankers ;)

Good point... hard to see where they merit the pay. Then again... it could be that it takes a lot of effort to be such a screw up.

No one listened to those of us who said let the zombie banks fail . What we have done instead was ,through legislation, we have subsidizing moral hazard.

Question

I hear rumbling that the Brits are finally getting the fact that the putz POTUS wants to disengage from our "old Europe "20th century alliances and are considering (especially the Cameron Tories) dropping the "special relationship "Great Britain has with the US.

Can't say I blame you . This President gave Brown American DVDs that won't play on British players .He gave the Queen a "best of " collection of his speeches (unbelievable ego) . But the biggest insult was returning Churchill's bust.

The Brits ;like the Germans are beginning to grasp,and may soon conclude that their best bet in the future is in a relationship with the other major power on the continent... Russia.

Cameron does not lead the Tories like Thatcher did. From what I read he is leading the Tories towards a path of isolationism in foreign policy and appears to becoming more socialist than the current government . In fact ;I can't find too much difference between Cameron's rhetoric and Obama's... puzzling since the Tories are purportedly the "conservative" party of the nation . Did Cameron sip the Obama kool-aide ;and if he did ,why would he then be pushing to disengage with the US ?
So the question is ;what direction will British foreign policy go under a possible Cameron run government ?

Interesting points there Tom and, I'm sorry to say, to be expected of the ego of the USA (POTUS at least)

As for the comments on the Tories, well I can see what you are saying, but the main problem is Labour.
As the Tories have been sitting in opposition to Labour they have had to shift their stance while Labour moved further from their original heartlands and ideals.

Yes Maggie was a great leader and, while she didn't have faults, produced more for this country than anyone before or since. While the current party leaders clearly lack the charisma and sheer determination of Mrs T, they have their own strengths. I would much rather see Cameron serve than have labour again or the washed out Liberals.
Remember these parties are quite different to how you would see their functions.
I know that in some quarters both Conservative and Liberal are seen as swear words.

Of all the main parties, the only one that has stayed true to it's ideals are the Liberals. They also control the majority of Town and County councils, so at a local level are running things nicely.

How do you think the debate went ? Was it a reality show moment ?

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505622.html)

I like the format the French used where the candidates just had a dialogue .

Debate, yeah right.
As expected to "leaders" of Labour and Conservatives spent the time slagging off each others policies, while the LibDems just kept to what they do and didn't get involved in the backbiting.

So all in all LibDem "won" the evening for being the most honest of the bunch.

I'm surprised . The debates in the House of Commons that get aired here seem to be genuine and poignant .

Is Nick Clegg the Brit Obama ?


Nick Clegg ? the British Obama? | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/19/nick-clegg-obama)

They both disguise their radical left positions with "moderate centrism" rhetoric .

He concerns me because like Obama he appears to favor a move away from the Anglo transAtlantic strategic relationship with British sovereignty subservient to an EU-led "European foreign policy".

On a positive note ;when the Clegg koolaid wears off in a year your system allows for a quick removal .

The journos don't half write utter Ball Hooks!!
Least Obama had a chance of election ;)

:confused:
Sorry Ben ;could you translate that into English ?

Which bit.

Comparing Clegg with Obama is like comparing Porsche with Lada, a non-starter..

He stole my lollipop and I'm telling on him: BBC News - Election 2010: Tories attack Labour over leaflet 'lies' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8638961.stm)

Why don't they just get the heads out of their behinds and actually get on with what they are meant to be doing??

Comparing Clegg with Obama is like comparing Porsche with Lada, a non-starter..


Here come that Ruskie car again
Nick Clegg echoes Obama in debate | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE63L5SL20100422?sp=true)

Appears that Brown has foot in mouth disease and it is about to sink his candidacy. He got caught on live mike calling a lady who had legit questions about immigration policy a "bigot".
PostPartisan - Why Gordon Brown's 'bigotgate' gaffe was so bad (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/04/why_gordon_browns_bigotgate_ga.html)

I wish I could find the video of when Brown was confronted by a host who had a recording of the outburst. Brown looked crushed like he knew his career is over.

Here's the BBC's latest it everything: BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm)

Grinningboy Blair was quoted as saying that he believes that Brown has every chance of election. Well what I'm thinking about that clearly isn't printable ;) ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8653836.stm )

This kind of tickled me in a perverse manner: BBC News - Car crashes close to Labour Party poster launch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8653580.stm)

So the country is looking for a big change in government.

The only thing I have heard in the news so far about the champagne was Brown leaving his mic on and calling some women bigoted.

Then him going back and spending 40 minutes with her to apologize.

Our news is on the slant of how they are trying to get anything and everything on brown and will not let up. Does not matter what it is.

I guess I should read the whole thread but pressed for time. Good luck in the election and hope that whatever changes may take place it is better for you guys as a country in whole.

Well last day of campaigning for the parties.
Crunch day tomorrow.

Polls are still extremely close and the talk of a hung parliament has increased.

Has Brown given himself credit for not signing up with the Euro currency ? That would appear to be a selling point at this time.

What is the steps that will likely happen if the elections result in a hung Parliament ?

Hung parliament? Does that mean minority?

I sort of heard a scenario where no party gets a majority vote. Supposedly the Queen would offer Brown the 1st shot of forming a coalition gvt. But ,I think she also has the authority to do a number of different things .

There's a few possible outcomes to a hung parliament.

It's all detailed here: BBC News - What is a hung parliament? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8427233.stm)

Yes that explains a hung Paliament . But how does this deadlock get resolved ?

You either end up with a minority government, the ones that got the most seats, or a true coalition where 2 or more parties create a majority of seats.

The slide show demonstrates this ;)

There may well be a second, snap election in a short space of time, or they may well just drive forward in minority.

We operate a First Passed The Post system: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8643955.stm

Well that's it all done bar the counting.
Exit polls suggest Tories will be 19 seats short of an overall majority, i.e. the 326 seats neeeded to completely win

BBC News - Election exit poll: Tories to be 19 short of majority (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666128.stm)

Well that's it all over and yes it looks like it will be hung.
Very close for the cons though.

Here's how things pan out from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8660699.stm

I guess no one will visit the Queen today.

Doubt it, unless Brown does the decent thing and concedes defeat.

Just heard that Brown will not graciously step down . He claims he can form a government . Does that mean he brings the Liberals into a majority ?

Well they had a election and typical British fashion it was a non event. They have never heard of the principle of equal representation and so they got a result they didn't want. One side is complaining they got 23 % of the vote and only 9% of the seats. Welcome to the real world, it was first past the post after all. With a result like that they would have been lucky to get a seat where I live.

Brown did not concede defeat .But,he did announce that he would step down as leader of the Labour Party by September.

I consider this a strange announcement . Why wouldn't he step down immediately if there was a chance for someone else in his party to form a government ? Would it really take that long for Labour to chose a new leader ? And is it going to take that long to break this electoral logger-jam ?

Brown cannot let go of any semblance of power he has.
Bear in mind he has been angling for the "Top Job" for more than a decade, so he's not about to give up now.

I think brown didn't really have a choice as I don't think clegg would ever form a coalition with brown, but if labour had a new leader, one that was more charismatic for the labour party then the lib dems would be more likely to form a coalition with labour.

However whichever and if the lib dems pick a side then they might as well just join that party as at the next vote, the opposition is just going to claim voting for lib dems is a vote for whatever party they sided with and hence the libs will have lost even more support from the little they had.

i think brown didnt really have a choice as i dont think clegg would ever form a coalition with brown, but if labour had a new leader, one that was more charismatic for the labour party then the lib dems would be more likely to form a coalition with labour.

however whichever and if the lib dems pick a side then they might aswell just join that party as at the next vote, the opposition is just going to claim voting for lib dems is a vote for whatever party they sided with and hence the libs will have lost even more support from the little they had.

Don't sell a deal up the creek, cooperation and coalition can work very well for a minor party

Maybe, personally I don't see how teaming up could work out well for the lib dems.

maybe, personally i dont see how teaming up could work out well for the lib dems.

Being in government is better than being out of it and they seem to have done well in cabinet posts and power sharing. Perhaps they had more in common than they knew

Cameron wins!! Yeahh!!

I feel like breaking out in patriotic song...

When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule Britania!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
Must in ,must in, must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Brittons never, never, never shall be slaves.


Now we got to work on getting him to channel his inner Thatcher .

Now we gotta work on getting him to channel his inner Thatcher .

Are you suggesting Tom he should try to cungure up a long dead leader. We don't need another era of Britannia rules the waves

At least Brown did the decent thing and stood aside.

Now the fun really starts.

At least Brown did the decent thing and stood aside.

Now the fun really starts.

There you have it, a rarity in UK politics, a full coalition government.

BBC News - Cameron's cabinet: A guide to who's who (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675705.stm)

A quick read is that the Conservatives will handle the foreign policy while more of the Libs are doing the domestic stuff.

Given that the UK budget is going to be severely challenging in the next year or so;where austerity could be the name of the game ,not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.

not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.

Doesn't that cover pretty much everyone in government?

not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.Hello tom:

Ahem... You certainly trust 'em to spend and spend, and spend other people's money when it comes to WAR! Then you're not so conservative... You're as liberal as they get.

excon

Once you decide to go to war you have to fund it. I have yet to hear at the initiation of a conflict a debate of the decision being determined on how the war is financed .

Once you decide to go to war you have to fund it. I have yet to hear at the initiation of a conflict a debate of the decision being determined on how the war is financed .Hello again, tom:

You're right. I mischaracterized it. I should have said, BORROW, BORROW, and BORROW some more. Make your grandchildren pay for your war. If you HAVEN'T heard a politician mention how we're going to PAY for a war, it's about time you did.

excon

What you mischaracterize is my position on war funding . I think provisions should be made outside the standard bugetary process for it. Taxes targeted specifically for the war;or to pay for the issuing of war bonds come immediately to mind. (with a provision that it is prohibitted to skim the tax money into the general revenue as our pols are inclined to do)

Well this makes very interesting reading and I believe is in the best interests of the country.
BBC News - Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8677933.stm)

I agree that that is a compromise that is probably the best that could be negotiated between two parties with such different world views.