Metropol

Ok so I've never been a Labour voter, but I have to admit, when they came to power in 1997 they were a necessary change at the time and did a half decent job for the first few years. Perhaps this was helped by the growing economy they inherited, but since then they seem to have just buggered everything up.

I don't know what it is, but I just find it so hard to believe in them and to trust them in what they do. Every time they wheel out Jacqui Smith to defend their latest figures on something or other, I just find myself thinking, "you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?" There seems to be too much fannying about, meddling in people's affairs and just downright incompetence.

I believe I'm right in saying this is not without precedence. Previous Labour governments have gone the same way - went OK for a bit, before spending more and more and eventually ballsing it all up and being voted out, leaving it for the opposition to clean up the mess. I don't for a second believe that they are bad people, just that their vision of how the country should be run is flawed.

Is history going to repeat itself, and is a Conservative government exactly what we need? I reckon so.

I'd be happier to let the opposition clean out the mess if they'd tell me anything about how they were going to do it.

1997- Labour come into power. In the same year, BBC1 stopped doing the usual national anthem closedown.

2001- Labour are voted back in. BBC2 ditches their idents in favour of the new yellower set.

I think that's why Luxton supports the Tories.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE

They were absolutely right for the country in 1997. The tories had been in for too long.

We're at the same stage now - but the significant difference is I have no idea what Cameron's manifesto is.

Trouble is, neither does he.

We're doomed.

I've never believed in the idea that when the governing side is doing a bit shit, it means the other guys will be inherently better. I don't think the current blindly anti-Labour sentiment gives the Tories any less need to sell themselves as something more than just unLabour, which they have deeply failed at so far.

The number of people I've heard lately, usually in the context of those weird "Gordon Bloody Brown" conversations of little substance, saying "it's time for change", as if they know a) what that change is, and b) if it's actually going to make anything (and when I say anything, i mean name something) better.

Unfortunately, most people engage with politics on an extremely fickle and short-sighted basis - yo-yoing between contempt and admiration for Brown with enough volatility to make the markets proud. No wonder politicians have no incentive to look any further ahead than employing cheap spin and picking even cheaper fights just to win the favour of the people for any given fleeting moment.

The thing is, this only apply for England, In scotland the Tories are still going anywhere, but the trouble will happen if and when the Tories get in, because there will have no mandate up here.

but I have a funny feeling Remember 1992? labour was going to win then what happened? the Tories win power again. I still like labour more than the David bloke, but as Gavin says, where are doomed

nodnirG kraM wrote:Murdoch won the election in 1992. Don't you remember? And 1997. And 2005. I wasn't paying attention in 2001.

then foot in mouth win it for them in 2001

I suggest you don't do puns, barcy. I can't tell if it's intentional.

I think it's simply a case of needing a change. Labour have been in government since 1997. That's 12 years, which is a terribly long time, not as long as the Tories managed from 1979 onwards for 18 years, but long enough. The polls have been pointing towards the Conservatives for ages now, and the election boundaries will also change next time, which will undoubtedly help them. And the credit crunch is probably the biggest factor which will make people vote blue.

It's not that we need the Tories particularly. I do hope, though, that in an age of increasing technology, blogs and YouTube videos, and with a greater emphasis on accountability, David Cameron will perhaps listen a bit more, but I don't hold out much more. Some of the stuff he has said is sensible, but of course it's easy to say that when in opposition. So I'm cautiously optimistic I suppose, as I was when Obama got elected, and it would be interesting to see an Obama/Cameron relationship develop.

But it's more a case of needing something else, rather than needing the Conservatives specifically.

There is a lot of merit in the old idea that oppositions don't get voted in, rather governments simply get voted out. At the end of the day, all parties come up with a bunch of 'promises' to the electorate which they may or may not keep. So we shouldn't necessarily put too much stock in what they say - we have to measure them against what they do. Of course, only governments actually do stuff, so if we believe they're doing a bad job, we turf them out. Clearly the current economic crisis has not been this government's finest moment.

I think it's always a fair question to ask if opposition parties would do any better. At the same time, I think you might as well ask if they could do any worse. The ability of anyone to judge how an opposition party would perform in government is always going to be seriously constrained by the fact that we're not all equipped with crystal balls. All we can say is that in modern democratic societies, a change in government only brings changes in a few hotly contested policy areas. On the majority of issues, there is generally very little that separates the major parties. If the next election is going to be one fought on economic policy, then neither party is going to offer anything substantially different from the other. And that's ultimately the reason why you're not hearing much of an economic policy vision being articulated by the Tories: at the end of the day, they're basically in agreement with Labour. Not that you'll hear them admitting that...