General Election

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

On a side note, my sat nav took me through Tulse Hill (I didn't realise the place existed) after a journey from the M1 across the smoke and over the river on my way to Bromley. I would certainly be "on the sick" if I had to make that journey each day.

 

Beautiful ain't it? If you go there at the right time of day, when the sunlight hits certain streets, it looks like they're paved with diamonds.

 

Scientists refer to this trick of the light as the Crack Phial Fallacy.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

"Big Society, Little Britain" was definitely the one liner of the night. Got a chuckle from me, and I hate Brown with a vengeance.

 

Where Brown lost it for me was his illogical scaremongering about Lib Dem policy on nukes and immigration.

 

Why I hate Cameron No. Graham plus 10:

 

He accused Brown of scaremongering because Brown put on leaflets that the Tories were going to cut concessionary bus fares. For that, Brown was a bit naughty.

 

However, on the opening day of the campaign, at PMQs, Cameron enthusiastically quoted business leaders who'd said Vote Tory or else we won't employ anyone any more.

 

Yesterday morning, Ken Clarke was touring the TV and radio studios to urge people to vote Tory on the grounds that otherwise, there would be a run on the pound and the Government would be off to the IMF for some tick.

 

Someone is guilty of scaremongering, but it ain't Brown.

[beag_teeets]

Don't forget the posters with the gravestone on or the leaflets showing a blood stained machete. One party is using scare tactics, one is talking about a fair future, I know which one scares me more.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I too thought this post tailed off towards the end but it is home time and I want to get home as my wife is cooking thai curry and she does a mean thai curry, hmmmmm, drool.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

This is well worth a look. The good old British public.

 

Pop Art

 

Warning: don't click on the link if you're sensitive about fruity language.

 

 

[garcon]

Practical democracy at work, I love it!

[Yard Dog]

There's a lot of talk about a hung parliament and how this would be a bad thing. However, I imagine there's a lot of us on here with no real allegiance to one of the main political parties and might actually feel better served by a government influenced by the best of all three parties.

[leeslover]

There's a lot of talk about a hung parliament and how this would be a bad thing. However, I imagine there's a lot of us on here with no real allegiance to one of the main political parties and might actually feel better served by a government influenced by the best of all three parties.

Personally I would rather eat cardboard than have someone like the SNP, the Unionists or, god help us, the Welsh lot being able to make or break the Government, and that's what it could well come to. The despicable turds. Whatever you think about the different mainstream parties there is nothing that pisses me off more than people standing for election to a system they say they want to leave but on a platform of using their position in it to scrounge even more money than they already get.

[opinions4u]

There's a lot of talk about a hung parliament and how this would be a bad thing. However, I imagine there's a lot of us on here with no real allegiance to one of the main political parties and might actually feel better served by a government influenced by the best of all three parties.

I really don't think having the big three parties all competing to have their "nicest" policies implemented in a "government of unity" is remotely appealing.

 

Somebody somewhere needs to take a grip of the mess this country is in and deal with it.

 

I'm not convinced we have a party standing in 2010 capable of doing it. But having the rest of the elected rabble of MPs watering down any decisive action by the biggest party in Parliament won't help anybody.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Hung Parliament now odds on with Ladbrokes - I bet on it a long long time ago and looking forward to a pay day. I also bet on the Liberals to get between 70 and 79 seats at 16s. They need to gain 7 to 16 seats for that to happen - now on at 9-2. *

 

Some of my other bets have been ruined by the leaders' debates: I bet on a lower than 55% turnout, Esther Rantzen and George Galloway. Ho hum. I still reckon the Tories will romp home in Brighton Pavilion though.

 

Anyone else foolishly put their money where their mouth is?

[garcon]

Bet on anything decided by the Great British Public? No chance!

[oafc0000]

As I keep telling people... We will make a :censored: load out of the banking bailout....

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ap...out-bank-shares

 

Again the Tories approach has been proven wrong.

Edited April 26, 2010 by oafc0000

[leeslover]

As I keep telling people... We will make a :censored: load out of the banking bailout....

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ap...out-bank-shares

 

Again the Tories approach has been proven wrong.

Oddly, I seem to remember that you keep telling people that the bank bailout is the cause of the deficit, when in fact it is that the government has consistently spent beyond it's means during years of boom? Now all of a sudden the bailout was a sensible bit of share dealing by Gordy and Ally.

[oafc0000]

Oddly, I seem to remember that you keep telling people that the bank bailout is the cause of the deficit, when in fact it is that the government has consistently spent beyond it's means during years of boom? Now all of a sudden the bailout was a sensible bit of share dealing by Gordy and Ally.

 

You are (no doubt purposely) drawing the wrong conclusion from what I was saying. My whole point has always been that a big chunk of the deficit was bailing out the banks and that deficit would one day be cleared by reselling the banks. We bought the banks cheap and we will selling them at a profit. That has always been the plan. The whole deficit situation has been massively overblown. It needs dealing with in the short term though as we should really look at holding onto the banks for as long as possible to maximise the return.

 

Getting pretty bored of you attempting (and failing) to point score throughout this thread. I get it ok, you don't like big government. I ain't too keen on it either. Outside of the NHS, Education, Defence and some amount of Social Security I would happily see a lot of the public sector rolled back. I agree with Labour though that to do it during a recovery is tad fool hardy.

Edited April 27, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Lib Dems - Trident...

 

Now I am confused... You have Nick Clegg saying they would scrap Trident but then you have Ming Cambell on Question Time saying no we won't scrap Trident for certain but we will hold a defence review and defer the decision for a number of years.

 

Make your minds up boys...

 

Its funny how they don't understand that to put an alternative in place for Trident would break every nuclear treaty. A new system would require a new type of warhead. And any land based alternative would result in more warheads being needed. Two things which are against international agreement and trends. When challenged the Libs still fail to explain (in fact they just ignore the question and repeat a load of bollox about there being no cold war threat - yeah because Russia don't fly 60 mission a year to the edge of our airspace causing the RAF to scramble jets to make sure they don't breach said airspace, no us and Russia get along great, and lets just ignore the growing Iran crisis) what the alternative is. They simply do not know. But they stress they still back a nuclear option.

 

The whole trident thing has been such a major policy for the lib dems but in the last week they have not wanted to talk about it much now. I wonder why...

 

Secondly, the Libs say they will cut, yet there own plans for cuts have a massive £3 billion hole and they even admit this

 

I am glad the Libs are giving us a third option to look at, but when you look at their plans in detail they do start to fall apart. I don't think they every thought they would be in this position this year because they have been pretty clumsily.

Edited April 27, 2010 by oafc0000

[Matt]

Just taken the http://voteforpolicies.org.uk Vote for Policies survey and it's come up with these results:

 

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BD699197099F

 

 

From my point of view I was leaning towards the Green Party anyway, but it's still interesting to complete and view the results of your survey...

 

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BD699197099F

[leeslover]

You are (no doubt purposely) drawing the wrong conclusion from what I was saying. My whole point has always been that a big chunk of the deficit was bailing out the banks and that deficit would one day be cleared by reselling the banks. We bought the banks cheap and we will selling them at a profit. That has always been the plan. The whole deficit situation has been massively overblown. It needs dealing with in the short term though as we should really look at holding onto the banks for as long as possible to maximise the return.

 

Getting pretty bored of you attempting (and failing) to point score throughout this thread. I get it ok, you don't like big government. I ain't too keen on it either. Outside of the NHS, Education, Defence and some amount of Social Security I would happily see a lot of the public sector rolled back. I agree with Labour though that to do it during a recovery is tad fool hardy.

It's really quite important though, you are giving Gordy a massive fig leave which just shouldn't exist. The government just took the shares for Northern Rock, they didn't buy them. They paid about £20 billion for RBS, I'm not sure if this was Treasury cash (which would hit the deficit) or Bank of England money (which wouldn't but either way it was in 2008. Quantitive easing does not add one penny to the deficit, neither does short term lending to banks. Every time youi claim that the bailout caused the deficit, I will tell you that you are wrong, and that last year's c£175 BILLION deficit was because government overspent during the boom and so was massively overcommitted during the bust

[garcon]

Lib Dems - Trident...

 

Now I am confused... You have Nick Clegg saying they would scrap Trident but then you have Ming Cambell on Question Time saying no we won't scrap Trident for certain but we will hold a defence review and defer the decision for a number of years.

 

Make your minds up boys...

Show me where Nick Clegg said he would scrap Trident. He has consistently said exactly what Menzies Campbell said on Question Time.

 

Its funny how they don't understand that to put an alternative in place for Trident would break every nuclear treaty. A new system would require a new type of warhead. And any land based alternative would result in more warheads being needed. Two things which are against international agreement and trends. When challenged the Libs still fail to explain (in fact they just ignore the question and repeat a load of bollox about there being no cold war threat - yeah because Russia don't fly 60 mission a year to the edge of our airspace causing the RAF to scramble jets to make sure they don't breach said airspace, no us and Russia get along great, and lets just ignore the growing Iran crisis) what the alternative is. They simply do not know. But they stress they still back a nuclear option.

Some interesting points there, which show the potential difficulties of opting for a different nuclear alternative. However please don't fall for the Daily Mail style hysteria about Russian flights into our airspace - most of those are covered by the multilateral Open Skies Agreement that even the US signed up to. Medium to long term I actually see Russia as a much less likely threat than China. Finally on Trident, how does Trident or a like for like cold war style system protect us against Iran? Do you honestly believe us having Trident would dissuade Iran from detonating a dirty bomb in London? As I've said before, we don't need a cold war nuclear arsenal to deal with rogue states such as Iran - if diplomacy ultimately fails we can permanently eliminate their nuclear capability with a single, conventional air strike.

 

Secondly, the Libs say they will cut, yet there own plans for cuts have a massive £3 billion hole and they even admit this

As I understand it, yes there is a potential hole of £3Bn, but that is balanced to some extent by very conservative estimates of revenue/savings elsewhere. And frankly if it is £3Bn I'd sooner take that than the vastly larger holes in the other two parties' plans.

 

I am glad the Libs are giving us a third option to look at, but when you look at their plans in detail they do start to fall apart. I don't think they every thought they would be in this position this year because they have been pretty clumsily.

I think you could examine certain areas of all three parties' manifesto policies and pick holes, whether that's a failure to deal with the deficit or an intentional and deeply cynical lack of any real policy substance.

 

There is one party you should be really concerned about in terms of not knowing their policies ahead of the election and having no idea what extreme, unannounced measures they might introduce once in power. That party is the Conservatives.

 

Or if you want the party that is so incompetent it can't keep its own made up promises, whose economic policy has given us our worst ever overdraft and ensured we are suffering longer and harder in the recession than any of our neighbours, vote Labour.

[oafc0000]

It's really quite important though, you are giving Gordy a massive fig leave which just shouldn't exist. The government just took the shares for Northern Rock, they didn't buy them. They paid about £20 billion for RBS, I'm not sure if this was Treasury cash (which would hit the deficit) or Bank of England money (which wouldn't but either way it was in 2008. Quantitive easing does not add one penny to the deficit, neither does short term lending to banks. Every time youi claim that the bailout caused the deficit, I will tell you that you are wrong, and that last year's c£175 BILLION deficit was because government overspent during the boom and so was massively overcommitted during the bust

 

The total cost of the banking bailout is somewhere around £850 billion... If it was not for the banking bailout the amount borrowed by Labour to cover improving the NHS, Schools, Police etc etc would not be as big as issue as it as become. It only became a major issue when we bailed the banks out...

 

Fact is, once the banks are sold for a profit, Britain's deficit will be greatly improved.

[oafc0000]

Some interesting points there, which show the potential difficulties of opting for a different nuclear alternative. However please don't fall for the Daily Mail style hysteria about Russian flights into our airspace - most of those are covered by the multilateral Open Skies Agreement that even the US signed up to. Medium to long term I actually see Russia as a much less likely threat than China. Finally on Trident, how does Trident or a like for like cold war style system protect us against Iran? Do you honestly believe us having Trident would dissuade Iran from detonating a dirty bomb in London? As I've said before, we don't need a cold war nuclear arsenal to deal with rogue states such as Iran - if diplomacy ultimately fails we can permanently eliminate their nuclear capability with a single, conventional air strike.

 

I have never read the Daily Mail in my life other than when someone else has posted a link to point out there crazy ideas

 

I think the prospect of mutually assured destruction as kept the planet relatively peaceful between the super powers for the last 60 years and it will do for the next 60.

 

Regarding Iran, if they join the Nuclear club, I believe the prospect of mutual assured destruction will keep the situation stable.

 

The Libs stance on Trident has never been anything more than a headline grabber / tool to bash Labour / student vote winner They never expected to be doing this well.

Edited April 27, 2010 by oafc0000

[rudemedic]

Trident- meh! Scrapping trident is a thing neither hear nor there for me. I can see the advantages of keeping it and the advantages of scrapping it. I do like how its become an issue though because the Tories and the Labour lot have no plans for scrapping it and are using it to attack the Lib Dems because they are now popular. Incidentally if I was the Iranian leader and worried about Britain I'd be a bit more concerned with the fact we've got aircraft carriers and thanks to our colonial history a series of islands called the Chagas on which there's a pretty big air force base (admittedly its a Yank base but their our islands), not to mention the bases we have on Cyprus.

 

[oafc0000]

Just voted

 

Labour in the General Election

Conservative in the Local Election

 

I love postal voting

[garcon]

Is that tactical or just confused?

 

What constituency are you?

[oafc0000]

Is that tactical or just confused?

 

What constituency are you?

 

Bit of both

 

No its on the policies really, how they will effect me and how they will more widely effect mine, and other families. I believe in central politics. I was always a big Tony Blair fan, still am... I see the need for Social Security, Welfare, Education, NHS and such like. But I also recognise the need to support UK PLC, help business owners grow there business, and I am quite conservative in my opinions, aka heavily back marriage and such like.

 

I honestly think Labour is the best option at a national level still. The others are still not fit to lead. At a local level, I like what the local guy stands for, he lives close to me, he understands the local issues we have.

 

So while it might look confusing, its actually the right vote for me.

 

Warrington South - General Election

Penketh and Cuerdley - Local Election

Edited April 27, 2010 by oafc0000

[garcon]

It frequently makes sense for people to vote differently locally and nationally - and it's often down to individual candidates.

 

Interesting constituency. Wiki says Warrington South is a 'bellwether' constituency, i.e. it tends to reflect the national picture. Held by labour, but potentially a three way marginal. Locally, Warrington will certainly be a target for Lib Dem gain from no overall control... How does it work locally? Do the Tories and Labour collude to gain a majority or are the Lib Dems running a minority administration?

[oafc0000]

It frequently makes sense for people to vote differently locally and nationally - and it's often down to individual candidates.

 

Interesting constituency. Wiki says Warrington South is a 'bellwether' constituency, i.e. it tends to reflect the national picture. Held by labour, but potentially a three way marginal. Locally, Warrington will certainly be a target for Lib Dem gain from no overall control... How does it work locally? Do the Tories and Labour collude to gain a majority or are the Lib Dems running a minority administration?

 

I don't know actually how they operate exactly... I have only lived in Warrington a couple of years and I am not sure how the share the power. Its been no overall control for ages. I know Labour and Libs fecking hate each other so I imagine the Torys hold the balance of power a lot. I partly based my vote on that, but I don't follow local politics very closely, mainly because my local area of Penketh is run quite well We have one area where we get some issues and the Tory guy is keen to tackle the issue so he gets my vote on that issue as well

 

Warrington South is on the Tory hit list. Its a pretty powerful ward to be voting in.

 

I do separate local and national issues.

Edited April 27, 2010 by oafc0000