"Inevitably, these negotiations will involve compromise. But that's what working together in the national interest means. I hope we can sort things out as quickly as possible, for the good of the country. But we won't rush into any agreement. We've got to make sure that anything that results really is the best possible outcome for Britain - that it really is in the national interest. After all, that's what this party has always been about. That's what I'm about. And I know that's what you want, and what the country wants right now too." - David Cameron, e-mail to party supporters, 8th May 2010
Tonight, David Cameron has made it blindingly clear the two futures facing the Conservatives. Form a coalition, and they will make gains in the long run. Fail to do a deal, and they will be punished by an angry electorate. But then, so will the Liberal Democrats.
This already looks like a deal that could crumble at any point. Cameron has made it quite clear that there will be no compromise on Europe, immigration, or defence: but these are issues that are simply too large to ignore at the moment.
In other recent developments, Clegg and Cameron have met for private talks this evening, in a meeting that lasted almost an hour. But the TV debates did not lie. These two are dangerously polarised, and many supporters of both parties will be horrified to see their man cave in to the other.
Put it this way: if a man can watch Lord of the Rings, read most of a Saturday broadsheet, have a few cups of tea, update his diary, go out to get fish and chips, come back, watch Doctor Who, watch Over The Rainbow, and then look at BBC News to find that a deal still hasn't been made: well, it doesn't take a political expert to realise this might take a while.
The question is, just how long will it take? My guess would be Monday evening. But at this rate, it might well be the Monday evening that no-one expected.
Monday 25th.
We shall see.
Evening Stanners
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Stalemate Continues As Tories Twitch
On the 65th Anniversary of the Allies' victory over Adolf Hitler in Europe, the three main party leaders were seen standing together at the official ceremony in London: but a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives is looking less likely. The next meeting between their two teams will not take place until 11am on Sunday, and David Cameron will be meeting all Conservative MPs on Monday 11th for talks about the latest developments.
Until the Lib Dems refuse to make a deal with the Conservatives, it is the latter who will dominate proceedings: but the fact remains that Nick Clegg is still very much the kingmaker. He has also received the offer from Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, to form what would effectively be an anti-Tory government. However, this has been attacked by the Labour Party.
With talks supposedly not having an impact thus far, the situation is worrying for the Tories: the longer the talks drag on, the greater the chance they will break down the pressure of public opinion. Faced with the possibility of a severe backlash from his own supporters if he agrees to a deal, Nick Clegg will be mindful of the fact that he does not have to agree to anything if the Conservatives do not make enough concessions.
The Evening Stanners suspects that such concessions would have to include a referendum on the first-past-the-post system, as well as Cabinet positions for both Clegg (who could become Home Secretary) and Vince Cable (who might be offered the role of Business Secretary). One sarcastic observer on Twitter has suggested that the Lib Dems should be eligible for tax breaks if they enter into a "marriage of convenience" with the Tories.
It will be quite some time before we know who the next government will be: but with talks dragging on, the chances of a Con-Lib coalition are looking slimmer by the hour. If nothing is declared by Monday, expect Cameron to be looking rather unhappy. He is living the nightmare: and with no sign of a breakthrough, and Norman Tebbit foaming at the mouth, it could take a turn for the worse.
The Evening Stanners
Friday, May 7, 2010
Gordon Brown PM For Now
In what has been a truly chaotic 24 hours, the United Kingdom has voted for a Hung Parliament, with talks of a deal still ongoing. Earlier on Friday, the Liberal Democrats held several meetings with the Shadow Cabinet, with William Hague and George Osborne reluctant to give details. For now, however, Britain has a Labour Prime Minister, with Gordon Brown still in with a chance of forming power.
The Conservatives are now the largest party, and made a large number of gains, but are 20 seats short of a majority with 326 seats. Labour did not do well, but still have 258 seats; the Lib Dems are down slightly on their 2005 result, with 57 seats. However, it is Nick Clegg who holds the position of kingmaker. If he agrees to work with the Conservatives, then the Lib-Con coalition will have an overall majority of 37. If, on the other hand, he decides to work with Labour and Gordon Brown, that coalition would have 315 seats, which is slightly more than the Conservatives.
The majority of the Labour Cabinet have kept their seats, but it was not a good night for former Home Secretaries Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith. Both of them lost their seats, with Redditch going to the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats taking Norwich South. Labour did make a few gains, and did well in Scotland: and crucially, Ed Balls managed to avoid his "Portillo moment".
In Buckingham, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, managed to hold off the challenge of UKIP's Nigel Farage, who is still recovering in hospital. Neither UKIP nor the BNP gained any seats, with Nick Griffin soundly beaten into third place in Barking: but history was made by the Green Party, as they won their first seat ever, in Brighton Pavillion. There was also a surprise in Northern Ireland, as First Minister Peter Robinson lost his seat.
The Evening Stanners thinks it would be unwise to make a definite statment on who will be able to form a government: at the moment, all that's known is that Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister, David Cameron has fallen short, and Nick Clegg has some big decisions to make. But unless voting reform is agreed to - and after the scandalous scenes of people being unable to vote due to polling stations being unable to handle high turnout - it looks like we could see another general election before the year is out.
For now, it's a simple case of "close but no cigar" for the Conservatives: as Nick Clegg considers the consequences of a potential deal.
The Evening Stanners
The Conservatives are now the largest party, and made a large number of gains, but are 20 seats short of a majority with 326 seats. Labour did not do well, but still have 258 seats; the Lib Dems are down slightly on their 2005 result, with 57 seats. However, it is Nick Clegg who holds the position of kingmaker. If he agrees to work with the Conservatives, then the Lib-Con coalition will have an overall majority of 37. If, on the other hand, he decides to work with Labour and Gordon Brown, that coalition would have 315 seats, which is slightly more than the Conservatives.
The majority of the Labour Cabinet have kept their seats, but it was not a good night for former Home Secretaries Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith. Both of them lost their seats, with Redditch going to the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats taking Norwich South. Labour did make a few gains, and did well in Scotland: and crucially, Ed Balls managed to avoid his "Portillo moment".
In Buckingham, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, managed to hold off the challenge of UKIP's Nigel Farage, who is still recovering in hospital. Neither UKIP nor the BNP gained any seats, with Nick Griffin soundly beaten into third place in Barking: but history was made by the Green Party, as they won their first seat ever, in Brighton Pavillion. There was also a surprise in Northern Ireland, as First Minister Peter Robinson lost his seat.
The Evening Stanners thinks it would be unwise to make a definite statment on who will be able to form a government: at the moment, all that's known is that Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister, David Cameron has fallen short, and Nick Clegg has some big decisions to make. But unless voting reform is agreed to - and after the scandalous scenes of people being unable to vote due to polling stations being unable to handle high turnout - it looks like we could see another general election before the year is out.
For now, it's a simple case of "close but no cigar" for the Conservatives: as Nick Clegg considers the consequences of a potential deal.
The Evening Stanners
Time For Bed, Said Zebedee
You know it makes sense. Especially after 27 hours on Election Watch.
Tara,
Thanking you all muchly for reading,
Chris
So Heeeere's The Deal
The British Electorate has effectively said to David Cameron what Dr Cox says here to JD. Except for waffles, you have to substitute Tory.
Because, with the current situation, the stats be thus:
Conservatives = 290
Labour = 247
Liberal Democrats = 51
Others = 27
That means we DEFINITELY have a hung parliament, as The Evening Stanners predicted: the Conservatives cannot get the 326 seats needed to form a government. It will not suit everyone, but at least the parties will have to work with each other a bit more. Perhaps the most ominous thing about the current situation is that, with 298 seats between them, Labour and the Lib Dems could quite easily gang up on the Conservatives. Not the best time to be in the Shadow Cabinet, then.
Nick Clegg is on his way down to London. For him, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron, it is decision time.
The last 35 seats will make some difference: but for now, it's deal-making time.
The Evening Stanners
Because, with the current situation, the stats be thus:
Conservatives = 290
Labour = 247
Liberal Democrats = 51
Others = 27
That means we DEFINITELY have a hung parliament, as The Evening Stanners predicted: the Conservatives cannot get the 326 seats needed to form a government. It will not suit everyone, but at least the parties will have to work with each other a bit more. Perhaps the most ominous thing about the current situation is that, with 298 seats between them, Labour and the Lib Dems could quite easily gang up on the Conservatives. Not the best time to be in the Shadow Cabinet, then.
Nick Clegg is on his way down to London. For him, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron, it is decision time.
The last 35 seats will make some difference: but for now, it's deal-making time.
The Evening Stanners
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Whatever Happens...
Stroud has a new MP. Conservative Candidate Neil Carmichael defeated incumbent David Drew (Labour) with a narrow majority. So regardless of what happens, I think I'll definitely see a change.
But it's been a decidedly mixed night for the Tories. Tricky times.
Still, we should rejoice! Caroline Lucas is the first Green Party candidate to become an MP, and that despicable peddler of hate Nick Griffin got completely thrashed in Barking by Margaret Hodge. Hooray for elements of democracy!
We still won't know how things will go, but the Lib Dems might just get to do a deal with Labour. Nick Clegg's just won his seat, and Labour and the Lib Dems combined have 270 seats, compared to the Conservatives' 275.
The Conservatives are short by 52, with just 78 seats to declare.
It looks like we'll be in for a fair bit of haggling: don't you go anywhere!
Evening Stanners
But it's been a decidedly mixed night for the Tories. Tricky times.
Still, we should rejoice! Caroline Lucas is the first Green Party candidate to become an MP, and that despicable peddler of hate Nick Griffin got completely thrashed in Barking by Margaret Hodge. Hooray for elements of democracy!
We still won't know how things will go, but the Lib Dems might just get to do a deal with Labour. Nick Clegg's just won his seat, and Labour and the Lib Dems combined have 270 seats, compared to the Conservatives' 275.
The Conservatives are short by 52, with just 78 seats to declare.
It looks like we'll be in for a fair bit of haggling: don't you go anywhere!
Evening Stanners
Porridge, Polls and Predictions
It's been awesome staying up to watch the Election, I must say. Very enjoyable.
Have just finished my bowl of porridge and have discarded the hats for now, because quite frankly, it's quite likely that we'll have a hung parliament. It's almost 6 o'clock, the sun is coming up in Falmouth, Niamh and Rob are just about staying awa...
Oh. Well, to be fair, they made a good fist of it.
As indeed have all the parties: and the Conservatives appear to have had the best night. But Brown is still fighting.
Clegg, meanwhile, with only 40 seats, has fallen by the wayside just a bit. One TV debate doest not justify maina: looks like the exit poll might just about be right, bizarrely.
Vince Cable is giving a speech having been re-elected in Twickenham. For me, he needs to have a part in the next Government. But we'll see how it ends: a couple of seats could make all the difference here.
Not very long to go, my friends.
Evening Stanners
Have just finished my bowl of porridge and have discarded the hats for now, because quite frankly, it's quite likely that we'll have a hung parliament. It's almost 6 o'clock, the sun is coming up in Falmouth, Niamh and Rob are just about staying awa...
Oh. Well, to be fair, they made a good fist of it.
As indeed have all the parties: and the Conservatives appear to have had the best night. But Brown is still fighting.
Clegg, meanwhile, with only 40 seats, has fallen by the wayside just a bit. One TV debate doest not justify maina: looks like the exit poll might just about be right, bizarrely.
Vince Cable is giving a speech having been re-elected in Twickenham. For me, he needs to have a part in the next Government. But we'll see how it ends: a couple of seats could make all the difference here.
Not very long to go, my friends.
Evening Stanners
Still not settled, but Brown in Trouble
Conservatives 205
Labour 153
Lib Dems 30
Others 25
So, looks like the Conservatives will become the largest party. Whatever happens, it looks like Gordon Brown will be backing his bags come Monday.
Jacqui Smith becomes yet another high profile casualty, but this is going to run and run. Don't expect a decisive result just yet.
Evening Stanners
Labour 153
Lib Dems 30
Others 25
So, looks like the Conservatives will become the largest party. Whatever happens, it looks like Gordon Brown will be backing his bags come Monday.
Jacqui Smith becomes yet another high profile casualty, but this is going to run and run. Don't expect a decisive result just yet.
Evening Stanners
First to the 100 Club?
Labour 99
Conservative 102
Lib Dem 13
Others 23
The Conservatives have finally moved into the lead. Still very close at the moment. We won't have a result until at least 5am, but it looks like the Conservatives will become the main party at present.
Welp, time to put the top hat on.
Still looks like a Hung Parliament atm.
Evening Stanners
Conservative 102
Lib Dem 13
Others 23
The Conservatives have finally moved into the lead. Still very close at the moment. We won't have a result until at least 5am, but it looks like the Conservatives will become the main party at present.
Welp, time to put the top hat on.
Still looks like a Hung Parliament atm.
Evening Stanners
Thwarted for now
Labour 70
Conservatives 55
Lib Dems 8
Others 19
Quite a few key marginal seats have been missed by the Conservatives: Exeter, Bolton, Eastleigh, and so on. Very close at times.
Main casualty so far is Lib Dem celeb Lembit Opik in Montgomeryshire.
Still all to play for!
Evening Stanners
Conservatives 55
Lib Dems 8
Others 19
Quite a few key marginal seats have been missed by the Conservatives: Exeter, Bolton, Eastleigh, and so on. Very close at times.
Main casualty so far is Lib Dem celeb Lembit Opik in Montgomeryshire.
Still all to play for!
Evening Stanners
Conservatives Start to Make Gains...
Current set-up is this
Labour 12
Conservative 4
Lib Dems 2
Others 8
So about 26 seats out of 650 overall. Reminder: loooooooooong way to go.
Still got the Santa hat on!
Evening Stanners
Labour 12
Conservative 4
Lib Dems 2
Others 8
So about 26 seats out of 650 overall. Reminder: loooooooooong way to go.
Still got the Santa hat on!
Evening Stanners
Northern Ireland Results
Two in: Doherty for Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley Junior for the DUP. So 1-1 overall.
LABOUR HOLD DURHAM NORTH
ALLIANCE PARTY GAIN BELFAST EAST FROM PETER ROBINSON & DUP
LABOUR HOLD DARLINGTON
LIB DEM HOLD THORNBURY & YATE
Labour 5
Lib Dem 1
Conservatives 0
Alliance 1
DUP 1
Sinn Fein 1
Peter Robinson going is an absolutely huge result. Massive swing, massive shock.
Evening Stanners
LABOUR HOLD DURHAM NORTH
ALLIANCE PARTY GAIN BELFAST EAST FROM PETER ROBINSON & DUP
LABOUR HOLD DARLINGTON
LIB DEM HOLD THORNBURY & YATE
Labour 5
Lib Dem 1
Conservatives 0
Alliance 1
DUP 1
Sinn Fein 1
Peter Robinson going is an absolutely huge result. Massive swing, massive shock.
Evening Stanners
More Reaction Tonight
"Dear Mr Stanley, I would like to put forth the idea that Gordon Brown and the rest of the labour cabinet are having a massive party in 10 Downing Street and trashing the place, in the brainwave that if they lose, they wont have to clear up the mess (read that 2 ways ;) )" - Mak Forsyth
John Peters is now with us, so you have five people at GERTCHA HQ.
Labour now have 3 seats so far. Conservative are making relatively large swings, but that's not enough at the moment.
Lots of controversy about voters being turned away: polling stations have been woefully underequipped. They're going to come in for a lot of criticism, and that's putting it extremely mildly.
Evening Stanners
John Peters is now with us, so you have five people at GERTCHA HQ.
Labour now have 3 seats so far. Conservative are making relatively large swings, but that's not enough at the moment.
Lots of controversy about voters being turned away: polling stations have been woefully underequipped. They're going to come in for a lot of criticism, and that's putting it extremely mildly.
Evening Stanners
First Result
Labour have held Houghton and Sunderland South. Bridget Philipson is the first new MP of the 2010 Government.
Turnout 55%. Slight Conservative swing, but ultimately a pointless Conservative swing. The swing means nothing unless they win the seat, remember.
Santa hat on! Have my Swedish hat for Lib Dem victories, and a top hat for Conservative victories. This should be quite the marathon.
The Evening Stanners
Turnout 55%. Slight Conservative swing, but ultimately a pointless Conservative swing. The swing means nothing unless they win the seat, remember.
Santa hat on! Have my Swedish hat for Lib Dem victories, and a top hat for Conservative victories. This should be quite the marathon.
The Evening Stanners
Initial Reaction
"I think a hung parliament could be quite interesting. Something to tell the grandkids. Maybe not great for the running of the country but never mind!"
"anything is better than tories in power imo. Hung ftw!"
Niamh, Emma and Catherine have all joined me to watch the results.
The markets are extremely volatile at the moment.
Whatever happens, Labour will lose their majority. Interesting.
The Evening Stanners
"anything is better than tories in power imo. Hung ftw!"
Niamh, Emma and Catherine have all joined me to watch the results.
The markets are extremely volatile at the moment.
Whatever happens, Labour will lose their majority. Interesting.
The Evening Stanners
Exit Poll
Evening all,
Here's what the exit poll says.
Conservatives; 307
Labour; 255
Lib Dems; 59
Other Parties; 29
So, Hung Parliament. And judging from how dodgy exit polls can be...
I am finding it hard to believe the Lib Dems will only get 59 seats. Expect this exit poll to be proved embarrasingly wrong, one way or the other.
The Evening Stanners
Here's what the exit poll says.
Conservatives; 307
Labour; 255
Lib Dems; 59
Other Parties; 29
So, Hung Parliament. And judging from how dodgy exit polls can be...
I am finding it hard to believe the Lib Dems will only get 59 seats. Expect this exit poll to be proved embarrasingly wrong, one way or the other.
The Evening Stanners
How (Not) To Vote
During Election Day, we're delighted to deliver these words of wisdom to people still deciding...
- It is traditional to mark your ballot paper with a cross, but writing “LOL”, “
If you are considering voting tactically, you are required by law to shout “You sunk my battleship!” at the top of your voice while in the booth. Alternatively, "I agree with Nick" will do.
- "Leave the pencil behind. This isn't bloody Argos."
- If you must declare who you voted for outside the polling station, you must do it in a game of charades.
- Those who have lost the game are only eligible to vote if they can make a Chuck Norris joke.
- Anyone who declares that Obama is awesome while voting will be excused for speaking the ultimate truth.
- If you spoil your ballot, you are required to write at the bottom of the paper, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
The Evening Stanners
P.S. If running for office, do not fly around in a plane with a UKIP banner on it. You will be hospitalised, and worse still, people will call you Nigel Farage, which is a silly name.
Operation GERTCHA
Morning all! Went down to the polling station at 7 this morn and watched the first voters trundle in. One man also brought his dog. A second opinion, maybe?
"Woof woof woof". "What's that? David Cameron's stuck down a mineshaft?"
"Woof woof woof". "What's that? David Cameron's stuck down a mineshaft?"
Now then...
As usual, The Evening Stanners is going Above and Beyond the Call of Common Sense, and will be reporting on the General Election throughout the night.
So in order to make sure reports are not made without outside contributions, you're invited to GERTCHA: a chance to watch at least part of the results, whilst enjoying the most British thing known to man. And there should be tea and biscuits as well :P
Any time between 10pm and 7am, peeps! I'm not expecting to stay up after 1am, but you're welcome to nip round at 6:30am for brekkers :) And if you can't make any of it, you're more than welcome to Facebook message me with your thoughts, predictions and reactions: I'll be sure to put them up on the blog!
Polls close: 10pm
First results: 11pm
100 seats counted: Midnight
200 seats counted: 1am
300 seats counted: 2am
400 seats counted: 3am
500 seats counted: 4am
600 seats counted: 5am
All results in: 6am - 7am
Should be one heck of a marathon. Hopefully the supermarkets will be doing good deals on tea/biscuits :-)
Thanks for reading: the election has begun!
The Evening Stanners
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
It's Been A Hard Day's Night
So, apparently, David Cameron and Gordon Brown were at it all night long. Campaigning, that is. And yet, you can't quite shift the image, can you? Fortunately, Cameron was in Cumbria and Brown in Sheffield, so to those of you that write the occasional fanfiction, put your perverted quills away.
Clegg, meanwhile, has been campaigning for votes in Eastbourne - the seat the Lib Dems won just before Maggie went in 1990 - and Simon Cowell has backed David Cameron. Which will go down well with: ah. Not that many people, I see.
Clegg, meanwhile, has been campaigning for votes in Eastbourne - the seat the Lib Dems won just before Maggie went in 1990 - and Simon Cowell has backed David Cameron. Which will go down well with: ah. Not that many people, I see.
Well, at least the Conservatives can find a more likeable backer in...
The Daily Mail.
It's like wasps to a sandwich, isn't it?
Evening Stanners
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Going Nowhere Fast
Oh, opinion polls. How incredibly erratic you are. YouGov have the Lib Dems slip-sliding away on 24%: ComRes have them on 26%. And yet, this is somehow not the news that Conservatives would wish to hear.
Because, you see, in both cases, the Conservative support has shuddered to a halt. No change from yesterday whatsoever. YouGov has them on 35%: ComRes has them on 37%. And in the case of YouGov, it gets worse, because Labour have taken the advantage and moved up to 30%. If that result happens across the board, Labour will be the largest party.
In any case, with less than 48 hours to go until the polling stations close, the result remains the same. There has not been an opinon poll backing a majority government since before the election was called, and when it was, they were on 39%. Only one more day of opinion polls is left, and if the Conservatives are to break through the 40% barrier, something needs to happen, and fast.
But to hope and pray on opinion polls in elections like these is a thankless task: the result is not cut-and-dry, uniform swing is horrendously inaccurate. It could be that the Lib Dems do indeed get 24% on average, yet manage to do substantially better in seats where the Conservatives are the main target. It could also be that, due most polls have a 3% margin of error, that the Conservatives get 34%, Labour get 31%, and the Lib Dems get 25%.
The Telegraph, in a fit of panic, has suggested that a deal with parties in Northern Ireland will be enough. Like it was for Ted Heath in 1974, you mean? The fact that even the most Conservative newspaper in the land is talking about post-election deals highlights the fact that Cameron's majority is at best unlikely, at worst impossible. It seems the most he can hope for is about 300 seats: a significant gain, but not quite enough.
The Lib Dems, meanwhile, do not have too much to fear from the YouGov poll. They would, of course, like to come first in the popular vote, and certainly not third: but if Labour become the largest party, the chances are they will do a deal with the Lib Dems for the sake of stability. If so, then Cameron will be sunk: the public will have spoken, the chaos of a hung parliament will be non-existent, and he will have fought for almost nothing.
In fact, a pact with other parties will almost certainly end disastrously for the Conservatives: mainly because they don't do deals, preferring to work alone. This is all well and good if you have a commanding majority, but the chances of Cameron getting more than 340 seats is pretty remote. Television has done the damage, and the press are reeling from it.
Unless the polls are even more inaccurate than I give them credit for, we're either in hung parliament territory, or 1992 territory, when the incumbent Prime Minister stayed Prime Minister. Either way, the Leader of the Opposition will not be best pleased.
Still, at least he got to Northern Ireland. Volcano 1, Cameron 1...
The Evening Stanners
Because, you see, in both cases, the Conservative support has shuddered to a halt. No change from yesterday whatsoever. YouGov has them on 35%: ComRes has them on 37%. And in the case of YouGov, it gets worse, because Labour have taken the advantage and moved up to 30%. If that result happens across the board, Labour will be the largest party.
In any case, with less than 48 hours to go until the polling stations close, the result remains the same. There has not been an opinon poll backing a majority government since before the election was called, and when it was, they were on 39%. Only one more day of opinion polls is left, and if the Conservatives are to break through the 40% barrier, something needs to happen, and fast.
But to hope and pray on opinion polls in elections like these is a thankless task: the result is not cut-and-dry, uniform swing is horrendously inaccurate. It could be that the Lib Dems do indeed get 24% on average, yet manage to do substantially better in seats where the Conservatives are the main target. It could also be that, due most polls have a 3% margin of error, that the Conservatives get 34%, Labour get 31%, and the Lib Dems get 25%.
The Telegraph, in a fit of panic, has suggested that a deal with parties in Northern Ireland will be enough. Like it was for Ted Heath in 1974, you mean? The fact that even the most Conservative newspaper in the land is talking about post-election deals highlights the fact that Cameron's majority is at best unlikely, at worst impossible. It seems the most he can hope for is about 300 seats: a significant gain, but not quite enough.
The Lib Dems, meanwhile, do not have too much to fear from the YouGov poll. They would, of course, like to come first in the popular vote, and certainly not third: but if Labour become the largest party, the chances are they will do a deal with the Lib Dems for the sake of stability. If so, then Cameron will be sunk: the public will have spoken, the chaos of a hung parliament will be non-existent, and he will have fought for almost nothing.
In fact, a pact with other parties will almost certainly end disastrously for the Conservatives: mainly because they don't do deals, preferring to work alone. This is all well and good if you have a commanding majority, but the chances of Cameron getting more than 340 seats is pretty remote. Television has done the damage, and the press are reeling from it.
Unless the polls are even more inaccurate than I give them credit for, we're either in hung parliament territory, or 1992 territory, when the incumbent Prime Minister stayed Prime Minister. Either way, the Leader of the Opposition will not be best pleased.
Still, at least he got to Northern Ireland. Volcano 1, Cameron 1...
The Evening Stanners
Monday, May 3, 2010
One Barnstormer of a Speech
I know.
I was surprised as well.
To anyone who said Brown is finished: it appears you underestimate at your peril. On this evidence, he loves having to fight his corner. Not even the heckler appeared to shake him.
He'll probably still end up the loser on Friday. But if so, he'll lose with dignity.
Stirring stuff.
Evening Stanners
The Evening Stanners Endorsement: Time For Reform
To anyone who supports the Conservatives, this endorsement may come as a shock. But after due consideration, and after five years of considering what David Cameron and his party have had to offer, the Evening Stanners has lent its support to the Liberal Democrats. It also encourages those who are unsure of how to vote to back the candidate they relate to most: and, should they wish, to vote tactically if they believe in it.
For 65 years, Labour and the Conservatives have been elected on a system that is designed to ensure stability. It is supposed to guarantee a certain party more than half the number of seats, even if it does not get more than half the vote. This also has the advantage of keeping out smaller, extremist parties: UKIP and the BNP being just two examples, the Communist Party another.
Yet since the 1970s this system has resulted with economic chaos in every single decade, regardless of which party has held power. Even in 1997, when Labour won by a landslide, they only received 46% of the vote. So this system needs changing. It tries to ensure democracy, yet creates millions and millions of wasted votes. No vote should have to be wasted in a democracy.
If the Conservatives, and not the Liberal Democrats, were the ones proposing to introduce proportional representation, then perhaps this endorsement would differ. But it is not in the nature of Conservatives to implement such radical change. It is no surprise that the most successful leader of their party was a woman who came from Lincolnshire, and was thus a rank outsider. By way of contrast, there is not a single woman that currently occupies any of the top four posts in any party: nor has there been a single female Chancellor. This must change, and radical reform will only come from outside the two parties.
This is not a call to consign David Cameron to the scrapheap of politics: that is for the voters, and then for the Conservative Party, to decide. But while many of his policies are honourable, such as the idea of a Big Society and scrapping the rise on National Insurance tax, they are unfortunately too idealistic. His party has assumed, as it did in 2001 and 2005, that Conservatism becomes acceptable to the masses after Labour has been in power. It is like thinking a former lover will come back to you when they've realised what an awful decision they made in running away: and its naivety is remarkable.
Mr Cameron is only human, and his attempts to reform the Conservatives have been much more effective than his predecessors, such as Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. But like his performance in the last two televised debates, it could hardly have been worse than what came before. He has good intentions, but so do the writings of Karl Marx: and while his potential to do well in Government should not be ignored, he is quite simply the right man in the wrong party, with the wrong sort of support.
If the Conservatives had elected Kenneth Clarke as their leader - ideally in 2001 - the situation might have been very different for them. Clarke is still popular with the public, is a well-known Europhile, and is one of the best Chancellors that we have had in modern times. The Conservatives rejected him as leader three times; yet their decision to bring him back in 2009, whilst being an astute one, was made much too late. Their reluctance to embrace the possible benefits of Liberal Conservatism, while not necessarily surprising, may well prove fatal.
In fairness, the Conservatives cannot take full responsibility for the damage done in recent times: that responsibility belongs to a Government, and the Government has been Labour. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown hold a remarkable number of achievements between them, not least the introduction of the minimum wage; but their inability to work cohesively as Prime Minister and Chancellor has proved fatal for the economy. After 2005, Labour spent two years tearing itself apart over when Blair should go: in those two years, any hope of avoiding a recession were eradicated.
For every good thing Labour has done, it is the bad things that people remember. The Iraq War, supported by the Conservatives; the reckless borrowing; the gaps in the pension fund; the damage to the environment caused by failed talks on climate change; the cash-for-honours scheme; the chaotic system of immigration; the overreliance on computers in the NHS; and the Prime Minister who was not even elected leader of his own party. This is why Labour cannot hope to avoid heavy losses this time round. It has some credible politicians, but thanks to the expense scandal, those who wear red rosettes have found it difficult not to be tarred with the same brush.
Until the first-past-the-post system is abolished, it is only the Liberal Democrats, working as part of a coalition government, who will be able to negotiate the introduction of proportional representation. They are the ones being toughest on the banks: and they are the ones being fairest, because over the past 65 years, the electoral system has refused to be fair to people who vote for them. Plans to adopt the Euro as our currency, and the idea of an amnesty for immigrants, may not necessarily work: but ultimately, that is for the people to decide, not the politicians.
Of course, the Conservatives should be involved in a coalition government if such a situation arises, and they have considerable talent within their ranks: William Hague and Michael Gove have much support throughout the country, and there are many good Tory MPs. But they have failed to be open with us. A cap on immigration will not work; a carbon emissions plan that sets its targets for 2050 will not work; and refusing to work in a coalition government that the electorate has voted for will not work. And they continue to misjudge the anger within.
The Evening Stanners has e-mailed several Conservative MPs, has canvassed with the Conservative Party in order to see what they do on a local level, and has talked to many people who support the Conservatives. But if, after five years, David Cameron cannot convince 40% of the country, or even a Liberal Conservative, that he is the best man for the job, then this writer suspects he either needs more time, or has had all the time he needs. Whatever happens on May 6th, he will need to learn from his mistakes.
When you go out to vote, remember that it is only an irrelevant vote if you want it to be. Politics is about changing things for the better. Wasted votes should be changed into votes that matter. For this reason, the Liberal Democrats; the Green Party; Plaid Cymru; the Scottish National Party; the parties in Northern Ireland (Sinn Fein, the UUP, the DUP and the SDLP); all these should be given a say in this country's future.
It's time for the majority of voters to stand up to the majorities of Parliament.
It's time to stop passing the parcel and introduce proportional representation.
It's time.
The Evening Stanners
For 65 years, Labour and the Conservatives have been elected on a system that is designed to ensure stability. It is supposed to guarantee a certain party more than half the number of seats, even if it does not get more than half the vote. This also has the advantage of keeping out smaller, extremist parties: UKIP and the BNP being just two examples, the Communist Party another.
Yet since the 1970s this system has resulted with economic chaos in every single decade, regardless of which party has held power. Even in 1997, when Labour won by a landslide, they only received 46% of the vote. So this system needs changing. It tries to ensure democracy, yet creates millions and millions of wasted votes. No vote should have to be wasted in a democracy.
If the Conservatives, and not the Liberal Democrats, were the ones proposing to introduce proportional representation, then perhaps this endorsement would differ. But it is not in the nature of Conservatives to implement such radical change. It is no surprise that the most successful leader of their party was a woman who came from Lincolnshire, and was thus a rank outsider. By way of contrast, there is not a single woman that currently occupies any of the top four posts in any party: nor has there been a single female Chancellor. This must change, and radical reform will only come from outside the two parties.
This is not a call to consign David Cameron to the scrapheap of politics: that is for the voters, and then for the Conservative Party, to decide. But while many of his policies are honourable, such as the idea of a Big Society and scrapping the rise on National Insurance tax, they are unfortunately too idealistic. His party has assumed, as it did in 2001 and 2005, that Conservatism becomes acceptable to the masses after Labour has been in power. It is like thinking a former lover will come back to you when they've realised what an awful decision they made in running away: and its naivety is remarkable.
Mr Cameron is only human, and his attempts to reform the Conservatives have been much more effective than his predecessors, such as Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. But like his performance in the last two televised debates, it could hardly have been worse than what came before. He has good intentions, but so do the writings of Karl Marx: and while his potential to do well in Government should not be ignored, he is quite simply the right man in the wrong party, with the wrong sort of support.
If the Conservatives had elected Kenneth Clarke as their leader - ideally in 2001 - the situation might have been very different for them. Clarke is still popular with the public, is a well-known Europhile, and is one of the best Chancellors that we have had in modern times. The Conservatives rejected him as leader three times; yet their decision to bring him back in 2009, whilst being an astute one, was made much too late. Their reluctance to embrace the possible benefits of Liberal Conservatism, while not necessarily surprising, may well prove fatal.
In fairness, the Conservatives cannot take full responsibility for the damage done in recent times: that responsibility belongs to a Government, and the Government has been Labour. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown hold a remarkable number of achievements between them, not least the introduction of the minimum wage; but their inability to work cohesively as Prime Minister and Chancellor has proved fatal for the economy. After 2005, Labour spent two years tearing itself apart over when Blair should go: in those two years, any hope of avoiding a recession were eradicated.
For every good thing Labour has done, it is the bad things that people remember. The Iraq War, supported by the Conservatives; the reckless borrowing; the gaps in the pension fund; the damage to the environment caused by failed talks on climate change; the cash-for-honours scheme; the chaotic system of immigration; the overreliance on computers in the NHS; and the Prime Minister who was not even elected leader of his own party. This is why Labour cannot hope to avoid heavy losses this time round. It has some credible politicians, but thanks to the expense scandal, those who wear red rosettes have found it difficult not to be tarred with the same brush.
Until the first-past-the-post system is abolished, it is only the Liberal Democrats, working as part of a coalition government, who will be able to negotiate the introduction of proportional representation. They are the ones being toughest on the banks: and they are the ones being fairest, because over the past 65 years, the electoral system has refused to be fair to people who vote for them. Plans to adopt the Euro as our currency, and the idea of an amnesty for immigrants, may not necessarily work: but ultimately, that is for the people to decide, not the politicians.
Of course, the Conservatives should be involved in a coalition government if such a situation arises, and they have considerable talent within their ranks: William Hague and Michael Gove have much support throughout the country, and there are many good Tory MPs. But they have failed to be open with us. A cap on immigration will not work; a carbon emissions plan that sets its targets for 2050 will not work; and refusing to work in a coalition government that the electorate has voted for will not work. And they continue to misjudge the anger within.
The Evening Stanners has e-mailed several Conservative MPs, has canvassed with the Conservative Party in order to see what they do on a local level, and has talked to many people who support the Conservatives. But if, after five years, David Cameron cannot convince 40% of the country, or even a Liberal Conservative, that he is the best man for the job, then this writer suspects he either needs more time, or has had all the time he needs. Whatever happens on May 6th, he will need to learn from his mistakes.
When you go out to vote, remember that it is only an irrelevant vote if you want it to be. Politics is about changing things for the better. Wasted votes should be changed into votes that matter. For this reason, the Liberal Democrats; the Green Party; Plaid Cymru; the Scottish National Party; the parties in Northern Ireland (Sinn Fein, the UUP, the DUP and the SDLP); all these should be given a say in this country's future.
It's time for the majority of voters to stand up to the majorities of Parliament.
It's time to stop passing the parcel and introduce proportional representation.
It's time.
The Evening Stanners
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Name Change!
Evening all!
To those who are regular readers, you may have noted the name's changed! This is because it sounds much more catchy, is easier to find, and involves a terrible pun. So now you know.
I can also confirm that Vince Cable will be in Falmouth on Tuesday: he is, apparently, speaking to business leaders. I'm also going to e-mail him in order to tell him about the Evening Stanners: exciting times!
There will also be a slight revamp to make the site look a bit more like a newspaper: nothing but pure journalistic talent here, folks :-)
Thanks for reading!
The Evening Stanners
To those who are regular readers, you may have noted the name's changed! This is because it sounds much more catchy, is easier to find, and involves a terrible pun. So now you know.
I can also confirm that Vince Cable will be in Falmouth on Tuesday: he is, apparently, speaking to business leaders. I'm also going to e-mail him in order to tell him about the Evening Stanners: exciting times!
There will also be a slight revamp to make the site look a bit more like a newspaper: nothing but pure journalistic talent here, folks :-)
Thanks for reading!
The Evening Stanners
Respecting Your Opponent's View
Evening All! Am now reporting live from Falmouth. It's good to be back :-)
This.
This story in the Observer and the Guardian, if true, is worrying. Deeply worrying. Mainly because Twitter, fittingly, seems to have become possessed with rage as a result.
A high-flying prospective Conservative MP, credited with shaping many of the party's social policies, founded a church that tried to "cure" homosexuals by driving out their "demons" through prayer.
Philippa Stroud, who is likely to win the Sutton and Cheam seat on Thursday and is head of the Centre for Social Justice, the thinktank set up by the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, has heavily influenced David Cameron's beliefs on subjects such as the family. A popular and energetic Tory, she is seen as one of the party's rising stars.
Now, understand where I'm coming from here. I'm a Liberal Conservative, and am also a Christian. So I am personally for the idea of a marriage between one man and one woman. However, I am not going to lay into you and say you're posessed just because you say "I don't believe in what the Bible says". I'll still invite you to Church and CU Events, mind: but that's because I want you to understand the viewpoint of me and my friends, not so I can crush yours into oblivion. Judge not, lest ye be judged, so the verse goes.
Therefore, reading this article (which you can find here) left me somewhat alarmed. Mainly because of this next bit...
Stroud and her husband, David, a minister in the New Frontiers church, allied to the US evangelical movement, left the project in the late 1990s to establish another church in Birmingham. Angela Paterson, who was an administrator at the Bedford church, said: "With hindsight, the thing that freaks me out was everybody praying that a demon would be cast out of me because I was gay. Anything – drugs, alcohol or homosexuality, they thought you had a demon in you."
This sounds suspiciously to me like some sort of brainwashing cult. And I am not, repeat not, a fan of such things. If you want to pray for someone, fine. But surely it's possible to do it without abandoning sensitivity?
The story may not be completely true: bear in mind, it's been published by two newspapers that support the Liberal Democrats, and are therefore anti-Tory. But for the sake of discussion, let's go with this theory that the appropriate response to someone living "a life of sin" is to cast out the demon. If I commit a sin, does that automatically mean I have a demon inside me? Because I've read the majority of the New Testament, and I have to say, I don't recall it actually saying that. According to that argument, we have demons inside us 24/7, because I've yet to go through a day without committing a sin: envy, greed, sloth, and so on.
In any case, people who steal money, lie, etc are contradicting what the Bible teaches just as much as someone who has an alcohol addiction. But that doesn't mean they have a demon in them, it just means they've done something that the Bible says is morally wrong. Something we all do.
I may be thoroughly displeased if my friend tells me they're having unprotected sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to frogmarch them down to the nearest chemist's, does it? In the same way, most agnostics/atheists do not march down to the neareast Church and yell "Leeeeeeave Richard Dawkins aloooooone! He's a huuuumaaaaan!" Wonderful thing, common sense. It allows you to rise above the issue, not descend to mud-slinging, and to get on with living your life.
This is not to say that you should never talk about your beliefs, or that discussions with people who hold opposite views to yours are a bad idea: but bear in mind you are going to offend someone if you say "I don't care what you think, I'm right and you're wrong." And in any case, that's not how you win an argument!
This is probably the part that disturbed me most, apparently taken from her book:
"One girl lived in the hostel for some time, became a Christian, then choked to death on her own vomit after a drinking bout. Her life had changed to some extent, but we wondered whether God knew that she hadn't the will to stick with it and was calling her home."
How does that not shock anyone reading that? This girl has died in a horrendous fashion and your effective response is "Not a problem"?
This is the infuriating position of a Liberal Conservative. Move too far left, and I appear to be saying that I approve of same-sex marriages, abortion and the like. I personally do not, but to suggest that people can't be angry at me for adopting such a stance is horribly naive: Christians have always been persecuted for their beliefs.
Move too far right, on the other hand, and I am effectively saying that people have no choice in the matter: "You don't believe in what I believe in? Well, if that isn't tremendously bad luck for you, my man. Now, off you go to be burnt at the stake." This also suggests that I have to agree with what other Christians say no matter what: but that isn't true either. I may be a sister in Christ with Philippa, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by what she's written in her book.
Regardless of your beliefs, free will is integral. You cannot deny Philippa Stroud freedom of speech: fair enough. If she wants to stand up for what she believes in, that must be allowed to happen. But for her fellow Conservatives to not expect a backlash; for someone to disagree with them; to believe that their stance is infallible; that is what leads to sheer narrow-mindedness. It smacks of an arrogance that no political party can afford to take root. Not that I would accuse Philippa Stroud of being arrogant, but after all the negative campaigning by the Conservatives over the past month, they cannot really be too surprised that people are angry. Attacking an opponent by calling him a Nazi or a bigot will, at least in theory, provoke a similar response.
Talking about the choice of parties yesterday, and how some are more "religiously tolerant" than others, one of my fellow Christians yesterday wondered out loud why religion and politics do not always work well together. In a world where we need to be more understanding of people whose views are not the same as ours, instead of roaring messages of hell and damnation at people we've never met, this is perhaps an example of why we need to show sensitivity whilst sticking to our principles. If you don't, whether you're a militant atheist or a hockey mom, the result will be the same: you will alienate people.
You have a choice to disagree with what I'm saying. In anyone's book, that has to be a good thing. But if you are expecting me to automatically agree with your beliefs, whilst at the same time repeatedly attacking my own, you cannot expect me to simply hold my tongue and stay silent.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."
The Evening Stanners
This.
This story in the Observer and the Guardian, if true, is worrying. Deeply worrying. Mainly because Twitter, fittingly, seems to have become possessed with rage as a result.
A high-flying prospective Conservative MP, credited with shaping many of the party's social policies, founded a church that tried to "cure" homosexuals by driving out their "demons" through prayer.
Philippa Stroud, who is likely to win the Sutton and Cheam seat on Thursday and is head of the Centre for Social Justice, the thinktank set up by the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, has heavily influenced David Cameron's beliefs on subjects such as the family. A popular and energetic Tory, she is seen as one of the party's rising stars.
Now, understand where I'm coming from here. I'm a Liberal Conservative, and am also a Christian. So I am personally for the idea of a marriage between one man and one woman. However, I am not going to lay into you and say you're posessed just because you say "I don't believe in what the Bible says". I'll still invite you to Church and CU Events, mind: but that's because I want you to understand the viewpoint of me and my friends, not so I can crush yours into oblivion. Judge not, lest ye be judged, so the verse goes.
Therefore, reading this article (which you can find here) left me somewhat alarmed. Mainly because of this next bit...
Stroud and her husband, David, a minister in the New Frontiers church, allied to the US evangelical movement, left the project in the late 1990s to establish another church in Birmingham. Angela Paterson, who was an administrator at the Bedford church, said: "With hindsight, the thing that freaks me out was everybody praying that a demon would be cast out of me because I was gay. Anything – drugs, alcohol or homosexuality, they thought you had a demon in you."
This sounds suspiciously to me like some sort of brainwashing cult. And I am not, repeat not, a fan of such things. If you want to pray for someone, fine. But surely it's possible to do it without abandoning sensitivity?
The story may not be completely true: bear in mind, it's been published by two newspapers that support the Liberal Democrats, and are therefore anti-Tory. But for the sake of discussion, let's go with this theory that the appropriate response to someone living "a life of sin" is to cast out the demon. If I commit a sin, does that automatically mean I have a demon inside me? Because I've read the majority of the New Testament, and I have to say, I don't recall it actually saying that. According to that argument, we have demons inside us 24/7, because I've yet to go through a day without committing a sin: envy, greed, sloth, and so on.
In any case, people who steal money, lie, etc are contradicting what the Bible teaches just as much as someone who has an alcohol addiction. But that doesn't mean they have a demon in them, it just means they've done something that the Bible says is morally wrong. Something we all do.
I may be thoroughly displeased if my friend tells me they're having unprotected sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to frogmarch them down to the nearest chemist's, does it? In the same way, most agnostics/atheists do not march down to the neareast Church and yell "Leeeeeeave Richard Dawkins aloooooone! He's a huuuumaaaaan!" Wonderful thing, common sense. It allows you to rise above the issue, not descend to mud-slinging, and to get on with living your life.
This is not to say that you should never talk about your beliefs, or that discussions with people who hold opposite views to yours are a bad idea: but bear in mind you are going to offend someone if you say "I don't care what you think, I'm right and you're wrong." And in any case, that's not how you win an argument!This is probably the part that disturbed me most, apparently taken from her book:
"One girl lived in the hostel for some time, became a Christian, then choked to death on her own vomit after a drinking bout. Her life had changed to some extent, but we wondered whether God knew that she hadn't the will to stick with it and was calling her home."
How does that not shock anyone reading that? This girl has died in a horrendous fashion and your effective response is "Not a problem"?
This is the infuriating position of a Liberal Conservative. Move too far left, and I appear to be saying that I approve of same-sex marriages, abortion and the like. I personally do not, but to suggest that people can't be angry at me for adopting such a stance is horribly naive: Christians have always been persecuted for their beliefs.
Move too far right, on the other hand, and I am effectively saying that people have no choice in the matter: "You don't believe in what I believe in? Well, if that isn't tremendously bad luck for you, my man. Now, off you go to be burnt at the stake." This also suggests that I have to agree with what other Christians say no matter what: but that isn't true either. I may be a sister in Christ with Philippa, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by what she's written in her book.
Regardless of your beliefs, free will is integral. You cannot deny Philippa Stroud freedom of speech: fair enough. If she wants to stand up for what she believes in, that must be allowed to happen. But for her fellow Conservatives to not expect a backlash; for someone to disagree with them; to believe that their stance is infallible; that is what leads to sheer narrow-mindedness. It smacks of an arrogance that no political party can afford to take root. Not that I would accuse Philippa Stroud of being arrogant, but after all the negative campaigning by the Conservatives over the past month, they cannot really be too surprised that people are angry. Attacking an opponent by calling him a Nazi or a bigot will, at least in theory, provoke a similar response.
Talking about the choice of parties yesterday, and how some are more "religiously tolerant" than others, one of my fellow Christians yesterday wondered out loud why religion and politics do not always work well together. In a world where we need to be more understanding of people whose views are not the same as ours, instead of roaring messages of hell and damnation at people we've never met, this is perhaps an example of why we need to show sensitivity whilst sticking to our principles. If you don't, whether you're a militant atheist or a hockey mom, the result will be the same: you will alienate people.
You have a choice to disagree with what I'm saying. In anyone's book, that has to be a good thing. But if you are expecting me to automatically agree with your beliefs, whilst at the same time repeatedly attacking my own, you cannot expect me to simply hold my tongue and stay silent.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."
The Evening Stanners
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
