If you were a political party would you "throw" this election?

[reeva]

Who would want to be in power for the next five years? Its not going to be pretty as the economic mess starts to get sorted out. I mean no one is even talking about how to reduce the debt, only the amount by which we get further into debt each year i.e. the deficit.

Even reducing the deficit will be at least a little painful for every single person living in Britain. The public are bound to blame whoever is in power at the time and they'll find it hard to overcome the prejudice in future elections.

If I were in charge of the labour party or the conservative party today, I'd be hoping for a narrow defeat so that my party could keep its reputation and hopefully win several elections in the future. If i was directing the lib-dems though, I'd probably be glad for any breakthrough even if it does result in winnign a poisoned chalice!

Then again, maybe they really are patriots and believe they can do good, but then I think "expenses scandal", so patriotism doesn't seem very likely.

I've been wondering this myself. NC's rise from the ashes is that just a convenient way for the other two to step aside and not have to carry the full responsibility?

Is it an Obama thing?

reeva, I think you're on to something. I don't think they want to throw the election, but I do think that they want a hung parliament, so that they can have a coalition government. That way they can share the blame. I don't think the Conservatives are trying hard to win, a draw suits everybody.

Are we going to hear Cameron 'accidentally' calling a voter an oik next week then?

I was about to use the term 'poisoned chalice' as well... though I do think the one thing we can hope for this time round is a change in the voting system.

yeah, the next government is going to have to make a lot of cuts and/or tax increases, the population are not going to be impressed.

Sorry if I sound a bit paranoid, but I guess we would not hear about Cameron calling anybody oik. It is not news for the media. They would not report anything harming his chances.

Well I already used the term 'poisoned chalice' on a thread about a week ago - so there!

But, increasingly I've been thinking that whoever gets in will need to disappoint their core supporters if they are going to avoid calling in the IMF - Labour by cutting public services, and the Tories by putting up taxes.

But, I think the biggest potential loser is PR. A 'car crash' of a hung parliament could kill off that proposal for decades!!

I live in a country with a coalition government, and yet again it has collapsed and the country will tick on without a government for a while. Coalition creates an impasse at times and then the whole thing collapses and you have to either cobble together another coalition, or have another election.

Lenigrad I really hope to be proved wrong - But given the economic challenges and the dominance of male MP's not experienced in consensus based politics - I worry that, coalition governance will not get a fair test. But, we will see, I guess!

You can change the constitution (if you have one that is), so that coalition governments are stable. One is example is that a goverment can only be forced to resign in the Houses of Parliament, if the new PM and their programme of work is approved in the very same vote. It sounds complicated, but this is how they designed some eastern European parliamentary systems to avoid chaos. They have proportionate representation as well.

Funny, I just skimmed past an article saying that, with the dirty job ahead, whoever gets in would probably never see power again, this generation!

Gaffes don't seem to be the way to go, anyhow. Labour has shown a big rise in popularity in the latest polls. Perhaps Gordon should say what he really thinks, in earshot, more often, instead sticking to the script, if he doesn't fancy moving house anytime soon!

DH and I were having this conversation last night. We have waited all of our adult lives to see the LDs get some sort of 'power' in national government but given the state of the economy and the real possibility of a hung parliament we are a bit at the LDs (were they to do a deal with the Tories or Labour) being blamed for the massive amounts of cuts that will need to be made in order to pay off some of the debts.

jackstarbright I was going to say the same thing about lack of experience in consensus politics being a problem, but you've said it much better than I could!

Thanks PinkFuschia. I wonder if LibDem central office are having the same thoughts as you and your dh?

Unfortunately policies are rarely long term, so whether you have a coalition or a ruling party, the question each and every time any decision is made will be "is it a vote winner?".

David Cameron's talk of a "big society" seems to be paraphrasing JFK in his "ask not what your country can do for you" speech and in this I think he is right. In my view, we, the people, need to take responsibility for what happens in our society, and that includes the way we empower our politicians to work for us. It is no use complaining that the policies are short-termist when we won't support them in making long term structural changes which incur short-term pain.

I do wish each party would be forced to lay it on the line for us on exactly where they intend to make cuts and which taxes they will raise. how can anyone make an informed choice without that info?

From BBC online

A US Economist talking about the scale of the UK's tough budgetary measures -

"David Hale said Governor Mervyn King had said the measures would keep whoever wins the next election "out of power for a whole generation"."

That should make an interesting question for tonight!

I'd like the Marvellous Generals and Admirals to take over the country.

We'd be running beautifully in about 10 minutes. I like strong, worldly men who are used to making split second decisions in real life and have never relied on PR MACHINE.

As a Lib Dem, I think a LD government is the only one we can afford to have in the coming years! So if no one else wants to do it, that's fine by me .

Saying all that I do think Gordon Brown would like to win this election but for his own sake, not for his party's benefit. He seems to think he has a calling from God to be PM and he seems to genuinely believe that he is the only person in Britain today who can steer Britain out of this mess. Anyway, winning is the only way he can possibly stay on as leader of the Labour Party (unlike DC with the Tories or NC with the Lib-dems).

but the rest of the Labour party moivers and shakers (and backers), it would make sense for them to throw the election.

reeva If the Tories do not win after such an abysmal Labour campaign, I guarantee you the knives will be out for Cameron.

I need to change my name to Mervyn King! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7654488/General-Election-2010-cuts-will-doom-election-winner- warns-Mervyn-King.html