So, should Gordon Brown call a general election?

[beansprout]

And people not voting when it gets dark. What's that about?

who gives a

If he had a scrap of human decency, he'd call one. If he's legitimized by the British public, then so be it ... but at the moment we seem to have him by default.

Depends on the economy really - if he does I guess it is because he knows interest rates will be cut, making it a good time for him to go to the polls. I suspect we have not felt the effects of the credit crunch yet and Gordon will want to have the election over with before we do.

I wonder if the opposition are being so pathetic because they want Labour to take the credit for the mess they have created?

I do wish there were set dates where an election HAD to take place, and not just when the current government felt like it to give them the best chance of winning...

He ought to. He needs a public mandate imo. If he called one now he'd probably win it anyway though.

Agree with RD re set dates. I think the American system is good in this respect - set dates and two terms max.

Yep - my ideal government is one that hasn't been there long so no complacency and has everything to prove.

Agree with RD - this ability to pick and choose seems to lock us in to parties for successive terms.

I'm disappointed that the Tories haven't actually pulled themselves together and decided what they do stand for. Admittedly I can see tactically why they don't want to do this as Labour just nick or tweak their policies, but unless they do decide where they stand they're unlikely to woo any votes.

And Ming, bless him, has to go.

This could be the first general election where I don't bother voting.

I will vote for our local MP as I think he does a good job even though his party's politics aren't right up my street. Mind you, none of them are particularly floating my boat atm. Agree re Cameron (mn's mate Dave), what does he stand for? He seemed interesting to start with, a breath of fresh air, but air seems to be all he is atm.

My local MP is a devious slippery toad. But has a huge majority...

I'll be voting actively against our current MP because he's crap - so whichever candidate (within reason - I won't vote BNP, for example) seems most likely to get him out, I'll vote for them.

But yes, in terms of parties - I'm rather ambivalent, except that all in all, I'd like change to avoid stagnation.

The kindest thing you can say about Dave, is that he's bland Conservatives need someone really charismatic, I think, to get back on track.

Please don't ever just not bother voting - if you think all the candidates/parties are a waste of space, spoil your ballot by writing NONE OF THE ABOVE or RE-OPEN NOMINATIONS on it. Spoilt ballots are counted, have to be read out by the Returning Officer. And having a large number of them sends a message.

You ladies should be especially into this - people DIED to get you the vote!!

The "not voting when it's dark" thing is interesting. Since the last autumn election in 1974, every election has been held in the spring or summer months. The theory, I think, is that it's bad for Labour because their voters are more traditionally working people voting on their way home from tea, whereas Tories, with greater affluence and leisure time, will be more likely to vote during the day. This may have been true in 1974, and may still be partly true today, but I bet it's nowhere near as clear-cut any more.

I bet he won't. The Brownites are deluded enough to think that we'll all love him 'even more' (see current polls) if he gets to hang around for longer. Personally, I would like to see him have to face up to the approaching economic mess and sort it out, because he made it.

Like others I am unimpressed by the other parties. If there were to be an election soon I think I will do what UQD suggests and spoil my ballot.

I don't need the patronising lecture Unquietdad - I have always voted. And actually the problem with spoilt ballot papers is that they don't send a clear message - half the time it is put down to ignorance or incompetence on behalf of the voter. In fact there is more political concern over the low turnout that the proportion of spoilt papers. I would vote purely because it is the one piece of information in terms of my voting record that my MP has on me (they know who votes, not how they vote). And have a postal ballot so the darkness doesn't bother me.

Unfortunately I am in one of those constituencies where it is incredibly rare for votes to count. The other parties don't even both to canvas any more.

Apologies if I sounded patronising - that wasn't the intention. Spoilt ballot isn't perfect but it is the only way of sending a message if you are genuinely disillusioned with every party. Short of standing yourself, of course! (which isn't an option for everyone.)

Not convinced - why is it superior to not voting ~(other than when you subsequently lobby your MP they don't know whether you voted for them or not). I haven't seen any analysis of the "None of the above" spoilt papers versus the two crosses etc except when the format of the papr was changed eg combined London Assembly/local council elections where there was a high number of spoilt papers due to the complexity of the forms.

At a General Election it's very simple though. You have to be really dim to get it wrong. One candidate, one cross, one vote.

Interestingly (a friend who stood for parliament tells me his) you don't have to put a cross. Any signal of "clear intention" will do - a tick, a clear mark, a smiley face even.

point of order unquiet dad,..

.. people died to get you the vote too, not that long ago only for land owners etc peterloo massacre 1815 ordinary (non property owning) folk fighting for democracy in uk..

they should count spoilt ballots in this country they do in france i think

i always find someone on the ballot i will give my x to...for suffragettes and those reasons...hate playing along with this sham really though..

to op: only if he loses it!! make it more interesting anyhow ...hung parliament .....

fair point suzy!

If Gordon calls Oct 25th and loses he will be the shortest-lived PM ever (who didn't die in office).

Very dim, or not speak English as your first language. Or become confused by the names of the parties (as so many people want to vote for the party not the local person). And given that general elections often coincide with local elections there is still usually more than one paper for most voters?

ud..i'll drink to that..
my finest malt, too

eh, who died in office? cant think of one..

that scottish bloke - john somebody

No, not John Smith - he was Leader of the Opposition and died in 1994.

The PM who died in office was George Canning, who died of pneumonia in 1827. He lasted 119 days. If GB loses on Oct 25th, he'll have lasted 120 days!

what john smith? in offictiastion?
he has was leader of labour but they were not in office ..it just feels like its been forever...