[Archived] Election

[arachnica]

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

#1 Don't have a problem - in europe not run by europe seems fair enough. I would rather have a party who wants to maintain British sovereignty rather than give it away to the bloated bureaucratic and largely unaccountably European Union - many successful countries geographically around Europe have very successful trade relations with the EU while still retaining complete control over their own laws.

#2 Everyone is aligned with loonies in Europe. The lib dems are aligned with a Swedish feminist party who want to see marriage banned and introduce non-gender specific names; a Latvian group who equate homosexuals to paedophiles; and the group is led by a guy who wants to see the abolition of the nation state. Labour sit with a group including an ex-IRA terrorist linked to the murder of six police officers; and Andrjez Lepper who is just plain corrupt.

#3 Fair enough - they could set a number but I don't disagree with the policy;

#4 I accept there is an argument but I just don't see current levels of expenditure being maintained. It depends what you do with the money you save.

#5 Make it more expensive to employ staff while recovering from recession seems crazy to me - especially as unemployment is still rising.

#6 The Tories under current polls would be the big winners under PR and in the past election - but I think the positive impact that it will have has been massively overstated and many people don't actually understand the consequences or the implication of its introduction.

#7 Once again you can have a good argument over Trident but all parties agree that we should have some sort of nuclear deterrent I haven't seen conclusive evidence that Trident will be the costliest - no-one quite understands the 100bn figure and it isn't offset against the price of developing a new system;

#8 Not sure what you mean about this one - I've never believed that huge aid transfers can stimulate a developing economy into life - and too often there are unintended consequences.

#9 There has been an unpleasant element in the party in the past, but fortunately most have buggered off to UKIP/BNP.

[tony gale's mic]

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.

1. The BBC is not politically biased and Nick Robinson is a reliable journalist.

2. Nick Robinson was chairman of the Young Conservatives at Oxford which means a) a Labour/Lib Dem bias on his part is highly unlikely and b ) he's likely got more contacts within the Tory machine than most journalists out there.

[jim mk2]

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.

The so-called "wealth creators" don't need any help from taxpayers. Tax breaks distort behaviour and are inherently unfair. For instance, why should those who are unmarried or couples who choose not to marry subsidise marriage as in the Tories' proposed marriage tax allowance, and why should private motorists subsidise company car drivers? The country needs a fairer and simpler tax system with fewer tax breaks.

[tony gale's mic]

#6 The Tories under current polls would be the big winners under PR and in the past election - but I think the positive impact that it will have has been massively overstated and many people don't actually understand the consequences or the implication of its introduction.

No, the Tories would be the big losers as Labour/Lib Dems despite their bickering on TV are much closer to each other than the Tories are to either of them. The Tories (for now) are ahead in the polls but PR would mean they'd need to get close to 50% of the vote to stand any chance of getting anything except for their most left-friendly policies through Parliament.

Johann Hari has a piece on exactly this in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-forces-blocking-british-democracy-1951687.html

[Ewood and I Would]

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 don't accpt the "it's better to have people doing something useless than them be unemployed" argument. If we were talking about the Private Sector then it wouldn't matter but what you forget is your taxes pay for public sector wages.

So if you work in the private sector (as the majority do) you are being asked to pay more tax essentially to cover a lot of these made-up jobs/management consultants in the Public Sector.

Do you know one of the reason I think all these jobs were created? Because Labour have allowed the private sector to continually make its staff redundant and send their work over seas through "outsourcing".

I'm now in the public sector but my last two jobs were in the private sector and at both there was a major redundancies and "re-shaping" schemes in place with the results of both being job losses due to outsourcing.

Labour had had to create these jobs in the Public Sector to hide the unemployment they caused by refusing to tackle big business.

Also, please don't think all these Public Sector workers under threat are all low-paid temps working their bums off each day. Were talking about management consultants on £500-£700 a day of your council tax money and various uneccessary levels of middle management.

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.

Maybe for you which is good but Thathcher's name has been mentioned on here various times and I get the feeling most people's fears on unemployment under the Tories are based on their past rather than their current policies.

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

I posted that as a devil's advocate response to the "I'm just a rich boy" poster on the previous page. Suppose I should have posted a Clegg one as well to be fair though.

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. - Wanting to be in the EU but not run by them is negative to you, ok fair enough that's your opinion but they're hardky UKIP or the BNP who do have an actual negative EU stance. The Torries' view isn't negative, it's just not as 'positive' as the Lib Dems or Labour.

Allying themselves to a bunch of loonies in the European Parliament - I don't really know enough about these guys past Nick Clegg calling them loonies but I did think Cameron looked uncomfortable when reference was made to it so fair enough on that.

An insistence on applying annual quotas to immigration without stating what they would be - Yet Clegg saying he will replace Trident but not tell what with isn't the same? On immigration, limits aren't static when it comes to something like this and it would something under constant review. Without the raw data that Brown will be keeping to himself it would be crazy for the Torries to name an exact figure as if they get in and they have to change it they will be attacked for lying.

A determination to immediately cut spending before economic recovery is secured - Last year we were told that we needed to cut VAT to get people spending and now we're told we need to be taxed more to help the recovery, which one is it? I don't see how wasting money in the Public Sector helps the economy either?

An obsession with stopping next year's planned NI increases - Yeah, I would love to pay more in tax than I already do. Very odd argument unless you work the National Insurance bureau or something.

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) - Sounds a sensible idea in a world where we all think Politicians have taken the mick, I don't know enough to debate on it being a synical move though so if you're right then it's a fair point.

Support for a Trident replacement - Don't worry, Clegg will talk South Korea and Iran into behaving and liking us. As Brown said.."Get real"

Misguided international development priorities - I'd like to know more (seriously)

Although not their official policy I don't trust them on gay rights either - Now you're being as prejudice and naive as the homophobes you dislike..

[jim mk2]

Astonishing behaviour by James Murdoch.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/general-election/news/2010/04/23/james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-invade-independent-newspaper-office-115875-22205306/

[arachnica]

No, the Tories would be the big losers as Labour/Lib Dems despite their bickering on TV are much closer to each other than the Tories are to either of them. The Tories (for now) are ahead in the polls but PR would mean they'd need to get close to 50% of the vote to stand any chance of getting anything except for their most left-friendly policies through Parliament.

Johann Hari has a piece on exactly this in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-forces-blocking-british-democracy-1951687.html

I'm wrong on the numbers - the Tories would be big losers as the polls stand at the moment - they would have won at the last election.

I don't really think anyone is particularly far from anyone else. The Lib dems voted with the Tories on civil liberties, anti-ID card agenda etc; they like labour for electoral reform and their stance on Europe. I don't think that it is that cut and dry.

[only2garners]

I've deleted Ewood and I Would's response to my post to save space, but would like to come back on a few points. Clearly we are at different points on the political spectrum so I'm not going to get into a yah boo argument about individual policies - I'll just agree to disagree with you on most of them.

I should make the point that I'm not a Lib Dem supporter as you seem to assume, although I am probably closer to their policy package than those of the other big 2 parties. I may well also end up voting for them given I can't vote for my first choice in my constituency.

On PR I will add that Labour are being just as cynical with their current proposal for electoral reform, which would be barely better than the first past the post system we have now. Under a decent proportional system none of the big 3 parties would have won an overall majority in virtually any election in living memory (maybe 1945?). I've been a PR supporter for most of my adult life and have often voted to try and bring about a hung parliament. This just might be the year.

On international development the Conservatives' policy is a considerable improvement on previous policies - they are committing to raising spending to 0.7% of GDP as the OECD recommends (and both the other big 2 are as well). But they are still silent on reform of WTO and EU trading agreements which hugely discriminate against developing countries exporting. They make welcome although vague commitments to spending on water, sanitation, health and education but then make a bizarre commitment to spending £500m on malaria eradication. Nothing wrong with that but if they are committed to ending poverty then water and sanitation spending needs to come first. Overall some better words but I'm also not sure that I believe they will fully deliver. You can complain about many aspects of the Labour Government's performance but on international development they have been world leaders.

For Arachnica, it's not true that all parties support a nuclear deterrent - the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru are all in favour of unilateral disarmament.

[thenodrog]

But if we're honest, aren't the Tory policies just the same old story - cuts? I know Cameron has called them "savings" but I seriously do view these as plain old cuts. £6bn is a hell of a lot of money to withdraw.

Why do you rail against cuts in expenditure when we are already and shamefully up to the gills in debt? To carry on borrowing and borrowing is selfish and stiffing the future for ourselves and our children?

[thenodrog]

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

Who cares? Isn't democracy supposed to work for the majority not the minority?

It should of course but somethings skewed in it all. Why doesn't one of the parties simply stand for the rights of taxpaying, heterosexual, christian people in full time employment and with a mortgage, 2 kids, a car and a dog? They'd get my vote every time.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

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.

I am just about sick and tired of people who are prepared to profess an intrinsic understanding of any of the political parties,on the basis of three hours of rather mediocre television.

Listen doctor!I am just about sick of listening to your holier than though myopic manta. You have no idea who I intend to vote for and unlike you, I will make my decision based on a rationale of cross-sectional information.

I will not take a lecture, from someone who has diddly-squat life experience outside of a few months experience in the NHS and a X years study at university. I suggest you tone down your hatred of any perspective right-of centre as you will find that senior managers within any public sector- do not take kindly to such dogma.

I have met plenty of people like yourself, you have plethora of your brainwashed leftist theory, but absolutely no experience or common-sense to back it up. Im afraid life is not as simple as the left is good and anything right of centre is evil

[jim mk2]

On PR I will add that Labour are being just as cynical with their current proposal for electoral reform, which would be barely better than the first past the post system we have now. Under a decent proportional system none of the big 3 parties would have won an overall majority in virtually any election in living memory (maybe 1945?). I've been a PR supporter for most of my adult life and have often voted to try and bring about a hung parliament. This just might be the year.

PR must have something going for it because this country would not have been inflicted with Margaret Thatcher under any other voting system than the present one. Senior Tories have admitted today that Cameron may have to strike a deal with Lib Dems on voting reform if he wants to be prime minister in a hung parliament. The Tories have most to lose from a hung parliament and PR which is why the Central Office smear machine is working so hard to discredit Clegg.

[thenodrog]

PR must have something going for it because this country would not have been inflicted with Margaret Thatcher under any other voting system than the present one. Senior Tories have admitted today that Cameron may have to strike a deal with Lib Dems on voting reform if he wants to be prime minister in a hung parliament. The Tories have most to lose from a hung parliament and PR which is why the Central Office smear machine is working so hard to discredit Clegg.

It's not working as hard as yours. Your personal smear machine is in overdrive.

[grizfoot]

The TV debates have been interesting but comical and petty at times. The whole Tories attacking Labour over some apparent leaflets was all a bit playground stuff and didn't make either party look any better.

Again it seemed that the three parties hold very much similiar views on almost all the topics. Suprised they all agreed on the European debate, suppose opposing Europe in some sense would damage the representation of the party and none of them wanted to do that. I for one don't mind the idea of us being part of the EU but a referendum would surely be a sensible option seeing that many people don't like Britain being part of the EU.

Interesting Cameron keeps using the word change, time for change, change, change, change. Yes a Tory government would be a change from the last 13 years of Labour. But you only need to look at the great uproar the last Tory government caused, would you trust that very same party to take control again? I certainly wouldn't. Yes it is time for a change, a change away from the dominant parties in Labour and the Conservatives, people are starting to realise it's no longer just an option between red and blue. These two parties have done a medicore job of running the country in the past and I don't see any reason to vote for either anymore. Nick Clegg as come across the best in the interviews/debates and I think the Lib Dems are starting to gain momentum at the right time. I agree with Mr. Cameron it is time for a change, just not the change he has in mind.

[philipl]

I am just about sick and tired of people who are prepared to profess an intrinsic understanding of any of the political parties,on the basis of three hours of rather mediocre television.

Listen doctor!I am just about sick of listening to your holier than though myopic manta. You have no idea who I intend to vote for and unlike you, I will make my decision based on a rationale of cross-sectional information.

I will not take a lecture, from someone who has diddly-squat life experience outside of a few months experience in the NHS and a X years study at university. I suggest you tone down your hatred of any perspective right-of centre as you will find that senior managers within any public sector- do not take kindly to such dogma.

I have met plenty of people like yourself, you have plethora of your brainwashed leftist theory, but absolutely no experience or common-sense to back it up. Im afraid life is not as simple as the left is good and anything right of centre is evil

[Bazzanotsogreat]

[JAL]

Listening to three self proclaimed candidates talking about their careers when there are over a million kids in this country with little or NO future whatsoever makes me absolutley seething with anger.

Why arent the other parties being allowed to participate in these debates ? Have we become a controlled society, stream fed by more powerful people who lurk in the background dictating the political direction of the country.

[philipl]

Interesting piece on press bias

What clue as to the effect on national voting intention polls? ComRes recorded voting intention among those who watched the debate:

Conservative 35 -1

Labour 24 nc

Lib Dem 36 +1

(Change from last week's poll among debate-watchers.)

Which suggests no significant debate effect at all except the LDs edging closer to the 38% at which the first past the post bias against them begins to unwind in dramatic fashion on a uniform swing. At 40% they form the Government and 42% reduce both Tories and Labour to under 100 seats each.

David Marquand puts the 2010 election in a historic perspective.

Of course all it needs is for the Lib Dems to flatline at 36% and a further 3% swing from Lab to Con and we are back in Tory majority territory. Doesn't sound a lot but Labour down to 21%???

[cletus]

After watching the first live tv debate, i thought Clegg came out on top. In my view Brown & Cameron were both equally poor.

After watching the 2nd debate i think Brown came across much better, Clegg still looked the best & Cameron looked a complete idiot full of sound bites & little more.

Twice now, Cameron has side-footed the "we will cap migration" boast, when he was asked "at what number will you cap it at?". The guy simply does not know or is too frightened to say a figure......probably for fear of being made to look the idiot he is.

It`s a pity, cos i really feel he could be on to a winner if he gave an actual definite figure he will cap migration at.

I`m still unsure who i`ll vote for. I`m a floating voter & i really want one of them to impress me.......but it`s not happened yet

[thenodrog]

PR must have something going for it because this country would not have been inflicted with Margaret Thatcher under any other voting system than the present one. Senior Tories have admitted today that Cameron may have to strike a deal with Lib Dems on voting reform if he wants to be prime minister in a hung parliament. The Tories have most to lose from a hung parliament and PR which is why the Central Office smear machine is working so hard to discredit Clegg.

Well smear this then Jimbo.......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7106838.ece

And particularly this bit......

As he spoke, Labour suffered a triple blow on Mr Brown’s chosen topic.

Official figures showed that the economy grew by only 0.2 per cent in the first three months of the year, half the 0.4 per cent of the final quarter of 2009. Analysis showed that the economy grew more slowly under Labour than it did under the Tories between 1979 to 1997 — an average of 2 per cent a year compared with 2.2 per cent. Martin Weale, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that Labour was not running the economy in a sustainable way.

It seems your memory of the facts regarding the Thatcher years Jim has been warped by some odd and illogical prejudice. Same thing must have happened with Tony Blair who first started the myth that Brown was the best Chancellor ..... no doubt thats how he earned the nickname Tony Bliar?

Here from the 95 election campaign

'But Mr Blair said: "His (Gordon Browns) record speaks for itself so you would want that record to continue really."

He has done a fantastic job managing the economy. He is probably been our best chancellor for this country for several decades." '

'Several' obviously meaning 'one' in Bliar speak I guess.

[Amo]

Listening to three self proclaimed candidates talking about their careers when there are over a million kids in this country with little or NO future whatsoever makes me absolutley seething with anger.

The biggest irony is listening to ANY politician tell us we're in for a "long haul". Does that mean they won't be having caviar for breakfast?

[RibbleValleyRover]

Labour withdraws 'sick’ David Cameron poster

"On the night of the televised foreign affairs debate, Labour published as the main image on its official website a photomontage of the Tory leader pushing a wheelchair in which William Hague was seated.

Mandrake understands that party officials removed the image from the website after they received complaints about its tastelessness.

Cameron’s son, Ivan, died last year aged six after spending his life in a wheelchair. Ivan, who suffered from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, was often photographed being pushed in his wheelchair by his father."

[Ewood and I Would]

Why did they withdraw it, they could have just changed the image to another LB character.

Although how stupid of them, really!

[tony gale's mic]

I am just about sick and tired of people who are prepared to profess an intrinsic understanding of any of the political parties,on the basis of three hours of rather mediocre television.

Listen doctor!I am just about sick of listening to your holier than though myopic manta. You have no idea who I intend to vote for and unlike you, I will make my decision based on a rationale of cross-sectional information.

I will not take a lecture, from someone who has diddly-squat life experience outside of a few months experience in the NHS and a X years study at university. I suggest you tone down your hatred of any perspective right-of centre as you will find that senior managers within any public sector- do not take kindly to such dogma.

I have met plenty of people like yourself, you have plethora of your brainwashed leftist theory, but absolutely no experience or common-sense to back it up. Im afraid life is not as simple as the left is good and anything right of centre is evil

You know if I wanted to post in your style I could either post some irrelevant one line nonsense and add a smiley, or just make some wild assumptions about your life but I'm considerably better than that.

Listen, if you were capable of reading my post it wasn't so much your views that I had a problem with. I specifically mentioned in my post it wasn't your views I had a problem with. If you had a mind capable of reading a few words in English rather than venting your spleen at every possible opportunity, you'd have read this:

A few have offered posts of substance, posts I've disagreed with but still that constitutes the essence of a good debate.

So, had you replied with a set of relevant replies from a right-wing point of view...a little bit of substance basically, then that would add to the debate. But you, and several others, do this only too rarely and instead post @#/? like the post that originally got my back up.

You see I'm 90% sure you've indicated your voting intention or which side you're aligned to on here in the recent past, and even if you haven't your posts indicate which side you're on just as much as mine do.. so any assumption I make about your voting intention is actually based on something - but it's not that which I find particularly moronic about you - it's a political position after all and so long as it's not BNP it's a valid political position which I happen to disagree with.

I just think you come across as someone who has a negative impact on discussion on this board - someone posts a valid argument and you post some throwaway insult when you have no idea what's been informing their views. I make a post criticising your post and you make wild assumptions about my life. So tell me bazza, what do you know about my life? You mentioned the tiny parts you know and yet there's so, so much you don't have a clue about. You think life experience is just down to the number of years on the clock? Believe me, I've lived far more and have had much more varied experiences than many people twice my age. You say I have "brainwashed" leftist theory but you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what's been informing my political decisions.

I have not made those assumptions about you, merely an assumption about which side of the spectrum you're on which I'm fairly sure is right. And secondly if there's a post I disagree with I post a bit of substance as to why I disagree with it, rather than just add an idiotic one liner plus a smiley.

And THAT is why you are a moron. Thankyou.

[LeChuck]

Listen doctor!I am just about sick of listening to your holier than though myopic manta.

Wahey! There he goes again.

You need a new vocabulary. You trot that line so often you've made it mean nothing.

Edit: I didn't even bother to read the whole sentence. "holier than though myopic manta". WTF is that? No wonder you begrudge TGM his education, you're obviously badly missing one!