[Archived] Election

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I thought one of the most interesting points raised last night, was the Lib Dems position on a nuclear deterrent.

Firstly, they state in their manifesto that Trident should be scrapped and that we should get rid of a deterrent completely; now we have a position put to us, that in fact they don’t ant to get rid of our deterrent. Just develop a new one- as apparently designing a new whole new technology will be cheaper than upgrading trident. The R&D costs alone will run into the tens of billions, that is without even engineering the bloody things- it stinks of hypocrisy!

[Majiball]

There is barely anything said about it. All Labour and Tories say is to consider Lord Browne's review. That means nothing to me but I assume you'll know what that is if it's an issue that concerns you. Lib Dems don't mention funding but say they would scrap tuition fees and get rid of Labour's stupid '50% of kids in university' aim - no wonder they want fees to go up again.

Thanks LeChuck, Brown says 50% into uni's eh???? So why was funding cut back severely this year, we've had to drop entry places by 1,000 this year (25,000 in total), research grants have also disappeared as well making further education IE Phd's and Masters, harder to get. Lord Browne's Review means nothing to me either so I'll look it up at some point and see. Cannot believe they would put up fees, poor sods already pay 3,500 a year and I've heard they may double it. I can see so many bright young hopefuls just not coming as their debts will be monstrous by the time they finish.

Question : would you buy a used car from David Cameron ? Watching him on TV tonight I don't believe a word he says.

I wouldn't buy anything off any of them, although I don't pay much attention to it all I do know an EX-MP very well and as far as I'm concerned its rotten from top to toe. it all needs reviewing, they do not do the job that it was all intended for, representation of the people and their views. They will always just do what they want regardless of what we want, for the benefit of their careers and pockets.

I had hoped the shocking turn-out of voters last time would have kicked at least one party up the ass, but it hasn't they are more concerned about expenses than the fact the majority of the country don't trust or believe a word they say, until that is resolved, I will not vote because what they promise will most likely never happen. Placing people in charge of certain sections of the country IE finance with no financial background (brown took a degree in art) to me is ridiculous and highly flawed. We'll just keep going round in circles until they sort it all out.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Given the Tory press attacks on Clegg yesterday were so varied yesterday and all turned out to be damp squibs with the Daily Mail one in particular a fantastical concoction if you chose read the article they attacked, have they shot all their bolts at once? Mandelson apparently was correct in calling the hand of Conservative Central Office in it- all the Tory papers had indeed been given individual briefings by the Tory election HQ.

Nick Robinson who works for the BBC claims that, unless there is some concrete proof or someone backs up Nick's claim it would be stupid to claim it as fact.

[only2garners]

I thought one of the most interesting points raised last night, was the Lib Dems position on a nuclear deterrent.

Firstly, they state in their manifesto that Trident should be scrapped and that we should get rid of a deterrent completely; now we have a position put to us, that in fact they don’t ant to get rid of our deterrent. Just develop a new one- as apparently designing a new whole new technology will be cheaper than upgrading trident. The R&D costs alone will run into the tens of billions, that is without even engineering the bloody things- it stinks of hypocrisy!

I've just checked and their manifesto does not say that they will scrap Trident and not replace it - they commit to multilateral disarmament, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a political point eh?

[den]

As regards your final question, I note that after an appeal those medications were provided. Now as I have said before, the committee may well have been wrong to deny you those medications on a cost basis and surely by the fact the appeal was turned successful it was an acceptance of this?

I knew you didn't understand the points TGM.

The drugs I'm talking about haven't been provided. They have been rejected as being "not being the best use of NHS money" -

Listen, you're missing everything I'm saying. No-one, either individual or political party is saying we don't need an appraisal committee to consider costs v benefits. The Tories will keep the appraisal body, but you seem to think the proposal is that they wont? They do recognise though, that there are some Cancer drugs that are extremely effective, that just go above the spending limit of £30000/year, and really should be provided, but aren't. The general public aren't aware of these things, but they should be. Chances are that someone they know might need these very same drugs. What I'm saying, along with many, many more people - including Cameron and Cable - is that NICE are coming to some bad decisions. I've told you that NICE reject the evidence, as being unreliable, of the Scientists who develop these two drugs and they reject the Cancer specialists who prescribe them. Reasons given for this is that the Consultants might be under the influence of the drugs companies! I can give you a link to the final appraisal document if you wish.

Now then, for the umpteenth time, these two drugs are currently keeping people alive and will continue to do so for many, many years. Because of NICE's judgement, future patients will be refused them and will die. Surely, when every other major European country, along with the USA , Scotland and Wales provide the two drugs, then why are the patients In England being isolated? It's wrong.

I don't have a problem with the need for an appraisal body, but I do have a problem with the way they go about their business. Unless you see the details of how they handled the evidence of these two drugs that I'm talking about, and have posted about on here earlier, then how can you say that NICE got it right? And, if NICE got this one wrong, as they did with the drug I'm currently taking that they passed for use in second phase patients [where the drug was pretty much useless], which is the first generation of the two newer, better drugs, then the chances are they got others wrong - as they have done in the past.

You seem to be thinking that I want every drug, for every cancer provided no matter what the cost or what the benefits are. I haven't said that.

The problem is that when NICE do make mistakes, it costs lives.

TGM, if you want to PM me, we could discuss this privately and I'll happily provide you with more details that I don't want to post on here?

[Ewood and I Would]

Nick Robinson who works for the BBC claims that, unless there is some concrete proof or someone backs up Nick's claim it would be stupid to claim it as fact.

I live a house with some who buys the Daily Mirror and they have been waging a pathetic hate campaign against Cameron everyday since the election was announced so they're all as bad as each other.

Also, I find it funny more people here are talking about the 'suspected' Torry lead slur on Clegg than Labour's leaflets which he lies about their policies (the ones he said he wasn't responsible for despite making similar false claims in his own constituency about the SNP)

[only2garners]

I live a house with some who buys the Daily Mirror and they have been waging a pathetic hate campaign against Cameron everyday since the election was announced so they're all as bad as each other.

Also, I find it funny more people here are talking about the 'suspected' Torry lead slur on Clegg than Labour's leaflets which he lies about their policies (the ones he said he wasn't responsible for despite making similar false claims in his own constituency about the SNP)

Of course most papers show their political allegiance in the way they report the policies and actions of different political parties - it's just that there are far more who support the Tories than any other. But I think yesterday's Daily Mail lead story plumbed a new depth in biased and tasteless reporting - just have a look at the headline they used and then the article Nick Clegg wrote which prompted it.

[Ewood and I Would]

Of course most papers show their political allegiance in the way they report the policies and actions of different political parties - it's just that there are far more who support the Tories than any other. But I think yesterday's Daily Mail lead story plumbed a new depth in biased and tasteless reporting - just have a look at the headline they used and then the article Nick Clegg wrote which prompted it.

Whereas getting a man to dress up in a chicken suit and getting him to follow David Cameron everywhere he goes is mature, reasonable journalism that helps the electorate make an informed decision?

[LeChuck]

I've just checked and their manifesto does not say that they will scrap Trident and not replace it - they commit to multilateral disarmament, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a political point eh?

That's pretty much how bazza argues things, followed by calling someone 'myopic' when they don't agree.

[Ewood and I Would]

.........

[arachnica]

Of course most papers show their political allegiance in the way they report the policies and actions of different political parties - it's just that there are far more who support the Tories than any other. But I think yesterday's Daily Mail lead story plumbed a new depth in biased and tasteless reporting - just have a look at the headline they used and then the article Nick Clegg wrote which prompted it.

I don't think the line about CCHQ smears is right. The Telegraph already had Nick Clegg's unredacted expenses claims (from their expose on all MP's expenses from earlier), and the story in the Mail is just from an article published on the Guardian website. The rest is pretty fair policy criticism.

The Mail and the Telegraph haven't been Tory friendly for a while mainly because of their stance on Europe - but they've both now realised that continued criticism of the Party will most likely lead to the one thing they fear most: a lib/lab coalition set on ceding more control to Brussels, so they've gone on the offensive.

All very interesting. I'm not to sure what else could cause a seismic shift in the poles over the next few weeks - though I suspect that further discussion on the LD's policies might lose some further votes. An illegal immigrant amnesty seems crazy when unemployment is already rising.

[Ewood and I Would]

Talking of media bas and lies, here's the Mirror's take

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/general-election/news/2010/04/23/david-cameron-flops-again-in-second-leaders-debate-115875-22205242/

Early polls indicated that Mr Clegg won the debate, with Mr Brown close behind.

What??? The first poll out was UKGOV's which put Cameron as the winner, there was one other that also had the Tory leader as the winner with the rest saying Clegg took it by a small margin with Cameron in second. I have yet to see a poll that stated the Conservatives came last.

[Ewood and I Would]

[S15]

I've seen a few.

Luckily these debates are exposing Cameron as the horrible little maggot he is.

[Ewood and I Would]

I've seen a few.

Luckily these debates are exposing Cameron as the horrible little maggot he is.

The debate polls that count (i.e not the 'few' cherry picked by the Mirror and you which I have yet to see yet) would disagree...

[only2garners]

Whereas getting a man to dress up in a chicken suit and getting him to follow David Cameron everywhere he goes is mature, reasonable journalism that helps the electorate make an informed decision?

So you think having a man dressed as a chicken following Cameron around is in any way on a par with calling someone a nazi on the front of a newspaper entirely based on a quote from several years ago when Clegg mentioned nazism in an entirely sensible statement on anglo german relations?

I think you will find that the Tories started the chicken thing anyway, when Brian Mawhinney sent a man dressed as a chicken to follow Tony Blair to highlight his refusal to have a TV debate - I think in 97. At that time the Mirror followed up by sending out a wolf.

I don't think the line about CCHQ smears is right. The Telegraph already had Nick Clegg's unredacted expenses claims (from their expose on all MP's expenses from earlier), and the story in the Mail is just from an article published on the Guardian website. The rest is pretty fair policy criticism.

The Mail and the Telegraph haven't been Tory friendly for a while mainly because of their stance on Europe - but they've both now realised that continued criticism of the Party will most likely lead to the one thing they fear most: a lib/lab coalition set on ceding more control to Brussels, so they've gone on the offensive.

All very interesting. I'm not to sure what else could cause a seismic shift in the poles over the next few weeks - though I suspect that further discussion on the LD's policies might lose some further votes. An illegal immigrant amnesty seems crazy when unemployment is already rising.

I didn't suggest that they were smears from CCHQ. I don't have a problem with articles like the Telegraph's - it seems to have turned out to be a dead end but no problem in raising it. The Mail article though is just made-up rubbish that might struggle to get into the Daily Sport.

[Ewood and I Would]

garners my point was that they're all as bad as each other, which I thought I made quite clear. I'm not the one only highlighting instances of so-called Tory bias and ignoring the stupid Mirror's blatent dillusions *like their take on yesterdaty's debate where they claim Cameron lost and was on the ropes when the reality and the polls all disagree)...

I think it's pathetic all round to be honest.

As for the Daily Mail, I don't read it or am exposed to it so anything they say passes over my head anyway...

[The Gull]

The debate polls that count (i.e not the 'few' cherry picked by the Mirror and you which I have yet to see yet) would disagree...

You mean the YouGov poll which The Sun and Telepgraph are quoting?

The same YouGov poll that had Cameron streets ahead last week yet the rest of the country disagreed?

I have a feeling that the YouGov poll must either being conducted among the upper classes or they are funded by Murdoch.

I am what you might call a floating voter as I have no particular alegences, that has changed slightly this time as Cameron is one person who I will never vote for. This is not just based on his persona, but on what he has to say and what those around him have to say. Very, very weak conservative party that is shocked that after labour presiding over a bit of a poor time for our country people didn't just automatically switch to them.

The Lib Dems have become a viable altrnative, which I think is a good thing for this country as they are all going to have to pull out all the stops to get our votes.

I just can not see any positives about the conservatives getting in, I really can't, and these debates so far have increased that feeling.

Cameron goes on about this country needing change, maybe it does to a certain extent, but as I am sure many will be aware in their own personal or working life, the grass is not always greener. The kind of changes Cameron is talking about will hurt most of us who visit this messageboard if he gets in, long term potentially massive ramifications for the internation trade and position of UK in the world's pecking order.

[Ewood and I Would]

The Gull, no I wasn't just talking about the YouGov poll so sorry you wasted your time.

I was talking about the Daily Mirror stating that early polls had Cameron in last when I watched Sky News and none of the 4 or 5 they showed had him in last. If you read what I said I mentioned polls that had Clegg as the winner with Cameron in second.

I am also a floating voter per se, but I'm willing to take all the parties at face value NOW and not just because my dad says the Conservatives are evil which is sounds like you are still letting affect your judgement.

I just don't like it when people say they won't vote for someone without specifically naming a policy they don't like. So what makes the Lib Dems a viable alternative and what makes you think the Conservatives aren't, based on their policies and manifestos?

[only2garners]

garners my point was that they're all as bad as each other, which I thought I made quite clear. I'm not the one only highlighting instances of so-called Tory bias and ignoring the stupid Mirror's blatent dillusions *like their take on yesterdaty's debate where they claim Cameron lost and was on the ropes when the reality and the polls all disagree)...

I think it's pathetic all round to be honest.

As for the Daily Mail, I don't read it or am exposed to it so anything they say passes over my head anyway...

I thought I was also saying that they are generally all as bad as each other - I was making the specific point that the Daily Mail lead story yesterday was in a different league of tastelessness to the general rubbish.

[LeChuck]

My main view? I can live with Labour's NI hike in 2011 (£10 extra per month?) more than I can live with the Conservative saving me that and putting peoples' jobs and livelihoods on the line.

I can't understand why Labour haven't applied this forthcoming 'job tax' to jobs over a certain wage, say £50k a year or something. I'm sure it would have given Cameron a lot less ammunition.

[only2garners]

I am also a floating voter per se, but I'm willing to take all the parties at face value NOW and not just because my dad says the Conservatives are evil which is sounds like you are still letting affect your judgement.

I just don't like it when people say they won't vote for someone without specifically naming a policy they don't like. So what makes the Lib Dems a viable alternative and what makes you think the Conservatives aren't, based on their policies and manifestos?

I'm assuming that you have already decided that Labor is not for you, given the poster you posted on the previous page.

I won't be voting Conservative and these are some of the policies that I don't like: -

Negative approach to Europe and the EU.

Allying themselves to a bunch of loonies in the European Parliament

An insistence on applying annual quotas to immigration without stating what they would be

A determination to immediately cut spending before economic recovery is secured

An obsession with stopping next year's planned NI increases

Against PR - the change they want to make (reduced numbers of MPs in equal-sized constituencies) is purely to increase the chances of Conservative candidates in the future

Support for a Trident replacement

Misguided international development priorities

Although not their official policy I don't trust them on gay rights either

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I'm assuming that you have already decided that Labor is not for you, given the poster you posted on the previous page.

I won't be voting Conservative and these are some of the policies that I don't like: -

Negative approach to Europe and the EU.

Allying themselves to a bunch of loonies in the European Parliament

An insistence on applying annual quotas to immigration without stating what they would be

A determination to immediately cut spending before economic recovery is secured

An obsession with stopping next year's planned NI increases

Against PR - the change they want to make (reduced numbers of MPs in equal-sized constituencies) is purely to increase the chances of Conservative candidates in the future

Support for a Trident replacement

Misguided international development priorities

Although not their official policy I don't trust them on gay rights either

Wow! Someone has been watching the TV debates!

[arachnica]

This is the one reason why I really don't want this guy in office. Whether people like it or nto, the only "change" he offers is guised under massive cuts - sorry, "savings" - in the public sector. The only arguments I've heard him say are "we will keep [insert a few of Labour's implementations over the last 13 years that the Conservatives would never have bothered even thinking about]" and "we will cap immigration [insert totally unknown value here]".

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of what constitutes a useless or time-wasting job in the public sector but surely unemployment is going to increase? I honestly think this is going to have a knock-on effect into the private sector. People without jobs, or people who are going to rely on one income, will have far less disposable income. People have had to cut their cloth enough as it is. I just don't think cutting expenditure is a good idea at all

Contrary what anti-Labour posters may think, this is absolutely nothing to do with "Your Dad voted Labour and that's the only reason you do too" or "You think we'll be going back to the days of Thatcher" etc. It's purely weighing up the policies and deciding whether we agree with them or not.

My main view? I can live with Labour's NI hike in 2011 (£10 extra per month?) more than I can live with the Conservative saving me that and putting peoples' jobs and livelihoods on the line.

The dishonest part of this election campaign from all the parties - including the fringe parties - is giving the impression that the state can not only survive at its current size, but continue to grow even larger. The size of the state is now unsustainable and expected to rise to around 53% of GDP according to the Red Book. Who's going to pay for all that? Whoever wins will be cutting expenditure - noone has credibly said how and who would get hit.

I do struggle with the logic that the state should continue subsidising jobs/contracts (including with the private sector) that are not improving the quality of the public sector just for the sake of it. I would rather see wasted money cut and given back in the form of tax breaks to wealth creaters, startups and low earners who would spend that money better.

[tony gale's mic]

Wow! Someone has been watching the TV debates!

Seriously, this type of post is absolutely typical of those on the right in this thread. A few have offered posts of substance, posts I've disagreed with but still that constitutes the essence of a good debate.

However too many have posted @#/? like this (though one or two backing the left have too), idiotic one liners which aren't even remotely witty or clever. Either bring something to the table in this thread and add some substance or shut up.