rudemedic Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 In Durham my vote is worth 0.432 (I think this is using bad stats since it was considered a moderately marginal seat last time and Labour I think got a lot more votes than they were expecting). Whereas in heywood my vote is worth 0.05- hence why I changed my vote registration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 So Tulsehill's best argument in favour of voting Labour is to offer some conjecture that another 13 years under the Tories might have been worse. 13 years of Labour government has failed to address the widening gap between rich and poor, failed to lift anywhere near the promised number of poor children above the poverty line, and comprehensively failed to deliver its promises of greater opportunity and social mobility. That is no kind of record upon which to ask for another term. The self styled party of the people has failed the people. New Labour has proved, through its track record of the past 13 years, that it no longer serves the northern working class. Concepts such as social mobility, poverty line, and even child poverty didn't really exist under the Tories, and the LibDems talk about them only on certain street corners and pavements. If you stop the gap increasing as fast as it might have done under the Businessman's Party, does that mean you've failed. Do you think anyone else will serve the Northern Working Class as well as Labour? If you don't go fox hunting, you're getting sweet FA out of the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Great little website if you havent already seen it - tells you what your vote is actually worth... and how pointless voting for certain parties is in your constituency... Voterpower Interesting stuff... my vote is actually worth 0.240 of a vote... 0.051 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'm finding this quite interesting, it appears the Lib Dem line in "Labour areas" is to attack the government record. In "tory areas" I bet it is to attack the tory policy defecations where possible after the total absence of substance from Camoron. Probably not a bad tactic and to be fair the only one they can use. Just bugs me that philosophically the Lib-dems are closer aligned to the Labour party yet will help deliver a tory government. I'm not consciously following any party line. Although my arguments against Labour are closer to the Lib Dems' than the Tories. As for the Lib Dems being more closely aligned with Labour, I suppose in the case of most members that is true. One reason I'm not a member, and also why I fear what the Lib Dem leadership may decide to do in the event of a hung parliament. If they keep a minority Labour government in power it will push me and a significant number of Lib Dem voters into voting Tory in the following election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 So now success is measured by managing to improve a selection of statistics compared with the worst depths of the recession. A recession that was deeper and longer in the UK than anywhere else in Europe due to the cumulative effect of 13 years of economic mismanagement by Gordon Brown. Christ I've had about as much of this bull**** as I can take. Stop having a bash at me and tell us who you're going to vote for and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'm not consciously following any party line. Although my arguments against Labour are closer to the Lib Dems' than the Tories. As for the Lib Dems being more closely aligned with Labour, I suppose in the case of most members that is true. One reason I'm not a member, and also why I fear what the Lib Dem leadership may decide to do in the event of a hung parliament. If they keep a minority Labour government in power it will push me and a significant number of Lib Dem voters into voting Tory in the following election. So that's alright then. You don't know whether to vote Tory or LibDem, but you're not saying why you'd vote for either. What are they going to do about that poverty gap (or whatever it is)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Most the countries debt is from the bank bailout... One day the banks will be sold, I think we are being led up a path of make believe by the torys and the right wing press.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 Most the countries debt is from the bank bailout... One day the banks will be sold, I think we are being led up a path of make believe by the torys and the right wing press.... You see apparently Garcon - like the LibDems and the Tories - can't work out whether he's for or against the bank bailout, but it clearly worked and stopped this country getting boarded up for 10 years. He doesn't know what they'd do in the same situation, when decisions have to be made one way or t'other. All he knows is he doesn't want to vote Labour because...who knows why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Christ I've had about as much of this bull**** as I can take. Stop having a bash at me and tell us who you're going to vote for and why. Truth hurt does it? It's not bull:censored:, far from it. As for who might be able to offer ordinary working class people a better deal than Liebour, you only need to look as far as the comprehensive tax policy announcement by the Lib Dems this week. Saving ordinary people money by measures such as scrapping income tax on the first 10k, not costing them money by more stealth tax rises (like putting NI up 1%). Unfortunately, living in George Osborne's constituency it won't really matter who I vote for. (I suppose I'm somewhere between a right wing Lib Dem and a left wing Tory, by the way). Labour have had their chance to try and build a "fairer Britain" and failed - anyone who genuinely believes in that ideal must now surely consider giving the Lib Dems an opportunity to try it their way. Of course, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realise that won't happen, so in terms of what government I want to see next I'm effectively left with two choices. I don't trust Cameron or Osborne but I do think we need a significant change in how our economy is managed and over the term of a parliament or two I think a Tory run economy will become strong enough to benefit everybody. Edited April 13, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 living in George Osborne's constituency Posh ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 You see apparently Garcon - like the LibDems and the Tories - can't work out whether he's for or against the bank bailout, but it clearly worked and stopped this country getting boarded up for 10 years. He doesn't know what they'd do in the same situation, when decisions have to be made one way or t'other. All he knows is he doesn't want to vote Labour because...who knows why? The lone voice of reason throughout the crisis, from before it started right through to here and now, has been Vince Cable. Would I have allowed Northen Rock to fall? Yes I probably would. (And by their dithering, Labour very nearly did). Would I have bailed out the big banks when the crisis really hit? Certainly, and I seem to recall there was agreement across the three parties on that. To let them fall would have been a signal that western capitalism was at an end, and would have plunged Europe and the US into an apocalyptic depression. It's what to do with the banks now where the different lines return. Re-privatise as they are once their debt is paid? Or break them up into smaller concerns, limited to certain areas of the industry. That latter option appears to be the Lib Dem approach, and it's one of the few Vince Cable policies I don't like. By the way, the bank bailout does NOT form the majority of our national debt ... that honour goes to the trillion pound time bomb Brown created by using smoke and mirrors to hide his 2000 to 2007 spending spree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 By the way, the bank bailout does NOT form the majority of our national debt ... that honour goes to the trillion pound time bomb Brown created by using smoke and mirrors to hide his 2000 to 2007 spending spree. You got anything to prove this... Its often said in the press and by the Torys, followed by claims that they won't know how bad it is until they get in office... It seems to me it is guess work at best and pure scaremongering at worse... Genuine question though, I would be interested in seeing some real numbers to prove this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) The lone voice of reason throughout the crisis, from before it started right through to here and now, has been Vince Cable. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I think you've been sucked in big-style. Sorry. Edited April 13, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'll see what I can find that sets out the economic situation in a reasonably balanced way from a source that won't immediately be scotched as 'right wing propaganda', and in terms that can be understood. One thing I don't want to do is get into a pointless tit for tat posting of deniable statistics. I can't stand statistics, by and large they are worthless simply because they will be interpreted by each side to make the argument that each side wishes to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I think you've been sucked in big-style. Sorry. Now you're just being silly. Economic analysts across the political spectrum have consistently shown support for what Cable has had to say, he has more credibility in the City than anyone else at Westminster. So I'm afraid to laugh like that just makes you look really, really foolish. Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and chant Labour all you want, it might stop you seeing and hearing the truth but it'll still be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Lies, damned lies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Concepts such as social mobility, poverty line, and even child poverty didn't really exist under the Tories I believe John Major was Prime Minister when you took your Northern Working Class Arse off to University, rather than going down the pit (probably because Thatcher closed it, but hey ho) So now that you know the truth, are you going to vote for the macro-economic success story? I was of course aware that they had been a statistically insignificant drop in the last reported unemployment figures. They will rise again. It’s an odd definition of success to be on the verge of bankruptcy, it’s certainly not the End of Boom and Bust. You got anything to prove this... Its often said in the press and by the Torys, followed by claims that they won't know how bad it is until they get in office... It seems to me it is guess work at best and pure scaremongering at worse... Genuine question though, I would be interested in seeing some real numbers to prove this... This is a repeat of my understanding of how the bank bail-outs affect the deficit, repeated from an earlier thread. Sorry, but you are mixing up different numbers which aren’t directly linked. The $183 billion deficit is caused precisely because government spending exceeds income by £183 billion. In separate news, they have underwritten mega-zillions of banks assets, but this isn’t actually money out of the door as things stand (if it ever become it, God help us). The Bank of England also bailed out the banks during the liquidity crisis to the tune of many billions, this was from their reserves, not tax/spending and is unconnected to the deficit, and it was in the form of high interest loans. Finally, the Bank has created lots of mickey mouse money to the tune of over £100 billion (“quantative easing”), again this is not spending and doesn’t increase the deficit. The only effect the whole banking crisis has on the deficit is that recession means they get less money in personal and corporate tax and have higher outgoings (social security, wasteful make-work programs etc). None of this changes the fact the we ran large and expanding deficits through the longest boom in history, so it should come as little surprise that we are rather more in debt during the bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) I was of course aware that they had been a statistically insignificant drop in the last reported unemployment figures. Yeah right. So why did you say this? MAybe we should ask Gordon, it's him that has lead us to the state where not only has the headline unemployment figure is rising... Jesus. Sometimes you should just admit that you made something up and it turned out to be WRONG. Edited April 13, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 While I won't pretend that it is entirely of the purest, most unbiased origin - so I'm sure it will be dismissed by some as nothing but right wing mind control - this site contains alot of information and figures about our national debt: http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Anyone know the 10 word slogan used by the Conservatives in 1964? Clue Peter G. Have they really moved on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 Anyone know the 10 word slogan used by the Conservatives in 1964? Clue Peter G. Have they really moved on? The slogan is the unforgettably charming, "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour." No they haven't moved on. They're going after the racist vote by promising a cap on immigration. Same old Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'll see what I can find that sets out the economic situation in a reasonably balanced way from a source that won't immediately be scotched as 'right wing propaganda', and in terms that can be understood. One thing I don't want to do is get into a pointless tit for tat posting of deniable statistics. I can't stand statistics, by and large they are worthless simply because they will be interpreted by each side to make the argument that each side wishes to make. I will be very surprised and impressed! if you could find any form of balanced view point. From your link http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm For me our hospitals, schools and other public services needed investing in after so many years of tory underfunding. If you look at debt against GDP it is reasonable throughout most of Labours terms, its only since the banking bailout its rocketed... Selling off the banks (which will happen but the government don't dare fight with that argument) will see the debt brought down some time in the future... Throw a dice on when that future will be though... I don't know tons about the economy I will admit but I its fair to say the impact of the banking bailout vs the borrowing done under labour for paying for public services is not being appreciated enough. Well that's my opinion anyway based on my admitted limited knowledge. I havent read the whole site yet but i will when the baby stops crying Cheers.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 And this nonsense about people buying their own pubs, voting for police commissioners or creating their own schools - blow-jobs and kittens, Camoron would promise us 3 points tonight at MK Dons if we were to help him move into No10. To achieve any of that will require more administration and bigger government than the muppet realises, totally defeating the object of limiting the size of the state, the bloke hasn't got a clue. The parents of the kids that are out causing trouble aren't engaged with their "baybee's" life as it is, how the hell does he expect them to start running schools or the police? The addition of his nonsense about buying local pubs is so bittersweet, a headline waiting to happen about not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery. The reason pubs are closing is because people aren't spending money in them, so he wants people to spend money they aren't spending over the bar to buy the pub!?! Whatever planet he is on is missing its idiot. He's had the best part of 5 years to come up with some knockout policies, really re-invigorate the tory party that has been unshackled by not being in government. Come up with some really big ideas that will change the face of the country for ever and he comes up with this tripe - and people are still going to vote for him "he seems a nice man" "we need a change" "I don't like Brown". This is the man that devised the manifesto that Howard stood on at the last election, he was in government with Major, the bloke is a clueless buffoon many, many times over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 voting for police commissioners Very scary suggestion... It happens in the USA and leaves a portion of the public feeling representative and another, usually the minorities, feeling alienated. It is reason enough not to vote Tory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'm going to vote for Commissioner Gordon (no pun intended) and his friend The Batman, he will sort out the problems we have here in Gotham City ...er.. Great Britain. Or I'm going to vote for one of those Commissioners who don't care about the pen pushers up at city hall, they get results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.