How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

Why The Tories Will Almost Certainly Win A Second Term

Guido has recently had a post up questioning whether we are witnessing a one-term Tory government. While the points raised are relevant, I can’t help but feel that Guido is hedging his bets to some extent. If the Tories win outright, he has a whole host of posts highlighting the failure of Labour to get anywhere. If the Tories lose, he can point to this post and again be “proved” right. But that could just be my natural cynicism (which is generally rewarded where Mr Fawkes is concerned, though). The point of my post is that, as things stand, I think the Tories will go on to win a second term.

There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while things may get worse in terms of the economy, there is also the possibility that things will get distinctly better – especially if George Osborne clocks that economic recovery is aided by tax cuts as well as spending cuts. A recovering economy tends to reward the incumbent government; if Cameron & Co can pull it off, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t reap the rewards in the ballot box. And, after a year and a bit in office, there is still a lot of time to do it before the country has to go back to the polls in 2015.

The second reason is that the Tories aren’t really campaigning at the moment. They’ve got other stuff to do. Like govern. And, of course, muzzle their coalition partners as much as possible. However, come the next election (and they will effectively decide when that is – don’t rule out the possibility of a snap poll if a Tory victory looks likely in one), they will be coming out all guns blazing, using the healthy war chest to try to dominate the core messages of that campaign. And I think they will be emphasising the compromises they have made for the supposed good of the nation (for example, going into the coalition), the difficult choices they believe they have made (cuts etc) at the same time as hammering Labour for leaving them such a fucking mess to deal with in the first place. In the meantime, Labour have little else to do but campaign. And how well are they doing at that? Well, they are attracting back some of the supporters they lost during the long, messy years they spent in power, but those people are coming back for no real reason other than they don’t like the Tories and the reality of that party being ineffective control of the country narks them a bit. Labour, despite having all the time that no longer governing affords a party, are struggling to effectively vocalise any sort of popular message or image.

Which leads me to the third reason why a Tory victory still looks likely – Ed Miliband is just plain shit at the job of being Leader of the Opposition. And if you are shit at that job you have precisely no credibility when it comes to pitching for the promotion to the top job. Especially when the guy you are fighting for that job is already in it. Cameron may be compromised by, say, his association with Rebekah Brooks, but he still looks a lot more credible and Prime Ministerial than his Labour counterpart. Of course, Miliband Minor might be binned before the next election. But who would they replace him with? The reason he won the last Labour leadership election was because he appeared to be the least shit of those running in it. That situation hasn’t changed; there appears to be no-one in the upper echelons of the Labour party who could look credible against even that lightweight David Cameron.

Of course, lots could change, politics is constantly changing blah blah fucking blah. And yeah, something could happen that radically changes the political landscape. But as things stand, I think that enough of the British people will decide, in balance and when faced with the reality of voting in the ballot box on Election Day, that they prefer the devil they know rather to the one they don’t. The Tories will, most likely, benefit from a grudging refusal on the part of the British people to embrace change unless they absolutely have to or have grown utterly repelled by the incumbent government.

After all, that’s what allowed the odious Tony Blair to be re-elected. Twice.

General Election 2011?

Not often I agree with something Jackie Ashley has to say, but her parts of her analysis here are spot on. An election this year would benefit the Tories and would almost certainly result in an outright win for Cameron and his band of happy campers. The Tories have the money to fight and Cameron looks Prime Ministerial in a way Miliband Minor just can't match. Furthermore, Labour has done little to change or reform itself; it remains a party based on negativity, with no positive message to offer whatsoever.

But if anything can stop an election this year, it's the Liberal Democrats. Yeah, they're getting little from the coalition other than flak (which would have happened had they signed up with Labour as well) and it seems unlikely that they will get their much hoped for electoral reform. But they made their bed, they've got to lie in it. Breaking away from the coalition now would mean they are showing that they can't be trusted as partners in power (a big problem for a party that has only governed once as a junior partner in the current coalition). Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats aren't popular at the moment - in a General Election right now, they'd face something approaching a wipe-out. Finally, their leader, Nick Clegg, must know that he will only lead his party for as long as the coalition lasts. If there was a General Election now, I'm pretty sure his leadership of the Liberal Democrats would end shortly after the results of that election came in (and there are no guarantees that he would keep his own seat in the Commons).

The Tories have a lot to gain through an election this year; it remains unlikely as the Liberal Democrats have literally everything to lose.

Labour's Election Communication

Ooooo, looky, "Election Communication" just popped through my letter box. From the Labour candidate - some idiot who goes by the name of Chris Leslie. I know very little about Chris - despite having just read his leaflet - other than the fact that he has a wife and a kid. And that he is backed by Sarah Brown. No, really, there is an endorsement from Mrs Brown. Next to a picture of the Prime Minister's wife looking faintly surprised and upset by the camera thrust in her face, the endorsement reads:

Chris Leslie will be a great champion for Nottingham. He will work hard for our city and for our country.

Which would be great if I had an iota of respect for the startled looking woman in the photo. Unfortunately, her bland, platitudinous endorsement of Leslie is criminally undermined by the fact that Sarah Brown is a terrible judge of character. If you want proof, just look at the terrible cunt that she married.

But Chris Leslie wants to know what I think. Well, sort of. Because he's asked for some thoughts on the back of his worthless leaflet. Under the heading I want to hear from you he wants people to tick the option that applies to them. The options are:

I'd like to talk to Chris Leslie. Please contact me.

Yes, I'll be voting Labour. Count me in!

Yes, I'd like a poster.

I would like a lift to the polling station on election day.

I'd like to get involved in Chris' local campaign.

Unfortunately, the most relevant option for me - that I would rather immolate myself than vote Labour and also wish that Chris Leslie's future, at best, contains a particularly virulent urinary infection - sadly isn't mentioned on his leaflet. But such is life. I guess it just means that I don't get to return his crappy form to his campaign HQ. Which appears to be in the UNISON building....

My Authoritarian MP

According to Liberal Democrat Voice, my MP is just about as authoritarian as he could possibly be. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He is a Labour MP after all.

Fortunately, he's standing down. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

A benefit to the election

Regular readers will know that I'm not looking towards the coming General Election with the sort of barely contained excitement seen in some of my fellow bloggers. Nonetheless, I have managed to find the silver lining to the cloud that is blanket coverage of what promises to a bland race. Yes, the dissolution of Parliament means that not all of Nu Labour's tax rises can be forced through before the election:

The government has dropped plans for a 10% tax rise on cider following fierce opposition to the move.

Ministers were forced to rescind the increase, announced in the Budget, as part of efforts to get laws passed after the general election was called.

With Parliament dissolving on 12 April, a broadband tax and an electoral reform referendum have also been dropped.

Magic. I might raise a pint of decent cider later today as I surf the internet to toast these small areas where Nu Labour hasn't been able to get its own tax-focussed, statist agenda forced onto the statute books.

Yes, I'm very aware that the General Election has (finally) been called by the Prime Minister. But I've been away for Easter, and am really struggling to care. I'm sure that will change once the party leaders start opening their mouths and allowing the shite to spew forth, but for the meantime, the best I can muster in relation to this "news" is a weary shrug before sloping off to bed.

Labservative

Another day, another Facebook group. But this time it is one I get behind wholeheartedly. See, it is supporting the party that has been in power for the past 65 years - Labservative. The summary is as follows:

We are Labservative and we stand for more of the same. We've been at Number 10 for 65 years and we're not going anywhere. We know we can rely on your vote - not that we need it.

You know what? They'll probably bloody well win the election and all.

And before any tedious Tories or lacklustre Labourites start belly-aching, it is a joke. A joke. The only reason why it is so funny is because, from some angles, it has more than a ring of truth to it. You can talk about "voting change" as much as you like - the problem is that the change on offer by the three two main parties simply isn't radical enough to deal with the problems facing the UK or to inspire many of the voters in this country.

The Cameron Baby

So, Samantha Cameron's gonna have a baby. Before I consign this story to the big fat pile of stuff I just don't care about, let's deal with one thing. The timing.

Obviously, you can plan when to have a baby. However, just because you can plan when to procreate doesn't mean that every baby is planned. And while there will be any number of conspiracy theories telling you that this baby was timed to coincide with the coming election, I think that is bollocks. For three reasons:

1. Firstly, if you wanted to plan a political baby, then you would try to get it to have a birth date as close to election day as possible. Just imagine the shots and the positive publicity around young Hug A Husky Cameron if he was pictured holding his newborn kid on the eve of polling. As it stands...
2. Samantha Cameron will probably be able to do less campaigning owing to her pregnancy than she might otherwise have done. Since this election is increasingly becoming about the reasonably photogenic other halves of our leaders (yeah, I know, but it is all relative - they are relatively photogenic when compared to the men they married) the timing is not ideal for Call Me Dave's campaigning. Plus....
3. This baby will be born within months of Cameron becoming Prime Minister (assuming he is allowed to do so by the electorate). Now, I've never been Prime Minister, but I'm guessing it is a pretty tough job. And a job that won't be made any easier by have a screaming infant in the close confines of Number 10, Downing Street. Learning how to run Great Britain is not going to be aided by changing shitty nappies at all hours of the day and night.

But anyway, before this blog turns into a political version of the execrable Heat Magazine, that's enough on the Cameron foetus.

A Hung Parliament

Voters are getting used to the idea of a hung Parliament, and some are even actively wanting one:

Voters remain unconvinced by the Conservative alternative, with 29% thinking a clear Tory victory would be best. Only 18% think Britain would be best served by a strong Labour win this spring. Both groups are outnumbered by the 44% who want a hung parliament in which the government works with smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats.

Of course, before anyone gets too excited about the voters being fully committed to a hung parliament, it has to be noted that for the past few weeks the idea of a hung parliament has been remorselessly dragged into the political spotlight by all media outlets for the last few weeks. The people are probably not buying into the idea of a hung parliament, more responding to the narrative mercilessly created and perpetuated by a media desperate to make this tedious pre-election period into something more interesting.

But I think now more than ever it is worth not only considering, but proactively selling, the idea of a hung parliament. Labour since 1997 have shown the devastation that can be wreaked on this country by a party with a large majority. Furthermore, a decent coalition - ideally between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories - would arguably be the best outcome for Libertarians like myself. The government would be severally constrained, and therefore less able to spend money and less able to encroach on our freedoms. At the same time, the Liberals would constrain the social conservatism of the Tories, while the Tories could constrain the social democracy of the Liberals. And then there's the fact that both parties agree on some key areas, like the need to abandon the ID cards schemes.

In fact, I'd actively encourage people to do what they can to help achieve a hung parliament - or, more specifically, a coalition between the Tories and the Lib Dems.

What might be the result of Labour winning the next election?

So, what do we think will happen if Gordon Brown manages to pull off what at one stage seemed impossible and wins the next election?

Any number of things could happen, most of which are pretty depressing. Bankrupt nation with a cowed, nanny-dependent population is a distinct possibility. But as far as I can see, one of the worst possible scenarios is as follows.

A re-elected Gordon Brown would be empowered in such a way that he hasn't been since he ascended to power. In fact, within the Labour party, he'd probably be more powerful and influential than ever. And he'd be able to wreak his revenge on those who have made life so unpleasant for him. Ed Miliband would go - possibly even replaced by his even more stupid looking brother. Alastair Darling would certainly be chopped. And who do we think Brown would replace Darling with?

Why, that would be Ed Balls, perhaps the only senior politician in this country more poisonous than Brown himself.

Of course, Balls in Number 11 would be bad enough. But suppose - as I suspect would be the case - that Brown stepped down over the course of the next Parliament. Those rivals of Brown - like Miliband - would have been humiliated and would be unlikely to be credible successors unless they had performed spectacularly well on the backbenches. And Brown - who would have been the reason why many new Labour MPs had their seats in the Commons - would have considerable influence over who replaced him. And who would Brown choose? Why, the younger version of himself - his chosen Chancellor. Ed Balls.

So a Labour win at the next election could give us Prime Minister Ed Balls. Possibly one of the most terrifying prospects that one could imagine. The only upshot would be that with Ed Balls as Prime Minister, there would be no way in hell Labour could win a further election in 2015...

Those Poll Results

David Cameron, responding to relatively poor poll ratings* for his increasingly pointless party:

"They don't hand general election victories and governments on a plate to people in this country, and quite right too," he said. "I know how important it is that we recognise this election was always going to be close. This election was always going to be a real fight for our party, a fight to make sure we serve the country we love, and that's the fight we're going to have."

Sure, Davey C. Sure. You need to have a fight. Well get a grip and fucking start fighting, then.

This has always been the Tories' election to lose. And guess what? They are starting to lose it. Which is pathetic, really. A dump in a carrier bag should be able to oust Gordon Brown. The fact that the Tories are starting to struggle is a damning indictment of the current leadership.

And - crucially - it is a damning indictment of the Tory leadership's failure to lead. Both myself and many, many others have consistently criticised Cameron for failing to say what he stands for. And guess what? We were right. Labour - for all of their flaws (and they have a lot of flaws) - actually explain what they stand for. Sure, what they stand for is essentially not worth hearing about, but unless the public is presented with an alternative, the party that says something is likely to triumph over the party that says nothing.

Fucking hell, it isn't even the case that Cameron has to say something original or brilliant. As long as he doesn't say that he wants to punch old women in the bladder, he can say what he likes. But his failure to position himself at all on pretty much anything means that people forget he exists, and he is incapable of grabbing the media spotlight. Since the New Year, Cameron has increasingly resembled (God help him) Nick Clegg. And whatever strengths Clegg might have**, no-one sees him as a future Prime Minister.

I don't give a fuck who wins the next election, but Cameron does. And the buck stops with him. The first Tory victory for nearly 20 years is right in front of him, within his reach. But only if he doesn't allow the petrified indolence that has characterised his leadership thus far to dominate the way the fights the general election. Brown may not be a clunking fist, but if Cameron goes into the General Election with both hands tied behind his back for no reason, Brown will manage to land some punches. And possibly enough to see a minority Labour government returned to power.

*They are still in the lead, just less so that before. There is the temptation to paint these sort of poll results as a disaster, but the reality is there are rogue poll results and poll results are not indicative of how people will actually vote. Nonetheless, given the state of the incumbent government, the Tories should be pissing over the rancid corpse of the Labour Party, rather than fighting the persistently aggressive zombie headed by Gordon Brown.

**Answers on a postcard, please. Because I really don't know what the fuck they are.

Who to Vote For?

So, the election is coming. And the question for anyone who doesn’t blindly follow a party without thinking is who to vote for.

Of course, ideally I’d be able to vote for the party I am a member of – the Libertarian Party. But that party is still very much a work in progress, and realistically a lack of candidates means I won’t be voting for them at this election. Which leaves me in the very unedifying and utterly depressing position of trying to figure out which of the useless main parties should get my vote.

Now, I don’t expect one party to absolutely represent my views. I don’t agree with everything that the Libertarian Party says or does. A certain level of pragmatism and compromise is required if anyone wants to be a supporter, let alone a member, of a political party. The same is true of voting. You can’t expect the party you vote for to represent you in every possible way.

Yet I feel so detached from all the parties vying for my vote that it seems next to impossible to choose who should get my vote. Each party appears to be craptacular in its own way. To break it down a bit:

The Labour Party: Well, voting Labour is moronic, as I've explained before.

The Tories: Despite being an ex-member of this party, I can’t see what the Tories actually stand for. Other than not being Labour. And when you throw in their tendency to drift towards social conservatism, it becomes very difficult to rationalize giving them my vote with being a Libertarian.

The Liberal Democrats: They have the most misleading name in history, since they are neither liberal nor democratic. And for every commitment they make to liberty (such as opposing ID cards), there is a corresponding drift towards pathetic left-wing, bash-the-bankers rhetoric. Besides, any party that contains social democratic choppers such as Vince Cable and Simon Hughes is not worth considering for more than about 13 seconds.

UKIP: Despite occasionally posturing as a libertarian party, UKIP come across (despite a handful of reasonable members) as a bunch of Tories rejected by their natural party for having a bee in their bonnet about Europe. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with their basic policy on Europe. But I struggle with ideas like banning the burka. It is the sort of mindless attempt at populism that completely undermines any rhetoric about being a party of freedom.

The Green Party: Yeah, because I can stomach the Green Party’s mix of socialism and reactionary politics without wanting to chunder. Oh, wait…

The English Democrats: As far as I can see, this lot are like UKIP, but 50% less professional and 75% more loopy. So that’s a no, then.

The BNP: Given I am not a nationalist, socialist or racist, this bag of simian misfits is the worst of all the options. Voting Labour is moronic; voting for the BNP is repugnant and moronic.

So where does that leave me? On the one hand, I could vote for the person I believe would be best able to represent the issues in my constituency. But I’m not planning to live here in the long-term, and I would hate to have a vote for a competent Tory candidate, for example, being construed as a vote for the utterly incompetent and lacklustre Tory leadership.

For the first time ever, I find myself in a position where I don’t know who to vote for. Maybe that will change in the run-up to the election, and one of the parties listed above will inspire with their campaign. But as things stand, that seems about as likely as Gordon Brown stepping down from his job tomorrow, and admitting that he just wasn’t up to it. And I keep on coming back to the option of spoiling my ballot paper. Hell, I’ve even worked out how I would do it – drawing a box at the bottom of the ballot paper and writing “none of the above” next to it – and giving that option the dubious benefit of a wasted vote.

The world waits with bated breath:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown will unveil the slogan of Labour's general election campaign in a speech at the weekend.

Let's try to guess what that slogan will be. Some obvious choices:

"It's all the fault of the Tories (still)"

"Gordon Saved The World (With Your Money)"

"Vote Labour to save the foxes"

"Things can only get better (well, they can't get much worse)"

And we can also consider what the Tory slogans might be. I reckon that they will all be a variation of the subtle theme of:

"You Hate Labour More Than Us Now"

And the Lib Dems? Well, with Clegg in charge, there's only one option:

"..."

Perfect Timing!

In terms of scheduling, you can’t fault the legal proceedings against those three MPs and one peer:

The four will make their first appearance at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 2pm on March 11, only three weeks before the official start of the general election campaign. This means that the issue could well dominate the start of the campaign, which is likely to infuriate both Labour and Tories, since it could push disillusioned voters into the arms of smaller parties — or none.

I wonder how long until someone argues that it is damaging to democracy that these court dates are so close to the General Election. If it happens, safe money says it will be one of the odious four who first asserts this idea.

But this is perfect timing, it really, really is. Just as the main parties start spouting their meaningless platitudes to get them through the election, the electorate will be reminded of just how atrociously some MPs have behaved. And hopefully that will factor into the way people vote. As I’ve said before, voters have to take into account how politicians will act once in office rather than just agreeing with any ideological stance they have or liking the way they look. The court appearances of these four should remind us that public servants are there to serve the public, not help themselves – and we can affect what type of person gets returned to Parliament through our votes.

Mind you, it is probably too much to hope that they are found guilty on the day before the election...

Voting Labour Is Moronic

I can sort of see why people would want to vote Tory, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, Green – hell, even the BNP. Personally, I would struggle to vote for any of those knobheads – especially the last in the list. But I sort of get it. Yet I really cannot understand why anyone would want to vote Labour.

Sure, I understand that some people will vote for Labour because they have always voted Labour. As far as I am concerned, voting for a party based on the same sort of allegiance that you might show to a failing football team is pretty dumb. But my thirty years of existence on this planet has shown that people are really dumb consistently.

But is the notion of voting Labour because you always have done actually any more stupid than some of the other reasons we are given for putting your cross in the Labour box at the next election? Let’s take a look at some of the typical reasons for voting for our terrible, incumbent government:

Labour saved the economy

No, they decimated it and then spent billions of dollars trying to provoke a recovery that was going to happen anyway. It is a bit like wanting God to be Prime Minister because he saved the economy – it is total nonsense.

Labour will save the fox-hunting ban

This may be true, but I’ve yet to be convinced that repealing the fox-hunting ban is going to be the first priority of any incoming Tory administration. But let’s get some perspective here – on the one hand, you have a Tory party who may revoke a ban on hunting with dogs. On the other, you have a Labour party responsible for the deaths of hundreds of British troops and the deaths of thousands of others through their unflinching backing of one of the most egregious US Presidents in history.

I find fox-hunting repugnant, but on balance I find war-mongering far, far worse.

Only the Labour Party can stop the Tories

This may be true, but my gut response is to wonder just what Labour supporters think the Tories are going to do. Because here’s the truth of recent political history in this country. Just as the success of the Tories in the 1980’s and early 1990’s broke the ideological spirit of the Labour party, so the unfathomable success of the grinning homunculus broke the ideological spirit of the Tories. The Tories and the Labour aren’t the same, but they are far from radically different either. You can tell by the way in which they slavishly follow each other, and relentlessly vie for the supposed centre ground of British politics. The Tories were going to follow Labour’s spending plans; now the opposite seems to be happening.

Put simply, so what if the Tories are going to have to cut spending? The Labour party are going to have to do exactly the same thing.

The Labour Party are the only alternative for left-wing voters

Well, ignoring the fact that the traditional left-right divide is about as relevant for modern times as Amstrad home computers and Chesney Hawkes, I’d also question the extent to which the Labour Party is actually left-wing, even in the traditional sense. The first point would be the Iraq War, but I’ve already touched on that. So let’s look at some of the other ways in which the Labour party has shown itself to be anything other than left-wing:

• The Banking Bail-Out: There is nothing left-wing or socialist about the government choosing to bail out failed banks. Nothing at all. Yeah, the Labour party is now trying to bash the bankers. Great, yeah. Very left-wing. Very fucking populist. And something that would be 200% more convincing if the Labour party hadn’t spent so much money on propping up their pet fucking banks. Why is the Labour party having to make spending cuts? Because it spent billions trying to nationalise the banking sector at the worst time possible. How very left-wing.

• The Ongoing Attack on Civil Liberties: Once upon a time, being left-wing was about trying to increase freedom. Now it is about trying to reduce freedom as much as possible. The Labour government has attempted to bring in ID cards, a longer period of detention without charge, and ignores the advice of experts when it comes to drug legislation. And that is quite literally the just the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing left-wing about that. Unless for you left-wing means Stalinist.

• The Poor: The Labour party talks a lot about social mobility, but in the final analysis they have done remarkably little to help the poor in this country. The reason is obvious – they get the votes of the poor anyway. Why would they pursue policies to help the poor when they know that if those people vote, they get those votes anyway? Don’t believe me? Look at the debacle over the 10p tax rate. How socialist to shaft the poor.

To recap, I think it is moronic to vote for a party because you always have voted for them. But I think voting Labour for any of those reasons mentioned above is equally moronic. In fact, I cannot think of one good reason to vote Labour. Voting Labour this year would be a dumb thing to do. So guess what?

Don’t do it.

On That *Coup*

Well, that was the week that showed us perhaps the worst coup attempt in history. If you can actually call it a coup attempt. Hoon* and Hewitt had no replacement for Brown, no real supporters, no-one to resign from the Cabinet and nothing other than an e-mail that stopped short of actually speaking out directly against the leader they were looking to replace.

Worst. Coup attempt. Ever.

But does the crushing failure of this coup to make Brown look vulnerable for more than 30 seconds mean that we won't see another attempt to unseat him before the General Election? Common sense would say yes; however, we're dealing with the Labour party here, and for them common sense is something that happens to other people. And it isn't just this lack of common sense that makes it like that we might see another lacklustre attempt to end the Brown leadership. No, it is also the psychological state of the Labour party.

See, the Labour party - and in particular, Labour MPs - appear to be psychologically broken. They are conditioned to believe that they will fail, and that their time in power is nearly up. That is coupled with the fact that since Brown became their leader, they have not had any real leadership of such, and instead have had to endure bullying from the man who took over from Blair. This defeatism, combined with a lack of leadership, means concepts like taking the initiative have now become completely alien to Labour MPs.

Yet they are still part of the party that, in 2005, managed to win a comfortable General Election victory, despite having an unpopular leader who had taken the country into an unpopular war. So they - quite rightly - blame Brown for the fact that most of them will be out of a job after the next election, and those who aren't will be consigned to impotence on the opposition benches. And every now and again, amongst the hopeless, sullen faces of Labour MPs, there is the spark of something. A little bit of rage against Brown, and a little bit of desire to fight the terrible political situation they have found themselves in. So someone starts a campaign against Gordon, or hypes up Harman or Miliband to make a bid to replace him. And that's why I think it will happen again. As we near the election, someone else will boil over and make a move - however pointless - against Gordon.

And you never know, it might be Charles Clarke. Who could go all the way and actually make a bid for the leadership. Although, given that chap's temperament these days, he is just as likely to punch Gordon in the face as to try to take his job.

Whatever happens, I don't think the soap opera that is Gordon Brown trying to survive in office is over. There'll be another leadership crisis before he's finally turfed out.

*Who is now facing the consequences of his divisive action. I hope they deselect him, and the clueless cunt has to go get a job in Asda to make ends meet.

Ways to Waste Your Vote #1

I'm not a fan of hunting. In general, the concept leaves me cold and I can see why some people call it brutal and inhuman. Then again, I'm not a fan of The X Factor - I think that is brutal and inhuman too. Which means I struggle with total shit like this:

I will vote Labour ... to save the Fox Hunting Ban!

Right. So you're going to vote for a party that has decimated the British economy, destroyed our residual international reputation through the invasion of Iraq and pillaged civil rights in this country because they will maintain their protection of those cutie-pie little foxes? You are really going to waste your vote and potentially prolong this reprehensible government based on that one issue? Really? Seriously?

If the answer is yes, then you are an absolute fucking moron.

Bribing The Voters

Good news! Some railway stations are going to be improved. But take a look at this list and see whether you can clock the link:

Manchester Victoria – Tony Lloyd LAB
Clapham Junction – Martin Linton LAB
Barking – Margaret Hodge LAB
Warrington Bank Quay – Helen Southworth LAB
Preston – Mark Hendrick LAB
Wigan North Western – Neil Turner LAB
Luton - Margaret Moran LAB
Liverpool Central – Louise Ellman LAB
Stockport – Ann Coffey LAB
Crewe – Edward Timpson CON

Yes! They are all in Labour constituencies, except Crewe which is a key Labour target seat! What a crazy co-incidence, especially this close to the election!

Of course, politicians always try to bribe voters. Thatcher did so magnificently with the sale of council houses, for example. But it is seldom that we such a blatant example. It is insulting the intelligence of the British populace. Assuming, of course, that they don't fall for it. However this stands as yet another testament to ideological redundancy and sheer desperation of the Labour party. And what a slogan it could be - Your country's fucked but some train stations look a little better...

What's the Best Result for Libertarians at the Next General Election?

Whatever happens next year, the General Election will not see a Libertarian - or even a Libertarian leaning - party in power in this country. Whilst the Libertarian party will fight some seats, it will have to focus on simply achieving a modicum of electoral success rather than setting its sight on power. A Libertarian government will hopefully happen one day; as it stands, that day is still far, far away. So the question has to be put - what would be the best result for UK Libertarians in the 2010 General Election?

Obviously, a continuation of the Labour government would be a disaster; not just for Libertarians, but for the country as a whole. Labour have bankrupted us, undermined our troops fighting in hostile environments, and treated civil liberties as a problem that needs to be legislated out of existence. Labour have been like a virulent wasting disease for the UK; they will leave our country as a fraction of its former self, and in dire need of radical reform to make it healthy again. No, more from the Labour party is an utterly horrific idea.

There are, of course, "Libertarian" Tories who will tell you that the best bet is to hope the Tories will get in. Whilst I dare say that the Tories may increase economic freedom a little if they win power after the next election, I can't see them being that economically radical. And everything indicates that any future Tory administration will be just as socially conservative as previous Tory administrations. The Tories may increase your economic freedom, but they will have no qualms about sitting in judgment over how you live socially and what your moral beliefs are - you can look at pretty much any pronouncement from IDS to illustrate this. Once again, it is worth noting that the Tories are not Libertarian, and it is naive to expect them to behave in a Libertarian way.

Finally we have the Liberal Democrats. Of course, they're not going to be able to form a government after the next election, but even if they could, a Libertarian can't hope for a Lib Dem victory. Their curious mix of right and left-wing policies always leads to the conclusion that the Liberal Democrats are political gadflies, constantly trying to triangulate between the other two main parties. And any close analysis of their politics shows them to be neither Liberal or Democratic.

Therefore, none of the above would the most appropriate choice for a Libertarian looking for the best victor at the next General Election. Unfortunately, one of those parties will form the next government. Or will have to share power with another of those parties.

Which is what I reckon would be the best result for a Libertarian after the next General Election; a coalition government. Preferably between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Sure, a coalition government would prevent any radical policies being implemented, but that is rather the point. Any radical policies after the next election will probably increase the power of the state; therefore, a coalition government could prevent the sort of statecentric radicalism - that forms the post-Blairite consensus - from wreaking further destruction on the UK. Furthermore, the social policies of the Lib Dems would help to neutralise the social conservatism of the Tories, just as the social democracy of the Lib Dems would be offset by the natural instincts of the Tories. Whilst those two parties struggled to make a coalition work, anti-statist parties like the Libertarians could build up their profile and work towards becoming a viable political force.

Ideally, the next government would roll back the frontiers of the state. Since that isn't going to happen, the best a Libertarian can hope for is some sort of paralysis in the next government, and a coalition would be the best way to achieve that.