![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
f4f3The news that the Guardian has chosen to endorse Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats in the General Election hardly came as a surprise to me (they supported the attempted coup against Brown last year, and have been anti-Labour for a while now) but it still left me with a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.
The first general election I was eligible to vote at was in 1983. At that time moderate and senior Labour politicians had jumped ship to form a new political party, the SDP. A lot of what they said was reasonable, a lot of their thinking sound. I was at Glasgow University at the time, and the SDP leader Roy Jenkins won a bye-election to become our local MP. I think I saw Roy, David Owen and Shirley Williams speak at the Union more than once, and they were all polished performances.
I wasn't tempted to vote for them - my belief then, as now, was that only Labour could deliver, was even vaguely interested in delivering, relief from poverty for the greatest numbers - but I did respect them in a way that would have been unthinkable for Thatcher's Tory party.
Going into the election the SDP/Liberal alliance were running Labour a very close second in share of the popular vote, against a background of the Falklands War, three million unemployed, and bitter industrial unrest. Clearly well over 50% of the voters were against the Tories, and when I went to bed 19 year old me hoped to see that reflected the next morning.
When I woke up, the Tories had a 144 seat majority and I was sick to my stomach.
My fear for this election is that the result of splitting the anti-Tory vote will be the same as it was then. That we won't have a hung, or balanced parliament, that instead we'll have a three figure Tory majority on 40% of the vote.
To me that's a horrible prospect, and one that the Guardian's stance only makes more likely.
I really, really hope that I'm wrong.
1983 Votes summary (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983)
The first general election I was eligible to vote at was in 1983. At that time moderate and senior Labour politicians had jumped ship to form a new political party, the SDP. A lot of what they said was reasonable, a lot of their thinking sound. I was at Glasgow University at the time, and the SDP leader Roy Jenkins won a bye-election to become our local MP. I think I saw Roy, David Owen and Shirley Williams speak at the Union more than once, and they were all polished performances.
I wasn't tempted to vote for them - my belief then, as now, was that only Labour could deliver, was even vaguely interested in delivering, relief from poverty for the greatest numbers - but I did respect them in a way that would have been unthinkable for Thatcher's Tory party.
Going into the election the SDP/Liberal alliance were running Labour a very close second in share of the popular vote, against a background of the Falklands War, three million unemployed, and bitter industrial unrest. Clearly well over 50% of the voters were against the Tories, and when I went to bed 19 year old me hoped to see that reflected the next morning.
When I woke up, the Tories had a 144 seat majority and I was sick to my stomach.
My fear for this election is that the result of splitting the anti-Tory vote will be the same as it was then. That we won't have a hung, or balanced parliament, that instead we'll have a three figure Tory majority on 40% of the vote.
To me that's a horrible prospect, and one that the Guardian's stance only makes more likely.
I really, really hope that I'm wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 11:13 am (UTC)I dunno. I see the point but I just don't think I should vote 'tactically' - I know there's a bit of nose cutting and face spiting, but I really believe I should vote for the candidate I believe in most. If that doesn't help at a national level, then that's out of my hands.
One thing's for sure: I cannot and will not vote for Gordon Brown as prime minister. My conscience simply won't allow it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 11:31 am (UTC)I have to say that my preference is for a Labour government, then a Labour/LD coalition.
And don't worry, unless you move to Falkirk you can't vote for GB anyway.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:43 pm (UTC)Re. GB/Falkirk : True, but this is a general election, and we are effectively picking the party that will lead the country for the next four years as well as the person who will represent our constituency. Since none of the candidates have bothered their arses to come speak to me, or put anything other than party rhetoric on their literature I can only really vote on the latter.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:29 pm (UTC)I really don't think Brown will stay as Labour leader, win lose or draw.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 07:03 pm (UTC)* Failed to introduce tougher banking regulations when he had the chance.
* Almost single-handedly created the black hole of the pension defecit when he introduced a tax on pension funds - a huge, huge negative legacy.
* Disregarded advice from the Bank of England when he sold off the gold reserves at the bottom of the market, thus losing 2 BILLION pounds.
* Scrapped the 10p income tax band, thus hardly offering relief from poverty (and leaving Darling to take the flack).
* Announced that he'd dealt with the culture of boom and bust in 2000. Those words are sounding a bit hollow now during the recession, which was pretty inevitable after debt financed growth. The prudent Chancellor my arse!
IMO the man was an utter incompetent as Chancellor and hasn't behaved much better as Prime Minister.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 09:00 pm (UTC)When the Tories were kicking and screaming about the slightest touch of regulation
* Almost single-handedly created the black hole of the pension defecit when he introduced a tax on pension funds - a huge, huge negative legacy.
I thought that black hole was more down to companies not making the payments they were contractually and legally obliged to?
* Disregarded advice from the Bank of England when he sold off the gold reserves at the bottom of the market, thus losing 2 BILLION pounds.
I'd heard it was six - but if you give him the blame for selling gold at the bottom, does he get credit for buying the banks at the same point? We should make a profit of well over £20 billion on that
* Scrapped the 10p income tax band, thus hardly offering relief from poverty (and leaving Darling to take the flack).
A terrible decision. He's apologised for it, so I won't.
* Announced that he'd dealt with the culture of boom and bust in 2000. Those words are sounding a bit hollow now during the recession, which was pretty inevitable after debt financed growth. The prudent Chancellor my arse!
How many years of stability did we have? 10? It was a big claim, but it seemed a lot more credibly 8 years before the crash.
So things not mentioned: giving the Bank of England control over interest rates. Intervening in the banking crisis, saving thousands, maybe tens of thousands of jobs, introducing a minimum wage - what were the Tories proposing at the time? Wasn't the minimum wage going to force thousands of businesses into bankruptcy?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 11:27 am (UTC)I am horribly reminded of 1992, when I had just changed jobs and went to Birmingham with a devout Labour colleague to do some focus groups. Afterwards we hung out in the hotel bar to watch the election. The bar was full of Pringle-wearing salesmen and as the night unfolded, they got more drunk and uproarious and my colleague Mags got drunker and depressed to the point where I thought she'd deck the Pringle boys.
Not a good night.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:45 pm (UTC)Conversely (there's a lot of contradiction in my political views - I am aware of this) I actually find small comfort in the fact that one of those with the staunchest affiliation feels able to change it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:36 pm (UTC)I'd rather see those views expressed overtly, and be able to take that bias into account (as I used to when reading the FT, before it became a Murdoch paper) rather than have it hidden.
I suppose The Independent is an example of a paper in the UK which has no consistent editorial line.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:42 pm (UTC)I read newspapers, and listen to the BBC news because I want to be informed, because I think that improves my ability to form my own opinion about what's happening in the society I live in. That doesn't always make me happier, in fact it's been known to make me miserable (and probably will, next Friday) but, again, nobody makes me read the papers.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 07:47 pm (UTC)Besides, there's five days left and five days is a long time in politics and an aeon when there's an election on. By the way, don't you think David Cameron is looking tired? ;)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 07:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 10:27 am (UTC)