General Election

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

The first one, I am in complete agreement with you. They've done the numbers votewise and realise more people from families vote than from other demographic areas (i.e. not married). Shamelessly giving money for votes. How long is it until they offer to pay pensioners a super-duper bonus on top of the riches they already receive? Not long I would think.

 

The second one I gave up on after a few minutes (in true British voter way). Labour always seem to hark back to the age of Thatcher and the damage done. Even if you say she did damage, which is debateable, it was the blocking of Barbara Castle's White Paper by Callaghan that caused Unions to be too strong, and in turn her to need to react in the manner she did (and having the power to do so). I guess you can work back on any situation to play any game that way though.

 

I guess in this election you have to ask two things:

(i) What is best for me.

(ii) What is best for the Country.

 

(i) Labour (not including Liberals), (ii) Conservative's; for me

 

I don't blame you for not trudging through the second one - even if it is worth it in the end. Have a go at this one though.

 

Cameron's Crank

 

It's everything you need to know about the emptiness of the Big Society idea.

 

We need policies, not dreams of Merrie England.

 

If David Cameron is the answer, the question might be this: who's political philosophy is based on a load of nonsense?

[OldhamSheridan]

I saw one team with policies spread out and clarified.

 

It was neither Labour or Conservative (I'll give up my game now, I've been a Tory voter for twenty odd years).

 

I would say now. And it is a distinct change for me, VOTE LIBERAL'S. They are the most fair. They deserve a chance.

 

I agree they will not get in. But by voting for them you will push their vote in and make this a three party country in the future, and that would make things a whole lot better.

 

 

 

Can someone change the following to yellow and big?

 

 

VOTE LIBERAL

[opinions4u]

YouGov poll in the Sun:

 

Tories 33%

Lib-Dems 30%

Labout 28%

 

Not sure if it was internet / telephone / high street poll.

 

So what are Lib Dem policies on things like:

 

Euro (I think they are pro-Euro)

Law and Order ("Instead of using prison and sentencing as a proxy for real action on crime, the Liberal Democrats will use alternative measures")

Political Correctness (their web site has an equality page that covers "Women", "Ethnic Minorities", "Disabilities" and "Older People". I feel excluded Nick)

Health (I've not read their document, but, along with the other parties, they don't appear to be promising more training to bring doctors and nurses through the system from education to healthcare. This inevitably means having to recruit overseas, which has a negative impact on health care in other countries).

Defence (is it really a good idea to scrap Trident?).

 

I've only scanned the LD web site - not fully assessed it. But before people run out and vote for "that nice man who did quite well on the telly" they should ask what he actually stands for first.

 

Although they claim their schemes are properly costed, I notice something about scrapping ID cards to pay for 3,000 extra police on the beat. May be I've missed something, but I though ID cards were meant to be funded by fees, not taxation. So how can you re-allocate funds that you never had? Makes me think their "properly costed" manifesto is about asd well balanced as Darling's budget and about as sustainable as the non-entity "policies" put across by Cameron.

 

Given the choice on offer, emigration looks more appealing than voting for any party in this country.

Edited April 17, 2010 by opinions4u

[OldhamSheridan]

Obviously people aren't going to agree with all the policies of every party. Which is fair enough. You pick and choose the policies from each you think are best and most important.

 

Does Trident really have a place in an integrated NATO World? I don't think so myself. That's a belting saving for a start.

Do two middle of the road parties really cater for the poor? No. Although I disagree with the level of the amount LD have come up with (it's too high), the idea is top notch and something I hope the other parties, Labour in particular as it is their supposed domain, learn from.

 

They are pro-Europe (I don't really go with this myself {voted UKIP in the European elections and will again}, but no one is going to be any different really). I completely agree with their ideas on imprisonment. You do the same thing over and over and it fails. Why the hell are we repeating this process? Do something different. If it fails, we have lost nothing as the current system fails.

 

No idea of the PC thing. I'm excluded by everyone other than the BNP. Eeek.

 

Health is the same as everyone isn't it. We'll throw money at this cash-cow and it'll be gobbled up by administrators, which we don't beleive in, but... oh :censored:. but saying you'll protect our beloved NHS wins votes so no one is going to jump ship on that one.

 

If you are saying adios go to Canada. it's pretty much the only place going where the demographics don't mean a very soon future tax of over 50% (or working longer*).

 

 

*I'll repeat the findings of an exercise we did. We got the demographics and future pension costings (using current taxation) and we'll have to work until we are 73 to pay for this (not including lowering the national debt or the loss of pension fundings - it was prior to these coming to light). The average age of male death in this area is 71. So be prepared to work when you are dead (I doubt the North West is very different).

[razza699]

I saw one team with policies spread out and clarified.

 

It was neither Labour or Conservative (I'll give up my game now, I've been a Tory voter for twenty odd years).

 

I would say now. And it is a distinct change for me, VOTE LIBERAL'S. They are the most fair. They deserve a chance.

 

I agree they will not get in. But by voting for them you will push their vote in and make this a three party country in the future, and that would make things a whole lot better.

 

 

 

Can someone change the following to yellow and big?

 

 

VOTE LIBERAL

 

VOTE LIBERAL

[beag_teeets]

It really is a sorry state of affairs when despite being in existence for several hundred years in one form or another it has taken a beauty contest for the sheeple in this country to "discover" the Liberals.

 

As the twitterarti and blogosphere have said this week, I wonder what Clegg will do during Disco week and the swimwear round? I hope Cheryl Cole can give us her views of the "acts" when the 3rd debate is on BBC or "Our Graham" can give us a quick recap.

 

Sometimes I wonder whether democracy really is the right answer and I for one, look forward to the day when I can welcome our new insect overlords.

[Crusoe]

Yes, but what will those new insect overlords do for me?

[OldhamSheridan]

It really is a sorry state of affairs when despite being in existence for several hundred years in one form or another it has taken a beauty contest for the sheeple in this country to "discover" the Liberals.

 

As the twitterarti and blogosphere have said this week, I wonder what Clegg will do during Disco week and the swimwear round? I hope Cheryl Cole can give us her views of the "acts" when the 3rd debate is on BBC or "Our Graham" can give us a quick recap.

 

Sometimes I wonder whether democracy really is the right answer and I for one, look forward to the day when I can welcome our new insect overlords.

 

 

Has anyone really changed their minds because of the TV thing?

 

If you didn't have a view before it you must have had your hands over your ears and your eyes closed for yonks now.

 

I think the problem with the Liberals is they have jumped in the space between the two major parties for far too long. I'm not sure they've stopped doing it as all they are doing is coming up with what should be Labour policies at the moment, as no one is there.

[bigfatjoe1]

Has anyone really changed their minds because of the TV thing?

 

If you didn't have a view before it you must have had your hands over your ears and your eyes closed for yonks now.

 

I think the problem with the Liberals is they have jumped in the space between the two major parties for far too long. I'm not sure they've stopped doing it as all they are doing is coming up with what should be Labour policies at the moment, as no one is there.

 

 

They've 'jumped the space' since the end of the First World War because the growth of class based politics split their electoral foundations.

 

Liberal voters should vote Labour. The two are part of the progressive wing of British politics, ideolgically natural allies. Both are rooted in the New Liberalism of the late nineteenth century. Labour has had some socialist inlfuences, but these have been peripheral in terms of the party's development and, certainly now, in terms of the current party. Social housing, the NHS, the welfare state - all liberal ideals, all the product of Liberal policy makers. Why the continued split (and there was a split as the Labour Representation Committee was orginally a pressure group aligned to the Liberal Party)? Liberals are still essentially middle class snobs (or they aspire to be middle class) who can't stomach the thought of voting for the traditional working class party, even after all these years. Why do the Liberal always appear more radical - because they can afford to be due to the fact that they have never actually been faced with the reality of power, of making decisions when actually in government. Everyone can sound good in theory. It would be very different if they actually had to make real decisions.

 

 

There are only two real alternatives. It is very simple. There is a chasm between them. Anybody who says 'they're all the saem' is totally thick and should be denied the opportunity to vote. Coice One - vote for tax cuts for the rich, slash and burn spending on the police, nurses, doctors, teachers and local government workers. Choice two - put national insurance by 1% to protect these vital services and gradually pay off the debt whilst cushioning the recovery. Keep people in jobs to continue consumer spending. The third is a wasted vote for the vacuous and immature Liberals.

[OldhamSheridan]

Yay, and Labour are the party for serfs who shouldn't even have a vote in the first place.

 

NB.

Choice 1: Tax and spend and increase debt to a cashzwillion yuan (as if this continues China will actually own us).

Choice 2: Cut everything except the worst offenders as it appeals to voters hence why it has been overspent on for years.

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

They've 'jumped the space' since the end of the First World War because the growth of class based politics split their electoral foundations.

 

Interesting. I thought they "jumped in the space" vacated by the fledgling Labour party after the farago known to many as World War I.

 

For most of the rest of the century, Liberal was a dirty word. Still should be in my book. Like Fascist.

 

[leeslover]

Interesting. I thought they "jumped in the space" vacated by the fledgling Labour party after the farago known to many as World War I.

 

For most of the rest of the century, Liberal was a dirty word. Still should be in my book. Like Fascist.

Rather surprisingly poor analysis from a History graduate (albeit from a somewhat middling University). The Liberals had largely abandoned Liberalism, at least in it's economic and social form, easily by the later 19th century. Bigfatjoe1 has it spot on about where the Lib Dems are aligned, although I would take a slightly different conclusion about the way forward to him/her. It's certainly been a long time since the Liberals were the party of low taxation, peace and limited government.

[Zorrro]

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

[jimsleftfoot]

Does Trident really have a place in an integrated NATO World? I don't think so myself.

 

Did NATO help their Georgia brothers against the whole point of forming NATO i.e. a resurgent Russia?

 

Nope.

 

What about that lovely state called China, cash rich but not interesting on spend much on its vast rural and working classes, but who aim to stick men on the moon. Could be a threat in a fight.

 

And if it all goes a bit boobs up. I reckon that the North Korea's and Iran's might just end up supporting each other against the traditional western allies being that many of them have similar idealogies/common enemy.

 

I'm not so sure we should get rid of Trident just yet.

[beag_teeets]

Us being a newclear state buys us a seat at the top table in the UN and in general rankings, if we didn't have it we would lose that seat.

 

It could be argued that a country of our size and resources shouldn't have that seat and that getting rid of it would be a good thing as we would be able to scale back our involvement in various overseas endeavours now and in the future. My own view is that we should keep the seat, but whether trident is the right way to do this or whether we should look at other deployment methods is where the debate should be.

 

I would like to keep the nuclear submarines though, pretty good bargaining tool those, parking a couple off the coast of a rogue nation is the equivalent of swinging a baseball bat around and whistling.

[leeslover]

Did NATO help their Georgia brothers against the whole point of forming NATO i.e. a resurgent Russia?

 

Nope.

 

What about that lovely state called China, cash rich but not interesting on spend much on its vast rural and working classes, but who aim to stick men on the moon. Could be a threat in a fight.

 

And if it all goes a bit boobs up. I reckon that the North Korea's and Iran's might just end up supporting each other against the traditional western allies being that many of them have similar idealogies/common enemy.

 

I'm not so sure we should get rid of Trident just yet.

North Korea and Iran have similar ideologies?

 

I can't myself ever imagine that we would nuke someone without the US also doing them, which make Trident seem a bit wasteful really. Not that I think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway but if the troops out there are having to buy their own armour, boots etc and drive about in Tonka toy cars that seems like a more urgent military priority to me.

[jimsleftfoot]

North Korea and Iran have similar ideologies?

 

I can't myself ever imagine that we would nuke someone without the US also doing them, which make Trident seem a bit wasteful really. Not that I think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway but if the troops out there are having to buy their own armour, boots etc and drive about in Tonka toy cars that seems like a more urgent military priority to me.

 

Nah they have a common enemy. The similar ideologies bit referred though perhaps slightly unclear to North Korea/China and Russia.

 

In regards to the armour, I don't think its an issue. Our weaponpry is vastly better than the enemies. Its the fact that they are using gorilla warfare tactics that is the problem.

Edited April 19, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[leeslover]

Nah they have a common enemy. The similar ideologies bit referred though perhaps slightly unclear to North Korea/China and Russia bit.

Ah, got you! The problem as I see with nukes as a deterrent is that the people you are waving them at are either too big (we aren't going to pitch one at Russia) or too small (can't really see us wiping some small country off the planet)

[jimsleftfoot]

Ah, got you! The problem as I see with nukes as a deterrent is that the people you are waving them at are either too big (we aren't going to pitch one at Russia) or too small (can't really see us wiping some small country off the planet)

 

I'm not really sure how it would work if i'm honest. I just don't think we should rush into getting rid of it. I also think the Nick Clegg is stating it as he doesn't think (or at least didn't think) he would have the power to do it. Though if the Lib Dems did get into power, it would likely not get past the House of Lords in it's current form.

[garcon]

We don't need Trident to deal with Iran or North Korea. If it ever comes to it (and I fear that's not long off with Iran), their nuclear capability can be annihilated with a single conventional air strike.

 

I wouldn't rule out retaining a nuclear capability after a thorough defence review (certainly for as long as countries such as Israel and China refuse to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty), but I would definitely put Trident on the table as a huge card to enable us to balance our options. There are other nuclear alternatives that needn't cost us £100Bn.

[oafc0000]

We don't need Trident to deal with Iran or North Korea. If it ever comes to it (and I fear that's not long off with Iran), their nuclear capability can be annihilated with a single conventional air strike.

 

I wouldn't rule out retaining a nuclear capability after a thorough defence review (certainly for as long as countries such as Israel and China refuse to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty), but I would definitely put Trident on the table as a huge card to enable us to balance our options. There are other nuclear alternatives that needn't cost us £100Bn.

 

How much would a trident alternative cost ? Never seen a number produced and how would it work ?

 

The choice to retain a nuclear presence is more about the countries position in the international community than any real threat about using them. Without a nuclear presence we would have about as much say on the world stage as places like Finland and Ireland. There are some benefits to going to down this route and some negatives.

 

The British interest often seems to result in our boys dying for someone else's ego trip, that said, I like our Country having a big say in world affairs. If it was left up to the Yanks etc the world would be a worse place IMO.

Edited April 19, 2010 by oafc0000

[garcon]

How much would a trident alternative cost ? Never seen a number produced and how would it work ?

Honestly no idea. That's why, whoever gets in, we urgently need a complete, all cards on the table defence review. We haven't had one since the end of the cold war.

 

The choice to retain a nuclear presence is more about the countries position in the international community than any real threat about using them. Without a nuclear presence we would have about as much say on the world stage as places like Finland and Ireland. There are some benefits to going to down this route and some negatives.

 

The British interest often seems to result in our boys dying for someone else's ego trip, that said, I like our Country having a big say in world affairs. If it was left up to the Yanks etc the world would be a worse place IMO.

Agreed. There have been many times when I've wished we could be neutral. And many others where I know our involvement has been for the better.

[thelaticsfan]

looks like nick clegg is out in front now, this after 1 tv debate, just goes to show, we would rather have someone we barely know than liar 1 and liar 2, he will probably turn out to be liar 3 if he gets in but still doesnt matter, were doomed anyway lol

[oafc0000]

looks like nick clegg is out in front now, this after 1 tv debate, just goes to show, we would rather have someone we barely know than liar 1 and liar 2, he will probably turn out to be liar 3 if he gets in but still doesnt matter, were doomed anyway lol

 

Clegg will cost me a :censored: load... Child benefit is worth a £1050 a year Don't think I will be backing him and i think when most familys work out they will scrap it they won't be voting for him either...

[garcon]

That could hurt them. But all they need to do is set out the overall aggregate of how their tax policies will affect households of different income groups. You may stand to lose a grand in child benefit, but you should gain at least 700 quid by lifting the income tax threshhold to 10k.