Posted on 05/04/2010 6:31:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat candidate for prime minister and the Susan Boyle of British politics, said something during the first debate on April 15 that resonated with the British public and will be familiar to American tea party activists. Channeling the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Clegg said basically that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Labour and the Conservative Party and that both parties had tried for 40 years to fix the nation's problems -- and failed. Clegg asked for Britain to try something new: him.
Clegg became "the man of the moment," as one BBC "presenter" called him, but it appears cooler -- or at least traditional -- heads are prevailing and David Cameron's Conservative Party is likely to win a majority of parliamentary seats in Thursday's election. Whether that majority is sufficient to avoid a "hung Parliament" is the question.
If Cameron becomes prime minister with a sufficient parliamentary majority, he will have to make changes not seen -- or tried -- since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, revolutionizing government's role in everything from what it owns, to expectations for its citizens to do more. While Cameron has said on several occasions that his approach to government is unlike that of the "Iron Lady," increasingly in recent weeks his rhetoric on some themes and issues sounds remarkably as if Thatcher could have delivered them.
In his party's "manifesto," released early last month, Cameron promised new powers for public sector workers to "run their services as cooperatives (a clear nod toward Thatcherism, though privatization would be better); for parents to set up academy schools (the British version of American charter schools, except these are established with the help of non-government sponsors); for voters to be able to sack MPs (this in the wake of the expense scandal that exposed many parliamentarians who claimed expenses for things like moat maintenance and second homes in which they rarely or never lived); for residents to veto council taxes and for citizens to elect police chiefs.
The one gaping hole in the Conservative manifesto is taxes. While Labour has promised not to raise income taxes, the Conservative manifesto makes no such promise. Neither does it mention the Value Added Tax (VAT), which Labour and Liberal Democrats claim will be raised to 20 percent (from the current 17.4 percent) to pay for Cameron's plans.
If a Conservative government were to increase taxes -- whether income or the VAT -- while attempting to shift the numerous roles of government to the people, it would feel like a betrayal to many voters who appear ready to trust Conservatives again.
In an editorial last Saturday endorsing David Cameron -- its first for the Conservative Party in 18 years -- the London Times said, "We must choose. Either we are to be a country that has lost confidence in the ingenuity and potential of its people, and concludes that the State must continue to grow and protect us from ourselves. Or we can be a country that cares for the needy but reins in the ever-growing appetite of government and frees up people to grow their businesses, nurture their families and pursue their own hopes and happiness."
Not only is that a great theme for this British election, it is one Republicans should use for America's congressional election in November and the presidential contest in 2012. America, too, is faced with being smothered by government growth and more control of our lives. We, too, need to throw off the shackles of the Left's "you can't make it without government" and once again embrace liberty as God's gift to Man and nations. As in Britain, the choice is ours and, like Britain, we had better make it quickly while we still can.
At best we hope the “Extremely Liberals” take 32%, the “Even more liberal than that” 33%, and the “more liberal than Olympia Snow, Susan Collins rinos” take 35%.
If anyone is keeping score at home, the New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for President since 1956.
ditching nukes being the worst but he also wants to join the Euro - looks like a great idea right now with it in crisis eh.
The Tories are getting 37% or more in some polls, that would be huge but not an actual majority probably. They need something like 39% to come close to a real majority.
With the currency in the mess it's in now, though, it's best avoided I think!
i honestly dont think the Euro will survive a generation.
as for money changing when i traveled through Europe (Pre Euro Days) i used my bank card in cash machines in each nation. got the best rate with only a nominal flat bank fee no commission. it was much less expensive that way.
Yeah the “Old Grey Lady”, just like the “Old Grey Mare”, just ain’t what it used to be!
That depends on how low Labour’s vote is, and whether there is an above average swing in the marginal seats.
Depending on the above, the Tories could get a majority on 37%, or even 36% in some circumstances.
Right.
I sure hope they don’t go to Proportional Representation.
Pity that many folks had already voted by mail before Brown’s “bigoted woman” gaffe.
Which side is the most motivated to get out and vote? (ie, which is the angriest?)
The Tories, no question. It is also thought they have the best GOTV operation. However, it is a big task to gain a majority, as they need around 116 extra seats to get a majority. It is still achievable, but it could be close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.