The OFFICIAL* Metropoll election sweepstake

[cwathen]

I think the fundamental difference between now and 1997 was that back then there was pressure on two sides. Firstly, a majority of people desperately wanted the Conservatives out after 18 years in power, and secondly, a majority of people genuinely believed that Blair and Labour could deliver results and so wanted them in.

Hence the landslide Labour victory of 1997.

This time around, the general despisement of an unelected prime minister and 13 years of Labour in power selling the crown jewels to Europe whilst not having really made things much better is certainly there; but I don't know that David Cameron and the Conservatives are actually as popular as they'd like to believe.

I certainly think it's pretty much a done deal that Labour will loose, but realistically we're probably going to be looking at a very slim Conservative majority or potentially a hung parliament rather than a landslide victory which won't give them the edge which Labour had after the 1997 and 2001 elections.

Rather ironically, that snap 2007 election which Brown bottled on probably would have stood had a much better chance of returning Labour to power, would have confirmed Brown's authority, would have given him the chance to be prime minister during the 2012 London olympics (had he eeked out that parliament), and may well in 2010 have left Labour in much better shape than they now are.

Being that Gordon Brown won't last 5 minutes as party leader following a loss at the general election, that decision to shy away from an early election will almost certainly cost him his career.

[Alexia]

unelected prime minister

You don't elect a prime minister, so all of them have been unelected. You elect a party. Whoever leads that party is nothing to do with the electorate. [idealism] A party lays out a manifesto for its parliament, and whoever leads the party should adhere to that manifesto.[/idealism]

I didn't hear anyone whinging between 1990 and 1992.

[Martin Norris]

unelected prime minister

You don't elect a prime minister, so all of them have been unelected. You elect a party. Whoever leads that party is nothing to do with the electorate. [idealism] A party lays out a manifesto for its parliament, and whoever leads the party should adhere to that manifesto.[/idealism]

I didn't hear anyone whinging between 1990 and 1992.

Indeed you don't elect a prime minister.
Between November 1990 and April the 9th 1992, I remember Neil Kinnock and other Labour party personalities whinging quite a lot that John Major was too scared to face the British people in an General Election.

[cwathen]

You don't elect a prime minister, so all of them have been unelected. You elect a party. Whoever leads that party is nothing to do with the electorate. [idealism] A party lays out a manifesto for its parliament, and whoever leads the party should adhere to that manifesto.[/idealism]

I didn't hear anyone whinging between 1990 and 1992.

I am very much aware that in theory you don't elect a prime minister. In practice however, that's exactly what happens - or are you seriously telling me that you don't believe the majority of voting at a general election is done with the party leader, and not the local candidate in mind?

My personal view is that regardless of how the voting system is set up, you should not be able to do something as fundamental as change the leader of the party in power without a general election. Even if you do look at the 'reality' of it making no difference because you are voting for a local candidate, then what that local candidate does will be strongly influenced by the direction of the party in general, which is strongly influenced by it's leader. A Labour MP under a Blair-lead Labour party is not necessarily going to do the same things as a Labour MP under a Brown-lead one. If you are going to make such a fundamental change to the MP's party as changing the person in charge of it, then to me it should be a basic right of the people to be able to decide whether or not they still want that MP representing them.

Anyway, with regards to 90/92, the same situation may have happened then, but two things were different

A) It wasn't strongly hinted that an immediate general election to would be called in the same way as it was in 2007.

B) When Major took over in November 1990, the then current Parliament had very little more than 18 months to run, and a general election was called 16 months into his premiership - the situation was still wrong in my view, but at least it was relatively short lived and was always going to be. In contrast, Blair resigned only 2 years into a Parliament, which has meant that the lack of an interim general election (and this parliament being stretched out to the full 5 years wheras Blair called time at 4 years in both of his) has caused us to endure THREE YEARS with an unelected prime minister.

[WillPS]

I agree. A change in leadership for whatever reason should reduce the remaining time in parliament to no more than 6 months.

I guess that does bring in the potential risk of assassination. Is that a consideration?

[Alexia]

I am very much aware that in theory you don't elect a prime minister. In practice however, that's exactly what happens - or are you seriously telling me that you don't believe the majority of voting at a general election is done with the party leader, and not the local candidate in mind?

I only speak for myself. My local (Labour) MP has been in his position since 1987. Seems that people round here vote for him no matter whoever's likely to win the election.

[Gavin Scott]

I am very much aware that in theory you don't elect a prime minister. In practice however, that's exactly what happens - or are you seriously telling me that you don't believe the majority of voting at a general election is done with the party leader, and not the local candidate in mind?

I only speak for myself. My local (Labour) MP has been in his position since 1987. Seems that people round here vote for him no matter whoever's likely to win the election.

Yes - I think its an either/or thing.

If you're familiar with your MP - and not dissatisfied with them, then I think you'll be more inclined to vote for your local representative on those terms.

However, if you're somewhat disengaged with politics and your local MP, you're more or less voting for the PM, or against the PM - as the case may be.

[barcode]

I agree. A change in leadership for whatever reason should reduce the remaining time in parliament to no more than 6 months.

I guess that does bring in the potential risk of assassination. Is that a consideration?

I do not agree with that, we are not in the US or French etc, this is the uk and we vote for the party, and a person.

[WillPS]

Of course, the idea being that the party's views do not hinge upon whoever happens to lead it. The reality is that leaders of political parties (and everything else, for that) have a different agenda to that of their predecessors.

[James H]

I have the odd feeling that most of the illiterati from where I originally come would vote for the sofa behind Joe McElderry's house if one were to pin a red rosette on it (and I'm not kidding - apparently that sofa has a group on Facebook).

What really does scare me about the forthcoming election is the desertion of the three main parties, giving rise to the smaller, perhaps more controversial parties. I truly hope and believe Labour are done for, as their time in government has been for the most part very hard to swallow (in particular, their taxes on small businesses, which has nearly crippled my family on several occasions).

I am truly scared of what will become of the country were the BNP to gain more political leverage, however. As a man, he is repulsive, and as a politician, he is contradictory - and his own statements prove that. And as a party, there are definitely dodgy links (we're not talking fingers in pies of big businesses, we're talking Hitler sympathisers).

The saddest thing is, though, I am probably one of very few in my age bracket who will vote. Sadly, the rest may well be otherwise engaged. Welcome to the death of democracy (unless it's on a red button and Brown or Cameron were to sing I Will Always Love You in order to win back their deposit).

[barcode]

Mr Cameron is in sunny Scotland trying to woo Scottish voters, He's suggesting that we vote Tory to get rid of labour. People will vote for the SNP to if there wish to get rid of the labour, but I still hear people that there still wont piss on him if he on fire.

This still begs the questions how can he be a prime minsters for UK if he cant get more than a couple of seats in Scotland.

Predictions:
GOOD day for Tories up here: Win, Ayr,Aberdeenshire, Stirling, perth and also keep "Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale" Bad day: if there only win "Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale" one seat