So it's set for 8th May then - who do you plan on voting for? Do you plan voting at all. I think it's going to be very close this year.
In the past I've always voted Liberal Democrat in local and European elections, but this is the first General Election I'm voting in. At the moment I'm flittering between LD and Green, although I'm not actually sure the Greens are putting forward a candidate in my constituency (which would make my mind up somewhat). I think Labour have strayed too far from their left-wing roots, and conversely I think a lot of people are put off by the Tories stumble from the right. It's hard to vote with principles when the two major parties are so idealistically similar. If there were such a party, I would vote for an Old Labour party, very much in favour of nationalisation, unions and social welfare, but unfortunately there isn't (and it leaves a lot of people without a party they feel they can vote for).
There's a decent site for those who are trying to differentiate between the parties at http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ - it's not scientific, and it seems to have a fairly big bias towards the Greens, but it's a good way of getting the information compared from all sides.
For those oldies around here; I remember me starting one in 2005 for the general election then, I've searched and it's here: http://www.create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=117485 - it's interesting how we all point out Labour's excellent economic running of the country (arf!).
Come back Tony! All is forgiven!
Seriously though, he was the best PM we've had in ages, and it's just a shame that he was given such a hard time (and ultimately forced to resign) over something that was entirely Bush's fault (despite what they may claim, I'm sure any governement would have backed the US).
Anyway, I'm not voting, for various reasons:
1.) Only Labour & Conservatives have any chance of winning, and both have much the same policies (or lack thereof) on the big issues.
2.) There's no guarantee that the person elected as PM will still be the PM in a weeks time. In my mind, Gordon Brown has never been anything more than a "caretaker-PM", as he was not (and never would have been) elected, and this country is supposed to be a democracy.
Anyway, the reason I'm mentioning this now, is that if Brown does win, he will certainly not last another full term (and may be forced to resign much sooner).
3.) My vote doesn't make a difference. Noone ever won an election by a single vote, and whether or not I vote, has no effect of whether anyone else votes.
Incidentally, that voteforpolicies.co.uk thing put me at: 33% UKIP, 22% LibDem, 22% Green, 11% Cons, 11% Labour, although I'd actually be more of an old-school conservative if such a thing still existed.
Originally Posted by Sketchy Come back Tony! All is forgiven!
Seriously though, he was the best PM we've had in ages, and it's just a shame that he was given such a hard time (and ultimately forced to resign) over something that was entirely Bush's fault (despite what they may claim, I'm sure any governement would have backed the US).
Anyway, I'm not voting, for various reasons:
1.) Only Labour & Conservatives have any chance of winning, and both have much the same policies (or lack thereof) on the big issues.
2.) There's no guarantee that the person elected as PM will still be the PM in a weeks time. In my mind, Gordon Brown has never been anything more than a "caretaker-PM", as he was not (and never would have been) elected, and this country is supposed to be a democracy.
Anyway, the reason I'm mentioning this now, is that if Brown does win, he will certainly not last another full term (and may be forced to resign much sooner).
3.) My vote doesn't make a difference. Noone ever won an election by a single vote, and whether or not I vote, has no effect of whether anyone else votes.
Incidentally, that voteforpolicies.co.uk thing put me at: 33% UKIP, 22% LibDem, 22% Green, 11% Cons, 11% Labour, although I'd actually be more of an old-school conservative if such a thing still existed.
I always think that people who trot out the old 'doesn't make a difference whether I vote or not' are far too egotistical to imagine that their vote is one of millions - "I'm not going to have a direct say, so I'm going to say nothing at all". It's basically suggesting democracy isn't good enough for you. The whole philosophy by which the country is run, and a huge majority of the world, isn't good enough. The principles which many people have worked, fought and ultimately died for, aren't good enough for you. But that's okay, if we ever come under a military dictatorship, we'll know who to turn to.
Incidentally, at the last election there was 61% turnout. Think about that. 39%, which is larger than any percentage of vote for any single party, didn't vote for anyone. If all those people voted there could be a new PM in charge, there could be entirely different parties in charge. But that seems to pass people by.
I don't understand why apparently intelligent people have trouble understanding this...
Democracy is good for the population as a whole, but voting is never a good thing for the individual - it's like ants/bees sacrificing themselves for the good of the colony.
Obviously not voting is a little selfish, but I don't know how you get from that to "It's basically suggesting democracy isn't good enough for you", or what military dictatorships have to do with anything - you're just being ridiculously melodramatic.
Personally, I can't stand people acting all high-and-mighty about voting, as if it makes them some kind of model citizen, or as if they're making a difference to society. If you actually went out campaigning for a party or something, then maybe I'd have a bit more respect, but voting is just sheep mentality.
The fact that 39% of people didn't vote is not relevant to anything - me voting is not going to make any one else vote (otherwise I could just lie and tell people I was going to vote, and it would have exactly the same effect).
Well i'm voting even if it's just me and Boothman (joke!) - i want that cod-eyed cretin Brown out before he wrecks this country any more and gets it further into debt and the best way for that to happen is to get out there and vote Tory. I ain't a Tory (my vote changes to suit my mood) though they are the main opposition this time and i want Brown out more than any other 'leader'. As for Blair and last election's manifesto, with the excellent lie "vote for use and have a referrendum on the EU", just goes to show what an a$$hole he was too.
Under Labour the main benefactors in this country are criminals, people who don't want to work, foreign nationals, bent politicians and unionists.
For the eople who work hard and want to make something out of life, we are the ones taxed the hardest to pay for those in the list above.
Originally Posted by Sketchy I don't understand why apparently intelligent people have trouble understanding this...
Democracy is good for the population as a whole, but voting is never a good thing for the individual - it's like ants/bees sacrificing themselves for the good of the colony.
Obviously not voting is a little selfish, but I don't know how you get from that to "It's basically suggesting democracy isn't good enough for you", or what military dictatorships have to do with anything - you're just being ridiculously melodramatic.
Personally, I can't stand people acting all high-and-mighty about voting, as if it makes them some kind of model citizen, or as if they're making a difference to society. If you actually went out campaigning for a party or something, then maybe I'd have a bit more respect, but voting is just sheep mentality.
The fact that 39% of people didn't vote is not relevant to anything - me voting is not going to make any one else vote (otherwise I could just lie and tell people I was going to vote, and it would have exactly the same effect).
Basically if your argument against voting is that 'My single vote will have no meaningful effect on the result", then this is basically going against what democracy is; the representation of a people by its individual members on a one person one vote basis. And the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship. I'm not being needlessly melodramatic, I'm pointing out the obvious flaws in your thinking. Your analogy to a bee sacrificing itself for the colony is complete bollocks as voting in an election is not a self-destructive act. You aren't being asked to fight, to kill yourself, to harm yourself or even majorly inconvenience yourself. You are asked to give your opinion.
And forgive me for sounding high and mighty about voting; I am far from a model citizen, but when 39% of the electorate decline to vote, but yet still moan about the society and the government, aren't the other 61% entitled to say "Well it's your own fucking fault?". If you want change then you change from the inside out, that's the only way.
And I know that you don't think you have any major effect on other people voting but yourself, but if I convinced you that voting was worthwhile (and essential), then wouldn't you maybe tell other people and convince them? And wouldn't any children you have be brought up with that message? I remember in the local elections a couple of years ago I had this same argument with people, and they came around to my thinking eventually, and they voted. That was three people who before wouldn't have used their right to have a voice.
And forgive me for sounding high and mighty about voting; I am far from a model citizen, but when 39% of the electorate decline to vote, but yet still moan about the society and the government, aren't the other 61% entitled to say "Well it's your own fucking fault?".
Agreed
My girlfriend moans about things like prices going up, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which i support, btw) and other stuff like that and i ask her "who did you vote for again?", to which she replies "no-one", and i say "well people like you missed a trick there then!"
Actually Sketchy, if there was a more old-school Tory party around still, i'd vote for them too!
As it happens, democracy has an awful lot of flaws. It's very hard to get anything done because of all the squabbling, and dumb/evil people have just as big a say as intelligent/good people. Ideally, we would have a dictatorship, with a smart & good dictator - unfortunately, in practice, people like Hitler tend to end up as dictators instead. Anyway, I'll concede that democracy is probably the best we have, right now.
Voting is not a major inconvenience, but it is an inconvenience none the less, with zero reward (apart from the warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness which some people seem to get from it).
You have the right to blame the 39% of non-voters as a whole, but you cannot single out any one specific person. Really, who are you going to blame for the current economic crisis - me, because I didn't vote last time; or Gordon Brown who was the PM/Chancellor?
Why would it help to tell everyone I meet, to vote?
They won't all vote for the same party - they'll vote in much the same way as the general population, and therefore won't affect the results, however many of them there are.
I could try and make them vote for the same party as me, but that implies that I believe my opinion is more important than theirs (which goes against the principle of a democracy), and I don't have a strong opinion anyway.
Of course, if you want to vote, I'm certainly not trying to convince you otherwise.
You have the right to blame the 39% of non-voters as a whole, but you cannot single out any one specific person. Really, who are you going to blame for the current economic crisis - me, because I didn't vote last time; or Gordon Brown who was the PM/Chancellor?
I blame Brown and not my girlfriend. Man i so hope he gets booted out come May!
I don't need you to post a list from Wikipedia, Sketchy. There aren't "many many forms of government". There are two. Rule by collective choice of everyone, or rule by will of a few. Dress them up with different name if you will but they boil down to those two ideas. Of course there could be anarchy, but that's leave that aside as that isn't a form of government.
Voting itself does not have any reward, but the debate of politics, the sharing of ideas, generally having a voice does. It's not an instant gratification, but I'm not that shallow that I judge every action by its immediate reward. I feel it would be a logical fallacy to debate any kind of politics without using my vote (even if it was just a spoilt ballot, which is an entirely different matter). And the inconvenience really is small. There will be a polling station probably within a mile of your house (if you live in a fairly urban area).
I'm not blaming the 39% for the situation we are in, but I am tired of people having fairly strong opinions about it and then not bothering to vote. And maybe if those 39% did vote their views might not be those of the established parties, (as voting tendencies and turnout vary dramatically with age group, gender, race etc). Who's to say that the 39% would be split exactly the same way as the current electorate. By that token, we could have 10 people voting over the whole country, it wouldn't matter because 'they'll vote the same way as the general populace'.
Anyway, I'm done discussing the merits and necessities of voting. It's up to you to declare yourself above the 'petty squabbling' of democracy.
"The rule of the few" is not the same as "dictatorship", which is what you claimed.
If we could have a "rule of the intelligent & moral few", then wouldn't that be better than "the rule of the many"? It doesn't have to be a military dictator.
Not voting, and not taking any interest in politics, are two very different things. I was very clearly only talking about voting itself.
And stop patronizing me with phrases like "above the petty squabbling of democracy".
Vote if you want to vote, but don't act like it makes you anything special.
I can't accept any argument against voting, or the "my vote makes no difference" sort of thinking. Perhaps I have an odd way of looking at this, but my reasoning is based on chaos theory. We are a self-organising body, we humans self organise most of the time. It means that every small part of a massive system has a perpetuating effect, it's the only way a self organising body can work. We aren't controlled by a central authority on the matter of voting at least. Arguing that it's not worth voting can encourage others that it's not worth it and this idea perpetuates. It suits the lazy person. If you don't think any party is suitable then you have the opportunity to say so, just put a big cross through your ballot paper and be done with it. The only reason you can have for not showing up on election day is that you are a lazy and/or ignorant, that or you really can't make it for medical reasons or other, but you can register to vote by post. It's not high and mighty, it just makes sense. Don't be stupid.
Originally Posted by Sketchy "The rule of the few" is not the same as "dictatorship", which is what you claimed.
If we could have a "rule of the intelligent & moral few", then wouldn't that be better than "the rule of the many"? It doesn't have to be a military dictator.
Not voting, and not taking any interest in politics, are two very different things. I was very clearly only talking about voting itself.
And stop patronizing me with phrases like "above the petty squabbling of democracy".
Vote if you want to vote, but don't act like it makes you anything special.
All I will say is that you mentioned the squabbling first. But that really is petty squabbling.
According to the most recent polls, the Tories are falling slightly in relation to Labour, but still hold an 8 point gap (Con 38%, Lab 30%, LD 20%) - but are doing better in the North, where there are a number of marginal seats. So although the current swing might not look enough to secure a Con majority, the way the regions are split might mean it will be http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/7761/the_view_from_the_regions.html . My opinion is that the Tories will get a majority in the end simply because of New Labour's ineptness and similarity to the New Con's - when both parties are so similar, people will vote for the one not in power. LD not faring too well compared to the last election's polling, probably because the War isn't such a big issue this time. Minor parties in some regions are doubling their support, but this would be spread out amongst many parties (BNP are lumped in with Green, UKIP, NF, SocLab, and Independents). Should be interesting.
I think all but the two main parties will do worse this time around. The smaller parties tend to be viewed as more idealist rather than pragmatist, which is fine when things are going well, but when everything's gone to pot as it has now, people look for a party with a bit more experience. Also, they are mostly quite strongly against things like immigration which have taken a back seat to the economy this time around, except in places like Leeds/Bradford/etc (same with war, as you pointed out).
I find it almost unbelievable that Labour are still in contention after everything that's happened.
I also find it funny that noone ever liked Brown, yet the one thing people would always argue in his defense, was that he would do a good job of managing the economy. Having been the Chancellor and now the PM, in the period leading up to and during the worst financial crisis in living memory, he's quite clearly shown that isn't the case - so why on Earth would anyone vote for him now? What do they see in him now, that they didn't see 5 years ago?
I know Cameron is a bit slimy, but surely not enough to drive voters away?
Where I live, LibDems have a 52% share of the vote anyway, so I think they're pretty safe.
Personally, I think it balances itself out. People who don't really feel like voting for either party don't. I don't like any candidates, but I vote for the one I dislike the least. If you're on the fence enough, don't vote. Most fence-sitters just vote for the last face they see, which is where money, flyers, and banners win.
But it's also why some poorer candidates get elected. You have people like Bush, Clinton, and Schwarzenegger with a huge smear campaign. People feel sorry for them and give them a sympathy vote because they don't like others throwing empty insults at them. Yeah, democracy kinda screws up there.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
The Tories came out today saying they want to give "power back to the people" and that they will "make Britain better" - which is a load of poop. Labour have made claims just as bad too. The policies of Labour and the Tories seem fairly similar in some ways to me - so if I was to make a choice it would be between those two. The other parties offer some interesting stuff, but nothing that major - and I don't really think they could keep their promises.
I can personally understand why people wouldn't want to vote - the majority of politicians are so up themselves that it would be difficult to want to give any of them your vote. It also feels like everything they say is a lie - at least to me. It's typical election drama were all the parties make claims and promises, yet none of them would ever be able to keep those promises.
Either way I still think if you have the right to vote you and you care about the country, then you should vote - but it's really up to you. I don't have anything against anybody who doesn't want to vote.
HaHaHaHa I don't like it how in America, we always have commercials encouraging people to vote IMO the people who need encouragement to vote were not going to make informed votes anyway
I don't like how those commercials are always just slagging off the opponent, rather than saying anything good about the candidate themselves. It's exactly the same in British politics though.
Also, if you see coverage of parliament, they're all trying to talk over each other, and making snide remarks or lame jokes to make each other look bad, which I find very disrespectful. They're getting paid big bucks to make decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, and they're acting like school kids - they can't even have a mature debate about something.
Originally Posted by Ricky HaHaHaHa I don't like it how in America, we always have commercials encouraging people to vote IMO the people who need encouragement to vote were not going to make informed votes anyway
In my country there have been experiments with vote-fests. People get to buy tickets to get a free drink at the party, and they can cast their vote with the same ticket.
We will have general elections soon as well(our cabinet fell over Afghanistan issues). Just like Boothman I am doubting between our green party and the "liberal" democrat party.
Originally Posted by Ricky HaHaHaHa I don't like it how in America, we always have commercials encouraging people to vote IMO the people who need encouragement to vote were not going to make informed votes anyway
In my country there have been experiments with vote-fests. People get to buy tickets to get a free drink at the party, and they can cast their vote with the same ticket.
We will have general elections soon as well(our cabinet fell over Afghanistan issues). Just like Boothman I am doubting between our green party and the "liberal" democrat party.
I thought you'd be National Liberal if anything Hayo!
I never have had any interest in politics and as a result I don't know anything about what each party has to offer. This is the reason I didn't vote last time around, I feel I really should do some research and make a decision for this General Election, but it really doesn't interest me in the slightest.
Well... I'm not going for David Cameron because he smoked pot at Eaton, and because he's tried to promote green-ness to the world... one of his first trips... To Iceland! On a plane! Cameron seems too faced.
Gordon Brown is just a prat, full stop.
Lib Dems... They don't seem to do anything.
UKIP... maybe.
The Green Party... maybe.
The Monster Raving Loony Party... absolutely. Hey, we have one of its members hoping to get a seat in our constituency.
Really though? I really, honestly, couldn't give a damn. I'd vote for anyone just to get Labour out of power.
"Well... I'm not going for David Cameron because he smoked pot at Eaton, and because he's tried to promote green-ness to the world... one of his first trips... To Iceland! On a plane! Cameron seems too faced."
I almost thought that was a joke. They seem like really weak excuses to me.
Im a bovril man too. You have to be careful though, bovril has a lot of salt content and when it dries, it forms into crystals that easily cut skin like painful papercuts. Now I always look like a mad man opening the bovril jar with a tea towel Useless piece of information for you there.
I'm voting Lib Dem. I would rather Labour was in power than the Conservatives. National Liberal has stocks in the Conservative party. A friend of mine posted a link to his former MP's voting record
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Has never voted on laws to stop climate change.
A thing which made me laugh the other day, and made me even more wary of Cameron was when he said on the BBC News, "If you want a more liberal and greener Britain, Conservative is your only choice". It actually made me laugh in disbelief, using two adjectives to describe his plan that are actually names of other political parties - he's basically saying "Oh yeh, sure the Liberals and the Greens have the right ideas, but why not vote for us instead?".
I don't know if any of you are aware of the digital economy bill that was forced through in the washup process? I think it's pretty horrific. My local MP at the time (who is a lib dem) responded to me personally on the matter, and the lib dems voted against it. Labour/Conservative were in favour, I really can't believe how. They aren't even sure it's legal under EU law.
Also in stark contrast, my MP voted:
Voted strongly for equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for laws to stop climate change.
Another point I don't like about the Conservatives is that they are offering married couples a £600 tax break. I really don't know where they expect to find all that money from. It makes little sense, an obvious ploy to buy voters.
Originally Posted by Chris Street I think the expenses scandal should be reason enough not to vote for Labour. They lived a luxury lifestyle claiming money which we paid for in tax!
Ahem. They all did Chris. The worse thing about that scandal was that there wasn't a clear winner.
Great debate tonight I thought. Amazing how lucidly and correctly they all can talk, almost without breathing.
Clegg widely acclaimed the winner, though I thought he started brilliantly and faded. Cameron fairly lightweight throughout, Brown typically strong and uncommunicative (my Dad basically).
I don't see how you gave Cameron a thumbs up on expenses - I thought that was Clegg's decisive victory, the bit where he stated that both parties were claiming to 'clean up politics', but both had actually blocked the LibDem proposal to do that. I thought the distance he put between himself and the other two was the real reason he 'won' in most people's eyes. Of course that's my own opinions.
Cameron had the best finishing speech though, Cleggy's was very weak, almost a repeat of his opener.
I liked the Lib Dem's idea of a 10% tax on bank profits. The tax payer owns a large portion of a number of banks so it only makes sense that we should see a return on that investment to help pay off our debts. Well done lib dems. I should also mention that I was poorly informed of the conservatives plan to introduce a £600 tax break for married couples. It's a tax break for 1/3 hand picked married couples supposedly. Also when I said anything but conservative, of course I only mean that with respect to the 3 main parties... wouldn't want to advocate the bnp lol
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman I don't see how you gave Cameron a thumbs up on expenses - I thought that was Clegg's decisive victory, the bit where he stated that both parties were claiming to 'clean up politics', but both had actually blocked the LibDem proposal to do that. I thought the distance he put between himself and the other two was the real reason he 'won' in most people's eyes. Of course that's my own opinions.
Cameron had the best finishing speech though, Cleggy's was very weak, almost a repeat of his opener.
Sorry, I didn't mean just expenses, but everything that was discussed in that section of the debate (ie. anything to do with the political system in general). The LibDems don't really have a policy at all, except to make it possible to sack MPs.
Personally, I think the whole expenses "scandal" was a non-event anyway. I mean, surely we all knew politicians are greedy & corrupt - how did that come as a surprise to anyone?
I don't pay much attention to opening/closing speeches - it's just airy-fairy nonsense - nothing to do with actual policy.
Anyway, hopefully they'll discuss some more relevant topics in future debates...
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman I don't see how you gave Cameron a thumbs up on expenses - I thought that was Clegg's decisive victory, the bit where he stated that both parties were claiming to 'clean up politics', but both had actually blocked the LibDem proposal to do that. I thought the distance he put between himself and the other two was the real reason he 'won' in most people's eyes. Of course that's my own opinions.
Cameron had the best finishing speech though, Cleggy's was very weak, almost a repeat of his opener.
Sorry, I didn't mean just expenses, but everything that was discussed in that section of the debate (ie. anything to do with the political system in general). The LibDems don't really have a policy at all, except to make it possible to sack MPs.
Personally, I think the whole expenses "scandal" was a non-event anyway. I mean, surely we all knew politicians are greedy & corrupt - how did that come as a surprise to anyone?
I don't pay much attention to opening/closing speeches - it's just airy-fairy nonsense - nothing to do with actual policy.
Anyway, hopefully they'll discuss some more relevant topics in future debates...
That is one area where the LibDem policies are actually fairly clear - an elected House of Lords, the ability to sack MPs for misconduct, a reduction of 150 in the number of MPs, and an introduction of a fairer voting system (ie proportional representation) - maybe hard to get across all of that in the time span. The Conservatives have historically (and recently too) been opposed to all these things.
You just summed it up in one sentence - I'm pretty sure Clegg could have got most of it across if he'd tried.
I'm with the Conservatives on most of that, although it's really not an issue I consider important (certainly there are other issues which demand more urgent attention).
Unfortunately, where I live, most people are very old (young people must leave to find work, and old people come here when they retire). All I ever here about from any of the parties is care for elderly, the NHS, OAP heating allowances/tv licenses/bus passes etc - none of which I care about in the slightest.
Just thought I would pop in, I guessed a discussion like this would be going on! (Hi to everyone - especially Hayo, Muz, Adam and Matt B)
One person a long time ago did mention current Labour is not real Labour, as well as mentioning the fragility of the economy . I have since worked in industry before returning to academia (hopefully I should be a Dr [engineering] in two years) and it is in a grim state.
UK Politics is in an odd state. Labour is not labour and the tories are not the tories. I could never bring myself to vote for the greens (one offered to refute any questions I have on AGW before I even mentioned any, closed minded or what?) and I could never ever vote for BNP, its against everything I stand for. I also find myself distrusting the Lib dems, in the past I have always had the impression that they sway to whatever is fashionable, cherry picking lab/con ideas that people like. Perhaps they are different now; I shall have a nose around their website.
So for me currently it's a UKIP/Tory decision. Vote Tory to get Gordon 'Cretin' Brown out or vote UKIP, a spare 50 ish million a day could build new hospitals, get us more cops etc, but they will never get in - plus would they spend it as I envisage?
Nick Clegg's current popularity (in my view a very fickle popularity) has really riled the right wing press (which is most of the press here). They're starting to fling shit everywhere, four different 'stories' have apparently appeared discrediting Clegg in the Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun and the Express on the same morning, oh what a coincidence. All four papers have very close Conservative links. I'm all for political scrutiny, and I personally think a few of the LD policies are weak and up for challenging, but this level of petty, offensive, false mud-slinging is absolutely shameful.
As for the election, I'm afraid the current surge in support for Lib Dem will slip, but not for the right reasons. I'm scared that most of England is too ignorant and too stupid to make their own minds up, and instead they'll read the paper and be told who to vote for. I hope I'm proved wrong but I won't bet against it. Tory majority come 7th May I think.
The media just pick on whoever's doing well at any given moment. They never have anything positive to say about anyone.
Up until the first live debate, noone was interested in Clegg, so a story about him wouldn't sell papers - now it does.
I wouldn't describe the article you linked to as a slur. If all you read was the headline, then yes, it sounds bad - if you read the full article though, it's not critical of him at all.
I agree that the public are very fickle. So far, they liked what they saw in one debate, which covered just one small section of relatively un-contraversial policy. Come May 6th, he will not be a serious contender.
Obviously the Conservatives are going to get the most donations - they represent the groups who have the most money to spend. I don't think you can just buy your way into power though.
If you read the article, it clearly is critical of Clegg. And let's not be naive, the actual quote from Clegg was made years ago and regurgitated to smear Clegg as both anti-British and pro-German (and in the Daily Mail readership's eyes, Nazi = German) at a time suitable for the Conservatives. The media don't simply pick on whoever's doing well at a given moment, they pick on whoever is doing well as long as it's not the Conservatives. 80% of the papers are owned by Tories (with the only exceptions being the crap rag Daily Mirror and the achingly liberal Guardian) and they each have an agenda to get people to vote Tory - that being that the Tories are typically low-taxing, free marketeer, money men; who would allow Rupert Murdoch et al to make the maximum amount of money possible. Americans can vouch for this, with the Murdoch-owned Fox News not even trying any more to hide its right-wing agenda.
All of this somewhat detracts from the politics itself. Come 6th May, I think he (Clegg) will be a serious contender, but the Liberals will probably only end up splitting the centre-left vote and allowing the Tory majority.
PS - The article linked to has in fact changed now, there was no "Clegg defends Nazi slur" angle, just "Nick Clegg in Nazi slur".
I had hoped you had become somewhat more cynical over the 5 years
The biggest media empire, run by Rupert Murdoch openly supported the labour party until 2009 (for 12 years). Are the people that consecutively voted labour back in during this time also "ignorant and too stupid to make their own minds up" ?
I know what you are trying to put across and Sketchy has already made this point - but it happens all the time. The media has a lot more power than they should have, and they are always prone to becoming cronies with whom they think will get into power, and I think they can see the times up for Gordon. I read what the LB manifesto before this media storm brewed and they had already lost my vote. If there is a hint of truth in that article (i.e. does he really hold these opinions), would he like it if we was speaking German ? I have no respect for anyone that says bad things against our WW2 vets, and people of that generation - they went through a lot for our freedom (what little we have), and the effects upon some of them will last (or have lasted) for their lifetimes.
Labour has crippled the economy 3 times in recent history, Wilson (60s), Callahan (70s) and finally good old Gordon Brown. To be quite frank I personally think none of the three main parties are competent enough to run and repair our country.
On a more proactive note, what do people think needs changing? (I'll start with my views on education )
I was speaking to a Labour member (a Dr) I know from Uni, and oddly enough me and him agreed on a lot of points. The biggest one was that of University Education, and the need for more funding whilst having it more wisely spent. We both agreed on assisting (Scholarships) more people to do Maths, Physics and Engineering degrees (as well as engineering apprenticeships) as the people that do such courses usually come out with a modicum of common sense, logic and the ability to add up which will in turn help the country in terms of industry and hopefully some of these people will eventually wind up in the houses of parliament.
This comes from that statistics of more and more people doing higher education, yet we both know that numbers of students within our own discipline are falling (same with Physics & Maths faculties of which we have close ties). I have seen some truly bizarre degrees on offer at some unis. I am all for a pure meritocracy, not "My name is Rupert, and Daddy has a lot of money rah rah rah!".
I am also convinced that something needs to be done with the schools - I was in a restaurant the other day and I showed my Student card to get a 10% discount. The young lady required a CALCULATOR to work out how much we had to pay with the discount - she seemed quite impressed I got it right.
Yes, I would say if anyone voted Labour purely because of reading a paper, then yes, they are "ignorant and too stupid to make their own minds up". If anybody votes without actually understanding the policies and how they may affect you, then they also are ignorant and stupid. By the way, the reason Murdoch switched from Conservative to Labour in 1997 was because Major had no chance of winning, and Murdoch's continued support would be seen as a massive slap in the face for him - as his American interests show, Murdoch is very clearly conservative (with a small C).
The Daily Mail does seem to have swayed you, Hagar. Nick Clegg doesn't hold Nazi views. He does not wish we were speaking German. Your comments that "I have no respect for anyone that says bad things against our WW2 vets" blah blah blah are irrelevant because Nick Clegg did not say anything against out veterans. It's this kind of assumed link which is a 'smear'. And you - despite the article being a complete farce - have had your own view of Clegg altered negatively. Not because of his policies (I don't have any argument with people not liking a party for its policies), but because of a made-up newspaper article.
I do agree that universities need massive change. I am dead against top-up fees, but I am also dead against universities letting so many people in on frankly stupid courses (and without being clever). A friend of mine got to uni having 'earnt' a D and an E at A Level; I think university should be for the top 5% maybe of achieiving students, with no top-up fees. Labour's idea of half of all people going to uni is absurd and counter-productive. We should also be pushing for 'traditional' courses, such as the ones you said, to get extra funding - in the future these are the courses which produce the most productive (in terms of wealth) graduates.
The media are going to have some amount of political bias, the same as anyone else. Make no mistake though, if they have a story that's going to sell papers, they will print it, regardless which party it concerns.
We saw that with the "expenses scandal", in which the conservatives were as heavily criticized as any party (remember the moat?).
Generally speaking though, a story about a member of the governing party, is going to sell more papers - the public are simply more interested in hearing about the people who make decisions affecting their daily lives. If the conservatives appear to be less heavily criticized, then it's because they haven't been in power for 13 years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're probably university age (18-21) or slightly older, in which case you would be too young to really remember headlines from a time when labour weren't in power.
With Nick Clegg, it's basically the case that he surprised everyone (including th media) in the first live debate, and the public started asking "Who is this guy?". When that happens, the media are going to print anything they can dig up on him - even if it's 3 years old.
A lot of people do get swayed via reading a paper unfortunately!. Murdoch still switched, and they always will do, it is in their best (fiscal) interests to back whoever may come into power. Creating sensationalist or fashionable bull also sells papers, so I think anything Clegg/Brown/Cameron do is liable to be blown out of all proportion (with negative or positive spins dependant upon the paper).
Cancelling Trident, EU, and their green attitudes are what is putting me off voting LD, UKIP is becoming more my preferred choice.
The daily mail has not swayed me at all (for me its still a decision between UKIP and a Tory vote as it was before I looked at that article) and I also question the legitimacy of the article in the previous post. Saying anything bad about a generation that fought (the people that suffered and the people that did the fighting, not the politicians from that era) from any individual will make me very hostile, it's a pet peeve and I was making that opinion clear.
I know the article is a witch hunt digging up anything but Clegg must have writ those lines (or something along those lines) or there would have been a public retraction of the article, or a court case brewing by now. But I do believe the article is probably (most likely) cherry picked comments with some fabrications around the side (I shall I have to try and find a copy of original paper article to see its full context).
Unfortunately Clegg is correct on some things in that article. I have been to Germany, and the cities were clean and not once did I fear my own safety travelling around. Public transport is a LOT better than over here (no urine smell and on time/reasonably fast), with buses, surface rail, underground rail and trams, not to mention a very large road infrastructure. Until last month I worked with a German (he has now returned home) and we used to have good chats about things like this, he was a pleasure to work with.
What does worry is me is the possibility of some BNP getting in (any level, council or MP). I agree entirely on education (perhaps a bit more on the % ), but I would also bring back Polytechnics. Sketchy I can remember back to 88 or 89, but I was more interested in Ghostbusters back then .
Look what you have done Boothman! LD adverts are appearing on the bottom of the page .
The Daily Mail, the Telegraph etc do not publish stories on the Lib Dems to sell papers; they do it to push their own agendas. The fact that the comment issued by Nick Clegg was years old attests to this fact. It is not just coincidence that four Tory papers published damaging articles on the same day, especially when you consider that none of the articles were 'news'; they were all reporting events that had happened at the least two weeks ago and at the most two years ago.
And yes - I do remember stories from when the Tories were in power (it was only in 1996). But we get the Daily Mirror (which is staunchly Labour) in our house, even though I've grown to hate it, so those stories have never gone away. The difference I believe is that the Conservatives have at least 4 or 5 nationals in their pocket (or should that be the other way around?) whilst Labour have only the 1. I just wish the media had less personal interest and didn't display their partisan views so openly. But then again, it's the public's fault for reading such obvious fabrications.
Ironically, the Daily Mail's publication of Clegg's comments has only justified them. He said that we were obsessed with the War in Britain - and if the Daily Mail can justify calling that 'a Nazi slur' then it looks like we still are.
And Hagar, I have no problem with you not supporting Lib Dem because of their stance on things like Trident and the EU, and I wish a lot more people supported parties for what they actually stand for. I don't know why you would worry about the BNP though, 99% of the country think they are total cretins. And Germany is a fantastic place, for the most part, and there's a lot we can learn from them. Unfortunately, the Conservatives would have us allied against (in the EU) the current ruling party in Germany and instead with a bunch of hard-right-wing idiots... food for thought?
I explained all that if you actually read my comment.
I think I'm done here - your dedication to the Lib Dems (or dislike of the other parties?) seems to be clouding your judgement too much for you to engage in a sensible discussion.
Ey, come off it Sketchy, like I said at the very top of the thread, I'm not a die-hard Lib Dem, and I don't believe in all their policies. I am much more left-wing than that, but find the current incarnation of Labour awful; Lib Dem are the only political party standing where I live that is remotely near to what my own values are. I wouldn't call my posts unsensible. I did read your comment, but I didn't agree with all of it. That's what discussion is made of. You say the articles about Clegg are natural scrutiny, the media reacting normally to current LibDem popularity; I say they went too far and in fact were unjustified attacks without the merest hint of journalistic integrity. That's all.
Incidentally, there was an article today in the Spectator scrutinising the Lib Dem moral high ground over expenses, it actually involves the MP in Rochdale, where I live; http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5933688/paul-rowen-and-the-anatomy-of-a-lib-dem-expenses-scam.thtml . The article is well researched and doesn't jump to unfounded conclusions. It is real journalism, to put it simply. I don't know why one of the Tory papers could have researched something like this. If you cannot see the difference between an article like this and the completely ridiculous "Clegg in Nazi slur" and "Clegg paid money into private account, which was declared correctly and was used for what it was supposed to be used for" articles, then that's your own prerogative.
On the EU stance I cannot see why England can't match say for example Germany but under more of our own rule and less expense.
In regard to BNP in the last local election around here (West Mids) they almost got in one ward (it was very close!) and came 2 nd (although the winner did have a large majority). A lot of people are disillusioned and misinformed.
The expenses thing is a bit naughty (against protocol even if it was ok, it should have been placed straight into their fighting fund pot) but I think all of them are at it.
You have probably classified me as some "right winger" but I do have some left wing ideals like nationalisation of certain things and even though I am against the scrapping of Trident, I am against the use of Nuclear weapons (which I think everyone is!). I still find it hard to believe that Labour has let so many of our companies collapse. I am also in favour of alternative energy (hate using that phrase, I envisage hippies with sandles & socks on) but of a different route than is currently being pushed.
Polls recently suggest the Tories have slightly recovered, whilst Labour have dropped into third behind a hardening LibDem vote. The average at the minute seems to be around 34% Con, 27% Lab, 29% LD - there really is nothing in it. The only bad thing I'd suggest is that (applying a Uniform National Swing), this would give 267 seats to Con, 259 to Lab and 91 to LD. So even when LD have more percentage of the vote, they would have considerable less than half of Labour's seats.
I'm still voting Tories - we need to get Gordon the cretin out and the Lib Dems are still too useless for me to vote for in my opinion.
I think alot of people vote Lib Dems because they are the plucky underdogs - Brits like the underdogs! Brits also hate the big 2 parties because they have been in power so long and are to blame for every failing that politicians have made in this country since before WW2 - the Lib Dems therefore seem like a good alternative to them.
On the whole i don't like left-wing politics much.
My results ->
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
Closest Match: Green Party
I guess there's a big difference between my ideals, and what I think would actually work, and obviously you have to factor in the (in)competence of the politicians as well.
This year's election may be all about the tactical vote. A lot of people, from a whole range of political standpoints, have reason to get rid of Brown (as Marko shows). Depending on their constituency (and it really does depend on constituency), they're probably going to vote for whoever is the strongest challenger from Con or Lib, despite not necessarily holding the views of that party. As Sketchy's link so clearly points out, the election this year is idealogically vapid.
Also, there is another kind of tactical voting, the "anyone but Tory" vote. This - again depending on constituency - means people will vote for the best of either Lab or Lib. However, the "anyone but Tory" vote has been around for pretty much ever (they are the only party to have such rampant hate directed towards them) - the difference this time is that the traditional 'home' of that vote (Lab) looks increasingly fragile, due to both the unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the lack of ideological Labour value.
What it means is there are going to be a lot more votes for Lib - but only where their candidate has a credible opportunity of being the MP. Elsewhere there are going to be massive swings from Lab to Con and smaller ones from Con to Lib, as a result of the "anyone but Brown" and "anyone but Tory" votes respectively. I don't think I've seen it written down so clearly, but http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 has it spot on with its summary of the parties' stances. If you want a view of where I'm standing, according to that test, I'm Economic Left/Right: -6.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62 - which like Sketchy, matches me up closest with the Green Party (and fits in pretty perfectly with my positive view of Old Labour). However, the closest single party to me on that radar is the Lib Dems (and they're miles away), so I guess it's to those my vote must go.
I think that quiz has an insufficient amount of questions to truely judge someones political standpoint (defense, taxes, green issues, transport were all lacking or missing).
I class it as more of a fun tool that gives a very rough idea, plus should anyone trust a website that is trying to suggest whom you vote for?
My results was left/right -2.75 and lib/auth - 0.0. I can fully believe the second score, but the I think the left result maybe biased somewhat, seeing as i am in favour of not funding those that can work and will not, and capital punishment for some cases (rape, murder and child offenses) if 100% proven guilty and all doubt removed.
The thing is, stuff like transport, green issues and defence are not ideological issues - the scale is supposed to work in any era of time, and it allows you to gauge politicians from different decades (even centuries).
What would you say you were then Hagar, in terms of society; more authoritarian or more libertarian?
I think the websites assessment of 0.0 was spot on. I believe in some state intervention is required, as I think all hell could break loose if the masses was left to purely their own devices (I hold a similar view in terms of the economy, i.e. mixed). I am strongly against any form of ID card and or a DNA database, the idea of a DNA database in particular scares me! I have no problems with anyone's lifestyle as long as they do not try to start forcing their ideals upon anyone else, and I still think foreigners and women have a hard time (my GF of 4 years is not English). Ideally I think people do need more power, but part of me is afraid the propaganda machine will insure the ruling elite still get their own way.
I am also for land & property ownership, and I think given enough time as a tenant council houses should be able to brought outright at a subsidised price (like the right to buy), rather than the split ownership deals on some new housing projects. Let the working classes move up the housing ladder, rather than locking them to where they are currently.
I think the states structure should also not rely on a sole controlling entity either, that's why love them or hate them I think having the English Monarchy is good, purely as a safeguard. The Monarchy can deselect those in the commons if the preverbal hits the fan.
Also environmental concerns, and hence transport are typically concerns of Left Wing politics, with Karl Marx starting the ball rolling if memory serves me correct. May not apply to all time scales, but it is relevant today. Defence perhaps not .
I really am a complete oddball to be quite frank , and I am enjoying a good forum chat on DC Mr Boothman
I am also against ID cards, DNA databases and most kinds of government intervention in private lives. However, I'm a strong believer in nationalisation, the co-operative movement and welfare (like the minimum wage), so I guess that political test has me about spot-on (in favour of greater personal liberties, against greater economic liberties).
By the way, has anyone seen the Brown "bigot" gaffe today? Incidentally enough again, this was in my seat (Rochdale); where I come from is proving a real hot-bed recently. Unfortunately, all its done is make the media in general notice what a shit town Rochdale is; apparently the Gtr. Manchester Development Authority has said that Rochdale won't come out of the recession until 2023. I think even that's an optimistic forecast, in reality it has been in one long recession since the 1940s. Unsurprisingly, the bookies have the Lib Dems at 2/9 to win the seat now.
Honestly, I don't think Brown's gaffe today will make the slightest bit of difference - he was never exactly a like-able person to begin with. There are going to be a lot of people who quite strongly dislike Brown, but still respect him as a politician and agree with his policies, who will still vote for him.
Either way, it's always entertaining watching him make a prat of himself
Matt - I'm surprised you're not buying the conspiracy theory, that he was set up and blown out of all proportion by Murdoch & Co. I guess that's because it's not about the Lib Dems this time (just kidding)
I don't see any conspiracy theory here, even though I fear this might push just a few voters from red to blue (and that's all it might take in the end).
I don't know about basing your vote on the TV debates, but I think it's impossible for you to have not been influenced by them at all.
Tonight's wasn't particularly revealing IMO - just the same stuff that was discussed in the first two debates. I'd give Clegg a point for *finally* pointing out what the others refuse to acknowledge - that the vast majority of immigration is from within the EU - but I'd take it right back again, because he won't do anything about it either. Apart from that, it was a very poor showing from all three politicians.
Adam- I saw those anthems on Newsnight too. The chav-pop style song for the Tories actually wasn't too bad, but the other two are complete shite.
Originally Posted by Sketchy I don't know about basing your vote on the TV debates, but I think it's impossible for you to have not been influenced by them at all.
Tonight's wasn't particularly revealing IMO - just the same stuff that was discussed in the first two debates. I'd give Clegg a point for *finally* pointing out what the others refuse to acknowledge - that the vast majority of immigration is from within the EU - but I'd take it right back again, because he won't do anything about it either. Apart from that, it was a very poor showing from all three politicians.
Adam- I saw those anthems on Newsnight too. The chav-pop style song for the Tories actually wasn't too bad, but the other two are complete shite.
It's not really that chavy to be honest. I think people over use the term chav, without comparing to what a real chav is. And the Lyrics are quite meaningful if you listen. Oh and I didn't see it on newsnight, I saw it on a morning program yesterday
It's very chavvy. It's trying to sound like N-Dubz etc, and they are the ultimate chavs.
btw: Just because they don't wear Burberry, doesn't mean they're not chavs.
Chav fashion evolves, just the same as mainstream fashion. What you term a "real chav" may not even exist any more.
Being a chav isn't just about the dress sense or music or the fashion, it's also about the intelect of the person and the attitude. It's easy to go around shouting the odds and calling everything chavy nowadays, like I said before, I think it's a term people are using too loosely.
I just read about Brown's comments caught on tape. He's probably done for now. I kinda feel sorry for him because he was just unlucky enough to get caught on tape. It's not as if all politicians don't have a whine about the people they meet sometimes. Remember someone threw an egg at John Prescott and he punched him in the face? That was excellent.
I'm getting tired of this election race now - none of the parties shout at me that i really support their views as it's clear no matter who goes in, we're bound to get higher taxes, no say on EU membership/the Euro and little change with immigration and law & order. As usual, it feels like a vote for a lesser of 2/3 evils.
No matter how the debates went, no matter who says/promises what, i'm just going to vote Tory because a) i want/NEED that cretin Brown out (Labour promised and lied when offering a refurrendum on Europe previously, plus they are bloody useless leaders) and b) Lib Dems are too soft on crime and too easily swayed towards Europe (which i think is a mistake in it's current, non-elected form).
Those t.v. debates did nothing but take up schedule space that could have been used to show some quality repeats of Top Gear, in my opinion.
Politicians' words are about as worthless as chocolate fire-guards.
The big day tomorrow then. It still looks - on all forecasts - to be a very tight election, so close that even political experts cannot predict this one with any kind of confidence.
I will say one last time that I believe every single eligible voter out there should go and vote. There have been elections past won by just TWO votes... imagine if your own parliamentary seat was won by just the ONE vote, and imagine that a majority in the House of Commons was decided by a single seat (it really is this close; polling companies are stumped and their own official Margins of Error confer the majority from Conservative to Hung Parliament territory by whichever boundary you look at). If this situation happened, could you live with yourself having just let your worst choice into government?
This situation is obviously hypothetical and highly improbable. But if every single person votes, they can have no doubts as to their own conscience.
So go out tomorrow, walk ten minutes to your nearest Polling Station and put a nice big cross in your most favoured candidate. And be happy knowing that - whatever the result - you have at least had your say.
I also urge everyone to go out and vote (I am just about to go out myself to do so!). A hung parliament is the last thing we need at the moment.
@Marko: I think exactly the same. Its the referendum on EU thats really annoyed me with labour amongst other things. Whoever gets in, I expect more of the same though, I just want Gordon and New Labour out.
To anyone who voted Conservative and isn't a member of big business, the city, and married - you have my sympathies. For anyone who swallowed the instinctual, tribal ideal of an independant UK when our neighbouring countries on this little globe are now banded together in the EU and stronger for it in cooperation - a strength the Tories' manifesto (read it, and read it all) intends to cut us away from - my sympathies. Finally, anyone who thinks that a party founded on silver-spoon Etonians will be better for you, the everyman, than even the shoddy, hateful Labour, you really have my sympathies. I think it's a shame most of all for those who voted Tory as a tactic to get Gordon Brown out - a vote for a party that wasn't really about that party's policies at all.
Anyway, we'll wait and see. Labour are terrible but have at least kept our heads above the water in a tough time for the whole globe; the Conservative masnifesto has some startingly dangerous decisions in it based on old ideals ill-fitted for this modern, progressive age.
Congratulations on the Green Party's first ever MP. May it be the first of many.
Such a disappointing night for Lib Dem. My local Liberal MP lost to the Labour candidate, who has been dis-owned by his own local Labour party for a 'dirty tricks' campaign, cheated on his wife during the election run-up (leaving her a single mum with two kids) and was the one who invited Gordon Brown to the infamous 'Bigot' interview. And he still won. Absolutely unbelievable, proof once and for all that Rochdalians are fucking stupid.
As for the wider country, an expected result really; the New Conservative's proving that even with a wildly unpopular, unelected PM, they still couldn't force him out (not the proper way anyway).
Rob Rule:
You're talking about the Conservative party from 20-years ago. The "new" Conservatives are far more moderate, and virtually indistinguishable from Labour on policy.
Matt Boothman:
Hate to say I told you so, but...
People were never going to vote for the LibDems. They like (and think it more socially acceptable to like) the LibDems, but they vote with their heads, not their hearts. It's like the "Shy Tory Effect", or the "Bradley Effect" (Was I the only one who thought that had something to do with Bradley from S-Club 7 being black?).
Anyway, big swings from LibDem to Tory down here, although the overall votes were very close:
St Ives (my constituency) - LibDem Hold, but 10.4% swing towards Con, and very close.
Camborne & Redruth - Con gain from LibDem, but just 66 votes in it!
Truro & Falmouth - Con gain from LibDem, but again less than 500 votes between them.
Fortunately, it looks like Brown will be gone. He could still technically do some kind of a deal with the LibDems to stay in, but I think there'd be riots if he did. Serving two terms without ever being elected is just taking the piss - especially when you f@$k everything up as badly as he has.
btw: You'll be happy to know I did vote in the end (just happened to be walking past the polling station anyway). Still voted Tory though, just to spite you
I just wish I could have voted for that guy standing behind Gordon Brown, with his fist up...
Anyone who left it until 9pm to vote, after polls have been open since 7am, is a dumbass in my opinion. It's probably just as well people like that didn't get to vote.
This is not meant to be offensive but how old are you Rob? Perhaps when I was fresh out of school I held perhaps somewhat similar views. Brown may not have been to Eaton, but I am pretty confident he was redbrick educated (like myself, on a side note I am now doing my third degree after working in what industry was left). I meet a lot of "Ruperts" at Uni, and a lot of them are labour as well (probably just to spite their dad! ). I may accuse them of talking out of their arses (and I have done), but I do not hold their upbringing against them. Oh and before you ask, I have got my postgrad degrees (place and funding) on my work and results, not Daddy's money. I have a strong Brummie accent, how do you think I feel with these people ?
You have my deepest sympathies if you honestly believe the Labour party is competent in running the economy or any fiscal policy. The Labour party members are not bad people personally, they mean well but they are generally just incompetent in running a business. Wilson, Callaghan and Brown have all brought our countries economy to its knees or did your teachers skip over this part of history in favour of only telling you about Maggie shutting the pits and the poll tax?
Why has the UK:
* Took the longest to show any form of growth from our recession (in the G20)
* A record decline in manufacturing since records began in 1980 (ONS time series QTPI and QVYR)
* A quadrupled national debt compared to 97 (HM treasury) and highest budget deficit of any developed country at 11.4 of GDP (IMF)
* Sold the gold reserves (in a very bad manner/process)
* Have record inactivity in the labour market since records began in 1971 (ONS labour market stats)
* It goes on...
I guess this is "keeping our heads above the water" ? God help us if we did 'badly'!
It really annoys me that an alleged socialist government has destroyed pretty much a whole generations pensions (the first thing Brown did in 97 was the 5bn tax on them), let our motor industry collapse and to top it off they have accelerated the gap between the poor and the rich, with the poorest households (bottom 20%) income falling consecutively for 3 years (DWP Households below average income 07/08 ), whilst our child poverty rate is one of the worst in the developed EU nations.
I fail to see how being out of the EU is a tribal instinct? I guess Greece, Spain and Portugual being on the brink of collapse (or have collapsed) are glistening examples of why we should jump in head first and also adopt the Euro. Discussions about Greece pulling out and reverting to the Drachma (such that they have their own control over their currency, i.e. let them print more to help ease their debt) are afoot. I having nothing against Europeans, I just believe each country needs to control its own economy.
Do not get me wrong, Labour have done some good things. Minimum wage, winter fuel allowance for the elderly, tax credits and I think they did the free TV license for elderly too, but I still think a FAR better job could be done. To be honest the party I think the British public needs is none of the main ones, but a mix between old school labour and the conservatives (i.e. peoples interests at heart, whilst keeping the country afloat). Unfortunately such a party does not exist.
Oh and for the record I have generally voted Conservative at Generals/MP level (I did vote Tory ), and whoever does the best job for the local community for the council elections (usually labour, the labour councillor around here does do a good job so he gets my vote). A lot of people are so hung up on stereotypes and hate of the other side its Labour/Labour or Con/Con on Election Day.
The wavering between parties is such now that to talk of elections past, and records from twenty years ago is fairly redundant. The Labour Party effectively became a new party in the mid-90s; since then they've been pretty liberal (with a small l) towards the banks, the markets and big business. It's funny Hagar how you say what we need is "a mix between old school labour and the conservatives"... because that is exactly what New Labour is! It was specifically set out to be just that; capitalism with a conscience. You will say 'Labour has failed because of its socialist leanings'. I will say 'Labour failed in spite of them'. That's just down to viewpoint in the end.
I don't think Brown's done a disastrous job though, all in all. We have, in my view, been sheltered from most of the effects of the recession. He did however fail in ending the boom and bust, as he called it. We still have a massively skewed economic model where billions of pounds are been gambled and traded away at the top, whilst some kids want for a few quid here and there at the bottom. That's not socialism.
I do not see how any Conservative can really criticise Brown's financial control of Britain's economy. For 90% of it they have been squarely behind it. Even now, the numbers between Brown and Cameron's financial plans are minuscule. New Labour has much more in common with the government of Margaret Thatcher than it does with the policies of Michael Foot.
All this though leaves me with a sense of dread for the future; there are no socialist parties in the Government. Each party has blundered stupidly towards the middle and are almost sitting on top of each other.
And just a point about Brown having never been elected as Prime Minister; nobody has ever been elected as Prime Minister. This is not America. You vote for a constituency candidate, and then those candidates decide between them who should lead.
Originally Posted by Sketchy Rob Rule:
You're talking about the Conservative party from 20-years ago. The "new" Conservatives are far more moderate, and virtually indistinguishable from Labour on policy.
Nope, I'm talking about the Conservatives today. Also they are, quite obviously, still two very distinguishable parties.
In address to hagar; I'm far too posh for my own good, and have, to my moderate shame, indulged in far too much on all things socio, from the political theory of the Ancient Grecian foundings to the economics, philosophy and politic of modern society, centred of course mostly on here in the UK. This isn't really about our credentials and qualifications, though, or our similar ages - it's just an opinion thing. I believe my opinion is informed and that you disagree doesn't mean yours is any less so.
Holding an upbringing against someone is obviously wrong and and has the implication of inverse snobbery on my part; that's not my concern. My concern is Cameron, not his upbringing - an upbringing that encourages a modus operandi that in this case, I believe Cameron operates by. If you closely read my post, you will see that I do not support Labour or even consider them competent, merely that I think they have a safer manifesto than the Tories do and thus would be safer in the position to deal with the economy than the Tories.
And not to needlessly correct you on an irrelevant point, but the University of Edinburgh isn't part of the civic university movement.
I voted Lib Dem too but i have to say i am glad Paul Rowen is out. Never did like him too much and he has done bugger all for Rochdale recently. I know i used to work in the council offices and it was a pain in the arse getting anything done. he is the reason rochdale council are having to slash spending by £100m!!
@Marko: I kind of suspected this result would turn out, unfortunately. I was expecting more turnout to other parties as well, not it to be a 2 (or 3) horse race.
@Matt: I did employ the proviso of them keeping the country afloat, something the Labour party I believe has failed badly at (whether the Tories would have fared better is another question but I think anyone could have done better ). Plus how exactly has Brown sheltered us? We are pretty much the hardest hit country out of the G20 developed nations. I do kind of agree with you on a fundamental level though, about no party being particularly suited for the job.
Records from 20 years ago (and more) are always important, it allows us to compare what is happening now to past events like the last economic dip at the end of the 80s. More data is always a good thing for an engineer or scientist. It would be like analysing global temperature trends with 5 years of data, completely pointless.
@Rob: My bad on the redbrick's, I did kind of get bored writing and reading and assumed he was, either that or Oxbridge material. I personally dislike career politicians (from any party any level), as I believe they are lacking sufficient life experience (and thus common sense) and I would like to see more engineers and people that have actually worked for a living in the commons in all parties.
This may be an engineer's perspective and I mean no offence to anyone with such degrees (one of the toilets in the engineering faculty does have "Art Degrees" written on the toilet roll dispenser, so it is definitely a stigma we do attach to anyone bar engineers ) but I personally fail to see how a person with an English degree (etc) that has never been out into the world and worked has any insight on running a country, and I think a lot of people in the commons fall into this category.
I went to an inner city school and college/sixth form and I have always done quite well academically - level 7's on sats, mostly A's on GCSE/A level, a 1st on my undergrad degree, distinction on my MSc and I was asked back for my PhD I did not apply for it . I have done a fair bit of work though, I used to repair Bluetooth headsets part time while doing my UG degree, and I was in R&D for some time before returning to academia.
Oddly enough my GF is an ardent socialist but we get on great. Can not figure out if its proof of opposites attract or that I may be a closet socialist
Rob Rule:
Hagar is right - Brown has not "kept our heads above water". It really couldn't have gone much worse than it did - only two countries in the world have been hit harder than the UK - Greece and Iceland.
Plus, he *caused* the problem in the first place - remember, the global crisis came about as a result of sub-prime lending, which was basically a US / UK activity.
Anyone who will listen:
The rest of the world must find all this truly baffling.
I mean, here we are trying to spread democracy in places like Afghanistan, and not only do we make a mess of the voting process itself, but there's a very real possibility that we'll have someone serving two terms as PM without ever winning an election - he wasn't even voted the Labour leader.
It's just crazy
I know it won't happen, but the best case scenario now, would be for Labour to do a deal with the LibDems to stay in power, but on the condition that Gordon Brown stands down immediately (to be replaced by a Milliband most likely), and Vince Cable becomes Chancellor.
Unfortunately, neither party would ever go for that.
@Lembi: Paul Rowen has been a fine MP. The Council and the Constituency MP are two entirely different things; they don't affect each other. The LDs have been shocking running the council, but that has nothing to do with Rowen.
@Sketchy: Brown was elected unopposed by the party that most people voted for last time. You don't vote for PM.
@Hagar: I don't see people rioting in England, I don't see people turfed out onto the streets, all I see is a massive lack of jobs, but a lack of jobs which is subsidised by the improved welfare state. It may get worse though, and I will concede the point if we do. And my point about looking back 20 years ago was just about comparing parties from now until then. As I said earlier, Brown has more in common with Thatcher than Foot - and I could easily say that Cameron has more in common with Blair than Heath.
We all know you *technically* only vote for the MP in your constituency, but let's face it - most people actually vote based on the party and its leader, because they see national issues as more important than their local issues. In this particular election, I don't doubt that there were a huge number of people who voted based on nothing else but a desire to get rid of Gordon Brown (and similarly, many will have voted purely to try and prevent a Tory government).
I'm sure a lot people didn't even know the name of the candidate they were voting for, let alone what they stand for.
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. I personally dislike career politicians (from any party any level), as I believe they are lacking sufficient life experience (and thus common sense) and I would like to see more engineers and people that have actually worked for a living in the commons in all parties.
Oh, totally. The culture of career politics is a large part of our current affliction with politics, imo.
@ Matt: a "double dip" (sorry to coin the media phrase ) could cause such effects but I think the British public have become far more scared of protesting (peacefully of course). Most people just accept the fact that they will be ignored and nothing will change no matter who gets in, and they just "assume the position" and brace themselves.
The figures show we are in a worse off state now, but as you say the state is keeping a cap on the social knock on effects, I know of a family who has recently had their house repossessed and now lives in a council house. At least they have somewhere to live but it is a grim time.
I think half of the problem is our culture. I have a lot of friends whom have everything but own nothing (new car even though their old car was fine, huge LCD TV, every console, every i-pod and i-phone that comes out and a large overdraft to boot). All of their items are on hire purchase, the whole ethos of our culture has become far too materialistic for my liking.
I have always been brought up to use something until it breaks or wears out, I will use my car until it fails a MOT test beyond viable repair.
I have to say, i have never voted on the basis of local candidates, despite the fact that that is indeed who i am voting for rather than the party leader. Everytime i have voted in General Elections (since i turned 18 - 199 it was for the Tories just to get Blair/Brown out of No. 10. As far as i can see, the person in No. 10 has a much greater impact on my life than the person who gets voted in my region.
Realistically, i care more about things like European policy, the Pound, foriegn policy, country-wide taxes, etc. than whether or not they're going to build a new toilet in Tenbury Wells or whether the Regal cinema gets a new lick of paint!
BTW, i think election reform is needed in this country - how can Lib Dems have only a sixth/seventh of the number of seats in this parliament when they won about 25% of the country's vote? I don't want them having power personally, but this surely doesn't make sense?!
I am sure the rest of the world thinks our electoral process looks stoopid!
I agree with Marko too . Cameron has said two things that I agree with today firstly that of making constituency sizes roughly equal (A good start for electoral reform). For example the Isle of Wight is Conservative and has 109,000 constituents, yet my local constituency which is Labour has only about 60,000 constituents, and most wards around here are Labour and have similar sizes. (Maybe an extreme example, but I do think things are fishy with the constituency sizes)
I also like the fact he has said no to the ID card scheme .
It's a very weird situation we're in at the moment. Both of the big main parties have been historically dead against any kind of electoral reform (whether it be PR, STV, AV etc). But neither of the big two can form the next government without the help of the Lib Dems, and they have been banging on about electoral reform since when they were formed. It looks like they're finally getting their chance to push it through.
If a referendum came out, I'm sure it would get the nod from the people. Nearly all Liberal voters are in favour of reform, all the smaller party supporters will be pushing for it, plus the Nationalists because it would improve their positions. That leaves the hardcore Labour and Conservative voters. Even a fair chunk of those would admit the bizarreness of the FPTP system. It'd pass with 75% of the public I think.
And Marko - even if you're voting for the party rather than your local candidate, the party you've voted for gets to choose their own leader. If the Labour party wanted to get rid of Gordon Brown, they have an absolute right too, within their own constitution. Similarly, if Cameron was the Prime Minister, and lost all confidence from his back-benchers, he could be replaced by the Conservative Party and the new guy would be Prime Minister, without facing a new election. But yeh, agreed with you that FPTP is stupid in multi-party politics; and would actually only yield hung parliaments anyway (now that the Lib Dems seem to make up at least 25% of the electorate). I'd rather those hung parliaments be proportional made up. In fact, PR would favour the Tories at this last election, despite the myth that they are well over-represented (that dubious honour falls on Labour).
@Hagar: The figures show, as a whole, we're in a worse-off state, but those at the bottom aren't AS bad (which must mean the 'middle' has taken quite a lot of the blow - instead of the top like it should be, and would be if I had my way!). I agree with you about our debt culture, and consumerism being massive problems; I don't know what has caused it. I'm very much with you, I will use something until it breaks, and when it has broke I will either fix it or use it for something else if possible, and then lastly I would recycle it (I hate waste).
Boothman you are right about the party leader not being in the the public's control - i think this is where most of the frustration with Brown in power comes from. No-one voted him in and it annoys his haters (including me), despite the fact "we" never voted Blair either, it was just Labour themselves who voted Blair internally!
I know that the parties get to choose their own leaders, and that's generally fine (although I do like the idea of primaries).
However, the situation with Brown was very unusual, and frankly very unethical (remember the Tory campaign "Vote Blair, Get Brown", and how it was refuted by Labour). I can't imagine either party would get away with pulling a similar stunt now(at least not any time soon).
btw: I wouldn't assume the LibDems will get their way with electoral reform. The Conservatives aren't actually under that much pressure to do a deal - they may well be happy just to form a minority government, and if that fails and we go to another election, then they would surely get an overall majority next time. Brown really isn't in any position to do a deal to remain in power, so Labour's only hope is to replace him - but he of course, he refuses to go quietly.
Although we think it makes sense for Labour to replace Gordon Brown with someone else, it's very unlikely that a lib-lab deal government could form without him. The Queen would not appoint anyone else as prime minister and would appoint David Cameron as the prime minister of a minority government. I am hoping that the lib dems and labour can come to some agreement, it doesn't seem right that Gordon Brown can remain as prime minister, but it's one more way to anger people and will get them to press for political reform. I would be very disappointed if the lib dems backed the tories. Some people say it's not right that the tories can be cut out, but it's just a sad fact of democracy. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have very similar ideas in a lot of the key areas. People's votes are spread across 2 parties that are representing the same thing, leaving the somewhat opposite agenda open to what seems to be more support.
The conservatives would have won outright from what I heard on TV and reading of my Grans Sunday Comic Mirror (its almost as bad as the Sun!) if it was proportional representation (I have not looked at the figures personally though so this maybe just bull). I find it quite odd, that if such claims are true why they are not considering such reforms.
With some wards in Birmingham/West Mids having the worst unemployment in the country, I cannot believe people keep voting the Labour MP's back in with such large majorities. I would have more respect for them if they voted for anyone else, in the hope of someone doing better locally, whilst getting more representation for their party down in the commons. I just cannot believe the British public at times, especially in Birmingham (with all the companies that have gone under with no help from government at all).
@Matt: I also cannot see where this "I want it now"/Consumerism/Debt culture has arisen from. If I cannot afford it, I do not buy it (barring a mortgage of course but that will not be for a few years yet), and as previously mentioned like yourself I will use something until it breaks/wears out, then I will have a go at fixing it myself (fixed my amplifier last week and done many things on my car like waterpump, brake pads/shoes, track rod ends etc). Half the population just seem scared of getting their hands dirty (like people on side of the road calling the AA to change a tyre, my opinion is if they cannot change a tyre and they are physically well enough to do so they should not be on the roads!) or they are worried about their possessions going out of fashion.
And I also agree that the wealthiest have had too much of an easy time during this recession.
The thing is, these wards with the worst unemployment (in my town it's Falinge, look it up, highest level of benefit claims anywhere in England http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38452/The-shameless-capital-of-BritainThe-shameless-capital-of-BritainThe-shameless-capital-of-BritainThe-shameless-capital-of-BritainThe-shameless-capital-of-BritainThe-shameless-capital-of-Britain) have no-one else to vote for, or feel they don't. You aren't going to get poor people voting Tory - there's just too much stigma attached; they aren't a party for the working classes, or in this case, the un-working classes. These people also don't listen much to news or any kind of politics really - they only see two options, Labour ("that's for poor people") and Tory ("that's for the rich"). And as we've seen in this election, the Liberals are often disregarded as a fait acompli in tight elections. Again, a problem of FPTP. Is it any wonder the racist National Front has recorded its highest vote in Rochdale in any election since the 70s?
The Tories wouldn't have won outright with proportional representation (I don't know where you got that fact from). It stands to reason that with less than 50% of the vote you do not command an outright majority. But their share of the vote would yield far more seats than Labour's under all kinds of PR, so there's no reason why they should be against it, unless they suspect that people are only voting Tory because they don't like Labour. http://www.flickr.com/photos/oledoe/sets/72157624017184792/ predicts what would have happened if various types of PR were used. The Tories wouldn't have won a majority in any of them.
And on the materialism thing, I cannot for the life of me figure out how some people have the objects they do, and why. I myself have no income, and as a result I don't really own anything (I could quite easily fit my entire life's possessions into a large suitcase). And yet I see people my age with no job, claiming they are skint, and yet they drive a car and can somehow afford its petrol, insurance and tax.
EDIT - interesting, reading the first article and how it mentions Kingsway Business Park as a new hope for the people of Falinge - KBP has been a massive white elephant and stands undeveloped on the edge of town. http://rochdaleraw.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-last-some-interest-in-kingsway.html has a report of gypsies moving on it, because of its prime, flat muddy fields. Bugger me, it's shit innit.
Originally Posted by Marko Brown is standing down - hooray! But why wait til September? Will the party really fall to pieces if he went now??
They need a new leader - otherwise we have no prime minister. I imagine he will leave when a new leader is elected, which will be between now and September.
Why can't the deputy leader step-up until a full time leader is found? To me it looks more like a) desperation on Brown's part to cling on for as long as possible and b) it makes a mockery of it all when a leader realises he's not the right man for the job but still carries on in the countries most important leadership role for another 4 months regardless!
Both good points, well made.
It also means we could easily be stuck with another PM that the public had no say in choosing - again.
There really needs to be a system in place to force a general election in the event of a leadership change within a short time (1 year?) of the last election.
At least the most likely candidate this time would be one of the Millibands (hopefully Ed), who I may even have voted for anyway - unlike Brown, who was clearly a train wreck waiting to happen from day one.
Anyhow, he's gone now (nearly) so I'm happy whatever happens
Brown won't be standing down, because it would take some time even for the Labour Party to appoint a new leader. He knows we can't carry on for much longer without a proper prime minister in the current climate; if he stood down immediately, the Labour Party would have to find a new leader BEFORE dealing with the Lib Dems. It's just not practical.
Sounds like he'll be resigning either tonight or tommorrow morning - Lib Dem talks with Labour failed, and looks very likely to be a Lib Dem and Conservative government.
@Matt: My reason for driving an old car when I was younger was not only because I think modern cars are damn fugly (they all look the same to me) but also for fiscal reasons. My car is tax exempt as it was built in 1971, so even though Brown removed the tax exemption for cars approaching 25 years old (first thing he did in 97, something I am still angry about!) it is not retrospective so cars that already have it have so indefinitely. When I was 17 the classic insurance policies was also cheap and they had not put a minimum age on policies either, something they have now cottoned on to as a lot of people started doing this . A lot of people are driving around with no tax or insurance I can guarantee you that, somebody drove into the back of my dad last week (red lights) due to shoddy brakes and the guy had no MOT, Insurance, License or road tax.
I did guess those claims about proportional representation was bull (I hinted so in the post ) I may have heard it on the politics show something's that is always on the box when I am down my Grans or the wireless in the car. It has got me thinking though, in particular that the current system acts as a filter against fanatical parties, such as the BNP (they would have got 12 seats on your link on pure PR). The thought of having > 0 scares me, so perhaps the current system is not so bad after all.
Brown out, Cameron in. Whether or not Dave will do a better job we'll soon see, though whatever happens atleast e won't be getting more of (exactly) the same!
Marko: I am quite worried actually. Whoever came into power in this election allegedly needs to make cuts bigger than Maggie did. The people in this term will be hated by the end (whether it was labour or tory) so I do fear Labour will creep back in in 5 years time as the tories have had to make cuts due to the incompetence of Brown & Co.
Inevitable now that massive cuts are going to happen. But as any economics student will tell you, the best way to get out of a recession is to increase public spending. Obviously this isn't going to happen because Labour didn't regulate in that public spending when the times were good, and the deficit is far too large to contemplate that. Failure all round then.
@Matt: Just read up on your home town, it does sound grim! The biggest farce around the West Midlands is the Public (Google it if your interested). It's a joke, considering the area (they pulled the baths down), cost (plus relocation of the bus station) and the failure of it not attracting crowds (well duh, as if people from the West Mids are going to flock to draw crap on a touch screen and discuss its artistic merit). Yet people that think up such ideas and then have the audacity to think it will be a booming success still exist high up in control of our societies.
Matt have you thought of politics? You have the ability of thinking , even if our ideals don't match in places I always have time for people that can think. There have been a couple of young labour candidates around the west mids, one almost got in (not that I recommend joining the Labour party of course ). Either that or get prepared to travel for a suitable job (like I did ).
I was expecting a mess whoever got in. I had no time for Gordon though, so at least one good thing has turned up. I liked John Prescott, Mo Molan and Robin Cooke but I took an instant dislike to the Milliband Bros.
That Public thing looks awful. I gather from Wikipedia it cost upwards of £50million (reminds me of the Millennium Dome in that respect; expensive, ugly and ultimately crap). It would be funny if it weren't so tragic! And you say it struggles to pull the crowds in? I've been on the website and I still don't even know what it is, is it some kind of museum or what?
I have thought of 'doing' politics, but never really as a job. I wouldn't know what party to join either, but you're probably right in hinting at Labour. No matter how disillusioned I get with them, or how far away they stray from their roots, I know in the long run they're probably for me (even if I have never actually voted for them). What job do you do by the way? How come you had to travel?
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. Marko: I am quite worried actually. Whoever came into power in this election allegedly needs to make cuts bigger than Maggie did. The people in this term will be hated by the end (whether it was labour or tory) so I do fear Labour will creep back in in 5 years time as the tories have had to make cuts due to the incompetence of Brown & Co.
There's alot of truth to this. I think Cameron will be a man of action though, considering in his first full day in charge they've already decided to cancel the 3rd runway at Heathrow, and the arguments about that had been brewing for years!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Sketchy
Useless piece of information for you there. 
. I have since worked in industry before returning to academia (hopefully I should be a Dr [engineering] in two years) and it is in a grim state.
)
.
. Cameron has said two things that I agree with today firstly that of making constituency sizes roughly equal (A good start for electoral reform). For example the Isle of Wight is Conservative and has 109,000 constituents, yet my local constituency which is Labour has only about 60,000 constituents, and most wards around here are Labour and have similar sizes. (Maybe an extreme example, but I do think things are fishy with the constituency sizes)