Whose fault is that?
Well, primarily, the vicious communist troglodytes who run Britain's trade unions, without whose support Ed Miliband would never have been elected Labour leader - after all, 56% of Labour MPs wanted his brother.
Tory Party modernisers and, especially, David Cameron have an awful lot to answer for. Not to be able to win an overall majority against an utterly abysmal and deeply unpopular Labour prime minister at a general election might be dismissed as carelessness or bad luck. Not to be heading into this general election with a substantial lead against an even more gormless twassock suggests cosmic levels of political incompetence.
Whatever happens tomorrow, Cameron and his team will have to ask themselves five main questions:
Why did we allow Labour to successfully spread the false idea that we've been cutting public spending when we've actually increased it?
Why did we alienate UKIP-leaning voters - most of whom are life-long Tory supporters - by deliberately insulting them?
Who was the bright spark who thought that prioritising gay marriage was a really peachy idea? (I've followed politics quite keenly for the past 40 years, and I have never come across such a daft, self-harming stunt - carried out, it must be said, by a bunch of daft, self-harming stunts.)
Why did we allow the whole issue of redrawing constituency boundaries - which would have meant an automatic increase in the number of Tory MPs - to be derailed by Nick Clegg? When did we become this bad at politics?
Why did we make a pledge to cut immigration numbers when we knew damn well that membership of the EU meant this was impossible? And why did we then go along with the left-wing narrative that practically all immigrants were from the EU - when the UK, under a Tory-led government, actually allowed in more immigrants from non-EU countries than from the EU? (Let's face it, any country allowing in more unskilled Muslim immigrants is committing cultural suicide - and if Tories aren't willing to protect British culture, who will? Oh yes, UKIP, that's who.) We even failed to control the immigration we actually had some measure of control over!Well, no matter. If Cameron fails to form a government, he's toast, and I don't see any of the prime contenders making that much of a difference - even Boris Johnson. My best guess is that we're about to get another unlovely Tory/Lib-Dem coalition - with an outisde chance of a tiny overall Tory majority. Neither prospect exactly sets the pulse racing - but the idea that a sufficient percentage of British electors would vote for the weird geek pictured above (inevitably leading some stupid fucking protest while at Oxford) simply doesn't compute.
Having said all that:
If you live in a constituency where UKIP have no hope of winning, but the Tories do, vote Tory.
If you live in a constituency where the Tories have no hope of winning, but UKIP do, vote UKIP.
If you live in a constituency where either the Tories or UKIP could win, vote UKIP.
If you live in a constituency where neither UKIP nor the Tories have a chance of winning, move.
And if Cameron does get back in, he should send gorgeous, pouting Len McCluskey of the Unite union a huge bunch of flowers in gratitude for ensuring he didn't have to run against Ed's brother, who would undoubtedly have led Labour to victory. Cameron isn't much of a politician - especially when it comes to election campaigns - but he's certainly a lucky one.
I am seriously troubled by this prospect but consoled by the belief that it couldn't last. Dave's absurd 5 year parliaments aside, I'm pretty sure that there would be a crisis not very long after Dickhead and his wee Scottish chum seized power.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a dismaying election in so many ways but, for me, quite the worst aspect has been watching the political class close ranks against UKIP and resort to the underhand tricks, aided and abetted by a thoroughly corrupt and morally bankrupt media.
I almost always laugh at conspiracy theorists on the innerwebs but I can honestly say that I would not be in the least surprised if some of the results this time around were 'adjusted'. Once, I would have dismissed any such idea out of hand, but no longer. There seems to be real desperation in the air and I wouldn't put anything past the bastards.
Well, we're about to find out, as all the polls have mysteriously coalesced to show the Tories and Labour neck-and-neck - they're either all right or all wrong. If they're all wrong, I think we're entitled to ask exactly what they've been up to, as happened in 1992.
ReplyDeleteThe only consolation in the event of a Labour-SNP victory and EM in Downing Street is that the ensuing mayhem as we count the days to a confidence vote will be fascinating, and Ed Balls's first budget should be an event to savour.
If UKIP manage to do better than the 12.9% predicted by the poll of polls, that would be a sensational result, given the universal campaign waged against them by every other party and their toadying media backers.
A week before the Scottish referendum, Yes and No were neck-and-neck in the polls. On the day, No won by 10%. The same is happening in today's general election.
ReplyDeleteShortly after the Scottish referendum, it turned out that Yes had actually won, despite losing. Is it conceivable that the same reverse could be achieved by the same all-knowing and utterly professional politicians?
Yes, but (complete in no more than 10 words including "Sturgeon" and "Cooper") it won't because ...