NationStates Jolt Archive

Given labours falling popularity, what do you think the outcome will be in the next election. WEill people revert to Conservatism, will the Liberals take charge, will a 3rd party manage to gain power?

What do you think, my personal opinion is that the lib-dems would have gained seats under charlie, but now its going to level out, the conservatives will gain seats and possibly win with their new outlook, Labour will continue to produce scandals and lose popularity, but the "Then who elese?" gripping socialists in britain will cancel this out.

Tory/Lib-Dem coalition I bet/hope.

Tory/Lib-Dem coalition I bet/hope.

:confused:

I hope so too, but... why you?

I think the Conservatives will win, with a small majority. Or it'll end in a hung parliament.

Tory/Lib-Dem coalition I bet/hope.
A coalition of Conservatives and Liberals... Theyd never get ANYTHING done apart from the Economy.

A coalition of Conservatives and Liberals... Theyd never get ANYTHING done apart from the Economy.


As Clinton said: it's the Economy, stupid!

:confused:

I hope so too, but... why you?

Conservatives because Labour have been corrupted by power, and their new direction seems moderate and inclusive, and because I realise that my real favourites, the Liberal Democrats, could never get in by themselves. And the Liberal Democrats because I genuinely share almost all of their values, if it wasn't forbidden in my future career, I would join that party.

And on the contrary, there is much that a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition could get done, real electoral reform for one thing.

Did anyone watch David Cameron being interviewed by Jonathan Ross last night? Jonathon tricked him into saying he's going to make drugs legal, they high-fived over it. I think I'll vote for the conservatives now...:p

Depends when Blair leaves. Before the end of 2007 = Labour victory with a very tiny minority (15-20 seats). After that and his successor won't have enough time to change the public's image of Labour. The longer Blair leaves it, the smaller the majority Labour will have in the next Parliament. If he hasn't gone by this time in 2008, the Tories will have a significant majority.

I think David Cameron is going to do what Tony Blair did around 10 years ago. And good luck to him.

Marginal Labour victory, I sincerely hope. By 2009, unless they decide to implode both politically and internally, Labour will retain a vestige of credibilty, however, by 2013, I should imagine they will ahev failed catastrophically, thus facilitaing a resurgence of true conservatism.

Did anyone watch David Cameron being interviewed by Jonathan Ross last night? Jonathon tricked him into saying he's going to make drugs legal, they high-fived over it. I think I'll vote for the conservatives now...:p

He didn't actually get tricked - at the last minute he pulled his hand back and said oh no!

My vote goes to the Tories... with a very small majority.

I think David Cameron is going to do what Tony Blair did around 10 years ago. And good luck to him.

Betray the principles of his predecessors? Prostitute his party to the moronocracy? Disregard political skill for public image?

Oh, I just can't wait.

Depends when Blair leaves. Before the end of 2007 = Labour victory with a very tiny minority (15-20 seats). After that and his successor won't have enough time to change the public's image of Labour. The longer Blair leaves it, the smaller the majority Labour will have in the next Parliament. If he hasn't gone by this time in 2008, the Tories will have a significant majority.

I disagree completely. A miniscule (2.35%) swing is required to end Labour's overall majority,and considering that the Tories managed 2% in 2005 despite being led by Howard, that will almost certainly be accomplished.

However, a large 7% swing would be needed for an overall Tory majority, something that would be very difficult to achieve. The real question is who will have the most seats, as a hung parliament is now a very real prospect. My personal prediction is that the Tories will struggle along with a minority government for 2 years, then call an election and win a majority.

If Labour lose the next election, they will be out of power for a very long time (and so they should).

Did anyone watch David Cameron being interviewed by Jonathan Ross last night? Jonathon tricked him into saying he's going to make drugs legal, they high-fived over it. I think I'll vote for the conservatives now...:p
I DID! That was the best interview iv'e seen Ross do for a while.

Incidentally, if the conservatives win the next election i'm leaving the country.

I disagree completely. A miniscule (2.35%) swing is required to end Labour's overall majority,and considering that the Tories managed 2% in 2005 despite being led by Howard, that will almost certainly be accomplished.
A lot of that was backlash against an unpopular war and an unpopular prime minister. Assuming we remove troops from Iraq as and when we're expected to, and Brown is Blair's successor, I think Labour will keep a small majority.

However, a large 7% swing would be needed for an overall Tory majority, something that would be very difficult to achieve. The real question is who will have the most seats, as a hung parliament is now a very real prospect. My personal prediction is that the Tories will struggle along with a minority government for 2 years, then call an election and win a majority.
As I said, it depends how long Blair stays. He's unpopular now, and this will most likely get worse no matter what he does next. If he leaves at, say, the end of 2008, I think a 7% swing is achievable, so long as the Tories don't screw up.

If Labour lose the next election, they will be out of power for a very long time (and so they should).
If Labour lose the next election, then yes, they deserve to be out of power for a long time. If, however, they win it, the Tories deserve to be out of power for at least another 10 years, simply because they can't beat a weak government.

Liasia']Incidentally, if the conservatives win the next election i'm leaving the country.
i'd dearly like to do the same, and i fear they will win :(

Cameron is quite a charismatic politician, and for some reason it seems almost fashionable to hate Blair these days. Brown will need to make a clear distinction between the party under himself and the party of his predecessor in order to stand a chance...

I'd sooner have David Cameron and his cheery bicycling eco-warrior act, than Gordon bloody Brown..

I'd sooner have David Cameron and his cheery bicycling eco-warrior act, than Gordon bloody Brown..
I'd rather have the ESP. Where did you disappear to for the last election?

i'd dearly like to do the same, and i fear they will win :(

Cameron is quite a charismatic politician, and for some reason it seems almost fashionable to hate Blair these days. Brown will need to make a clear distinction between the party under himself and the party of his predecessor in order to stand a chance...
I will do the same, if the cknservatives get in and I will leave the country if ID Cards come in. You basically have a choice betweeen the:

Conservatives (where Liberals really. Yeah, we care about the enivroment and, um, fluffy pink clouds and things)

Lavour (Where mean, tough war-mongering conservatives. Go free market econmoics, go Privatisation, go attack random coutnrys

and the Lib Dems (Where a party? really? You sure? Wehre supposed to have policys? Does anybody truely know we exist any more?)

I'd rather have the ESP. Where did you disappear to for the last election?

I started a new region and got obsessed by it. Then I came back, but I think I missed the elections.. sorry :(. But, yay, somebody remembers me.

I will do the same, if the cknservatives get in and I will leave the country if ID Cards come in. You basically have a choice betweeen the:

Conservatives (where Liberals really. Yeah, we care about the enivroment and, um, fluffy pink clouds and things)

Lavour (Where mean, tough war-mongering conservatives. Go free market econmoics, go Privatisation, go attack random coutnrys

and the Lib Dems (Where a party? really? You sure? Wehre supposed to have policys? Does anybody truely know we exist any more?)

Speaking as Conservative Party member, I have to say that fluffy pink clouds and things are actually very high up on our agenda.

Speaking as Conservative Party member, I have to say that fluffy pink clouds and things are actually very high up on our agenda.
I thought the Tories were all for environmental responsibility now? Aren't pink clouds a sign of pollution? :p

I thought the Tories were all for environmental responsibility now? Aren't pink clouds a sign of pollution? :p

We prefer to think of it as "love." We're all for political rebranding exercises now, you know. :rolleyes:

Well, as long as the Fasc... Tory victory would be followed by a landslide victory for the SNP, as well as serious gains for the SSP and Greens, it wouldn't be too bad....

Well, as long as the Fasc... Tory victory would be followed by a landslide victory for the SNP, as well as serious gains for the SSP and Greens, it wouldn't be too bad....

Because anyone outside Scotland would vote for the SNP..

Conservatives because Labour have been corrupted by power, and their new direction seems moderate and inclusive, and because I realise that my real favourites, the Liberal Democrats, could never get in by themselves. And the Liberal Democrats because I genuinely share almost all of their values, if it wasn't forbidden in my future career, I would join that party.

And on the contrary, there is much that a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition could get done, real electoral reform for one thing.


Sound like good reasons to me.

My own reasoning is similar, although I hardly find all my values represented by the LibDems.

My own priorities are environment, democratisation ( electoral reform, I am a straightforward proponent of Dictatorship By Majority ), and a very hawkish foreign policy.

But I can't have it all, and I don't shrink from prioritising.

If I must sacrifice the pleasures of foreign policy for the sake of keeping Planet Earth habitable, ecologywise, then that is the price I pay, and I consider it a fair enough deal.
I wont care a fiddlestick about foreign policy one way or the other if half of the surface of the UK is deluged due to global warning, so picking priorities is straighforward enough.

the queen will make use of some of her powers and devolve parliament

ok ill be serious, sadly i think the tory party will win, just.

i also expect a couple of nortwest seats to be won by the BNP

Well, as long as the Fasc... Tory victory would be followed by a landslide victory for the SNP, as well as serious gains for the SSP and Greens, it wouldn't be too bad....

As if Scotland would ever leave the UK - Scotland gets billions from the rest of the UK and it's own Parliament AND it's MPs decided the election at Westminter. For Scotland, the UK's a pretty good deal!

And I think it'll be a Tory minority government. With the emergence of the Greens, Lib Dems, Respect (In London) and the BNP, I think it'll be the end of majority governments for awhile.

Frankly, I dont even know who I'm gonna vote for let alone whose gonna win. The lib dems are sliding into the middle as well, leaving no makjor party out on the left for me to vote for :(

(Or basped off the political compass, theres no bottom left parties to vote for :()

i also expect a couple of nortwest seats to be won by the BNP

That would be a dark day for democracy in the United Kingdom, but it's a very real prospect at the moment. But I'll refrain from ranting about them ;)

As for the election... it's very difficult to call at the moment. Blair's 'retirement' will have some kind of effect, but how great an effect remains to be seen. Poor guy... he went from national hero in 1997 to national zero in 2006 :P

The result will be quite close, I think, with Labour just managing to sneak in but the Conservatives will make significant gains under Cameron. I also hope that if Labour does get in for another term, they clean up their act. None of these foreign prisoner scandals, selling off peerages and so forth. It seems to be the bane of all governments that last over two terms - it happened to the Tories prior to 1997, and now it's happening to Labour. I think the Lib Dems will perhaps make some gains, but they will be small - Ming Campbell just won't attract enough voters to make a big difference, I don't think.

My guess is based upon the performance of the parties up to date - there's two or three years to wait yet, and I think these will be crucial as to whether Labour remains in power. I wouldn't place any bets until Cameron's party has wheeled out its policies, though - no sign of them just yet, just some hints on tougher prison sentences and emphasis on the environment.

On a side note, the interview with Jonathan Ross was interesting to watch - I thought David took all that came to him in good humour.

Frankly, I dont even know who I'm gonna vote for let alone whose gonna win. The lib dems are sliding into the middle as well, leaving no makjor party out on the left for me to vote for :(

(Or basped off the political compass, theres no bottom left parties to vote for :()

The irony is, if you want a moderate left wing economic policy, the BNP is nearly there. Sucks, eh? It's a shame that the SWP/SP bickering led to the collapse of the Socialist Alliance, and that the SSP became a SNP clone. That and Respect have put the left back to square one. No party, no organisation, no hope. And that's, at the moment, the sad truth.

The irony is, if you want a moderate left wing economic policy, the BNP is nearly there. Sucks, eh? It's a shame that the SWP/SP bickering led to the collapse of the Socialist Alliance, and that the SSP became a SNP clone. That and Respect have put the left back to square one. No party, no organisation, no hope. And that's, at the moment, the sad truth.You'll make me cry :'(

Someone needs to do something about that...

We'll be looking at a Tory victory at the next General Election, I suspect.

New Labour has successfully killed itself over the last few months, what with the criminals being released early, immigrants with criminal records being release and all that sort of thing.

Whilst part of me says "about time, too" it would be a sad day to see a Conservative government again. Labour have really been a pseudo-Tory party for the vast majority of their period in office, especially going against the views of the much more socialist grass root parties and local organisations. They've begun to ignore what's happening around them, fiddling whilst Rome burns.

It will be labour again at the next election

Unfortunetly there are far too many voters my age who remember the 'caring sharing ' tory government of 1979-1997 and its 15% interest rates and its 4 million unemployed is a price worth paying and its poll tax and its VAT rate hike from 8/12% to 17.5% and its 1.5% National insurance hike and lets sell off the council houses and not let the councils use the income to build more council houses.
about the only useful thing they did was kick that asshole Scargil's butt, (mind you he did help dig his own and the miners' graves)


As for the liberals, I would have voted for them right upto to point where they stabbed Kennedy in the back, I mean, a guy whos 1/2 cut all the time STILL makes better policies than a sober blairggggggghhhhh or whatever is leading the tories

El-Presidente Boris

A Labour victory with a small majority is still possible, and I certainly hope that will be what happens. While many on the left have certainly been unhappy at some of the things that Labour have done, I don't think the Conservatives will be any better, and probably would be worse. The biggest mistake that Tony Blair made was the war in Iraq, and would it have been any different if the Conservatives where in power? No, it would have been just the same, we would have gone to war with Iraq.
I still support Labour, because even though I have been unhappy with them on some decisions, they are the party today that is the most left wing that also has an actual chance of power. Due to that, I'll most likely vote Labour at the next election.

It will be labour again at the next election

Unfortunetly there are far too many voters my age who remember the 'caring sharing ' tory government of 1979-1997 and its 15% interest rates and its 4 million unemployed is a price worth paying and its poll tax and its VAT rate hike from 8/12% to 17.5% and its 1.5% National insurance hike and lets sell off the council houses and not let the councils use the income to build more council houses.
about the only useful thing they did was kick that asshole Scargil's butt, (mind you he did help dig his own and the miners' graves)

Thatchers going to be a thorn for the tories for the next 20 years. lot of people my Parents age and slightly younger (the 30-40 demographic) will never vote tory again thanks to her.

As for the liberals, I would have voted for them right upto to point where they stabbed Kennedy in the back, I mean, a guy whos 1/2 cut all the time STILL makes better policies than a sober blairggggggghhhhh or whatever is leading the tories

El-Presidente Boris
Your right mate, I voted for kennedy, i want it recorded!

Under David Cameron, there is no more Tory party, at least in the traditional sense.

So if you are British and capitalist, and dare I say, a churchman in the holy Church of England, which party can you vote for?

Under David Cameron, there is no more Tory party, at least in the traditional sense.

So if you are British and capitalist, and dare I say, a churchman in the holy Church of England, which party can you vote for?
Labour, or BNP.

And I'm only one of those things, I'm English and a Capitalist (Though a Democratic Socalist as well) and I certainly ain't a churchman.

Under David Cameron, there is no more Tory party, at least in the traditional sense.

Is that a bad thing? A lot of things that the Tories stood for in the past won't get them re-elected again today. As Aust said, they've lost a lot of support due to Thatcher - most people I know dislike her, and for the modern Tories to associate with her much would set alarm bells ringing for a lot of the population.

Admittedly, though a Labour supporter myself, Thatcher did do some good things - these are overshadowed in the public mind by the bad things she did, though (the strikes and Poll Tax being two big examples).

Unrestricted capitalism is dying out in the UK, and has been since the 1970s/1980s. None of the major parties, including the Tories, Labour and the BNP, are hugely pro-capitalism. They (Labour in particular) recognise the need for a welfare state, and I can sure as hell guarantee that any party wanting to get elected wouldn't even consider abolishing the NHS (which is quite a left wing idea). And the BNP claim to represent Christian values (I personally would argue that the values they argue for are distorted versions, but there you go), but I think they might be a bit too radical and nasty for your average Vicar.

I do hope Labour wins, and I'll be voting for them (at least that's how I'm thinking right now :P), but I think it'll be fairly close and I can see the Tories just sneaking in if Labour do poorly from now on.

Labour, or BNP.

And I'm only one of those things, I'm English and a Capitalist (Though a Democratic Socalist as well) and I certainly ain't a churchman.

Join the Tory party and agitate against Cameron. I am.

I would prefer a Labour victory as their Government has, overall, been fairly succesful. However, with the fickle nature of politics and the short-termism of the publics memory, I can see a possible Conservative victory. Cameron is out Blairing Blair.

Is that a bad thing? A lot of things that the Tories stood for in the past won't get them re-elected again today. As Aust said, they've lost a lot of support due to Thatcher - most people I know dislike her, and for the modern Tories to associate with her much would set alarm bells ringing for a lot of the population.

Admittedly, though a Labour supporter myself, Thatcher did do some good things - these are overshadowed in the public mind by the bad things she did, though (the strikes and Poll Tax being two big examples).

Unrestricted capitalism is dying out in the UK, and has been since the 1970s/1980s. None of the major parties, including the Tories, Labour and the BNP, are hugely pro-capitalism. They (Labour in particular) recognise the need for a welfare state, and I can sure as hell guarantee that any party wanting to get elected wouldn't even consider abolishing the NHS (which is quite a left wing idea). And the BNP claim to represent Christian values (I personally would argue that the values they argue for are distorted versions, but there you go), but I think they might be a bit too radical and nasty for your average Vicar.

I do hope Labour wins, and I'll be voting for them (at least that's how I'm thinking right now :P), but I think it'll be fairly close and I can see the Tories just sneaking in if Labour do poorly from now on.

It's hardly a welfare state, Labour's either chucking tax credits and benefits to those who don't need them (Like the Educational mantainance Allowance...must not rant *twiches*) and not working, and masturbating over privatising every public service, wasting taxpayers' money on shareholders and fat cat bonuses, which is okay, because they'll donate money to the Labour party and get in the Lords. If they cared about real welfare, they'd support the Negative Income Tax and stop selling off.

I've got to the poitn where I couldn't give a toss over who wins the next election, 'cause I won't be represented in parliament by a single MP.

Labour unless the LibDems act as a Nader but that's pretty much impossible.

All the old tories are dead. All the old people now remember Thatcher and quite like the idea of the NHS now that they're getting on a bit and have kids and stuff. Gordon Brown will be the leader and he'll be slicing through the Tory budget like the Essex chainsaw massacre.

Hmmm...possibly the worst set of options ever. Tony Blair's successor, lacking hugely in any sort of charisma and going to continue his policies, David Cameron=Tony Blair (except even more fake, and slightly more Tory) or Liberal Democrats whose leader never seems to say anything and now seem to be going all un-liberal too. I WANT A NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION ON THE BALLOT PAPER!

Labour, or BNP.

And I'm only one of those things, I'm English and a Capitalist (Though a Democratic Socalist as well) and I certainly ain't a churchman.

Stop with word games, you can't be capitalist and then also say that somehow through socialism you have a right to dictate how other people use their own money.

Hmmm...possibly the worst set of options ever. Tony Blair's successor, lacking hugely in any sort of charisma and going to continue his policies, David Cameron=Tony Blair (except even more fake, and slightly more Tory) or Liberal Democrats whose leader never seems to say anything and now seem to be going all un-liberal too. I WANT A NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION ON THE BALLOT PAPER!

Random idea:
Restore some real powers to the monarch?

After 18 years of Conservative rule, people wanted to try something new, anything, so long as it was different. This, in spite of the fact that the Major government had fixed the economy and set in motion a decade of prosperity.

I think the same will be true of New Labour. Hype aside, their performance in terms of policy delivery has been mediocre, but aside from the disasterous foreign policy, they have not really shot themselves in the foot, it's been more of a death by a thousand cuts. They do however have a whole 3 years in which to screw up - that's a long time in which to make mistakes, but not a long time in which to score tangible successes. So it will be a coin toss, who wins the 2009 election.

One thing is for sure, by 2009, there will be millions more people who will want a change of government, not necessarily in any particular direction, but the mere fact of change being sufficient.

:eek: No! Bad monarchy! I say Proportional Representation to encourage smaller parties so have more choice than 3 "more of the same parties". Push me all the way and i might vote green party in current system, but theyre a bit too controlling for me. meh

:eek: No! Bad monarchy! I say Proportional Representation to encourage smaller parties so have more choice than 3 "more of the same parties". Push me all the way and i might vote green party in current system, but theyre a bit too controlling for me. meh
Prop Rep doesn't work, IMHO. The current system may not be perfect, far from it in fact, but it does at least guarantee you know who your government is rather the problems inherent in even getting a working government through proportional representation.

Stupid idea:
Restore some real powers to the monarch?

Corrected for accuracy.

Prop Rep doesn't work, IMHO. The current system may not be perfect, far from it in fact, but it does at least guarantee you know who your government is rather the problems inherent in even getting a working government through proportional representation.
It works perfectly fine in Germany.

Consider this, New Labour got 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote.

The Conservatives won 32% of the vote and got 30% of the seats.

The Liberal Democrats won 22% of the vote and got 10% of the seats.

Put simply, people are not getting the government for which they are voting. A government is more than just the party that wins the largest share of the vote, it is the entire composition of the primary legislative assembly. Parliament is not remotely representative of the political composition of the nation.

I am quite willing to sacrifice some of the efficiency of Parliament in exchange for its composition bearing a resemblance to the actual voting.

It works perfectly fine in Germany.

Consider this, New Labour got 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote.

The Conservatives won 32% of the vote and got 30% of the seats.

The Liberal Democrats won 22% of the vote and got 10% of the seats.

Put simply, people are not getting the government for which they are voting. A government is more than just the party that wins the largest share of the vote, it is the entire composition of the primary legislative assembly. Parliament is not remotely representative of the political composition of the nation.

I am quite willing to sacrifice some of the efficiency of Parliament in exchange for its composition bearing a resemblance to the actual voting.
This is where we differ. I would rather a government, and thus Parliament, be more efficient and thusly cheaper to operate (in theory at least) than it being completely representative, the money could then be spent on public services rather than operating increased layers of governance.
Germany also operates a very different system than does the UK, not least of all its Federal make-up which lends itself to proportional representation moreso than does the current UK Parliamentary Monarchy.

This is where we differ. I would rather a government, and thus Parliament, be more efficient and thusly cheaper to operate (in theory at least) than it being completely representative, the money could then be spent on public services rather than operating increased layers of governance.
The cost of administration is negligible. It is a myth that government in itself has a high running cost. A move to some form of proportional representation (and the concept easily lends itself to a wide range of adaptation), would not greatly increase the running costs of parliament and associated departments.

The cost of administration is negligible. It is a myth that government in itself has a high running cost. A move to some form of proportional representation (and the concept easily lends itself to a wide range of adaptation), would not greatly increase the running costs of parliament and associated departments.
Agreed that the cost of government administration isn't as high as many would have us believe, however there would be increased administrative requirements due to the nature of the system, as well as an overall slow down in the way that policy decisions are made and a less coherent "direction" for the government to move.
Though I freely accept that the current system is far from perfect, it needs an overhaul desperately, at least with the current system you know exactly it is easier to trace where the problems in policy lie then is possible with governments that are an amalgamation of differing political parties.

Apologies if that makes little or no sense, feeling rather tired (been up since 5 as have just put my sister on a plane to Russia and had to drive from Plymouth to London and back, not a fun trip...). It's not an excuse for a poor argument, it just doesn't seem to coherent, even to me. Will check back on this thread after a kipp.

It works perfectly fine in Germany.

Consider this, New Labour got 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote.

The Conservatives won 32% of the vote and got 30% of the seats.

The Liberal Democrats won 22% of the vote and got 10% of the seats.

Put simply, people are not getting the government for which they are voting. A government is more than just the party that wins the largest share of the vote, it is the entire composition of the primary legislative assembly. Parliament is not remotely representative of the political composition of the nation.

I am quite willing to sacrifice some of the efficiency of Parliament in exchange for its composition bearing a resemblance to the actual voting.

The theory behind voting is that you are voting for a single representative that is solely accountable to your riding. I don't like the idea of voting for a party, it isn't the intention of Democracy.

Agreed that the cost of government administration isn't as high as many would have us believe, however there would be increased administrative requirements due to the nature of the system, as well as an overall slow down in the way that policy decisions are made and a less coherent "direction" for the government to move.
Though I freely accept that the current system is far from perfect, it needs an overhaul desperately, at least with the current system you know exactly it is easier to trace where the problems in policy lie then is possible with governments that are an amalgamation of differing political parties.

Apologies if that makes little or no sense, feeling rather tired (been up since 5 as have just put my sister on a plane to Russia and had to drive from Plymouth to London and back, not a fun trip...). It's not an excuse for a poor argument, it just doesn't seem to coherent, even to me. Will check back on this thread after a kipp.

In 1897, when the old queen Victoria celebrated her diamond jubilee, Britain controlled 444 million people living on 25 percent of the world's land surface (and it had a large informal empire in Latin America as well). What is more, Britain did it on the cheap and with a surprisingly small bureaucracy. The Indian Civil Service, the backbone of the Raj, rarely numbered more than 1,000 men. Britain spent a minimum on its armed forces, much less proportionately to G.N.P. than the United States did during the cold war and than it is starting to do again. London was banker to the world and the British held over 40 percent of all foreign-owned assets. Not even the United States today has such large foreign holdings.

Stop with word games, you can't be capitalist and then also say that somehow through socialism you have a right to dictate how other people use their own money.
Shows how little you know about politics mate. Capitalism is a economic system, as Communism is, Socalism is a form of goverment. iw ant a socalist govrement (Welfair state, hihg taxes on th rich, abolishment of sprate schools ect.) while at the same time I want a capitalist economic stystem.

In 1897, when the old queen Victoria celebrated her diamond jubilee, Britain controlled 444 million people living on 25 percent of the world's land surface (and it had a large informal empire in Latin America as well). What is more, Britain did it on the cheap and with a surprisingly small bureaucracy. The Indian Civil Service, the backbone of the Raj, rarely numbered more than 1,000 men. Britain spent a minimum on its armed forces, much less proportionately to G.N.P. than the United States did during the cold war and than it is starting to do again. London was banker to the world and the British held over 40 percent of all foreign-owned assets. Not even the United States today has such large foreign holdings.

Yes, we used to be good at doing all that. Alas, our thrift may have been lost to history. :P

I really don't think the situation is as bad as people (the press in particular) make out, but things do need an overhaul.

As for our system... well, I can say what I like, vote for who I like, believe it what I like so I'm fairly happy with that side of things. Our form of democracy does have its and cons, and some sort of reform is in order (difficult to say what, though, and how far it should be reformed - a lot of consultation with the public is needed on this issue. It might get more people interested in politics, too, if they have a real choice in how the system works) but overall I think we could be in a much worse position than we are now.

And empowering the monarchy? Please... I'd move to the US if that ever happened, even if Mr. Bush was still in charge :p

If Labour keep f*****g it up at the rate that they (home office, education, health etc etc) are then they will be out, even if they change leader... As for the lib dems the leadership election lost them the one thing that they ever had, this rep that they were the nice guys of British politics. Ming, thus far, has not been effective in the role of leader. The whole thing has been a music to the ears of David Cameron.

In short. The tories will probably get in. Which frankly, would not be a bad thing...

I'd vote for Satan himself if he promised to get rid of those godawful identity cards. I'll vote for whoever seems likely to win that isn't labour.