"Alistair, could you cancel that car to Buck House I asked to be booked for a fortnight today..."

[liadnan]

That pesky opinion is back

On and on she goes, where she stops nobody knows...

I meant to write a while ago, when it came out that Goldsmith's Opinion ran to one A4 side, that this was all looking stranger and stranger. Perhaps he went back to the fine old traditions of the Bar, when leaders could get away with opinions that consisted in their entirety of the answers to your questions are (1) yes (2) no (3) yes (4) maybe. I remain etc,

Oh, and then there's this, from The Road to Surfdom (via Brad).

Yes, I really would rather have Michael Howard running the country.

Comments

[gmh.livejournal.com]

It's a juicy story.

I disagree about Howard, though - Dracula is the man who turned me from a reasonably apathetic liberal student into a die-hard leftie liberal.

I will never forget the Criminal Justice Bill; nor will I ever view its architect as a a) decent human being or b) a skilled politician.

He's a hatchetman; and is every bit as opportunistic as Blair when it comes to the media.

Additionally, I find his party's current emphasis on 'evil immigrants' to be repugnant hypocrisy of the first order - no doubt he'd be one of the first ones clamouring to send Maurice Hecht back to Romania (even though Hecht, being Jewish, had a real reason to fear for his safety in 1930's Romania).

Anyone waiting for a glimmer of recognition that the free movement of capital in markets should necessarily be accompanied by the free movement of labour?

I think not, somehow.

We can take their money, but God forbid that we give them an opportunity here!

We are, alas, stuck with two political leaders chosen by those with attention spans measureable in seconds; products of the post-WWII soundbite culture; and one of the easiest ways to stay 'on top' is by pandering to the casual viciousness of the tabloids.

Personally, as I've said before, I'd like to see a hung Parliament - it's the only way the Lib Dems are ever going to have any say in the current Parliament; and the internecine backstabbing in both the Conservative and Labour parties might be persuaded to turn into an open civil war; I think that five moderately-sized parties would be healthier for UK politics than the current huge ones.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

Everything you said.

[liadnan]

I'm working largely on the "better the shit who doesn't pretend he isn't" principle. I'd love a hung parliament, but suspect it won't happen. How the lib dem vote will play out is something of a mystery to me: because it's the third party ina FPP system with odd pockets of support (eg the SW) and they have potential waverers from both the others you need proper detailed analysis of an order I haven't seen to work out what they might bring off. What is quite possible is Blair being in the same position Major was in 1992 (or Callaghan was in 1979) clinging on with a small majority. Then the back-benchers get fractious and the fun begins.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I think a Major-style government-by-whim-of-awkward-squad might have the very undesirable side-effect of strengthening the power of the party whips; you will (of course) remember the Major government's frantic efforts to get around the Eurosceptics by giving the whips carte blanche in enforcing party discipline.

I think that, as of the moment, the 'left' and 'right' halves of both major parties are barely on speaking terms.

For the Tories , it's the rift between the Thatcherite and Eurosceptic right and the remains of the Europhiles and One Nation mob.

For Labour, it's the old guard and the liberal Fabians versus Phony Tony's Clonies (apologies!).

I think that the existence of an external threat (i.e. each other) is the major thing keeping the factions in each party talking to each other.

If Howard loses the next election, then the Tories as they stand really have no electable leaders left; loathsome as Howard is, he's still their biggest asset (and that's saying little enough).

(I know that Howard has promised to stay on if he does lose, but I think it depends on how much ground the hard right takes from the Tories; if the UKIP or similar manage to make a showing, then I think a fair bit of the Tory right may split off, selecting some eyeball-swivelling frothing Tebbit-creature to lead them.

I can't see the wet Tories suffering themselves to be led by a rabid bigot.

Given that, the pressure to keep the Labour Party together also vanishes; and at present, a fair bit of the Labour left would like to see their leader prosecuted for war crimes - not exactly a recipe for happy party unity.

A definite and clear-cut election victory would give the winning side carte blanche - and I can't say I like the policies of either of the major parties.

An absolute but marginal majority for either party might well lead to an inactive and quasi-paralytic Parliament. I guess the crucial question is how hard and effective the whips' tactics are in maintaining party unity.

[liadnan]

I've long argued that Britain needs a fundamental realignment of political parties.

[djm4]

Yes, I really would rather have Michael Howard running the country.

I'm somewhat terrified that the next election is going to be won by the Tories because prescisely because there are a lot of people out there thinking the way you are. Which would be a disaster of monumental proportions for just about everything.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I think it would be a disaster of exactly the same proportions as re-electing Labour.

I think I might want to have an election night bash of some kind on the principle that if I don't laugh, I shall probably cry.