When can we get rid of this government?

[abraid]

When is the earliest we can throw them out? I feel like starting a calendar and ticking off the days.

Daftpunk - LOL And there was me looking in the mirror adjusting my frilly collar and pearls wondering how my Conservativeness was so obvious.

swedes....you make me laugh

It was obvious that Labour would f**k the economy up, and they got voted in and did just that. In the process embarking on a war absolutely NO-ONE in the country wanted, and doing more damage to civil liberties than anyone could believe.

But the Tories with that smuggo Cameron, really????

I'll vote LibDem or Green as I always have, and my vote will be entirely wasted.

hear hear quattro.I feel there is no choice for the bulk of my friends and family at all.Green in Brighton is no longer a wasted vote which is great progress

Quatt - I just don't think I can not vote Labour iyswim, it's so a part of who I am.
But I just cannot get my head around the fact that GB has spent every fucking penny this country has made in the last ten years and then some.
I mean, it's not difficult is it? I'm self employed so some years are better than others. During a good year I don't run out and spend every penny and take on great big loans just assuming next year will be the same.

I know I disagree with Swedes on politics, but it's hard to argue with her point that the current Labour govt. is no longer the party it was.

My vote's wasted round here anyway as it's such a solid Tory area our MP is Peter Lilley - and he got in in '97 as well as every other year since the boundary changed.

(Mind you, he's not a bad egg as a constituency MP and has a decent voting record on civil liberties. If he wasn't a Tory I might be tempted, despite his history as a minister under Thatcher and his horrible 'little list' condemning single parents and other threats to society.)

Was also v. impressed that he took up my complaint about the poor baby being denied formula at an immigration detention centre that isn't even in his constituency.

I think social conditioning is a big problem - people feel compelled to vote for the party that they think they SHOULD vote for.

Labour was always the party of the working man. Is it now? I don't know.

The rich always, traditionally, voted Tory but every high earning, middle class professional that i know voted for Blair in '97.

I've voted at four general elections. Always Labour - but I probably will vote tory at the next one.

the labour party are not the party they were..we all know that....but they will always represent the poorer/working class people of this country better than the conservatives...that is a fact.

i like the lib-dems...they have some great politicians..but they dont stand a chance.

our local council is run by the lib-dems...has been for the last 20 years...they do a good job.

I've always liked Ken Clarke i have to say - I loved the way he's obese and used to openly smoke and booze when he was health minister!

Nancy - I'm sure that's right. I'm from a very working class background and my Dad was a miner so you can imagine the conditioning. I don't think my finger could put a cross next to the tories box.
I know people find me ridiculous because I'm now fairly well off, I don't use state schools, I mostly use private medicine, I don't fall into any disadvantaged group what so ever. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a champgne socialist. Sigh.

"looks like they are about to start raising taxes for the better off"

They have done this ever since they got into power Lenin. The whole stealth taxation thing was about just that. Uncapping NIC, removing tax credits for dividends on pension funds, hiking up stamp duty ... it's all added up to a massive hike in taxation. It's an easy vote-winner - there are few better off people.

exactly lenigrad...the tories are fine if you're hetrosexual, have 2.4 kids and live in surrey

Politics these days is all about market share.

Just chipping in, with a query more than a comment, I suppose, and slightly off topic...

What if - and I guess it is a what if - the current Labour government have not bankrupted the country, but have instead bought majority stakes in institutions which will, in time, recover at least part of their values, thus making whatever government is in place at that point in time - and we, the taxpayers - "richer"? If the banks get back some of their value, surely Labour's emergency "investment" (read: bail-out) might come to be very wise indeed.

How is the depression Gordon B's fault when it's not just limited to the UK??? Did he cause it in America etc too?

It's kind of sweet that people think a different government would have ended up with a different result.

I agree, SoupDragon, that a global recession is not GB's fault. Unbiased commentators could still argue, however, that marginally less public spending over the past 10 years, coupled with more rigorous regulation of the banks might have cushioned the blow a bit better.

However, wrt public spending: we mustn't forget that Labour had to increase public spending enormously in order to make up for the massive underinvestment in public services which the country suffered under the previous Tory government: in many ways, we still haven't recoved from 2 decades of Tory underinvestment (and dismantling of other key services, provisions, etc.).

And wrt regulation of the banks, etc: GB couldn't win, really: all those who supposedly "knew" what they were doing advocated an extremely free-market version of national economics which goes against tighter regulations: if he'd regulated harder when times were good, it's possible that he could have caused a dip in the UK market as the free-marketeers went elsewhere, etc.

Does anybody know anything about what I was asking in my previous post, btw?

I agree Soup Dragon - the current economic gloom wouldn't put me off voting Labour, it's a global problem, the government in power is pretty irrelevant in that respect.

the war in Iraq is the thing I cannot forgive them for - that and forcing an unelected PM on us

I would say that the result would have been the same regardless of which party was in office. Obviously we can't know that and it is the "duty" of the party in power to take the flack, but I honestly believe that would be the case. I think that on this kind of thing the parties all end up pretty much the same.

It will be interesting to see how they dig their way out of it - that will be more telling then how we ended up here.

Agree, Nancy. It makes me so angry and sad.

I remember thinking, after the event, that GB and Darling must've decided not to call the election that never was (you remember how there were rumours of an election in August 2007?) because they already knew then that Northern Rock was in serious trouble (it went under that autumn): I suppose we'll not know until various memoirs appear whether that is the case. If it is, it shows that GB is, regrettably, rather cowardly. I think he still would've won, though, as people tend to stick with what they know in bad times, even if Northern Rock and the economy had begun to collapse around their ears.