PDA

View Full Version : UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?


Pages : [1] 2

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 05:59 AM
Since I had extreme issues with the earlier poll on this subject (and if had the wrong date anyway), I thought I'd start one of my own.

I've tried to include all parties which will be represented in a significant number of seats (thanks, Geni, for the list), apologies if I've omited anyone's favoured choice.

Rolfe.

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 06:07 AM
Yippee! I got in so quick the SNP has 100% of the one vote cast!.

Well, that won't last.....

Rolfe.

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:10 AM
Just a quick point for everyone - remember a vote for anyone but Conservative or Labour is a wasted vote... :)

Giz
5th April 2005, 06:20 AM
I'm torn. At one point I was thinking about voting Tory (more as an anti-Labour protest over some of their policies than because I think Howard will be one of the great British PM's).

Then that d*mn Catholic Archbishop came on the News about a week ago urging all catholics to vote against Labour (due to their abortion stance). Now I want to vote for Labour to kick the Catholics* in the teeth for interfering in politics!

Aargh! So many parties to vote against, and only one vote!



* Nb; the same would go for any religion jumping into the political fray.

richardm
5th April 2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Giz
I'm torn. At one point I was thinking about voting Tory (more as an anti-Labour protest over some of their policies than because I think Howard will be one of the great British PM's).

There are other parties to vote for to make an anti-Labour protest without lowering yourself that far ;)

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 06:31 AM
I didn't try it, but I note that the first three parties have come out with the correct colour codes!

By the way, that bunch of Yogic Flying twits aren't going to stand again, are they?

Rolfe.

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:33 AM
I am at the nearest I've ever been for not voting Labour. I believe they have gone too far to the centre/right over the last few years.

However I have no evidence that the Conservative party have changed from when they last held power and that will, in my opinion, mean a return to under funding the NHS, under funding state education, under funding the Police, further reducing the value of the state pension and yet more interference in personal liberties. (And if they went back to their old economic policies it would end up meaning spending even more on social security – just like Thatcher and Major had to! Mind you they would probably increase subsidies to the Rover group just like Thatcher did for British Leyland…)

As for increasing money on school dinners for kids, this is the party that brought you "Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" ;) :)

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by richardm
There are other parties to vote for to make an anti-Labour protest without lowering yourself that far ;)

Let's be blunt about this (in England especially) a protest vote from Labour to any other party is a vote for a Conservative government.

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
I didn't try it, but I note that the first three parties have come out with the correct colour codes!

By the way, that bunch of Yogic Flying twits aren't going to stand again, are they?

Rolfe.

Natural Law party? Probably.

Giz
5th April 2005, 06:40 AM
Are you sure Darat? Labour's rhetoric is quite center/right but I would have called them center/left/big govt in practice.

Rest assured the Tories have changed: Hague, IDS, Howard. Can you not tell them apart?

Jaggy Bunnet
5th April 2005, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Let's be blunt about this (in England especially) a protest vote from Labour to any other party is a vote for a Conservative government.

Or, more accurately, a Labour government with a smaller majority.

Surely nobody believes the Tories are actually going to win?

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Giz
Are you sure Darat? Labour's rhetoric is quite center/right but I would have called them center/left/big govt in practice.


I would say no more so then the last Conservative governments. Indeed the Labour government has continued to deregulate areas such as financial services - and don't forget it was a Labour government that gave the Bank of England independence.


Originally posted by Giz

Rest assured the Tories have changed: Hague, IDS, Howard. Can you not tell them apart?

Er two of them were bald? You'll have to give me a clue...

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Or, more accurately, a Labour government with a smaller majority.

Surely nobody believes the Tories are actually going to win?

It doesn't take that many votes in the UK to change a government. Whilst I don’t think the Conservatives are likely to win, because they are “voted in”, I have a terrible and frightening feeling they may win because people won’t go out and vote for Labour. And by that I mean people who voted last time for Labour won’t go out and vote for the Conservatives they just won’t go out and vote.

Giz
5th April 2005, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Darat

Er two of them were bald? You'll have to give me a clue...

Only two of them? (I guess I should have used a smiley...)

Howard is a (small) step towards a less follically challenged leadership. And Dilbert teaches us that the taller candidate with better hair will always win... why worry about their policies?

Darat
5th April 2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Giz
Only two of them? (I guess I should have used a smiley...)

Howard is a (small) step towards a less follically challenged leadership. And Dilbert teaches us that the taller candidate with better hair will always win... why worry about their policies?

That’s another good reason to not vote for Mr “Something of the night”. At least Hague and IDS were honest about their baldness, Howard attempts a comb-over rather then admit the truth – he’s already covering up!

richardm
5th April 2005, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Surely nobody believes the Tories are actually going to win?

Well, I'd hope not but I wouldn't like to start counting any chickens just yet. Darat's right - inertia is probably the biggest problem Labour face this time round. I saw Peter Snow at lunchtime and he reckons it's a worryingly small swing to get a hung parliament. Something like 6%. Well, the Labour result in 1997 was 10.2%, so it ain't impossible if things go badly.

I see someone has voted Conservative in the poll. Want to discuss what's attractive about 'em to you? This is a politics forum after all!

(Edited to add: Although I suppose 1997 was an exceptional year)

richardm
5th April 2005, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Yippee! I got in so quick the SNP has 100% of the one vote cast!.

Well, that won't last.....


Probably not 100%, but I should think the SNP are likely to improve on last time. Unless the redrawing of the constituencies has put the kibosh on them. How is the party feeling?

Dragon
5th April 2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Yippee! I got in so quick the SNP has 100% of the one vote cast!.

Well, that won't last.....

Rolfe. SNP? - Have they got a chance in Sussex? :p

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Probably not 100%, but I should think the SNP are likely to improve on last time. Unless the redrawing of the constituencies has put the kibosh on them. How is the party feeling? I'm not picking up on rejoicing in the streets quite yet. I think we still haven't quite figured out what to do with the Scottish Parliament, and the lack of apparent effect in dealing with the Labour knuckle-dragging brigade there has people sort of reeling in frustration. Plus of course there is the problem of some people now seeing the SNP as the party you vote for in Scottish elections but not in Westminster elections.

It's a strange situation, because policy-wise the SNP looks on the face of it to be the party desired by all those who don't like the direction Labour has taken in recent years, and many of my English friends say they'd vote for the SNP on its general policy stand if they got the chance.

However, we still haven't got to grips with the belittling of Scotland and the Scottish people carried out for years by the Westminster parties in Scotland. We're too small, too stupid and too poor to be self-governing, you see. Just like Denmark, you know.... And now of course they point to McConnell and the rest of those neuronally-challenged Holyrood toon cooncillors and say, we told you so. While at the same time I hear bitter complaints in England that "we're ruled by Scots"! I'm no great fan of Gordon Brown, Robin Cook and the rest of them, but they are big hitters, and if we could put people of that calibre into an independent Scottish parliament it would be a different story.

I don't expect a landslide this time. Actually, much as I hate the idea of a Conservative government, it would be very interesting to see what happened to Scottish politics with them in Westminster and Labour in Holyrood. It's arguable that if we'd got the Scottish parliament in 1979 as we ought to have, the Thatcher years would have delivered independence.

Right at the moment though, the hereditary "vote for a gerbil if it's got a red rosette on it" brigade are probably not going to stage a mass revolution. The ingrained class loyalties (plus the effects of decades of their preferred comic, the Daily Record, sneering at the SNP and telling a pack of lies) are likely to rally round if it looks as if the Tories might be making any sort of showing.

Still, I'm hoping for a decent result to keep credibility good, and look for a bigger push at the 2007 Holyrood event. Also, I believe Sheridan's lot aren't making much of a showing these days, which helps somewhat. (That's one I didn't put on the ballot, maybe I should, I'll probably get a posse of SSP supporters starting a rival poll!)

Rolfe.

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Dragon
SNP? - Have they got a chance in Sussex? :p Postal votes are a great invention.

(Actually, there was a story.... A few years ago a Scottish-born town councillor in Brighton fell out with his local Labour party and announced that he was leaving and joining the SNP. It was all over the papers that the SNP now had a council seat in Brighton. But they didn't. Unbeknownst to the councillor, there is an active branch of the SNP in London, and the Convener just happened to live in Brighton. (And also to be an ex-Labour party activist.) He tried to phone the guy several times, and even called at his house, explaining who he was and trying to welcome him into the SNP. The man's wife gave him the brush-off and the runaround, and it was perfectly clear that the whole thing had been nothing but a publicity stunt, he'd had no intention at all of joining the SNP, and was astonished to find that there was an active branch on his doorstep.)

Rolfe.

Jaggy Bunnet
5th April 2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Also, I believe Sheridan's lot aren't making much of a showing these days, which helps somewhat. (That's one I didn't put on the ballot, maybe I should, I'll probably get a posse of SSP supporters starting a rival poll!)

Rolfe.

Sheridan has retired to spend more time with his sunbed, so I think the SSP is now down to just one man and a dog.

I think the most interesting result would be a Labour majority, but only due to the inclusion of their Scottish MP's. That should bring the West Lothian question into sharp focus.

Cleopatra
5th April 2005, 09:14 AM
I casted a vote for Planet X just to see the results.

So, what about the politics and the agendas behind the elections?

Cleopatra
5th April 2005, 09:16 AM
Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!
Labour????Are you going to vote for the man who runs after George W Bush??? :(

aerocontrols
5th April 2005, 09:25 AM
I'm taking part in a program I heard about on Fox News.

I'll be writing concerned letters to undecided British voters to try to help them decide which choice would be best.

Jon_in_london
5th April 2005, 10:30 AM
Dont I feel like the idiot! D'Oh!

Anyway- I reckon I will vote Tory. Just to piss of Labour. I dont really like the Tories but they stand the best chance of knocking those filthy, lying, cheating, stinking, dishonest, vote-rigging skunks' cumbags off their perch.

Today in the post I received a letter from my local aspiring Labour Party Candidate. Attached was an application form for postal voting. This was my reply:

Dear Mr. Khan,

Thank you ever so much for writing to me to explain who you are, what you would like to see happen and an application for a postal vote.

I assume the latter is to allow some good-old Birmingham Labour Party style vote-rigging and electoral fraud? Thanks very much but I think I may pass on that one and go and vote in person -(for the Torys, just to spite you)- to make sure that you dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags never get your filthy, vote-stealing paws on anything that bears my my signature.

Regards,

Jon_in_london.

Jon_in_london
5th April 2005, 10:30 AM
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.

geni
5th April 2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Since I had extreme issues with the earlier poll on this subject (and if had the wrong date anyway), I thought I'd start one of my own.

I've tried to include all parties which will be represented in a significant number of seats (thanks, Geni, for the list), apologies if I've omited anyone's favoured choice.

Rolfe.

UKIP and the greens do't have any seats at westminster nore are they likely to get any.

Oh and I beat you to it with the closest I could get to a comprehensive list

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54975

geni
5th April 2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.

Judging by thier campain "it's the economy stupid".

geni
5th April 2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Dragon
SNP? - Have they got a chance in Sussex? :p

Well Basingstoke is currently represented by a member of the DUP

geni
5th April 2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't expect a landslide this time. Actually, much as I hate the idea of a Conservative government, it would be very interesting to see what happened to Scottish politics with them in Westminster and Labour in Holyrood. It's arguable that if we'd got the Scottish parliament in 1979 as we ought to have, the Thatcher years would have delivered independence.


I'm not sure it would be techinical posible to pump the oil out of the north sea at that rate.

geni
5th April 2005, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Just a quick point for everyone - remember a vote for anyone but Conservative or Labour is a wasted vote... :)

Not in either of the places where I live (although in one of them any vote is a wasted vote.

Kodiak
5th April 2005, 11:28 AM
Blair's Labor (OK - "Labour" - sheesh :rolleyes: ...) Party expected to win third term. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7390659/)

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by geni
UKIP and the greens do't have any seats at westminster nore are they likely to get any.No, but they do have significant serious support and will appear on a lot of ballot papers. Whereas some of the others are really fringe, or just single-seat protest movements. Or raving loonies (Natural Law). I did wonder if I should have included the SSP (which I don't think you did), but Sheridan has left them and they seem to be little more than a rump. I'll be surprised if they can field more than a handful of candidates. In spite of holding a couple of Holyrood seats, which makes them a lot more serious than some of the others.

We could argue the toss till the cows come home, but I haven't had any complaints yet about anyone feeling genuinely disenfranchised by this set of choices.

Rolfe.

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Darat
Just a quick point for everyone - remember a vote for anyone but Conservative or Labour is a wasted vote... :) Originally posted by geni
Not in either of the places where I live (although in one of them any vote is a wasted vote. This is getting on to the question of the two-party system and its perpetuation by first-part-the-post elections. Maybe it would be better to start a new thread if we're going to have an in-depth discussion about proportional representation, but it is a relevant point.

Darat's point is really impossibly simplistic, which is presumably why he put in the smilie. This is because it ignores the question of the different political demographics of different constituencies.

Suppose you live in a constituency which is a Labour/Lib-Dem marginal. You hate Labour. Is a Lib-Dem vote wasted because the Lib-Dems are vanishingly unlikely to form a government? No, because that vote may keep out a Labour candidate, and so contribute to a Conservative victory, even though an actual Conservative vote would be wasted.

Tactical voting lives.

To be brutally honest, the votes of most of us count for diddly-squat because we live in "safe" constituencies. So, I know that the constituency I vote in will return a Labour MP. The margin is such that the SNP (the second party) don't have a realistic chance. So what do I do? Vote Labour just so that I have the satisfaction of voting for the winning candidate, even though I loathe the guy? Or vote Conservative just because they have a bit of a chance of winning overall on English votes, even though they'll be bloody lucky to save their deposit in the constituency in question? Or vote for the party I believe in, and at least contribute to their credibility as an outfit with some solid support?

It's a different equation in every constituency, and only a lucky few have the chance of actually influencing either who their MP is, or who forms the government.

I remember the shock of my first PR vote, at a Euro-election I think, when I suddenly realised that my vote was going to mean something, and that I was actually going to contribute towards putting a candidate of my choice into the parliament. Heady stuff. Once you give people that sort of power, their entire voting behaviour can change and really unexpected things sometimes happen.

Rather than straight PR (by whatever means) I'd like to see STV voting at constituency level. That would allow people to vote for the party they really believed in without throwing away their vote in the event of that party being poorly supported across the board. It might turn up some surprising things, especially with regard to the Lib Dems and the SNP. At the same time, it would retain the link between the MP and the constituency, and as the result wouldn't necessarily be PR across the country it's probable that irretrievably hung parliaments would be avoided.

Sorry, this probably needs a new thread if people are really interested in it, I just think it's a way of making everybody's vote count for more. As it is, everybody has to size up what the demographics are in their own constituency, and accept that they probably have no real influence in the final result.

Rolfe.

Darat
5th April 2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
...snip...

Darat's point is really impossibly simplistic, which is presumably why he put in the smilie. T

...snip...

Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty. Originally posted by Darat
Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books? Now doesn't that just beautifully encapsulate the dilemma created by the two-party system, which is virtually inevitable given first-past-the-post voting.

If both of the two parties which have the stranglehold on the electoral system have behaved like complete scumbags, and do so every time they are returned to power, then to follow Jon's path merely gets you turn and turn about scumbags for eternity. Whereas to follow Darat's means that the current bunch of scumbags can do pretty much what it likes and not risk losing office.

Of course, if you follow the proposition that all politicians are scumbags anyway, then it's completely inevitable. And once the scumbags start winning, then that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as non-scumbags basically wouldn't be caught dead getting involved.

Lose-lose.

Rolfe.

Jon_in_london
5th April 2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Darat
Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?

Vote stealing? Lying? Maybe in isolated cases but they never made a career out of it like Labour has.


And what of Labour prior to the Tories? They abdicated the government of Britain to trade unions. The Tories under Thatcher were the first good idea this country had since the end of WWII. Britian was flat on her back due to Labour mis-management. How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over? What was the economy like? Where would we be now if Labour had been allowed to continue its policy of doing everyhting that is worst for Britain but best for their red-flag waving scoialist ideiologies? Dependent on IMF loans no doubt. The current economic prosperity is brought about by policies instituted under the Major government and by the independence of the bank of England NOT by Gordon Brown's miraculous economic prescience. Britain is prospering IN SPITE of Labour, not because of it- and lets face it, economic prosperity is the ONLY good thing that Labour has done. They have failed at every other single level and welshed on every promise- with the exception of fox-hunting. Hoo-bloody-ray. But economic prosperity will not last. Already we are slipping down the competitiveness tables. As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad fecking rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant.

Rolfe
5th April 2005, 12:45 PM
Ah, the joys of simultaneous posting!

Rolfe.

Darat
5th April 2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Vote stealing? Lying? Maybe in isolated cases but they never made a career out of it like Labour has.


Really? Honestly? The Conservatives are the party which had MPs selling questions in the house for cash in brown paper bags for goodness sake! This is the party that had MPs (well ex) and ex Chairmans going to jail for lying and committing perjury!

Labour have been terrible in that they picked up the art of spin before the other two parties but on the whole spin is not lying (although of course it can be).

We even have evidence recently of the lies in the Conservative party - e.g. Howard Flight. (OK we don’t know it is lies but it damn well sounds plausible...)


Originally posted by Jon_in_london


And what of Labour prior to the Tories? They abdicated the government of Britain to trade unions.


Labour tore itself to bits and rebuilt a new party after being out of power so long. Many old Labour supporters aren’t too happy with the new Labour party because it junked so much of its past. There is no evidence that the Labour party of today is the same beast it was pre-Kinnock.


Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The Tories under Thatcher were the first good idea this country had since the end of WWII. Britian was flat on her back due to Labour mis-management. How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over?


Curiously between the second world war and Thatcher’s first election victory Labour held power for 17 years and the conservatives for 17 years.

Years 1945-1979
1945 - Lab - 5 years in office
1950 - Lab - 1 year
1951 - Con - 4 years
1955 - Con -4 years
1959 - Con - 5 years
1964 - Lab - 2 years
1966 - Lab - 4 years
1970 - Con - 4 years
1974 - Lab - 5 years


Total years (1945-1979)
Lab - 17 years
Con - 17 years

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over?


Less then one million, within two terms at least 3 million.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

What was the economy like? Where would we be now if Labour had been allowed to continue its policy of doing everyhting that is worst for Britain but best for their red-flag waving scoialist ideiologies? Dependent on IMF loans no doubt.


Historically you may be right however the Labour party quite a few years ago (i.e. pre 1997) altered its constitution and can no longer be describe as being based on a socialist ideology.

I see no such break from the past with the current Conservative party.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


The current economic prosperity is brought about by policies instituted under the Major government and by the independence of the bank of England NOT by Gordon Brown's miraculous economic prescience. Britain is prospering IN SPITE of Labour, not because of it- and lets face it, economic prosperity is the ONLY good thing that Labour has done.


Bit of a contradiction.


Originally posted by Jon_in_london


They have failed at every other single level and welshed on every promise- with the exception of fox-hunting. Hoo-bloody-ray.


They didn't make the Bank of England independent? They didn’t increase spending in schools, hospitals and the police? I must have been having a long dream. A few years ago I paid (privately) for my Mother to have her gall bladder removed because the NHS list was at least 14 months, at the end of last year a relative of the same age had her gallbladder removed (in the same NHS area) after a wait of 4 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm


Originally posted by Jon_in_london

But economic prosperity will not last. Already we are slipping down the competitiveness tables. As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad fecking rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant.

I'll leave that to one side apart from mentioning it was Thatcher's policies that created the British underclass... after all she was the one who paid out the most to scroungers! ;(

Cleopatra
5th April 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.

Why don't you admit that you will vote for Sinn Feinn and let this thread die? :D

geni
5th April 2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The current economic prosperity is brought about by policies instituted under the Major government and by the independence of the bank of England NOT by Gordon Brown's miraculous economic prescience.

I tend to fell that those first couple of years when labour stuck to tory spending plans (which the conservatives have since admited they would not) helped somewhat. The country doesn't need another Thacher at the moment. On the other hand I have no intention whatsoever of voting for any party that has as many difficulties with civil libities as labour does.

geni
5th April 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why don't you admit that you will vote for Sinn Feinn and let this thread die? :D

In so far as they have any conventional political policies they are well to the left of old labour

Darat
5th April 2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by geni

...snip... On the other hand I have no intention whatsoever of voting for any party that has as many difficulties with civil libities as labour does.

Oh labour has no problems with civil liberties, it just doesn’t think we should have any.

That is the major reason why I am the nearest I have ever been to not voting for Labour (even being thrown out of the Labour party didn't bring me this close to deciding to vote for someone else). However I have no reason to suppose the Tories wouldn’t be at least as stupid. And considering the like of Fox and his views on abortion and homosexuality, single mothers and so on I actually suspect they would be even more controlling, just in a different direction.

CapelDodger
5th April 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!
Labour????Are you going to vote for the man who runs after George W Bush??? :( Not me. Nor Plaid. You're shocked, aren't you? :c1:

Alun Michael MP. A man that makes Ian Duncan Smith look charismatic. Robin Cook I'd vote for, but not ... what's his name again? Not that it makes any difference; they don't count the Labour votes around here, they weigh them. I'll vote Lib Dem because I like Charlie Kennedy and they're the only party treating the asteroid threat seriously. I have nothing but contempt for Blair.

Cleopatra
5th April 2005, 10:02 PM
I believe that it's almost impossible for a non-British to understand the British politics just because they way the evolved doesn't have a parallel!!
In the Continent political parties were the products of severe conflicts that they were characterized by blood sheds and in those conflicts large part of the population was involved so maybe this is the reason why european perceive political differences in terms of "conflict" and principles. For me, for example is a matter of principles never to vote for the Socialists even if the party I choose has disappointed me, I will cast a blank vote but voting for Socialists it's absolutely out of the question because I disagree with the essence of socialism and its principles.

The truth is that there is a huge gap between the Socialists and the Christian-democrats in Europe and it's not only a political gap, it extends to a whole philosophy and lifestyle.

UK is very far away from that and I have to declare that this is the reason why I admire Britain that much although I don't quite understand how is it possible for a society not to be defined by "the struggle of political ideas!!" :)

Capel Dodger, we all know that the true reason you despise Blair is because he is a lawyer.

Thumbo
5th April 2005, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
By the way, that bunch of Yogic Flying twits aren't going to stand again, are they?

Nah - it's impossible to stand at the same time as bouncing up and down on your bum.

shuize
6th April 2005, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by aerocontrols
I'm taking part in a program I heard about on Fox News.

I'll be writing concerned letters to undecided British voters to try to help them decide which choice would be best.

Aerocontrols beat me to it. But I was going to suggest everyone in Ohio start a letter writing campaign as well.

Matabiri
6th April 2005, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Really? Honestly? The Conservatives are the party which had MPs selling questions in the house for cash in brown paper bags for goodness sake! This is the party that had MPs (well ex) and ex Chairmans going to jail for lying and committing perjury!

Watch the first encounter here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/3869985.stm).

Ian Hislop vs. Mary Archer

"The Prime Minister's first response, on being accused of sleaze, is to point and say, 'Look at them, they're all in jail,' and your husband's responsible for that..."

chocolatepossum
6th April 2005, 01:42 AM
Scares the bejeesus out of me. Luckily where I live I get to vote against Labour without having to worry about letting the Tories in by mistake: it's a straight Lib Dem Conservative battle.

Seriously though, Michael Howard :re:

richardm
6th April 2005, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Seriously though, Michael Howard :re:

Aye, the man who thought the Poll Tax was a good idea. When he was Employment Secretary the number of unemployed went from 1.6 million to over 2.6 million. When he was Home Secretary, he cut over 1000 police officers from the force, even as he was pledging to raise the numbers.

And people are willing to make him Prime Minister just to "Teach Tony Blair a Lesson". Well, great. That'll wipe the smile off his face, no doubt. But what about the rest of us? :(

chocolatepossum
6th April 2005, 02:24 AM
The thing that really gets my goat about this election campaign is the Tories going on about "rising crime". Crile isn't rising! How do they get away with this, and why does no-one ever pull them up on this issue?

I reckon it's due to Tony Blair not wanting to appear "soft" on crime or look like he's ignoring a problem, but it just frustrates me to see politicians debating a non-existent crime wave.

When the last British Crime Survey came out I suspected it would show that whilst crime is falling, fear of crime is rising. I was surprised to read, however, that fear of crime was not high. The people questioned accepted that the situation in their area was stable or improving, but thought that the rest of the country was getting worse. In other words, the endless stream of sensationalist scare-mongering headlines from the likes of the Daily M**l and the S*n are doing their job, never mind the facts. :mad:

Darat
6th April 2005, 02:33 AM
Looking at the last time the Conservatives held power. After 8 years of being in office the bank interest rate reached 10.5% (peaked at 15 just two years later still under a Conservative government). After eight years of Labour of being in power the bank interest rate is 4.75%.

Yep, sounds sensible to let the Conservatives get their hands back on the economy.

And in case anyone wonders what the Conservative opinion of the economy was back in "those good old days".

From the 1987 election:

NIGEL LAWSON:
This improvement in Britain's fortunes is no fluke, no happy accident. It is the result of deliberate Conservative policy. By giving people economic freedom we have given the country economic prosperity. Without the one you cannot have the other. The key is simply this: to give to the people what is rightly theirs.

I mean they must have been happy with it and thought a 10.5% interest rate was a good interest rate - otherwise we’d have to conclude that the Conservatives lied to us!

Has Michael Howard said that 10.5% is an interest rate that he would be happy to have again under his Conservative government? I presume it is since he hasn’t said it was a “bad” interest rate back then and he and the other Conservatives lied then when they told us it was a good rate? I also presume that he would again be happy with the unemployment rates we had back then?

Darat
6th April 2005, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by chocolatepossum
The thing that really gets my goat about this election campaign is the Tories going on about "rising crime". Crile isn't rising! How do they get away with this, and why does no-one ever pull them up on this issue?

I reckon it's due to Tony Blair not wanting to appear "soft" on crime or look like he's ignoring a problem, but it just frustrates me to see politicians debating a non-existent crime wave.

When the last British Crime Survey came out I suspected it would show that whilst crime is falling, fear of crime is rising. I was surprised to read, however, that fear of crime was not high. The people questioned accepted that the situation in their area was stable or improving, but thought that the rest of the country was getting worse. In other words, the endless stream of sensationalist scare-mongering headlines from the likes of the Daily M**l and the S*n are doing their job, never mind the facts. :mad:

For these “stories” the blame is totally with the media, they want to sell newspapers and will just blatantly make things up, whether that is vaccination scares, photographs of soldiers abusing prisoners. Whatever they think will sell one more issue they will print, with no regard for the consequences for both individuals and society.

It's like the completely media fabricated nonsense about not being able to defend yourself in your home - no substance to it, no facts, no nothing but suddenly the government publishes a leaflet to tell people what has always been the case! Because newspapers wanted to sell more copies.

Another example is the so called immigration and asylum "problem"? What problem? Or rather what "problem" is there that we haven’t always had since we decided that if someone has had their toenails torn off because they disagree with their government we'd offer them refuge? As for immigration, well I’d like to see metropolitan London function without all that “sea of immigrants”.

If politicians are scum I don’t know how to describe today’s media outlets and not get banned here.

Matabiri
6th April 2005, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Darat
If politicians are scum I don’t know how to describe today’s media outlets and not get banned here.

I think it was Alistair Campbell who said that many people expect politicians to be unlikeable, but are pleasantly surprised when they meet them, and the opposite is true of journalists.

Darat
6th April 2005, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
I think it was Alistair Campbell who said that many people expect politicians to be unlikeable, but are pleasantly surprised when they meet them, and the opposite is true of journalists.

Most of the politicians I have met and that includes up to the Prime Minister are very personable, but that isn't surprising considering the field they have been successful in. The only exceptions so far have been two MPs I met, one was at the time my local constituency MP (Labour) and one was the constituency MP where I worked (Conservative)- they were both thoroughly unpleasantly self satisfied and pompous gits.

However every journalist I've met or had dealings with - well as I said I can only express my feelings by saying I’d be banned here if I put them into words! I’ve been misquoted, had words taken out of context and lies said about me by a few.


(Edited for words.)

chocolatepossum
6th April 2005, 03:00 AM
"If politicians are scum I don’t know how to describe today’s media outlets and not get banned here."

And what I really don't understand is how people can talk about a "Liberal Elite" controlling our media! Err, two biggest selling Tabloids? The Sun and the Mail. Biggest selling Broadsheet? The Torygraph. Sky News anyone? ITV? The BBC is the only major media outlet that does not have a right wing bias.

geni
6th April 2005, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Darat
I’ve been misquoted, had words taken out of context and lies said about me by a few.


What did you expect when you became admin?

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Looking at the last time the Conservatives held power. After 8 years of being in office the bank interest rate reached 10.5% (peaked at 15 just two years later still under a Conservative government). After eight years of Labour of being in power the bank interest rate is 4.75%.

Yep, sounds sensible to let the Conservatives get their hands back on the economy.

And in case anyone wonders what the Conservative opinion of the economy was back in "those good old days".

From the 1987 election:

NIGEL LAWSON:
This improvement in Britain's fortunes is no fluke, no happy accident. It is the result of deliberate Conservative policy. By giving people economic freedom we have given the country economic prosperity. Without the one you cannot have the other. The key is simply this: to give to the people what is rightly theirs.

I mean they must have been happy with it and thought a 10.5% interest rate was a good interest rate - otherwise we’d have to conclude that the Conservatives lied to us!

Has Michael Howard said that 10.5% is an interest rate that he would be happy to have again under his Conservative government? I presume it is since he hasn’t said it was a “bad” interest rate back then and he and the other Conservatives lied then when they told us it was a good rate? I also presume that he would again be happy with the unemployment rates we had back then?

For this comparison to make any sort of sense, you need to assume that either:

1) the economy was in a similar state when the Tories took it over in 1979 as it was when Labour took it over in 1997, so that any differences after 8 years would be down to the way it had been run over that period; OR

2) that the state of the economy at any point is completely unrelated to the state it was in 8 years previously.

If neither of these is true, then the comparison is meaningless.

1) is clearly utterly false. For example in 1979 inflation was on an upward trend and was at 13.4%. In 1997, it was 3.1%. Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

on 2), I am not an economist, but it seems highly unlikely this is true.

Now don't get me wrong, I am no friend of the Tory party, but it is at best overly simplistic and at worst dishonest to compare one statistic in 1987 and 2005 and draw conclusions from that about the management of the economy over an 8 year period.

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?

Vote-stealing is about the one thing I think the Tories never got caught doing.

Unlike Labour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/05/nvote105.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/05/ixnewstop.html

Highest inflation rates in decades? Must have had some extremely short decades in the old days then!

Highest in the 18 years of Tory rule was 18% in 1980. Highest under the previous Labour government was 24.2% in 1975.

Average over the 18 years of Tory rule (79-96) was 6.5%. Average under the 5 years of the previous Labour government (74-78) was 16.4%.

There is plenty in the Tories record, and in their plans, to attack. Making inaccurate, incorrect, easily disproved claims is not helpful.

Darat
6th April 2005, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


...snip...

Now don't get me wrong, I am no friend of the Tory party, but it is at best overly simplistic and at worst dishonest to compare one statistic in 1987 and 2005 and draw conclusions from that about the management of the economy over an 8 year period.

I’m practising my "man in the pub said" responses!

Of course you are totally correct in pointing out my post was overly simplistic and I don't believe much (apart from the figures) that I posted is a balanced and fair representation of the issues I touched on.

However I do think amongst the hyperbole I made a significant point and I need to use more similes for my "soapbox proclamations".

Darat
6th April 2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Vote-stealing is about the one thing I think the Tories never got caught doing.


Caught? Well I think good old Dame Shirley "I'm down to my last £300,000" Porter was caught gerrymandering, I really don’t see the difference in intent.


Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Unlike Labour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/05/nvote105.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/05/ixnewstop.html



Opps - I think you've made a teensy-weensy mistake there. I'm sure you did not mean to say "Labour" but "some Labour activists"? ;) After all are you really suggesting the Labour party organised the vote fraud? And there were many more reports from that whole disgusting affair that suggests other activists with other party allegiances were also up to no good. (No links to hand.)

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Highest inflation rates in decades? Must have had some extremely short decades in the old days then!

Highest in the 18 years of Tory rule was 18% in 1980. Highest under the previous Labour government was 24.2% in 1975.


You are right I allowed my rhetoric to get away with me.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Average over the 18 years of Tory rule (79-96) was 6.5%. Average under the 5 years of the previous Labour government (74-78) was 16.4%.


I don’t have contrary figures to hand at the moment (not at my main PC) but where did you get those figures from for future reference? Plus as I pointed out earlier the Labour Party of today cannot be compared to the Labour Party of the 70s and before - the party would not be recognisable to its founders today; it underwent am ideological change during the Kinnock-Smith-Blair reform years. Whilst the term "New Labour" was used as an incredibly effective marketing tool it was also a truthful description.


Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


There is plenty in the Tories record, and in their plans, to attack. Making inaccurate, incorrect, easily disproved claims is not helpful.

I agree but only my inflation comment was actually wrong.



(Edited for words.)

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Caught? Well I think good old Dame Shirley "I'm down to my last £300,000" Porter was caught gerrymandering, I really don’t see the difference in intent.

Those votes weren't stolen, they were bought (illegally with council funds)!

Opps - I think you've made a teensy-weensy mistake there. I'm sure you did not mean to say "Labour" but "some Labour activists"? ;) After all are you really suggesting the Labour party organised the vote fraud? And there were many more reports from that whole disgusting affair that suggests other activists with other party allegiances were also up to no good. (No links to hand.)

Not sure what your point is - you accused the Conservative party of various things including vote stealing. From the above, that was based on the actions of one person in gerrymandering. Or were you really suggesting that the Conservative party organised it? Or is such generalisation only allowed when you are doing it?

I don’t have contrary figures to hand at the moment (not at my main PC) but where did you get those figures from for future reference? Plus as I pointed out earlier the Labour Party of today cannot be compared to the Labour Party of the 70s and before - the party would not be recognisable to its founders today; it underwent am ideological change during the Kinnock-Smith-Blair reform years. Whilst the term "New Labour" was used as an incredibly effective marketing tool it was also a truthful description.

Figures are calculated on an extremely simplistic basis - adding up figures for each year and dividing by number of years. Source of figures is the research paper previously linked to:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

You made a claim about inflation that can ONLY be compared to Old Labour as New Labour did not exist at the time. Then you start whinging "but that was Old Labour" when your claim is disproved - is the record of Old Labour only admissible when it suits you?

I agree but only my inflation comment was actually wrong.

Yes, but including one obviously wrong comment allows your opponent to attack that, expose your error and therefore cast doubt on all the other claims, even if they are entirely accurate. It's not like there is a shortage of Tory scandals, mismanagement and failure to choose from.

Darat
6th April 2005, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


...snip..

Not sure what your point is - you accused the Conservative party of various things including vote stealing. From the above, that was based on the actions of one person in gerrymandering. Or were you really suggesting that the Conservative party organised it? Or is such generalisation only allowed when you are doing it?

..snip...



Of course generalisations (that are wrong) should be avoided by everyone myself included.

But do check the context of when I made that post. The comment you picked up on was parodying Jon In London's comment which was "...snip... to make sure that you dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags never get your filthy, vote-stealing paws on anything that bears my my signature....." I played it back but changed the target from Labour to Conservative and Jon picked up on it and we discussed it.

Look at this, another example of a sweeping generalisation, I made in this thread:

"Oh labour has no problems with civil liberties, it just doesn’t think we should have any."

Is that an absolutely correct statement of Labour policy? No of course not however I would maintain it is an effective and honest way of getting over my opinion of Labour’s failings on this matter in a concise manner.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Figures are calculated on an extremely simplistic basis - adding up figures for each year and dividing by number of years. Source of figures is the research paper previously linked to:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf



Thanks - I'll note that for future reference.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

You made a claim about inflation that can ONLY be compared to Old Labour as New Labour did not exist at the time. Then you start whinging "but that was Old Labour" when your claim is disproved - is the record of Old Labour only admissible when it suits you?



Er "whinging"? I admitted my error in clear simple English: i.e.

"You are right I allowed my rhetoric to get away with me."

Where have I brought in the record of "old" Labour into this discussion? My erroneous statement was about a straight forward figure, not a comparison with previous governments.

Interestingly although I did make a mistake what I said was “…and highest inflation rates in decades…” and that statement is in fact true depending on which way you look in time, for instance it you take it to mean 60s, 70s & 80s then as you showed it is wrong however if you consider it to be the decades of the 80s, 90s and 00s it is correct. Thanks for making me see that, in future I should be more careful if I use a phrase like “in decades” to make sure I make clear the direction I mean!


Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Yes, but including one obviously wrong comment allows your opponent to attack that, expose your error and therefore cast doubt on all the other claims, even if they are entirely accurate. It's not like there is a shortage of Tory scandals, mismanagement and failure to choose from.

And again I agree.

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Where have I brought in the record of "old" Labour into this discussion? My erroneous statement was about a straight forward figure, not a comparison with previous governments.

Interestingly although I did make a mistake what I said was “…and highest inflation rates in decades…” and that statement is in fact true depending on which way you look in time, for instance it you take it to mean 60s, 70s & 80s then as you showed it is wrong however if you consider it to be the decades of the 80s, 90s and 00s it is correct. Thanks for making me see that, in future I should be more careful if I use a phrase like “in decades” to make sure I make clear the direction I mean!

By stating that the Tories were responsible for the highest inflation in decades - what did you think it was going to be compared to if not Old Labour's record immediately before the Tories got into power?

Inflation is the wrong ground to attack the Tories. They DID get inflation under control (look at the level when they came into power, how rapidly it reduces and how, relatively low and stable it was when they were voted out).

The Tories didn't lose the last two elections because they couldn't run the economy (after all Labour adopted their policies and spending plans for the first two years in power) but because they were seen as corrupt, untrustworthy and dishonest. To fight about their economic record is, IMO, playing into their hands.

richardm
6th April 2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Average over the 18 years of Tory rule (79-96) was 6.5%. Average under the 5 years of the previous Labour government (74-78) was 16.4%.


It would be useful if the linked figures brought us up to date. The claim is usually made that short-termist Tory policies brought "Boom and Bust" - that is, inflation went from very low to very high values and back repeatedly over a period of a few years. That's not well demonstrated by taking an average. Meanwhile, the Labour claim is that they keep inflation under control. We can see the swings on the given data, but because it only goes up to 1998 we can't see if it's true that it's more steady now. Unfortunately I don't have time now to look for more recent data, but I'll take a look later if nobody else comes up with it.

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by richardm
It would be useful if the linked figures brought us up to date. The claim is usually made that short-termist Tory policies brought "Boom and Bust" - that is, inflation went from very low to very high values and back repeatedly over a period of a few years. That's not well demonstrated by taking an average. Meanwhile, the Labour claim is that they keep inflation under control. We can see the swings on the given data, but because it only goes up to 1998 we can't see if it's true that it's more steady now. Unfortunately I don't have time now to look for more recent data, but I'll take a look later if nobody else comes up with it.

Can only find them on a spreadsheet:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdownload.asp?vlnk=7172

So to keep things simple, figures from 99-04 are:

99 1.5
00 3.0
01 1.8
02 1.7
03 2.9
04 3.0

Matabiri
6th April 2005, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Can only find them on a spreadsheet:

Or here in more detail:
http://www.moneyextra.com/glossary/gl00278.htm

Be careful of the much-quoted Consumer Prices Index (CPI), though. This was introduced in 2003 and does not include housing costs and council tax.

richardm
6th April 2005, 07:16 AM
Ah, thanks! So:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/rpichange.jpg

We have had a long period of stability, which began around 1993, 4 years before the current government came to power in '97. So this period of stability started on the Tory watch.

You could argue that this government has managed to keep it level, whereas the Tories never managed to do so for more than a few years at a time, followed by a huge hike. Perhaps the Tories could have maintained it, but I suspect not - giving control of interest rates to the Bank of England is something they would not have done, and that is probably what has made the critical difference. (No opportunity for the Chancellor to tinker with the interest rates prior to an election to cheer people up, followed by inevitable knock-on financial horrors)

Jaggy Bunnet
6th April 2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Or here in more detail:
http://www.moneyextra.com/glossary/gl00278.htm

Be careful of the much-quoted Consumer Prices Index (CPI), though. This was introduced in 2003 and does not include housing costs and council tax.

I think the figures in my previous post (chosen on the highly scientific basis that they were the first ones I came across on Google) were RPIX - in other words excluding housing costs.

Darat
6th April 2005, 07:43 AM
Just because we can. (The years are from memory.)


http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/rpi49-04a.jpg

CapelDodger
6th April 2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Capel Dodger, we all know that the true reason you despise Blair is because he is a lawyer. I don't think he's worthless because he's a lawyer. Quite the opposite, in fact. :)

asthmatic camel
6th April 2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by CapelDodger
I don't think he's worthless because he's a lawyer. Quite the opposite, in fact. :)

You mean he's worthless and a lawyer?

Matabiri
6th April 2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I think the figures in my previous post (chosen on the highly scientific basis that they were the first ones I came across on Google) were RPIX - in other words excluding housing costs.

This (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=62) says that RPI-X includes housing costs.

"Housing:
Rent
Mortgage interest payments*
Depreciation*
Council tax & rates*
Water & other charges
Repairs & maintenance
Do-it-yourself materials
Dwelling insurance &
ground rent*

* Not included in CPI"

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=868&More=n appears to have all the figures anyone could ever want.

CapelDodger
6th April 2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
You mean he's worthless and a lawyer? Well, yeah, but I don't mean all lawyers are worthless. It's just that if you are, the law's a good option. Blair's a lawyer of the worst kind : still breathing.

I'm told I have "issues" with lawyers but I don't know, I thought everybody felt that way.

Darat
6th April 2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Well, yeah, but I don't mean all lawyers are worthless....snip...

So you meant all worthless people are lawyers?

Lucky
6th April 2005, 02:53 PM
From Darat:
I am at the nearest I've ever been for not voting Labour. I believe they have gone too far to the centre/right over the last few years.I reached that point at the 1997 general election.

I joined the Labour Party at the age of 16 and have voted Labour at every election, local, national etc., since my 18th birthday, except for the last two general elections. I remained a Labour Party activist until it became obvious that the party had abandoned all the principles that led me to join it. I left it around 1990 (I think).

I seemed to be the only person in Britain in 1997 who believed that New Labour actually meant its election promises, which were almost identical to the Tories’: privatising anything that stood still long enough (including implementing the Tories’ insane rail privatisation plan); NHS internal markets and PFI; cutting social benefits and local amenities; driving down public service workers’ pay and conditions; pointless ‘quick fixes’ in education such as increased ‘parent power’.

People were desperate to get rid of the Tories and preferred to close their eyes to the reality of Blair’s New Labour. Almost everyone I discussed with believed (or hoped) that Blair really intended to apply rather more left-wing policies than he admitted, and that the manifesto was propaganda to win the ‘moderate’ vote. Some hopes.

As spouse and I were walking to the polling station I said ‘I can’t vote for Blair’. We discussed what to do and by the time we reached the polling station had decided that the only option was to vote Green. It did seem almost surreal, as for most of my life I could never have imagined voting anything but Labour. Anyway, that’s what we did in 1997 and 2001, and we will doubtless do the same this election.

richardm
7th April 2005, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Lucky
Almost everyone I discussed with believed (or hoped) that Blair really intended to apply rather more left-wing policies than he admitted, and that the manifesto was propaganda to win the ‘moderate’ vote. Some hopes.


Wait, so a politician did what he said he was going to do and you're disappointed? I'd have been amazed :D

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Lucky
by the time we reached the polling station had decided that the only option was to vote Green. It did seem almost surreal, as for most of my life I could never have imagined voting anything but Labour. Anyway, that’s what we did in 1997 and 2001, and we will doubtless do the same this election. So how about you vote on this thread then? It would make the poll look prettier. :D

Interestingly, after all the bitching about who was "worthy" to be included, I note that when they were interviewing party leaders on the main BBC news on Tuesday night (after the announcement of the election), the people they chose to feature were Tony Blair (Lab), Michael Howard (Con), Charles Kennedy (Lib-Dem), Alex Salmond (SNP) and Elfyn Llwyd (PC). The first Question Time of the campaign, last night, had representatives from Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, SNP and UKIP. So far, on this poll, we have votes for Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, SNP and Plaid. And we might get one for the Greens if Lucky gets his act together.

So I think I rest my case regarding SNP and Plaid as being more rational inclusions in a poll than the "Respect Party" or whatever.

Intersting how well the Lib-Dems are doing on this poll. The numbers are too small to mean diddly-squat, but it will be interesting to see how this election pans out for them when the votes start coming in.

Rolfe.

PS. I note a Sinn Feinn vote has appeared. I'd be interested in hearing from that poster. Was that a serious vote from a Northern Irish voter? Was it prompted by last night's announcement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4415617.stm)?

Giz
7th April 2005, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Lucky

I seemed to be the only person in Britain in 1997 who believed that New Labour actually meant its election promises, which were almost identical to the Tories’: privatising anything that stood still long enough (including implementing the Tories’ insane rail privatisation plan); NHS internal markets and PFI; cutting social benefits and local amenities; driving down public service workers’ pay and conditions; pointless ‘quick fixes’ in education such as increased ‘parent power’.



Hardly, the only one. If I'd thought Labour were still "hard left" then I would never have voted for them in 1997!

mummymonkey
7th April 2005, 04:09 AM
As always, I'll be voting for "The party most likely to prevent the election of an SNP candidate". This time it means voting Tory. The lesser of two evils.

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Darat
.... even being thrown out of the Labour party ....Care to share, Darat? That sounds like an interesting story!

Rolfe.

Matabiri
7th April 2005, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Care to share, Darat? That sounds like an interesting story!

Wait... is Darat Ken Livingston?

(He can't be George Galloway, because George Galloway would never be even mildly anonymous.)

Darat
7th April 2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Care to share, Darat? That sounds like an interesting story!

Rolfe.

Nah - it isn't I just try to make it sound as if it is.

Back when I was younger I was a member of several extreme leftwing activist groups. These were the groups that Kinnock succeeded at removing from the centre of the party.

At a local Labour party meeting a group of us were told we had to decide Labour party or our other “affiliations” and after attempting to prove it was unconstitutional and that black is white and white is black, I refused to back down and the meeting ended. When I turned up at the next meeting I was refused entry and was met by a "party official" (very KGB) who handed me a letter that said I was no longer a member of the Labour party.

The innocence and passion of youth!

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 10:47 AM
Before my time, but something similar happened in the SNP in 1979. It wasn't a left-wing right-wing thing though, I think it was to do with gradualism versus one-step independence (someone may put me right on this). Anyway, one of the most prominent of the people expelled at that time was one Alex Salmond....

Rolfe.

Lucky
7th April 2005, 01:06 PM
From Rolfe:
And we might get one for the Greens if Lucky gets his act together.Forgot to vote: remedied. Actually, that reminds me that I forgot to vote at the local elections two years ago. Because of the low-key campaigning (i.e. total apathy from press, political parties and public – never saw a single election poster) I didn't notice the date and, for the first time in my life, missed an election.

I do hope that none of the Planet Xers are Brits. Democracy was very hard won and should never be taken for granted; and in a free election anyone must be able to find some party they can vote for without doing violence to their conscience.
From richardm:
Wait, so a politician did what he said he was going to do and you're disappointed? I'd have been amazed Point taken! But it’s rather ironic (or sad, really) that what New Labour said was so unappealing that large numbers of people had to disbelieve them in order to vote for them. Of course, these people were really voting anti-Tory, just as there will be a large anti-Labour vote in this election (mostly in the Tory direction, I guess).
From Giz:
If I'd thought Labour were still "hard left" then I would never have voted for them in 1997!Yes, I think a lot of people voted New Labour in 1997 because they were seen as a more moderate version of the Tories, but it’s difficult now to see how they are in any important way more moderate (I didn’t think they were even in 1997). I wonder, by the way, what you think of the Americanisation of British politics: that we have the choice of {unreservedly pro-capitalist party 1} vs (very similar) {unreservedly pro-capitalist party 2}. Good for democracy? I think not.

Jon_in_london
7th April 2005, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe

So I think I rest my case regarding SNP and Plaid as being more rational inclusions in a poll than the "Respect Party" or whatever.


You take yourself too seriously. I only included Respect because then I get to say "Sir, I salute your indefatigability"...

Jon_in_london
7th April 2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
I wonder, by the way, what you think of the Americanisation of British politics: that we have the choice of {unreservedly pro-capitalist party 1} vs (very similar) {unreservedly pro-capitalist party 2}. Good for democracy? I think not.

I wouldnt describe that as "Americanisation". It what the people want- the only party that isnt an "unreservedly pro-capitalist party" is the Lib Dems and they are firmly in third- they would be even firmlier in third if it wasnt for the war. Good for democracy- its what the people want.

CapelDodger
7th April 2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
People were desperate to get rid of the Tories and preferred to close their eyes to the reality of Blair’s New Labour. Almost everyone I discussed with believed (or hoped) that Blair really intended to apply rather more left-wing policies than he admitted, and that the manifesto was propaganda to win the ‘moderate’ vote. Some hopes. I mentioned my reservations about Blair to some left-wing Labour folk in '97, and was slapped down. The attitude was that only Blair/Mandelson/The Project could win at all. Their insecurity was remarkable. I think Tony Benn could have led Labour to victory in '97. (I voted Green.)

Originally posted by Darat
So you meant all worthless people are lawyers? On reflection, politician is another option. On further reflection, I should stop trying to be clever. So it turns out my mother's been right all these years ... :confused:

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
You take yourself too seriously. I only included Respect because then I get to say "Sir, I salute your indefatigability"... Possibly. But it was really Geni I was getting at, when I started griping about wanting a serious poll. :D

They had a load of stuff on TV this evening about "Veritas". Frankly, I totally forgot they existed at all. Maybe they'll go the way of the other improbably orange tan (Sheridan I mean) and quietly fade away.

Rolfe.

Cleopatra
7th April 2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by CapelDodger
[(I voted Green.)

Green??? As we say Ecologists and Vegetarians?? O-h M-y G-o-d. And *I * have been feeling guilty for voting for Likud??



:p

On reflection, politician is another option. On further reflection, I should stop trying to be clever. So it turns out my mother's been right all these years ... :confused:

Finally you admitted it. If God could have gratuated Law School, he would be a lawyer too.

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
I do hope that none of the Planet Xers are Brits. Democracy was very hard won and should never be taken for granted; and in a free election anyone must be able to find some party they can vote for without doing violence to their conscience.Agreed.

I remember doing a session of telephone canvassing, when the whole room was brought to a halt by one canvasser giving a woman voter the most fearful telling-off for betraying the entire women's suffrage struggle in her assertion that she wasn't going to vote. "I don't care who you vote for," shouted the canvasser, "just show some respect for the Pankhursts and get out there and vote for somebody!"

On the other hand, if I had to vote in England - bloody hell, I don't know.

Rolfe.

geni
7th April 2005, 03:48 PM
someone needs to tell the conservatives about targeted campaining. The letter I got from them which was sent to a student hall complex full of first year students does not contain the words "student" or "university" once.

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by geni
someone needs to tell the conservatives about targeted campaining. The letter I got from them which was sent to a student hall complex full of first year students does not contain the words "student" or "university" once. Why tell them? You want your mates to vote for them?

Rolfe.

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 04:08 PM
Interesting points being made today about tactical voting. In particular, the Lib-Dems' attempt to unseat Michael Howard by getting the local Labour voters to vote Lib-Dem. The local Labour party don't seem to be in agreement though.

In theory, I think that the way the first-past-the-post system works, one needs to be prepared to hold one's nose and vote tactically in certain circumstances. But I don't know how I'd actually react if I was in that position. My constituency is a safe Labour seat, and the SNP is in second place. So I don't even have to consider it. (Apart from the fact that the SNP candidate is a personal friend, we were both on the committee of London Branch for ages, and he'd skin me alive if I didn't deliver him my vote....)

So, anybody in the position of nose-holding? Labour supporters, if you were voting in Folkestone, what would you do?

Rolfe.

(And is anybody else as creeped out as I am about the idea of a bunch of Merikans writing to us to help us decide who to vote for?)

geni
7th April 2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Why tell them? You want your mates to vote for them?

Rolfe.

The letters got sent to everyone.

Rolfe
7th April 2005, 04:15 PM
Yes, yes. But you said, "someone needs to tell the conservatives about targeted campaining" as if you wanted them to be taught how to be more effective.

Leave them in ignorance, I say.

Rolfe.

geni
7th April 2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Yes, yes. But you said, "someone needs to tell the conservatives about targeted campaining" as if you wanted them to be taught how to be more effective.

Leave them in ignorance, I say.

Rolfe.

Perhaps but their crack down on youngsters policy is almost embaresing considering the audence

CapelDodger
7th April 2005, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by geni
Perhaps but their crack down on youngsters policy is almost embaresing considering the audence Students are at higher-than-average risk of mugging, burglary and random street violence, mostly perpetrated by non-student "youngsters", so it isn't that silly.

Edited to add:

Their cannabis policy is, though.

Matabiri
8th April 2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Interesting points being made today about tactical voting. In particular, the Lib-Dems' attempt to unseat Michael Howard by getting the local Labour voters to vote Lib-Dem. The local Labour party don't seem to be in agreement though.

I was thinking about tactical voting last night: there's so much hand-wringing in the Leftie press at the moment about how the Labour Party can be re-elected without giving Blair a further fillip or mandate, and I decided that some sort of vote swap was in order: people from marginal consituencies could write to voters in Sedgefield offering to support Labour in their constituencies so long as the Sedgefield voter did not vote for Blair. Result: a strong Labour majority without Blair, who gets humiliatingly kicked out of Parliament. No-one loses.

I might write to the Guardian suggesting it. After all their record in influencing recent elections is exemplary.

TheBoyPaj
8th April 2005, 02:58 AM
Libdem.

I cannot vote for Blair again after his u-turn on tuition fees, and the Conservatories (while I am worryingly in favour of SOME of their policies) are a bunch of smarmy two-faced gits.

I understand that my vote MAY help us to get a Tory government, but my hope is that it will result in a reduced Labour majority (so that bills such as the tuition fees one will not be passed) and the future progression of the Libdem's share of the vote.

People complain about having no real alternative. The Libdems are never going to jump from 20% of the vote to 50% overnight, but they're moving in the right direction.

Edit: I didn't mean to write "conservatories" up there, but decided to leave it in. A lifetime of writing advertising copy takes its toll.

Matabiri
8th April 2005, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I understand that my vote MAY help us to get a Tory government, but my hope is that it will result in a reduced Labour majority (so that bills such as the tuition fees one will not be passed) and the future progression of the Libdem's share of the vote.

Have you played with the BBC's seat calculator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm)?

It's only a rough guide, true, but putting in reasonable numbers predicts that the Conservaives need to beat Labour by some 6% in the popular vote in order to gain the lead (and that's still a hung parliament). So a pretty huge shift would be required.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Have you played with the BBC's seat calculator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm)?If you go to the Scottish section, it's really depressing (at least from my point of view :D ). Not that I didn't know it already, but even if there was a 10% swing from Labour to the SNP, giving the SNP 30% and Labour 34%, the SNP still only have 9 seats to Labour's 39. Even the Lib-Dems, on 16% of the vote, manage 10 seats!

Even on level pegging as regards votes (well, I can dream!) the SNP is still well behind Labour in seats, and in fact has to draw 3 or 4 per cent ahead before starting to see a majority of actual seats.

It's a basic problem with having support relatively evenly spread around the country, as opposed to being concentrated in "heartlands". The Lib-Dems, paradoxically, suffer from this in England while benefiting from it in Scotland.

Rolfe.

asthmatic camel
8th April 2005, 05:08 AM
I'm voting Conservative because I can't abide the sight or sound of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke and especially John Prescott. If I thought voting for anyone else would make any difference then I'd probably vote for them. But it wouldn't, so I won't.

There are other reasons, but you'll hear them far too often in the next few weeks, so I'll spare you.

Darat
8th April 2005, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
If you go to the Scottish section, it's really depressing (at least from my point of view :D ). Not that I didn't know it already, but even if there was a 10% swing from Labour to the SNP, giving the SNP 30% and Labour 34%, the SNP still only have 9 seats to Labour's 39. Even the Lib-Dems, on 16% of the vote, manage 10 seats!

Even on level pegging as regards votes (well, I can dream!) the SNP is still well behind Labour in seats, and in fact has to draw 3 or 4 per cent ahead before starting to see a majority of actual seats.

It's a basic problem with having support relatively evenly spread around the country, as opposed to being concentrated in "heartlands". The Lib-Dems, paradoxically, suffer from this in England while benefiting from it in Scotland.

Rolfe.

Just for you Rolfe, from Private Eye:

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/forrolfe.jpg

(And they also have a piece this week claiming the debate isn’t over regarding a link between the MMR vaccine and autism!)

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 05:39 AM
:D :D

There's only one problem with that. The Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/) is the Glasgow newspaper. Those in Edinburgh favour the Hootsmon (http://www.scotsman.com/). Private Eye screw up again, what a surprise.

And before anyone else mentions it first, not having a great day, here (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/36950.html).

Rolfe.

Darat
8th April 2005, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
...snip...

And before anyone else mentions it first, not having a great day, here (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/36950.html).

Rolfe.

Do you think that is because the SNP was so deeply identified with independence and since devolution they have failed (to the general public) in establishing themselves as a party with a wider remit?

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Since I had extreme issues with the earlier poll on this subject (and if had the wrong date anyway), I thought I'd start one of my own.

I've tried to include all parties which will be represented in a significant number of seats (thanks, Geni, for the list), apologies if I've omited anyone's favoured choice.

Rolfe.

You forgot the no voting option. I won't be voting although I hope Labour win. I don't want to vote for my local labour MP. She's both stupid and obnoxious.

I want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. I've been a fan of his since 1995 after I saw him on a TV interview and concluded that he was both highly intelligent and also left wing (I'm "left wing" too). And he's helped out poor people a fair bit. The rich are richer than they've ever been of course, but he had his hands tied what with Blair, and Blair not wishing to upset the tabloids and rich people :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Darat


Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books? [/B]

I believe the inflation rate hit about 28% in 1975 under a Labour Government. Under Thatcher inflation got up to about 22%, but that was near the beginning of her administration.

mummymonkey
8th April 2005, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Do you think that is because the SNP was so deeply identified with independence and since devolution they have failed (to the general public) in establishing themselves as a party with a wider remit? Maybe. It was always on the cards that the establishment of the expensive toon cooncil in Edinburgh would soften the Nats vote. May have been worth all that money after all.

Darat
8th April 2005, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I believe the inflation rate hit about 28% in 1975 under a Labour Government. Under Thatcher inflation got up to about 22%, but that was near the beginning of her administration.

Yep I was wrong when I said that (in the way I meant it at the time) - there's a discussion between JB and me about it. A couple of graphs have been posted as well with the historic inflation rates.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad fecking rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant. [/B]

Well there's nothing wrong with people lying on their fat pasty @rses and getting drunk and smoking. Providing they are not doing other people are harm, then that's just fine. Why object? Why shouldn't they do that?? Even if they are unemployed then that's absolutely fine. One can scarcely object to the amount of money they get afterall ;) * It is rich people who are of concern because they get a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth than they intrinsically deserve.

Labour have punished the middle classes, but that because they're not allowed (by the tabloids etc :rolleyes: ) to tax rich people more {shrugs}. Absolutely absurd and deplorable beyond belief :(

BTW the Labout government do not champion the unemployed. Poor people have been helped under Labour, but that excludes the unemployed.

*(of course if they are engaging in criminal activity then that's a completely different story)

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Aye, the man who thought the Poll Tax was a good idea.

What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle. Two things.

First, if it was set at a level which poor people could actually pay, then it would cost more to administer than it received in revenue. If it was set at a level which would generate enough revenue, then poor people would be bankrupted. That is simply senseless.

Second, it required unprecedented keeping of tabs on where everybody lived. Every time anyone moved across a parish boundary something changed, and as some young people are very mobile they could be three or four moves ahead of the system. This was both unnecessarily heavy on resources, and an invasion of privacy.

Rolfe.

richardm
8th April 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle.

All the costs of running the councils were spread evenly across all taxpayers, irrespective of their ability to pay. Inherently unfair and yes, inevitably going to make rich people richer and poor people poorer.

The only good thing about it was that it brought Thatcher's career crashing down around her ears.

Edited for grammar.

Edited again to add: Plus, they implemented it in Scotland the year before they tried it anywhere else. This was a brilliant political move that has ensured the continuing success of the Tory party North of the Border.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You forgot the no voting option.Sorry, that was what Planet X was for, though it may have been subverted to "not a Brit but want to see the poll anyway".

Rolfe.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by mummymonkey
Maybe. It was always on the cards that the establishment of the expensive toon cooncil in Edinburgh would soften the Nats vote. May have been worth all that money after all. You might be quite close with that, though obviously I wouldn't have put it that way. Labour set up the parliament, and seem to have been doing their damnedest to make it boring, expensive and irrelevant. This in turn reflects on the SNP who are associated in the voters' minds with the parliament, even though what we've got bears little resemblance to what the SNP would like to see in a parliament.

It's relatively early days in a relatively long haul though. It would be interesting to see what might happen if we have a Tory government in Westminster with Labour in charge of Holyrood.

By the way, care to explain why you're so anti-SNP?

Rolfe.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I'm voting Conservative because I can't abide the sight or sound of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke and especially John Prescott. If I thought voting for anyone else would make any difference then I'd probably vote for them. But it wouldn't, so I won't.

There are other reasons, but you'll hear them far too often in the next few weeks, so I'll spare you.

But Gordon Brown is incredibly intelligent. I also like John Prescott, although that doesn't mean to say he's a good politician.

Darat
8th April 2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well there's nothing wrong with people lying on their fat pasty @rses and getting drunk and smoking. Providing they are not doing other people are harm, then that's just fine. Why object?



No objection as long as they aren't taking money from the state to do that.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why shouldn't they do that?? Even if they are unemployed then that's absolutely fine. One can scarcely object to the amount of money they get afterall ;) *

...snip...

BTW the Labout government do not champion the unemployed. Poor people have been helped under Labour, but that excludes the unemployed.

*(of course if they are engaging in criminal activity then that's a completely different story)

And of course it’s fine if they are unemployed however long-term they should not receive money for doing nothing. I propose a new way to deal with unemployed people (who are capable of work). First 6 months full benefits (e.g. the cash and the benefits). After 6 months the cash is reduced (and direct payments are then made for the essentials, housing, heating, water and food is provided) and to receive any of those benefits they must work for them, not a full working week of course because they need to be able to find a job but say put it at 2 or 3 hours a day or around 15 hours a week, the work can be work in the community.

What this would introduce is a much more equitable system, society is providing the safety net and the person can still feel a valuable member of society because they are still able to contribute to making it a good, fair society.

What is wrong is having a system of unemployment benefits (and income support) that allows those who just do not want to support themselves to do so at the expense of the rest of society.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Two things.

First, if it was set at a level which poor people could actually pay, then it would cost more to administer than it received in revenue. If it was set at a level which would generate enough revenue, then poor people would be bankrupted. That is simply senseless.

Second, it required unprecedented keeping of tabs on where everybody lived. Every time anyone moved across a parish boundary something changed, and as some young people are very mobile they could be three or four moves ahead of the system. This was both unnecessarily heavy on resources, and an invasion of privacy.

Rolfe.

Ah yes, but that's the practical administration rather than "in principle". At the time it was introduced I remember arguing it was silly to charge the unemployed the poll tax because it cost more to collect it than the amount they paid. But people were saying, 'why shouldn't the unemployed pay it. Why should they get away without paying it'? I said "look, I've already explained! I mean what is the point?? All it does is just p*ss everyone off and both local government and the unemployed are *both* out of pocket! If you think the unemployed should have less money then argue for reducing their benefits' (being complete scumbags as well as being thick as f*ck, they were actually in favour of that too).

I just can't believe how stupid people are, whether it is talking about politics, or about the paranormal, or whatever. At least some people on here are not so stupid about politics even if they are on the subject of the paranormal.

richardm
8th April 2005, 08:30 AM
Unfortunately there are plenty of people around who think that people are unemployed because they don't want to work. You can usually identify them because they have a copy of the Daily Mail under their arm ;) By that reckoning, of course, it makes sense to complain that they're "getting away with" not paying the full rate of the tax.

Your mates were taking that attitude around '87-88 I assume, when the unemployment rate was running at about 10% (vs. about 3% now), so that makes the "Idle buggers" argument even more risible.

Matabiri
8th April 2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Darat
First 6 months full benefits (e.g. the cash and the benefits). After 6 months the cash is reduced (and direct payments are then made for the essentials, housing, heating, water and food is provided) and to receive any of those benefits they must work for them, not a full working week of course because they need to be able to find a job but say put it at 2 or 3 hours a day or around 15 hours a week, the work can be work in the community.

Of course, the question still remains of what you do with those people who refuse to work*. Do you let them die?

I think the standard thinking is that it's less effort (and thus less cost) overall to allow some people to be wasters than it is to check up on everyone. At some point, though, the "waster" mentality becomes too common and something has to be done. What, though, I don't know.

(*Edit to add: I don't want in any way to imply that these are the majority of unemployed people, just that they exist.)

Darat
8th April 2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Of course, the question still remains of what you do with those people who refuse to work. Do you let them die?

I think the standard thinking is that it's less effort (and thus less cost) overall to allow some people to be wasters than it is to check up on everyone. At some point, though, the "waster" mentality becomes too common and something has to be done. What, though, I don't know.

Of course not that's why I'd extend the basic rights we can all expect e.g clean water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care and I would ensure everyone gets them whether they can afford to buy them or not.

In what I propose there is no more checking up then what happens today and people can choose to participate in society or not it isn’t forced on them. If however they want the "cash benefits" on top of the “rights benefits” then they would have to contribute to society.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well there's nothing wrong with people lying on their fat pasty @rses and getting drunk and smoking. Providing they are not doing other people are harm, then that's just fine. Why object?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No objection as long as they aren't taking money from the state to do that.



They need benefits. How else could they support themselves?? :rolleyes:




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why shouldn't they do that?? Even if they are unemployed then that's absolutely fine. One can scarcely object to the amount of money they get afterall *

...snip...

BTW the Labout government do not champion the unemployed. Poor people have been helped under Labour, but that excludes the unemployed.

*(of course if they are engaging in criminal activity then that's a completely different story)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And of course it’s fine if they are unemployed however long-term they should not receive money for doing nothing.



I don't agree. If people don't want to work I think they should be allowed to be unemployed and claim benefits.

a) It makes those who are unemployed but who do want to work easier for them to find work.

b) It drives up the wages because there then is less competition for low paid work.

In addition Capitalism inevitably creates unemployment. Even at times of "full employment" there's going to be a few hundred thousand unemployed. So basically you're effectively saying you're opposed to capitalism. Maybe you would prefer a socialist like system where everyone works. Well that's fine. So do I. But a socialism system will be difficult to implement and work effectively (although I wouldn't go as far to say it's impossible).



I propose a new way to deal with unemployed people (who are capable of work). First 6 months full benefits (e.g. the cash and the benefits). After 6 months the cash is reduced (and direct payments are then made for the essentials, housing, heating, water and food is provided) and to receive any of those benefits they must work for them, not a full working week of course because they need to be able to find a job but say put it at 2 or 3 hours a day or around 15 hours a week, the work can be work in the community.



But there's absolutely zero point in doing this. If they get work, other people will become unemployed to take their place. So all that will happens is that you will get some unemployed people, who don't want to work, into work, and make other people unemployed who do want to work. That is silly and it is unethical.


What is wrong is having a system of unemployment benefits (and income support) that allows those who just do not want to support themselves to do so at the expense of the rest of society.


You need to provide a half decent argument to establish that this is wrong. Why is it wrong?

richardm
8th April 2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
b) It drives up the wages because there then is less competition for low paid work.


At the moment there is no competition for low paid work. That's one reason we have so many economic migrants here - many British people aren't prepared to take low-paid jobs. And I'm talking about legitimate jobs, not being shuffled secretly into the country to pick cockles.

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1353473,00.html) with a few numbers.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Of course, the question still remains of what you do with those people who refuse to work*. Do you let them die?

I think the standard thinking is that it's less effort (and thus less cost) overall to allow some people to be wasters than it is to check up on everyone. At some point, though, the "waster" mentality becomes too common and something has to be done. What, though, I don't know.

(*Edit to add: I don't want in any way to imply that these are the majority of unemployed people, just that they exist.) [/B]

No, the "waster mentality" if they are law abiding citizens is extremely unlikely to become particularly prevalent. I've been unemployed before, and I know what it's like. They simply receive too little money for a lot of people to really desire it. And they feel unfilled, not socialising sufficiently, bored etc.

Of course it might well be that many unemployed are engaging in criminal activity to supplement their income. But that's a different issue.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by richardm
[B]At the moment there is no competition for low paid work. That's one reason we have so many economic migrants here - many British people aren't prepared to take low-paid jobs.



That's perfectly understandable and fine. Why should people be condemned for not working 48 hours a week for a pittance? Why aren't peoples' wrath directed at rich people who get a vastly disproportionate income relative to the amount of work they actually do??

richardm
8th April 2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's perfectly understandable and fine. Why should people be condemned for not working 48 hours a week for a pittance? Why aren't peoples' wrath directed at rich people who get a vastly disproportionate income relative to the amount of work they actually do??

I can direct my wrath in more than one direction at once :D

Actually, I was just pointing out that at the moment there is a shortage of labour in certain fields, skilled and unskilled, and I haven't noticed the wages soaring up in order to lure people in. (Errr probably because of the aforementioned migrants coming in and doing it for minimum wage. Abolish Immigration at once and cleaners can command higher salaries! Umm.)

Darat
8th April 2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They need benefits. How else could they support themselves?? :rolleyes:


If they are receiving benefits then they are not supporting themselves. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I don't agree. If people don't want to work I think they should be allowed to be unemployed and claim benefits.

a) It makes those who are unemployed but who do want to work easier for them to find work.

b) It drives up the wages because there then is less competition for low paid work.


Neither of your claims is universal. For instance if we were both unemployed and only one of us wanted a job but neither of us were qualified for it then whether either of us wanted to work or not will not influence our chances of getting that job.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

In addition Capitalism inevitably creates unemployment. Even at times of "full employment" there's going to be a few hundred thousand unemployed. So basically you're effectively saying you're opposed to capitalism. Maybe you would prefer a socialist like system where everyone works. Well that's fine. So do I. But a socialism system will be difficult to implement and work effectively (although I wouldn't go as far to say it's impossible).


And that is why there should always be a safety net, remember I do not propose ever removing the safety net. (Of course a lot of my basic underpinnings are socialist however whereas 25 years ago I was a radical socialist I would today say I am a radical pragmatist who believes in the rights of the individual and believes in the existence of a society that is formed by the relationships between those individuals.)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But there's absolutely zero point in doing this. If they get work, other people will become unemployed to take their place. So all that will happens is that you will get some unemployed people, who don't want to work, into work, and make other people unemployed who do want to work. That is silly and it is unethical.


When this objection is made (and by the way my proposal is not new or original with me - its been debated for decades in various guises with a shifting line between benefit and contribution) it is normally because there is an assumption that the only work that is worthwhile to a society will already being done (the more elaborate arguments go into how the "free market" values work, why no truly capitalist states exists and so on). The jobs that I would propose would not be "low status" or "low pay" jobs but works that contribute to society.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You need to provide a half decent argument to establish that this is wrong. Why is it wrong?

Basically because I believe society should be based on reciprocation as well as altruism.

Matabiri
8th April 2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Of course not that's why I'd extend the basic rights we can all expect e.g clean water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care and I would ensure everyone gets them whether they can afford to buy them or not.

Okay; I thought your "to receive any of those benefits they must work for them" referred to all ("any") benefits, rather than just the additional cash ones.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ah yes, but that's the practical administration rather than "in principle".I don't see the distinction. If there are two very clear reasons which are evident in advance will definitely make the whole exercise fall apart, I don't really see that these aren't "in principle".

Are you trying to say that in principle you are in favour of everybody paying the same amount rather than "from each according to his means", but it's just that in practice you'll never be able to raise a significant amount of money that way?

A bit hair-splitting, isn't it?

Rolfe.

Matabiri
8th April 2005, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, the "waster mentality" if they are law abiding citizens is extremely unlikely to become particularly prevalent. I've been unemployed before, and I know what it's like. They simply receive too little money for a lot of people to really desire it. And they feel unfilled, not socialising sufficiently, bored etc.

Like I said, I didn't want to imply in any way that these form the majority of the unemployed, just that, in some cases, people do not want to work and they can get away with it. This is the price of there being a safety net at all - the system relies on most people wanting to get back into work, and accepts that a tiny proportion do not. If that proportion grows, for whatever reason (the benefits system is too generous, say) then reform is needed.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Darat


Basically because I believe society should be based on reciprocation as well as altruism. [/B]

In principle I don't disagree with this. It's just that I don't feel a great issue should be made about the small minority of law abiding unemployed citizens who do not wish to work. I mean it would be good for everyone to contribute, but there are far worse problems we should concern ourselves with.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't see the distinction. If there are two very clear reasons which are evident in advance will definitely make the whole exercise fall apart, I don't really see that these aren't "in principle".

Are you trying to say that in principle you are in favour of everybody paying the same amount rather than "from each according to his means", but it's just that in practise you'll never be able to raise a significant amount of money that way?

A bit hair-splitting, isn't it?

Rolfe.

If we each pay for everything according to our means, then we don't have Capitalism! I am in favour in principle of each paying according to their means, but that would be socialism/communism.

The difficulties with the practical implementation of the poll tax, and the fact that it made richer people richer, and poor people poorer, was why I was opposed to it. If you want to say that there I was opposed to it in principle, then that's fine.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Like I said, I didn't want to imply in any way that these form the majority of the unemployed, just that, in some cases, people do not want to work and they can get away with it. This is the price of there being a safety net at all - the system relies on most people wanting to get back into work, and accepts that a tiny proportion do not. If that proportion grows, for whatever reason (the benefits system is too generous, say) then reform is needed.

Well yes. So there's no problem at the moment. I see no problem from a practical perspective, nor do I see any ethical problem whatsoever (unlike other people). The only probelm is the unemployed engaging in illegally supplementing their benefits by whatever means so as to make being "unemployed" that more attractive.

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 09:54 AM
Good grief! I noticed a horrible mis-spelling in a quoted post of mine (two posts above), and hastened to see if I could at least still correct the original. To find that the original is in fact correct!

Hey, if you're going to correct people's posts, make sure they're wrong in the first place. And Ian, you don't even have the excuse of being a linguistically-challenged Merikan.

For the record, "practice" is a noun, "practise" is a verb. The easy mnemonic taught to children is "you can c a noun but you can't c a verb". Works for a number of similar words like licence/license, prophecy/prophesy, advice/advise and so on.

Huh.

Rolfe.

Jon_in_london
8th April 2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
Like I said, I didn't want to imply in any way that these form the majority of the unemployed, just that, in some cases, people do not want to work and they can get away with it. This is the price of there being a safety net at all - the system relies on most people wanting to get back into work, and accepts that a tiny proportion do not. If that proportion grows, for whatever reason (the benefits system is too generous, say) then reform is needed.

I dont believe that the majority of unemployed cannot find work. They simply cannot find work that they deem good enough for them. There is ample low-paid menial labour out there but people are too snobby to get their hands dirty- prefering instead to leech of society.

To paraphrase Sir Humphrey- all that needs doing is for benefits to be withdrawn from anyone who turns down two job offers.

And personally I dont care what happens to parasites who have had thier vile probosci chopped off- they can crawl away and die for all I care.

Else force those on unemployment benefit to work for the community. Plenty of urinals that need scrubbing!

Jon_in_london
8th April 2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's perfectly understandable and fine. Why should people be condemned for not working 48 hours a week for a pittance? Why aren't peoples' wrath directed at rich people who get a vastly disproportionate income relative to the amount of work they actually do??

Very few highly paid people just walk into their highly paid low-work jobs.

Most off these jobs require significant initial investment in education (and therefore lost earnings) and demand many years of hard work putting in very long hours. Most people who are in highly paid jobs are there because they have strived for it and made sacrifices.

There are exceptions- like people who get paid £150,000 a week for kicking a ball about.......

Jon_in_london
8th April 2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Actually, I was just pointing out that at the moment there is a shortage of labour in certain fields, skilled and unskilled, and I haven't noticed the wages soaring up in order to lure people in. (Errr probably because of the aforementioned migrants coming in and doing it for minimum wage. Abolish Immigration at once and cleaners can command higher salaries! Umm.)

I'm not sure you realise how valid your argument is.

I certainly think it applies to nursing. Instead of stripping the third world of their nurses, why not train our own abd actually pay them a decent wage to our own to stop them all leaving and attract new recruits?

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Good grief! I noticed a horrible mis-spelling in a quoted post of mine (two posts above), and hastened to see if I could at least still correct the original. To find that the original is in fact correct!

Hey, if you're going to correct people's posts, make sure they're wrong in the first place. And Ian, you don't even have the excuse of being a linguistically-challenged Merikan.

For the record, "practice" is a noun, "practise" is a verb. The easy mnemonic taught to children is "you can c a noun but you can't c a verb". Works for a number of similar words like licence/license, prophecy/prophesy, advice/advise and so on.

Huh.

Rolfe.

ooops sorry. I just installed this spellchecker thing. I assumed it was just checking my words and I didn't really look and just pressed ok all the time. No idea why it "corrected" practice (or was it practise). I won't use it again. It's only when I type quickly I misspell sometimes; not that my spelling is particularly bad. Now my grammar; that's a different matter. I'm vaguely aware of the difference between practice and practise though :).

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I dont believe that the majority of unemployed cannot find work. They simply cannot find work that they deem good enough for them. There is ample low-paid menial labour out there but people are too snobby to get their hands dirty- prefering instead to leech of society.

To paraphrase Sir Humphrey- all that needs doing is for benefits to be withdrawn from anyone who turns down two job offers.

And personally I dont care what happens to parasites who have had thier vile probosci chopped off- they can crawl away and die for all I care.

Else force those on unemployment benefit to work for the community. Plenty of urinals that need scrubbing!

It's not snobby to refuse low paid menial labour for slave wages. It's simply sensible. Indeed it is excellent that they refuse to do such work. It might encourage those who want these jobs done to pay vastly higher wages. Cleaning urinals and cleaning skid marks off public tolet bowls shouyld pay at least £30,000. And if the unemployed were compelled to clean them for their benefits, I would advise them to engage in appropriate criminal activity to make ends meet.

Jon_in_london
8th April 2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not snobby to refuse low paid menial labour for slave wages. It's simply sensible. Indeed it is excellent that they refuse to do such work. It might encourage those who want these jobs done to pay vastly higher wages. Cleaning urinals and cleaning skid marks off public tolet bowls shouyld pay at least £30,000. And if the unemployed were compelled to clean them for their benefits, I would advise them to engage in appropriate criminal activity to make ends meet.

It is absolutely snobby when you live on the back of other peoples hard work- including people who clean toilets- to refuse to give anything back in return.

Why should toilet cleaners get double what a nurse gets? Toilet cleaning takes no skill and requires no qualifications. If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?

I'm sure you would encourage people to engage in "appropriate" criminal activity- until you become a victim.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
It is absolutely snobby when you live on the back of other peoples hard work- including people who clean toilets- to refuse to give anything back in return.

Why should toilet cleaners get double what a nurse gets? Toilet cleaning takes no skill and requires no qualifications. If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?

I'm sure you would encourage people to engage in "appropriate" criminal activity- until you become a victim.

What an unbelievable complete @rsehole you are. I do not say toilet cleaners should get double the wage of a nurse; nurses are underpaid too.

In addition ones qualifications ought not to be the sole criteria of how well a job pays. Why on earth should it be the sole criteria?? The intrinsic unpleasantness of a job should be taken into consideration too.

Again, note the word "appropriate", don't just ignore it. If one is compelled to engage in criminal activity, then it's entirely the fault of the ******** who implements deeply unethical policies i.e you.

And what exactly is wrong with refusing to give back in return. What the f*ck about all the rich people who get vastly more than is commensurate with the amount of work they do??

I've met tossers like yourself all my life. My loathing of you and them, and everything you stand for, you wouldn't believe. You and them are as thick as f*ck, and obnoxious to boot.

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

asthmatic camel
8th April 2005, 11:39 AM
WooHoooo... Happy election everyone :)

Rolfe
8th April 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
ooops sorry. I just installed this spellchecker thing. I assumed it was just checking my words and I didn't really look and just pressed ok all the time. No idea why it "corrected" practice (or was it practise). I won't use it again. It's only when I type quickly I misspell sometimes; not that my spelling is particularly bad. Now my grammar; that's a different matter. I'm vaguely aware of the difference between practice and practise though :). OK, you're forgiven!

Sounds as if you have a dodgy Merikan spell-checker though. Upgrade to actual English recommended as soon as possible. :D

Rolfe.

PS. "Criteria" is plural. If you've only got one of them, it's "sole criterion".
[/ pedant mode]

Jon_in_london
8th April 2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

That taste is probably the ***** you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boys and Girls, Ian seems to have a problem with the fact that people who invest in education, skills and qualifications generally earn more than people who are too lazy and apathetic to get off their fat, pasty arses and make something of their lives.

I guess thats just the difference between right and stoopid.

asthmatic camel
8th April 2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
That taste is probably the ***** you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boys and Girls, Ian seems to have a problem with the fact that people who invest in education, skills and qualifications generally earn more than people who are too lazy and apathetic to get off their fat, pasty arses and make something of their lives.

I guess thats just the difference between right and stoopid.

Umm, Jon, what qualifies, in your eyes, as "making something of their lives"? Becoming a Prime Minister who sends his countrymen to an illegal war on the basis of lies, and so to their deaths?
Becoming a publishing tycoon making a living by detailing others' miserable times? Perhaps all the lazy people should be encouraged to make their own documentaries of how much fun it is to be a lazy bastard; they'd probably be featured at "TATE" (spit). They could enter the priesthood and hope to be Pope one day. They could try to play guitar and then realise that not many people are good enough to earn a living at it. Hell, they could even pretend to be me.

The reality is that life for the majority is pretty piss-poor; they know it and you know it. There aren't enough jobs at the top for everyone to "make something of themselves". Dangling that carrot only leads to dissatisfaction. Most folks have to get by as well as they can and enjoy it as much as they can.

Get real; one day soon you'll be old, and some poor bugger will have to wipe your arse, spoon feed you and change your catheter bag. At that time, I hope you truly appreciate how important "making something of their lives" really is.

Mojo
8th April 2005, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
If toilet cleaning pays more than the median wage, why bother to gain any kind of skills or education?Because I don't want to have to clean toilets for a living?

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Umm, Jon, what qualifies, in your eyes, as "making something of their lives"? Becoming a Prime Minister who sends his countrymen to an illegal war on the basis of lies, and so to their deaths?
Becoming a publishing tycoon making a living by detailing others' miserable times? Perhaps all the lazy people should be encouraged to make their own documentaries of how much fun it is to be a lazy bastard; they'd probably be featured at "TATE" (spit). They could enter the priesthood and hope to be Pope one day. They could try to play guitar and then realise that not many people are good enough to earn a living at it. Hell, they could even pretend to be me.

The reality is that life for the majority is pretty piss-poor; they know it and you know it. There aren't enough jobs at the top for everyone to "make something of themselves". Dangling that carrot only leads to dissatisfaction. Most folks have to get by as well as they can and enjoy it as much as they can.

Get real; one day soon you'll be old, and some poor bugger will have to wipe your arse, spoon feed you and change your catheter bag. At that time, I hope you truly appreciate how important "making something of their lives" really is.

Well said AC!

And Jon, I certainly think that people should earn much more than others (albeit not as much disparity in income as actually pertains). I also think that the unemployed should get less than any job. They're not the issues at all.

mummymonkey
8th April 2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
You might be quite close with that, though obviously I wouldn't have put it that way. Labour set up the parliament, and seem to have been doing their damnedest to make it boring, expensive and irrelevant. This in turn reflects on the SNP who are associated in the voters' minds with the parliament, even though what we've got bears little resemblance to what the SNP would like to see in a parliament.

It's relatively early days in a relatively long haul though. It would be interesting to see what might happen if we have a Tory government in Westminster with Labour in charge of Holyrood.

By the way, care to explain why you're so anti-SNP?

Rolfe. The parliament was always going to be boring, expensive and irrelevant; that's why I voted against it in the first place. Pointless, stupid and populated by vote chasing pole climbers. That the so-called "First" Minister has yet to utter a pronouncement worthy of being written down, just about sums it up. Oh yes and the building itself sucks big time.

It might pep up a bit with a Tory/Labour split like you say but I doubt it. Hard to tell them apart these days and anyway, the Torys have no chance.

I hate all separatist movements, not just the SNP. I can't be doing with all this "Wha's like us" (http://thecapitalscot.com/pastfeatures/likeus.html) nonsense and the undercurrent of English hating that goes with it. I've never been able to understand why I should have more common interest with somebody in Dumfries than with somebody in Cardiff or Nottingham.

I remember the "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign and thinking at the time just how selfish and pathetic it was. What next? "It's Cornwall's Tin", or maybe "It's Eccles' cakes"?

I'm sorry I've just got no time for all that insular rubbish. I like being part of the UK, I work 3 days a week in England, I've lived there for several years in the past and my mother's from Worksop.

I'd say the only thing that would tempt me to vote for independence would be if the SNP promised a republic, the total separation of church and state, and an end to faith schools. That'll never happen.

Interesting Ian
8th April 2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
That taste is probably the ***** you talk.

Being on your ignore list is something of a complement my dear Ian.


Complement? Complement?? WOW! You certainly deserve a low wage!

Rolfe
9th April 2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by mummymonkey
The parliament was always going to be boring, expensive and irrelevant; that's why I voted against it in the first place. Pointless, stupid and populated by vote chasing pole climbers. That the so-called "First" Minister has yet to utter a pronouncement worthy of being written down, just about sums it up. Oh yes and the building itself sucks big time.

It might pep up a bit with a Tory/Labour split like you say but I doubt it. Hard to tell them apart these days and anyway, the Torys have no chance.

I hate all separatist movements, not just the SNP. I can't be doing with all this "Wha's like us" (http://thecapitalscot.com/pastfeatures/likeus.html) nonsense and the undercurrent of English hating that goes with it. I've never been able to understand why I should have more common interest with somebody in Dumfries than with somebody in Cardiff or Nottingham.

I remember the "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign and thinking at the time just how selfish and pathetic it was. What next? "It's Cornwall's Tin", or maybe "It's Eccles' cakes"?

I'm sorry I've just got no time for all that insular rubbish. I like being part of the UK, I work 3 days a week in England, I've lived there for several years in the past and my mother's from Worksop.

I'd say the only thing that would tempt me to vote for independence would be if the SNP promised a republic, the total separation of church and state, and an end to faith schools. That'll never happen. You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course). I work in England too, and live there a lot of the time. It's still in many ways a foreign country, to me.

I want Scotland to be like Denmark or one of the other small European nations, with her own voice in the EU and on the world stage, living in friendship and amicable co-operation with her neighbours. "Wha's like us?" and English-hating has got absolutely nothing to do with it, and overt attitides of that sort can get you thrown out of the SNP actually.

The vast majority of SNP members want a republic, the end to faith schools, and the separation of church and state. There just seems to be a bit of a perceived problem with voter support if the party comes out and says all that officially. Remember all the "Republican Rose" stuff being thrown at Roseanna Cunningham, intended as an insult and to lose her votes?

"Separatist" just seems to me to be a pejorative thrown at independence movements. Look at all the newly-independent states in Eastern Europe. Do you hate them for "separatism", and want them to join back up with Russia? Certainly, they had a very much worse deal from the USSR than we have from the UK, but the basic point is the same - being outvoted as a small part of an incorporating union, or having a fair and proportional voice as part of the EU. Call it "separatism" if you like, but I can't help feeing that anyone who throws that term around willy-nilly hasn't really thought about the issues.

I can just about understand a Scot who wants to remain a very small and outvoted part of the UK rather than an independent country governing its own affairs within the EU. Though I don't agree with the attitude. But you do seem to have a very twisted and inaccurate view of the SNP - do you read the Record or something?

Rolfe.

geni
9th April 2005, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course). I work in England too, and live there a lot of the time. It's still in many ways a foreign country, to me.


England isn't a homogenous nation (the indepandance for conwall people are getting on my nerves at the monment).


I want Scotland to be like Denmark or one of the other small European nations, with her own voice in the EU and on the world stage, living in friendship and amicable co-operation with her neighbours. "Wha's like us?" and English-hating has got absolutely nothing to do with it, and overt attitides of that sort can get you thrown out of the SNP actually.

A very small and largly ignored vioce on the world stage. Scotland has a lower population (by about 300K) than Denmark. Britan is a G8 memebr and has a UN veto. Denamark has?


The vast majority of SNP members want a republic, the end to faith schools, and the separation of church and state. There just seems to be a bit of a perceived problem with voter support if the party comes out and says all that officially. Remember all the "Republican Rose" stuff being thrown at Roseanna Cunningham, intended as an insult and to lose her votes?


Source?


"Separatist" just seems to me to be a pejorative thrown at independence movements. Look at all the newly-independent states in Eastern Europe. Do you hate them for "separatism", and want them to join back up with Russia?

Wrong example. Eastern europena states were never part of Russia to sart with.


Certainly, they had a very much worse deal from the USSR than we have from the UK, but the basic point is the same - being outvoted as a small part of an incorporating union, or having a fair and proportional voice as part of the EU.


You already do thanks the the PR regional system. Admitedly this amounts to smeg all but that wouldn't change much.


Call it "separatism" if you like, but I can't help feeing that anyone who throws that term around willy-nilly hasn't really thought about the issues.


I have though about the issues I view all nationalism as separatism.


I can just about understand a Scot who wants to remain a very small and outvoted part of the UK rather than an independent country governing its own affairs within the EU. Though I don't agree with the attitude. But you do seem to have a very twisted and inaccurate view of the SNP - do you read the Record or something?

Rolfe. [/B]

So instead of being small and outvoted in the UK you want to be even smaller and more outvoted in the EU

Jon_in_london
9th April 2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Complement? Complement?? WOW! You certainly deserve a low wage!

.................................................. ..........

earlier

I'm outta this thread. I have a very nasty taste in my mouth.

Consider yourself to be on ignore.

Jon_in_london
9th April 2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And Jon, I certainly think that people should earn much more than others (albeit not as much disparity in income as actually pertains). I also think that the unemployed should get less than any job. They're not the issues at all.

Still not found the ignore button?

Yet, you think that toilet-cleaners should earn more than the median wage? In fact, you think that they should earn more than a police constable, a third more than a fireman, twice a nurse, as much as a tube-driver, twice that of a research technician in a leukemia lab, a bit more than a middle-ranking civil-engineer, a third more than an army officer... etc...

So Ian, since you dont have large enough balls to put me on ignore, why should a toilet cleaner earn more than all of the above?

Jon_in_london
9th April 2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Mojo
Because I don't want to have to clean toilets for a living?

Howabout if you got paid £30,000 pa for doing it? I'd certainly have cleaned bogs for that money when I was breaking my back working in a warehouse for £4.80 per hour when I graduated.... (of which around £2 per hour was lopped off as tax to feed all the parasites)- or maybe I should have just "signed on" and applied for housing benefit etc.... that would probably have been more rewarding than actually contributing to the country in which I live.....

Rolfe
10th April 2005, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by geni
England isn't a homogenous nation (the indepandance for conwall people are getting on my nerves at the monment).I think they're a bit odd too, but I try not to be judgmental.Originally posted by geni
A very small and largly ignored vioce on the world stage. Scotland has a lower population (by about 300K) than Denmark. Britan is a G8 memebr and has a UN veto. Denamark has?I'd be interested to hear from some of the Danes here as to whether they'd prefer to be one of the German Länder rather than an independent EU state. If not, why not?Originally posted by geni
Source?Attendance at SNP conferences including sessions which were not open to the media but attended by members only. The preponderance of republican views is blatantly obvious, but there is also a perception that this isn't a vote-winner, and that even if SNP members favour republicanism, it is actually a matter for a popular referendum, not something to be imposed by a party which just happened to have it on its manifesto.

If you want a source for the specific "Republican Rose" stuff, try any anti-SNP Scottish newspaper either when Roseanna was first elected to parliament, or elected deputy leader of the SNP.

Faith-based schools are generally seen as divisive, but in Scotland opposing them is equivalent to opposing Catholic schools, and the Irish Catholic population has a lot of political clout and guards its right to its own schools jealously.

In fact, a couple of elections ago a (Catholic) neighbour said to my mother, "you wouldn't vote SNP, would you - they'd close the Catholic schools!" This as a daft point, as my mother isn't a Catholic and doesn't care tuppence if they close the Catholic schools. However, it was the mantra the Labour canvassers had been instructed to spout on every Catholic doorstep.

As so often the case, it was a lie with a grain of truth in it. Most of the SNP would dearly love to see the Catholic schools closed, but recognises that politically this cannot be achieved in any other way but persuading the Catholic population itself to vote to end the system.Originally posted by geni
Wrong example. Eastern europena states were never part of Russia to sart with.I don't follow you. Scotland was an independent state until 1707.Originally posted by geni
You already do thanks the the PR regional system. Admitedly this amounts to smeg all but that wouldn't change much.Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants. More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings. It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.Originally posted by geni
I have though about the issues I view all nationalism as separatism.Just out of interest, what would be your optimum solution for state structure? Presumably you'd want to subsume Britain in a Greater Europe? But why stop at that? One world state is your only rational choice. But then, the regions become equivalent to countries. So how do you divide them up?Originally posted by geni
So instead of being small and outvoted in the UK you want to be even smaller and more outvoted in the EU This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.

But a great deal of this is emotional. I don't necessarily expect an English person, secure as a manber of the dominant nationality, to see things the same way. That was why my question about being anti-SNP was directed to Mummymonkey (and other Scots). I'm interested to hear from other people in the same situation who don't experience the same emotional response. The nearest one gets to this from English people is to gauge their reaction to joining the Euro and becoming part of a United States of Europe (with strict one-citizen-one-vote). Then, it's amazing how many people who hate separatism seem to start singing another tune.

Rolfe.

Shane Costello
10th April 2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe:
Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants. More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings. It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.

Succesive Irish governments did precisely the same thing with the Irish fishing industry. There was a lot of give at European level in terms of the fishermen in return for a bit of take when it came to Irish farmers. Maybe an independant Scottish minister would have done the same thing, assuming there were more votes to be had from the steel workers than the fishermen. I'm rather against the idea that protecting any particular industrial sector. The Irish experiance is that protectionism is a disaster.

This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.

Hmmm. The EMU Growth and Stability Pact was kiboshed because of French and German pressure. I doubt very much that if circumstances were different, and the shoe were on a Danish or Irish foot that we'd see a similar outcome. The Bolkestein Directive met a similar fate because Jacques Chirac thinks free trade is as harmful as communism. If the Irish Taoiseach was of a similar mind he'd likely be told to like it or lump it.

geni
10th April 2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
I think they're a bit odd too, but I try not to be judgmental.

I don't think they are odd as such I just wish they would stop claiming not to be county


I'd be interested to hear from some of the Danes here as to whether they'd prefer to be one of the German Länder rather than an independent EU state. If not, why not?


They speak different languages and have very different economies. Almagimation makes no sense at the present time.


I don't follow you. Scotland was an independent state until 1707.


And Poland and the other simular eastern european countries have also been independant states since the end of WW2 most were not part of the USSR


Not true. Scotalnd's interests are frequently sold down the river to achieve benefits for England. Historically, Scotland would never have lost her steel industry as an independent country, because there were EU rules to protect countries' single steel-making plants.


Until very recently there was a problem of over production in the steel industry


More recently, the fishing deals were extremely detrimental to Scottish interests, but Scotland had no say, being "represented" by a UK minister who seldom even bothered to go to the meetings.


You mean that people were still allowed to catch fish? As a memeber Of the EU scotland would have been unable to prevent it's fish stock falling to the current level since you can only really veto reductions.


It just wasn't a big enough issue in UK terms. I'm talking about a seat in the Council of Ministers, not any piffling regional representation.Just out of interest, what would be your optimum solution for state structure? Presumably you'd want to subsume Britain in a Greater Europe? But why stop at that? One world state is your only rational choice. But then, the regions become equivalent to countries. So how do you divide them up?


By language and geography.


This is where we agree to disagree, I think. The structure of the EU is much more favourable to states the size of Scotland than the incorporating union.


At present yes but do you think it will stay that way? The power of smaller states has already been reduced once. Germany is not going to put up with being underepresented forever for a start.


But a great deal of this is emotional. I don't necessarily expect an English person, secure as a manber of the dominant nationality, to see things the same way.


I'm not English. With my families background european would be most correct but I can tollerate British (for a given value of british).

Rat
10th April 2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
You obviously feel "British" as if Britain were a homogenous nation (not denying regional differences of course).
Are you sure you don't want to use 'homogeneous' there? Hey, you started it!

And yes, I know that homogenous has been misused for long enough to appear in some dictionaries under that meaning, thank you. But my dictionary (apart from in a usage note) is not one of them.

Cheers,
Rat.

mummymonkey
11th April 2005, 12:34 AM
Rolf, I'm setting off for a couple of days in lovely Darlington. I'll post when I get back.

Jaggy Bunnet
11th April 2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by geni
And Poland and the other simular eastern european countries have also been independant states since the end of WW2 most were not part of the USSR.

What about Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania?

Rolfe
11th April 2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Rat
Are you sure you don't want to use 'homogeneous' there? Hey, you started it!Sorry, typing too fast!

Rolfe.

asthmatic camel
12th April 2005, 09:13 AM
Who said the British Electorate were apathetic? No-one's posted here for ages.

Can I sing my song now?

No? Why not? My agent said I could....

Jon_in_london
12th April 2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Who said the British Electorate were apathetic?

Who cares?

asthmatic camel
13th April 2005, 07:05 PM
Hmmm... Just for our Scots cousins, an article in The Scotsman, discussing Gordon Brown's economic policy

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=392102005

Jaggy Bunnet
14th April 2005, 02:06 AM
Labour's answer to establishing whether criminals will re-offend?

Lie-detector tests. :(

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=629174

Cos we all know they work really well.

Matabiri
14th April 2005, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Cos we all know they work really well.

They seem to be making a lot of it, but I wrote to my (Labour) MP to protest. She said that the plan was to use them, basically, as a scare tactic - allegedly sex offenders are more likely to confess to violations of their release conditions if they think their lies will be detected. So it's not intended (apparently) to be used to gather evidence (and not admissable in court), but to fool confessions out of people.

Jaggy Bunnet
14th April 2005, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
They seem to be making a lot of it, but I wrote to my (Labour) MP to protest. She said that the plan was to use them, basically, as a scare tactic - allegedly sex offenders are more likely to confess to violations of their release conditions if they think their lies will be detected. So it's not intended (apparently) to be used to gather evidence (and not admissable in court), but to fool confessions out of people.

Well in that case why not just get a mind reader in?

Matabiri
14th April 2005, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Well in that case why not just get a mind reader in?

Or use a colander attached to a photocopier with a sign saying "He's lying!" in it, and someone can lean on the "copy" button every time it's thought the guy's lying.

Darat
14th April 2005, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Labour's answer to establishing whether criminals will re-offend?

Lie-detector tests. :(

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=629174

Cos we all know they work really well.

Suprised at the Independent since they normally seem quite good at reporting these matters.

The Labour manifesto states:

...and we will test the use of compulsory lie detector tests to monitor convicted sex offenders...

So they are saying they are going to test them not necessarily use them.

(And I can understand them considering them – I mean look how successful they are on Trisha's popular daytime TV shows. :) )

Darat
14th April 2005, 02:52 AM
Any one read through the major 3's manifestos yet?

I've read the in-house corporate brochure, sorry the Conservative manifesto, half way through the management consultants handbook, sorry the Labour manifesto and just downloaded the Liberals manifesto (only the English one), anyone ahead of me and got any comments yet?

Jaggy Bunnet
14th April 2005, 03:00 AM
Not read any of them yet.

Although interesting to see that the government has decided that "loans" should be made to keep Rover workers employed. Anyone like to speculate how soon after the election these will run out? Is this an abuse of taxpayers money for party political purposes?

Matabiri
14th April 2005, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Any one read through the major 3's manifestos yet?

I've read the in-house corporate brochure, sorry the Conservative manifesto, half way through the management consultants handbook, sorry the Labour manifesto and just downloaded the Liberals manifesto (only the English one), anyone ahead of me and got any comments yet?

I've just had a quick look through the last chapter of the Labour manifesto on-line, because I'm concerned about their constitutional ambitions.

First thought: Urgh! Flash!

Second thought: They've talked again about reform of the Lords, but not said what they're going to do, which leads me to suspect they're planning a major emasculation exercise which will be forced through using the Parliament Act ("It was in our manifesto..."). I am not happy with this - there need to be checks on the power of any party with a large majority in the Commons. The Lords is not currently perfect, of course, but it has been doing a good job recently.

Edit to add: all three major parties claim to support an elected upper house; the Lib-Dems also make an explicit promise to make the Royal Prerogative powers subject to Parliamentary accountability.

Jon_in_london
14th April 2005, 10:17 AM
I have only seen the Labour one.... couldnt read all of it because I could control the gag reflex any longer. They have the fecking brass bollocks to boast about their fecking transport policy! :mad:

asthmatic camel
14th April 2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I have only seen the Labour one.... couldnt read all of it because I could control the gag reflex any longer. They have the fecking brass bollocks to boast about their fecking transport policy! :mad:

Heh, yeah, that's a bit fookin rich isn't it?

Reginald
14th April 2005, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Darat

(And I can understand them considering them – I mean look how successful they are on Trisha's popular daytime TV shows. :) )

Now if any of the Manifestos contained the words...

"Systematically hunt down and kill both the audience and participants in the popular daytime TV prog Trisha" ......

My vote would be assured.

Reginald
17th April 2005, 09:41 AM
Interestingly it appears that the Labour party lead in the polls is growing. I have been following closely and I wouldn't put it down to any great "trump card" played by Labour, more a series of "unintentional" errors in the Tory campaign literature.

Misreporting violent crime figures (which in all honesty, had they simply applied some common sense they could have done using less spectacular and more representative statistics and still made their point), the use of exaggerated asylum figures that did not tally with UN figures, and finally the MRSA missing "s". I'm not sure if this is a case of "lets put in those figures then claim mistake when and if we get caught out" or of genuine mistake. The point is that it is either dishonest or incompetent.

The Conservative party is hindered by major historical problems. Everything they are quick to raise seems ultimately to have its root cause in the 80's and early 90's. Its quite simple from Labour's standpoint to just turn the issues around. (the fact that the Labour party have done very little in many areas to correct these things seems to go by the board).

Pensions.....The conservatives broke the link between pensions and earning back 1980. Arguably the point it all stated going "wrong".

MRSA, The conservatives farmed out hospital cleaning to private contractors with no real minimum quality requirement.

Waste in the NHS, "Internal market" created by the Conservative Party resulted in admin costs going from 6% to 11% of total expenditure between 1979 and 1994, salaries for senior managers in the NHS going up by a staggering 1800%.

"Pensioners pulling out their own teeth" .... John major's cutting of the fees payable to dentists for NHS work resulted in 1000's of dentists going "private only".

Mr Howard, was in just about every one of these previous governments. I would never vote for him, much as I dislike Blair. If the Tory party had chosen a new face, someone with less provable "form", they might have stood a chance. They should have had everything going for them, it should have been a foregone conclusion, but they are going to blow it...........and I think in a spectacular fashion.

Jaggy Bunnet
18th April 2005, 02:42 AM
Not sure there needs to be any particular explanation for the drift upward in the Labour lead.

I think it is a pretty established pattern that the incumbent government tends to increase its share of the vote as the election gets closer. People who are happy to give the gov't a kicking in a by election or say they will not vote for it at the start of a campaign often come back to them by polling day.

In other words, to have had a chance the Tories needed to have been well ahead 18 months ago and still be ahead now.

asthmatic camel
18th April 2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
Interestingly it appears that the Labour party lead in the polls is growing. I have been following closely and I wouldn't put it down to any great "trump card" played by Labour, more a series of "unintentional" errors in the Tory campaign literature.

Misreporting violent crime figures (which in all honesty, had they simply applied some common sense they could have done using less spectacular and more representative statistics and still made their point), the use of exaggerated asylum figures that did not tally with UN figures, and finally the MRSA missing "s". I'm not sure if this is a case of "lets put in those figures then claim mistake when and if we get caught out" or of genuine mistake. The point is that it is either dishonest or incompetent.

The Conservative party is hindered by major historical problems. Everything they are quick to raise seems ultimately to have its root cause in the 80's and early 90's. Its quite simple from Labour's standpoint to just turn the issues around. (the fact that the Labour party have done very little in many areas to correct these things seems to go by the board).

Pensions.....The conservatives broke the link between pensions and earning back 1980. Arguably the point it all stated going "wrong".

MRSA, The conservatives farmed out hospital cleaning to private contractors with no real minimum quality requirement.

Waste in the NHS, "Internal market" created by the Conservative Party resulted in admin costs going from 6% to 11% of total expenditure between 1979 and 1994, salaries for senior managers in the NHS going up by a staggering 1800%.

"Pensioners pulling out their own teeth" .... John major's cutting of the fees payable to dentists for NHS work resulted in 1000's of dentists going "private only".

Mr Howard, was in just about every one of these previous governments. I would never vote for him, much as I dislike Blair. If the Tory party had chosen a new face, someone with less provable "form", they might have stood a chance. They should have had everything going for them, it should have been a foregone conclusion, but they are going to blow it...........and I think in a spectacular fashion.

Well, it's not over yet, but you do raise many valid points. I assume you're judging by Sunday's poll results? The Times poll showed a one point lead to Labour, a little different to The Torygraph's ten.

I suspect that the public has begun treating the pollsters like salesmen and is telling massive porkies just to annoy them. I know I would. :D

richardm
18th April 2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
If the Tory party had chosen a new face, someone with less provable "form", they might have stood a chance.

IDS?

richardm
18th April 2005, 03:01 AM
The tories don't seem to be able to get their act together, somehow. Like that leaflet they put out over the weekend, that lumped together MRSA cases for a whole region and pretended that it represented a single hospital. "Erm, yes, that was an unfortunate typo" came the less-than-convincing excuse as the NHS trusts went berserk and the leaflets were recalled for pulping.

I'd also hold up this week's "Any Questions?" on R4, where the Conservative panel member badgered Tessa Jowell (was it her?) on whether the government would rule out a NI rise in the next parliament. She wouldn't give a straight Yes or No, preferring a rather wishy-washy tack along the line of "Well, you can never categorically say you wouldn't".

After minutes of being jeered and badgered, she suddenly turned the question round and insisted that the Tory who'd asked the question answer it - "Yes or No".

Immediately he started prevaricating, which undid all the 'good' work he'd done. And he never did give a straight answer.

Given that one of their stronger cards could be that Labour have been less-than-straightforward in more than a few matters, the tories really should be capitalising.

The fact that they seem to be maintaining their ability to shoot themselves in the foot suits me, of course.

Darat
18th April 2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by richardm
IDS?

Who? ;)

Also I think the fact that the media and the parties seemed to have started electioneering since the start of this year there is nothing surprising coming out during the campaign so there is nothing really to make people change their minds from a month ago.

I mean is there anything new at all in this election campaign? Pretty much all the "big picture" policies had been announced prior to the election and who is interested in the fine print? E.g. Any interest in say tuition fees apart from the Libs and Tories plans to scrap them? Is anyone interested in the fact the Tories will fund the loss of money for the Universities by raising the interest rate on student loan whilst the Liberals will rise it from income tax increases? Or rather will the media give any time to such a “tricial” point?)

Darat
18th April 2005, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by richardm
The tories don't seem to be able to get their act together, somehow. Like that leaflet they put out over the weekend, that lumped together MRSA cases for a whole region and pretended that it represented a single hospital. "Erm, yes, that was an unfortunate typo" came the less-than-convincing excuse as the NHS trusts went berserk and the leaflets were recalled for pulping.

I'd also hold up this week's "Any Questions?" on R4, where the Conservative panel member badgered Tessa Jowell (was it her?) on whether the government would rule out a NI rise in the next parliament. She wouldn't give a straight Yes or No, preferring a rather wishy-washy tack along the line of "Well, you can never categorically say you wouldn't".

After minutes of being jeered and badgered, she suddenly turned the question round and insisted that the Tory who'd asked the question answer it - "Yes or No".

Immediately he started prevaricating, which undid all the 'good' work he'd done. And he never did give a straight answer.

Given that one of their stronger cards could be that Labour have been less-than-straightforward in more than a few matters, the tories really should be capitalising.

The fact that they seem to be maintaining their ability to shoot themselves in the foot suits me, of course.

I listened to that and it was so funny. I do think it is a said state of affairs when politicians feel they can’t give a simple straightforward answer because of how 1) the opposition will spin it and 2) the media will spin it.

Plus what a silly question really, who would want someone in power who didn't react to changing circumstances?

Jaggy Bunnet
18th April 2005, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Darat
I listened to that and it was so funny. I do think it is a said state of affairs when politicians feel they can’t give a simple straightforward answer because of how 1) the opposition will spin it and 2) the media will spin it.

Plus what a silly question really, who would want someone in power who didn't react to changing circumstances?

It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask when Labour have promised (as they did at the last election) not to raise the basic or higher rate of tax.

It is even more reasonable given that they then broke that election promise (in spirit if not to the letter) by raising National Insurance.

If they do not rule out such a rise in future, then the pledge on basic and higher rates is essentially meaningless. As they have repeated the pledge, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether they are willing to use the same dodge to get round a manifesto commitment.

Of course if you can explain what purpose the "basic & higher rate" pledge serves in practical terms WITHOUT such a commitment, then I might reconsider my view.....

I tend to agree about your point about wanting people in power who are able to react to circumstances - if Labour were honest enough to say they needed that freedom and therefore abolished the pledge, your stance would be reasonable. But they want to pretend they have ruled out tax rises without actually doing so - that, to me, is dishonest.

asthmatic camel
18th April 2005, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I tend to agree about your point about wanting people in power who are able to react to circumstances - if Labour were honest enough to say they needed that freedom and therefore abolished the pledge, your stance would be reasonable. But they want to pretend they have ruled out tax rises without actually doing so - that, to me, is dishonest.

More dishonest is that they've campaigned on the basis of Tory "stealth taxes". I'm amazed that the Conservatives haven't made more of this issue. Almost the first thing Gordon Brown did as chancellor was to raid the countries pension schemes!

Since then MIRAS has gone, as has the married man's allowance and a plethora of new taxes have been introduced ranging from holiday tax to higher National Insurance and most notably, Council Tax increases.

And for anyone who is convinced that there has been a period of sustained gradual growth under Blair, Brown and New Labour, look at stock market returns. Pretty piss-poor over the last 8 years. And that's a far more reliable measure of economic health than any that the government supplies.

I'm quite happy to say that the Labour government has been terribly dishonest in many areas. Mostly over Iraq. That STINKS.

Reginald
18th April 2005, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
More dishonest is that they've campaigned on the basis of Tory "stealth taxes". I'm amazed that the Conservatives haven't made more of this issue. Almost the first thing Gordon Brown did as chancellor was to raid the countries pension schemes!

Since then MIRAS has gone, as has the married man's allowance and a plethora of new taxes have been introduced ranging from holiday tax to higher National Insurance and most notably, Council Tax increases.

And for anyone who is convinced that there has been a period of sustained gradual growth under Blair, Brown and New Labour, look at stock market returns. Pretty piss-poor over the last 8 years. And that's a far more reliable measure of economic health than any that the government supplies.

I'm quite happy to say that the Labour government has been terribly dishonest in many areas. Mostly over Iraq. That STINKS.



My friend this is half the problem, in order to criticise any of these things specifically they must be in a position to say they are going to roll them back. They wont, they can't afford to. Just in the same way that the Tory party have been left looking silly over their own lack of ability to categorically rule out changes to the rate of NI (as pointed out above).

IDS?


OK let's make that someone with a personality and less "previous".

Jaggy Bunnet
18th April 2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
OK let's make that someone with a personality and less "previous".

Is there such a person in the Tory party?

Ken Clarke is about the only senior party member who hasn't had a shot at being leader, after that you are down to the likes of Redwood or Boris Johnson.

Unfortunately while he might be popular with the part of the electorate the Tories need to win back, not enough of those who remain in the party would be willing to have him as leader.

Seems like the Tory party have still not learned the lesson that Labour did - you do not win elections appealing to your hardcore supporter base. Labour has pushed the Tories off the centre ground and they have no idea how to win it back.

Darat
18th April 2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Is there such a person in the Tory party?


From the current shadow cabinet I can’t think of anyone that has that instant "he/she's a leader", mind you I have the same view of most of the cabinet!

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Ken Clarke is about the only senior party member who hasn't had a shot at being leader, after that you are down to the likes of Redwood or Boris Johnson.


What a choice!

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

...snip...

Seems like the Tory party have still not learned the lesson that Labour did - you do not win elections appealing to your hardcore supporter base. Labour has pushed the Tories off the centre ground and they have no idea how to win it back.

From my viewpoint (e.g. leftwing political activist from the mid-80s and early 90s) I would say the Labour party of today is unrecognisable from the party of the 70s and earlier. The reform that started with Kinnock, ran through Smith and then was completed by Blair's group was an excision of the old ideology. Today no policy is “unthinkable”.

Perversely what probably rescued the Labour party is now the core problem facing the Conservatives (in my opinion remember). The Conservatives have never been an ideologically based party and whereas once Conservatives could almost guarantee clear blue water between themselves and the Labour party on issues such as crime, defence, economics and the like what they find happening today is that Labour is just as likely to adopt a “radical new Conservative policy” as the Conservatives are. This leaves them, because they are in opposition, in a very weak position.

If the Conservatives don’t get into power this election and Labour achieve a largish majority (say above 75) it will be fascinating to see what happens to the Conservatives.

Reginald
18th April 2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Darat
From the current shadow cabinet I can’t think of anyone that has that instant "he/she's a leader", mind you I have the same view of most of the cabinet!

Absolutely.

If the Conservatives don’t get into power this election and Labour achieve a largish majority (say above 75) it will be fascinating to see what happens to the Conservatives.

IMHO They will panic, recriminate and dispose of their leader, Since they got shot of Thatch they have found it rather too easy to do. They then can make some choices about the general direction they want to follow, maybe swing more to the right and get that clear blue water back, or elect again and try to slog out the "middle" ground with a possibly reinvigorated Labour party under Gordon Brown.

A new leader being their choice, the options will narrow with the sending to the wilderness of the likes of Liam Fox and others "Heavily" involved in the mechanics of this campaign, they may even send home their Australian Guru.

then again they might still win.

richardm
19th April 2005, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
then again they might still win.

In which case They will panic, recriminate and dispose of their leader, Since they got shot of Thatch they have found it rather too easy to do. They then can make some choices about the general direction they want to follow, maybe swing more to the right and get that clear blue water back, or elect again and try to slog out the "middle" ground with a possibly reinvigorated Labour party under Gordon Brown

:D

Jaggy Bunnet
19th April 2005, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
IMHO They will panic, recriminate and dispose of their leader, Since they got shot of Thatch they have found it rather too easy to do. They then can make some choices about the general direction they want to follow, maybe swing more to the right and get that clear blue water back, or elect again and try to slog out the "middle" ground with a possibly reinvigorated Labour party under Gordon Brown.

When they lose (and they will), I think they MIGHT actually be smart about it.

Howard will graciously retire BEFORE his position becomes totally untenable, they will elect a new, much younger, leader and do exactly what Labour did. Wait for the electorate to get bored/fed-up with the incumbents. I suspect a Brown Labour party will be fairly well to the left of the Blair one, so the Tories will be able to move back toward the centre - add in the inevitable tax rises to balance the books and they probably stand a chance at the next election.

If you look at why the Tories lost in 97, it was a lot more to do with presentation and personality than policy. In key areas, if you took the cover of the manifestos, you would have been hard pushed to tell which was which (lets face it economic/spending policy was identical for two years).

Reginald
19th April 2005, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
When they lose (and they will), I think they MIGHT actually be smart about it.

Howard will graciously retire BEFORE his position becomes totally untenable, they will elect a new, much younger, leader and do exactly what Labour did. Wait for the electorate to get bored/fed-up with the incumbents. I suspect a Brown Labour party will be fairly well to the left of the Blair one, so the Tories will be able to move back toward the centre - add in the inevitable tax rises to balance the books and they probably stand a chance at the next election.

If you look at why the Tories lost in 97, it was a lot more to do with presentation and personality than policy. In key areas, if you took the cover of the manifestos, you would have been hard pushed to tell which was which (lets face it economic/spending policy was identical for two years).

Yep, thats very reasonable.


richardm............ :D


Well, been reading todays press and there's reported disquiet in the Tory camp, they may be having their panic earlier than anticipated.

The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1575628,00.html)

Discussing the slip in Tory poll fortune......

The findings came as a number of senior Conservatives levelled private criticism at the Howard campaign, one calling it too much of a “one-man band” and another saying that it focused excessively on shoring up the Tory core vote.

Interestingly the article considers the way a 3 party system responds to the Lynton Crosby methodology..

One senior Tory said: “This is a core vote campaign, along the lines of 2001. It is much more professionally organised, thanks to Lynton Crosby (the Australian strategist running the campaign). But in Australia Mr Crosby does not have to worry about the threat from a third party. What seems to be happening here is that when we make a hit on Labour, the Liberal Democrats get two thirds of the benefit.”

I don't think this is any real shock to those of us who have seen many UK elections.

and from The Grauniad (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1462953,00.html#article_continue) A group of Conservative frontbenchers, including members of the shadow cabinet, have pleaded with Michael Howard to tone down his harsh rhetoric on asylum and immigration.

Looks as though the funeral is being arranged before the death...

Differences between right and left are likely to spill into the open after the election if Mr Howard suffers a bad defeat. Behind the scenes, various camps are making preparations for a possible leadership contest.

Eyebrows were raised at the weekend when David Davis, the shadow home secretary, appeared to be less than loyal when he told the Sunday Times that "it's his call" whether Mr Howard should stay on after an election defeat.


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Davis kind of make a deal during the last leadership to take the Shadow Home secretary job in order to clear the field for Howard?

Savings from cutting back waste £35 billion,

Total amount of Tax cuts a big tax cutting party can make £4 billion,

Knowing that your mates will stick with you loyally to the bitter end.......Priceless!

richardm
20th April 2005, 07:12 AM
I don't know if this quiz (http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/) has been posted here yet, but it's quite interesting, even though I'm now worried by my result - 47% Green? Ooer!

<center></center><h1>Who should I vote for?</h1><h2>Your actual outcome:</h2>

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Labour 24</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"><font color="black">Conservative -40 </font>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_light.gif</td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Liberal Democrat 58</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">UK Independence Party 6</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Green 47</font></td></tr></table>

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

Matabiri
20th April 2005, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by richardm
I don't know if this quiz (http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/) has been posted here yet, but it's quite interesting, even though I'm now worried by my result - 47% Green? Ooer!

I know a few people who have tried it and been told "Green". I think they're the new "all things to all people" party, probably because they're never going to have to pay for it.

(Just like the Lib Dems a few years back.)

brodski
20th April 2005, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
I know a few people who have tried it and been told "Green". I think they're the new "all things to all people" party, probably because they're never going to have to pay for it.

(Just like the Lib Dems a few years back.)

The main problem with this quiz is that it weights all questions equally, I may strongly disagree to one thing, but when weighed against something else which I strongly agree with my feelings are not comparable.

There are also a whole range of issues not touched on in this poll.

Sorry I’m just P*ssed off that I was told that I should vote Lib Dem.

No chance... especially not with my Lib Dem candidates views on creationism and alternative medicine.

Also it should be noted that due to eth policy making process within, and the decentralized ethos of, the lib dems- they still are on a national basis pretty much all thing to all people.

Darat
20th April 2005, 07:37 AM
<h2>Your actual outcome:</h2>

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Labour 10</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"><font color="black">Conservative -42 </font>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_light.gif</td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Liberal Democrat 56</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">UK Independence Party 25</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Green 49</font></td></tr></table>

You should vote: Liberal Democrat



I found this very interesting. I know why some of answers would seem I am against Labour policies (which I am) e.g. no to ID cards, no to the Constitution however I answered against many of the Liberal policies as well. I suspect the Green bar is because I said agree to the road tax question and strongly disagree about legalising fox hunting.

richardm
20th April 2005, 08:03 AM
Hmm, here's another one (http://politicalsurvey2005.com/), this time with a bit more detailed analysis of the results. Apparently on one axis I'm a rabid lefty and on the other axis I'm in tune with the Conservatives. Yikes.

Yes, I am bored at work today.

Darat
20th April 2005, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Hmm, here's another one (http://politicalsurvey2005.com/), this time with a bit more detailed analysis of the results. Apparently on one axis I'm a rabid lefty and on the other axis I'm in tune with the Conservatives. Yikes.

Yes, I am bored at work today.

My results from there, http://www.politicalsurvey2005.com/scripts/quiz?s=AAGBGBDFDBADBBECDEADDDBAECDCDBEEAAADDBBCCA

They show why I could go on CND marches campaigning to get rid of American nuclear weapons in the UK whilst still supporting British nuclear weapons! :)


(Edited a t to an r.)

Matabiri
20th April 2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Hmm, here's another one (http://politicalsurvey2005.com/), this time with a bit more detailed analysis of the results. Apparently on one axis I'm a rabid lefty and on the other axis I'm in tune with the Conservatives. Yikes.

Or alternatively: http://www.notapathetic.com/

(And http://www.kryogenix.org/code/conposter/index.php )

richardm
20th April 2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
(And http://www.kryogenix.org/code/conposter/index.php )

Splendid :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/conservative.png

Matabiri
20th April 2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Splendid :D

Have you been reading about all the graffiti (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4433189.stm) of the posters using industrial Tippex?

My favourite adjustment:
"Are you thinking? We're not."

richardm
20th April 2005, 09:08 AM
I haven't until now!

"Are you smoking what we're smoking?" (http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=11803)

Apparently it's undemocratic, according to the Tories. Personally I think it's rather amusing!

Darat
20th April 2005, 09:12 AM
:)

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/conservativeposter.jpg

Matabiri
20th April 2005, 09:14 AM
"Bring back matron and you'll get better hospitals ...and a good spanking"

Fnarr.

Rolfe
20th April 2005, 10:03 AM
Ah, that was quite fun, though I doubt if it was very informative.

The first one told me I should vote LibDem, but then SNP wasn't offered as a possibility. If I was English I might well consider voting LibDem, but I'm seriously anti the LibDems in Scotland, which is a bit schizoid but there you go. It's just the extraordinarily dishonest rhetoric I've heard them come out with in interviews in Scotland, something I've not encountered to nearly the same extent in England.

The second one had me way to the left of what it considered to be the average SNP voter. I can only conclude that they've had very few SNP voters on the site, and that those they have had have been unusually right-wing. At the end they came out with something about the BNP, which is just nuts, as this is the last party I'd have the slightest smidgin of sympathy for. Interestingly enough, my views tallied much more with those of other people who read the same newspaper as me than with any other criterion. The power of the press!

Rolfe.

brodski
20th April 2005, 10:31 AM
I love adult political debate. ;)


ETA Damm, my picture did not appear. How do you add pictures to your posts?

Darat
21st April 2005, 04:13 AM
Stamp Duty anyone?

I should say before I make my comments on the latest Conservative announcement that I think the current Stamp Duty system is archaic and should be abolished.

In effect it seems as if the Tories will be eliminating the 1% band completely so no Stamp Duty at all on houses under £250,000. I listened to their announcement this morning and I heard a very curious thing.

The reason Howard gave for doing this is that it will help first time buyers and young families buy a home. His reasoning is that you can’t pay the Stamp Duty via a mortgage, in other words even if you are buying a house with a 100% mortgage you actually need to payout the Stamp Duty (from savings?). I wonder doesn’t this just seem to be encouraging people to take on more debt?

Also in my opinion this will increase the price of housing under £250,000 whilst at the same time creating a strong “ceiling price” at £250,000. (In fact my next door neighbours have just put their house on the market at £265,000, I wonder how they will react?)

Matabiri
21st April 2005, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Darat
Stamp Duty anyone?

I should say before I make my comments on the latest Conservative announcement that I think the current Stamp Duty system is archaic and should be abolished.

If not abolished (how often does such a tax get abolished?) then at least made genuinely progressive.

For furriners: Stamp duty is a tax on property sales (the name comes from documents having to be stamped - and there is in fact a man who does this; he has a variety of stamps for different values). It is charged at 1% of the total value of the exchange above £120,000 (i.e. if you buy a property for £115,000 you pay no stamp duty, if you buy one for £125,000 you pay £1,250 in tax) and 3% of the total value for properties costing more than £250,000 (if you buy a property for £245,000, you pay £2,450 tax; if the property costs £255,000 you pay £7,650).

Jaggy Bunnet
21st April 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri
If not abolished (how often does such a tax get abolished?) then at least made genuinely progressive.

For furriners: Stamp duty is a tax on property sales (the name comes from documents having to be stamped - and there is in fact a man who does this; he has a variety of stamps for different values). It is charged at 1% of the total value of the exchange above £120,000 (i.e. if you buy a property for £115,000 you pay no stamp duty, if you buy one for £125,000 you pay £1,250 in tax) and 3% of the total value for properties costing more than £250,000 (if you buy a property for £245,000, you pay £2,450 tax; if the property costs £255,000 you pay £7,650).

Actually, Stamp Duty is no longer payable on transfers of property, but only on transfers of stocks, securities and certain partnership interests. Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) is payable on sales of property.

They have also abolished the man with the stamp as SDLT is self-assessed.

richardm
21st April 2005, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by brodski
I love adult political debate. ;)


ETA Damm, my picture did not appear. How do you add pictures to your posts?

What, from the quiz sites? Copied the HTML they produced for you and then edit out the surplus stuff. Since I also gave a link to their site I'm sure they won't complain too much!

Matabiri
21st April 2005, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
They have also abolished the man with the stamp as SDLT is self-assessed.



Possibly for residential; however I know a commercial property solicitor who has dealt with him.

On big deals there's so much tax to pay the stamps run for several pages, apparently.

Minkster
21st April 2005, 08:13 AM
I chose Conservative for no other reason that they have a number of policies that I feel matter to me, even though they are relatively minor (mostly around cars, roads, fuel and speed cameras) although I also resent the Labour government for bringing in the IR35 tax rule which effectively ended my days as an IT contractor.

On the whole Iraq thing, I would hate to have to go through that again with the SAME people making the SAME mistakes as before (and believe me, if Blair gets in this time the arrogance will go through the roof). I'm not saying the Tories wouldn't have made the same mistakes, but if they see Labour get turfed out partly because of their cock-ups then future govts may think twice before lying so blatantly to the public over something people feel so strongly about.

richardm
21st April 2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Minkster
if they see Labour get turfed out partly because of their cock-ups then future govts may think twice before lying so blatantly to the public over something people feel so strongly about.

Hohoho! That's a good one :D

We're talking about politicians, remember!

Meanwhile, remember that the Tories and Lib Dems were present at the same intelligence briefings as Labour. The Tories still supported the war - the Lib Dems didn't.

You may - or may not - want to draw some conclusions from that.

Reginald
21st April 2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Minkster
I chose Conservative for no other reason that they have a number of policies that I feel matter to me, even though they are relatively minor (mostly around cars, roads, fuel and speed cameras) although I also resent the Labour government for bringing in the IR35 tax rule which effectively ended my days as an IT contractor.

On the whole Iraq thing, I would hate to have to go through that again with the SAME people making the SAME mistakes as before (and believe me, if Blair gets in this time the arrogance will go through the roof). I'm not saying the Tories wouldn't have made the same mistakes, but if they see Labour get turfed out partly because of their cock-ups then future govts may think twice before lying so blatantly to the public over something people feel so strongly about.

Cars, roads, fuel and speed cameras? Would you care to be a little more specific about these? I'm interested in what the conservatives are offering you as a voter on these issues.

asthmatic camel
21st April 2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Hohoho! That's a good one :D

We're talking about politicians, remember!

Meanwhile, remember that the Tories and Lib Dems were present at the same intelligence briefings as Labour. The Tories still supported the war - the Lib Dems didn't.

You may - or may not - want to draw some conclusions from that.

Heh, politicians...yep, trustworthy as you like, all of them. Completely concerned about your personal wellbeing they are; selfless individuals who care not one jot for their personal status and wealth.

In reality, we get one chance every four years to replace one set of liars with another. The best that can happen is that they're given an electoral bloody nose once in a while.

Interesting Ian
21st April 2005, 11:33 AM
<center>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/wsyvfbloglogo.jpg (http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com)</center><h1>Who should I vote for?</h1><h2>Your expected outcome:</h2>Liberal Democrat


<h2>Your actual outcome:</h2>

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"><font color="black">Labour -12 </font>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_light.gif</td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"><font color="black">Conservative -35 </font>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_light.gif</td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Liberal Democrat 38</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"><font color="black">UK Independence Party -2 </font>http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_light.gif</td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" style="border-right:2px solid black;" height="20" valign="middle"></td><td width="50%" align="left" height="20" valign="middle">http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/tiny_grey_dark.gif <font color="black">Green 36</font></td></tr></table>

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

The LibDems (http://www.libdems.org.uk) take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.



Take the test at Who Should You Vote For (http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com)


Hmmm . . I wouldn't scrap university tuition fees.

Interesting Ian
21st April 2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Hmm, here's another one (http://politicalsurvey2005.com/), this time with a bit more detailed analysis of the results. Apparently on one axis I'm a rabid lefty and on the other axis I'm in tune with the Conservatives. Yikes.

Yes, I am bored at work today.

Compared to the whole population...

4.9% are significantly to your left
10.0% have views about the same as yours
85.1% are significantly to your right

WOW! :eek: I just thought of myself as being slightly left of centre.

Minkster
21st April 2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Reginald
Cars, roads, fuel and speed cameras? Would you care to be a little more specific about these? I'm interested in what the conservatives are offering you as a voter on these issues.

I drive a LOT (partly to get to and from work and partly to visit friends/family who all live some distance away). I just find the tory transport policy much more in line with my personal situation than any of the alternatives.

This link doesn't cover everything but it gives the basics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4329921.stm

Minkster
21st April 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by richardm
Hohoho! That's a good one :D

We're talking about politicians, remember!

Meanwhile, remember that the Tories and Lib Dems were present at the same intelligence briefings as Labour. The Tories still supported the war - the Lib Dems didn't.

You may - or may not - want to draw some conclusions from that.

hmmmmm....not 100% sure about your later point. This is certainly the first I've heard of that. I always believed the 45 minute thing was purely down to Blairs intelligence at the time - and then there was the govt statement that turned out to be some uni kids essay and so on....

I also believed that the Tories supported the action - especially after it started and especially since it was based on govt intelligence, but later on they attacked Blair for lies about the intelligence. Blair never responded by saying 'but you were there and you bought it too', which leads me to think they weren't.

If you see what I mean!

Interesting Ian
21st April 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Minkster
I chose Conservative for no other reason that they have a number of policies that I feel matter to me, even though they are relatively minor (mostly around cars, roads, fuel and speed cameras)

Speed cameras are great. Do the Conservatives approve of them?

Darat
21st April 2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Minkster
I drive a LOT (partly to get to and from work and partly to visit friends/family who all live some distance away). I just find the tory transport policy much more in line with my personal situation than any of the alternatives.

This link doesn't cover everything but it gives the basics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4329921.stm

But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of differences:


Their policies include more privately-financed road-building, a review of speed cameras, more traffic police, a clampdown on uninsured drivers, and even removing road humps.


Hmm.. review of speed cameras but more traffic police? So speed cameras are replaced with more expensive policemen doing the same job?

"Clampdown on uninsured drivers" - what does this mean? It's illegal at the moment, but it is a notoriously difficult problem to police, after all you can’t just look at a car/bike and say "oh no insurance".


"removing speed humps" - that's a local authority issue not a national issue, what will they do - ban them?



On the railways, the Conservatives wants to give train companies more freedom to decide how they run their services and longer rail franchises.


More freedom...? *gulp*



And they promise to renovate 100 of Britain's shabbiest stations.


But I thought they said they'd give more freedom to railways yet here they are saying they will decide which are the “shabbiest” stations and spend money on them…

I am curious as to which of the above you think will make a significant improvement?

Darat
21st April 2005, 12:35 PM
Just been looking through their manifesto for transport stuff.


A Conservative Government will end Labour’s war on the motorist.
We will modernise Britain’s road network and review all speed
cameras to ensure they are there to save lives, not make money.


Well according to the police their cameras are already set-up for safety not revenue reasons. Interestingly I wonder will the Conservatives be setting up a committee or qango to do this review? And will they be introducing a new body independent of the police to then regulate the placing of cameras instead of leaving it up to the local police? ;)

Under their transport heading in the manifesto:


• A modern road network
• Review of all speed cameras
• Longer rail franchises



And they aren't going to spend any more then Labour on transport:


First, we will give taxpayers value for money. We will spend the same as Labour would on the NHS, schools, transport and international development,...

Reginald
21st April 2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Minkster
I drive a LOT (partly to get to and from work and partly to visit friends/family who all live some distance away). I just find the tory transport policy much more in line with my personal situation than any of the alternatives.

This link doesn't cover everything but it gives the basics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4329921.stm

Hmm I would rather these extra police were out catching violent criminals, I thought that was the major Tory point, why waste a policeman catching a few speeding drivers when an automated device can do it?

That's no great common sense approach if you ask me.

As for the speed humps thing, that just typifies what's up with a lot of Tory thinking at the moment. They have taken a top 50 list of "things that irritate me a bit" and have built a campaign out of it, kind of lacks in greater substance. How about things that irritate me a lot?

In any case I support the use of speed cameras and speed humps, people used to do 40 mph+ down the small side road I lived on, a road that had three schools on it, since speed humps were put there they struggle to get to 20 mph.

Privately financed road building will mean toll roads and catching uninsured drivers will again require the use of police, stopping drivers (yet more use of police, "struggling" police forces now seeming rather contadictory).

So all this stopping drivers for speeding and checking their documents hardly seems to be contradicting the "war on the motorists", if anything it just makes it more personal.

brodski
21st April 2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by richardm
What, from the quiz sites? Copied the HTML they produced for you and then edit out the surplus stuff. Since I also gave a link to their site I'm sure they won't complain too much!

thanks.

I realsie that this is a little late as teh trhead has moved on but I just like my poster so damm much and I missed out earlier


http://www.kryogenix.org/code/conposter/display.php?p=38466

ETA: I still can't get my bloody poster to show up, maybe I shouldnt be allowed on a computer. :(

Back on toppic, the issue of speed humps and speed cameras remidns me of the argument over vaccination in many ways (bear with me here).
All the avaible evidence, all the robust studeis conducted show that traffic calming measures, including speed bumbs and hidden speed camers (as well as non hidden camers in accident blackspots) reduce the number of traffic fatalities.

Howeaver beceasue this does not fit in with the world view of some people, they are willing to ignore all the evidence and argue that black is white. The differnce being that the anti-vaxers dont have a mainstreem pollitical party that is willing to bend to their every whim.

It is a simple fact, excessive speed not only increases the likleyhood of accidents, but also the severity of their concequnces.

Oh and just to point this out once more fines are not taxation.

Jaggy Bunnet
22nd April 2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Matabiri


Possibly for residential; however I know a commercial property solicitor who has dealt with him.

On big deals there's so much tax to pay the stamps run for several pages, apparently.





Must have been pre 1 December 2003 when Stamp Duty Land Tax was introduced.

Quote from the introduction to the Stamp Duty Land Tax manual:

"Stamp duty is over 300 years old. It is a charge on documents that transfer property and when duty is paid stamps are impressed physically on the document. Unlike modern taxes there is no provision for the tax to be collected directly from taxpayers by assessment.

Stamp Duty Land Tax is a modern transaction tax on land transactions involving any estate, interest, right or power in or over land in the United Kingdom.

Documents evidencing land transactions effected on or after 1 December 2003 and chargeable to Stamp Duty Land Tax will no longer be physically stamped."

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/SDLTM00030.htm

Matabiri
22nd April 2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Must have been pre 1 December 2003 when Stamp Duty Land Tax was introduced.
...
Documents evidencing land transactions effected on or after 1 December 2003 and chargeable to Stamp Duty Land Tax will no longer be physically stamped."



[Bow down before superior research]

I shall never trust a lawyer again.

[/Bow down before superior research]

Reginald
25th April 2005, 05:56 AM
I'm seriously disappointed in Charles Kennedy this week already.

Actually I am in agreement that there should be a full independent inquiry into the UK's role in the Iraq war. But not at this time. Stamping his feet at this moment seems somewhat desperate, especially given the importance (or lack of) that the electorate seem to be putting on the whole Iraq thing. UK politics always seems so much more domestic than I think opposition parties realise. William Hague made the mistake of putting Europe top of his agenda last time and failed badly. Kennedy would be wise to learn a lesson from that and not throw away some of the ground I feel he has made in the last few Weeks following this line.

Howard's personal attacks wont sit well either. It's another thing that smacks of desperation, the kind of last fall back when everything else has been spent or has failed to have impact. Despite my general reservations about the "common sense" of the UK electorate, I don't think they appreciate this type of approach.


The polls seem stagnant, I suspect that a major cock-up will be more likely to lose someone some points rather than any blinding strategy by their opposition.

richardm
25th April 2005, 06:11 AM
Speaking of desperation, I note also that the Tories have changed their slogan today, presumably having realised that nobody was thinking what they were thinking.

Their new slogan talks about "Making a stand", which conjours up wonderful images of General Custer.

richardm
25th April 2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
The polls seem stagnant, I suspect that a major cock-up will be more likely to lose someone some points rather than any blinding strategy by their opposition.

It'll be interesting to see if this incipient fuel protest comes to anything, and what effect it has. Back in 2000 they brought the country to a virtual standstill, apparently (I say "apparently" because I was actually on holiday at the time and missed the whole thing).

Could queues for petrol stretching miles motivate significant numbers people to vote differently, or would they rally behind the government?

Matabiri
25th April 2005, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by richardm
It'll be interesting to see if this incipient fuel protest comes to anything, and what effect it has. Back in 2000 they brought the country to a virtual standstill, apparently (I say "apparently" because I was actually on holiday at the time and missed the whole thing).

Could queues for petrol stretching miles motivate significant numbers people to vote differently, or would they rally behind the government?

I was also on holiday - in Wales, in a hired car. By careful driving we managed to eke out one tank to last the whole length of the protest, and fill up again when it had died down. People! Just don't panic!

What we really need is John Prescott punching someone again, preferably George Galloway. Unfortunately the closest we've got so far is this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/wales/4465963.stm):
Mark Choueke: But this isn't about upsetting Peter Law, it's about upsetting the many thousands of Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent who helped you form a strong government - they feel alienated.

JP: Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician.

MC: Are you too big to care about the Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent? Do you think there may be something in your party's methods of working that require a rethink when a politician chooses to stand against you after 35 years service to Labour?

JP: (walking away) Where do they get these amateurs from? You're an amateur mate, go get on your bus, go home.

MC: Are you too big for the regional press now John?

JP: Bugger off - get on your bus, you amateur.

MC: (following Mr Prescott) Is my interview over John? Because if that's all you've got to say, that's what will go in the paper.

JP: (turns back to reporter) - Ooohh, I'm scared, go ahead, put it in your paper.

asthmatic camel
25th April 2005, 07:42 AM
Ahhh, our delightful Deputy Prime Minister. Haven't heard much from him recently, have we? I wonder why...

Prescott 'to be buried somewhere under Wiltshire' Labour confirms
Senior Labour sources last night confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, will be taken to a secret underground location somewhere in the Wiltshire countryside and sealed inside in the final run-up to the General Election.
Mr Prescott, who has famously amassed a number of nicknames during his time in government, including “2 Jags”, “2 Jabs” and “That Fat Sell-out Scumbag”, will be taken off the front lines two weeks before polling day.
Many observers have said the move is a desperate attempt to avoid any repetition of the punch-ups, verbal gaffes and luminous hypocrisy that have become the hallmarks of Prezza’s rambunctious electioneering style.
However, senior Labour strategist Sebastian Therreouxxx strongly denied that Prescott was being forced to lay low because he is an electoral liability.
He told reporters: “The suggestion that we are going to seal the Deputy Prime Minister in a guarded, underground chamber to get him out of the way in the crucial last few days before the election is clearly, clearly ridiculous.
“Sealing senior party members in remote, underground bunkers is a perfectly normal practice in international politics and is often considered good luck. Why, just prior to the 1969 General Election, Harold Macmillan spent three whole months buried somewhere under Norfolk, and look what it did for him.”

http://www.obscureinternet.com/brokeninglish/

Reginald
25th April 2005, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by richardm
It'll be interesting to see if this incipient fuel protest comes to anything, and what effect it has. Back in 2000 they brought the country to a virtual standstill, apparently (I say "apparently" because I was actually on holiday at the time and missed the whole thing).

Could queues for petrol stretching miles motivate significant numbers people to vote differently, or would they rally behind the government?

I think that they have had their sympathy limit from your average UK bod. The farmers are really leading this one, not the kind of hauliers/farmer protest of before. My own sympathies kind of died for farmers in general after the figures came out about the levels of compensation they got after foot and mouth. I'm sure that many farmers did suffer genuine lasting hardship, but Im as sure that many made obscene ammounts out of the whole thing. So they can protest all they like, I dont like people taking advantage of the general election to attempt some kind of blackmail. Sod em!

asthmatic camel
25th April 2005, 07:53 AM
Forgot the pic. :D http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1870620050

Reginald
25th April 2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Speaking of desperation, I note also that the Tories have changed their slogan today, presumably having realised that nobody was thinking what they were thinking.

Their new slogan talks about "Making a stand", which conjours up wonderful images of General Custer.

If they were thinking "I'm just some old revamped thatcherite minister hoping that people will forget that most of whats wrong originated with me and mine some years back, but I might just pull it off if I jump on enough trivial popularist bandwagons and get people fired up about immigrants etc...", then they would be right, I was thinking what they were thinking.

I think it was more a case of "I hope the electorate are not thinking" myself.

:D

demon
1st May 2005, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
"You take yourself too seriously. I only included Respect because then I get to say "Sir, I salute your indefatigability"..."

I've been astonished by the sheer weight of resources being bought to bear against Galloway and Respect. The attitudes of Nick Cohen and his ilk - David Aaronovitch, Respect Watch and all the rest - verge on the obsessional. And the ostensible reason for these extraordinary attacks is a sentence spoken by Galloway to Saddam a few years ago.
I've yet to hear anyone explain what benefit Saddam derived from half a dozen words spoken by an obscure back-bench Labour MP most of the world's never heard of. And yet to listen to Cohen and the rest of the warmongers et al, you'd think Saddam had, with the aid of some reverse swords-into-ploughshares alchemy, been able to take the vowels and consonants from the sentence "Sir, I salute your courage and indefatigability" and build a Death Star that threatened all life on earth.
It's just a nonsense. Galloway met Saddam Hussein twice, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld and on neither occasion, unlike Rumsfeld, did Galloway sell him anything to do with WMD.
Apart from anything else, the opprobrium heaped on Gallway rather than on those who facilitated Saddam's worst crimes - often the same people who're now posing as Iraq's liberators - indicates a pretty screwed-up sense of priorities.

Galloway was very active in the movement to get sanctions on Iraq lifted visiting Iraq often; on these visits he got to know a few members of Saddam's regime, particularly Tariq Aziz. By mid 2002, it was clear to Galloway that the US was going to go to war over the pretext of WMD so, on one of his visits to Iraq, he asked Aziz to arrange a meeting with Saddam because he wanted to make a personal appeal to him to allow the UN weapons inspectors back into the country.
Galloway thought that this might be enough to head off the US. He wrote in his book "I'm Not The Only One" that
"After what has happened I am sorry that I helped persuade the Iraqi regime to allow the inspectors to return. It is now clear beyond sane argument that Bush and Blair had decided long before to fall like the wolves of Sennacherib upon the people of Iraq, no matter what concessions the Iraqi leadership made. All that was achieved by the readmittance of the inspectors was that Iraq ended up breaking up its conventional missile defences before the approving eyes of the inspectors and most of the world, while British and American forces massed on their borders awaiting the order to invade."

I don't think anyone could dispute the truth of that.

There's a bit more to the story than Galloway's detractors tell. About 18 months before the meeting with Saddam, Peter Hain asked Galloway to set-up a "back channel" to the Iraqi regime. Later, when Galloway asked for a meeting with Saddam, it was agreed to straight away - Saddam obviously assumed that Galloway had a message from the British government - and Galloway was taken by surprise when he was more or less instantaneously ushered into Saddam's presence. I think he was just flustered and babbled the "Sir, I salute you etc" comment and his later claim that he was addressing the Iraqi people was just a cover. As a serving new labour M.P. he probably could not mention the "back-channel".

E.J.Armstrong
2nd May 2005, 08:01 AM
Unless I am very much mistaken the Republican party of the USA should be on the list - after all Bush controls us all through Bliar.

Vote for international illegality - Vote for the Bliar/Bush axis of evil - You know it makes sense.

richardm
3rd May 2005, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by demon
There's a bit more to the story than Galloway's detractors tell. About 18 months before the meeting with Saddam, Peter Hain asked Galloway to set-up a "back channel" to the Iraqi regime.

Not wishing to doubt your word or anything, but Galloway was one of the most rebellious MPs in the Labour Party, voting against the whip on numerous occasions. Why would they choose him for sooper sekrit back channel operations (fnar)?

Even if he was, for some reason, the best man for the job, 18 months before that meeting Peter Hain had only been an MP for about a year. Why would he be asking a long-standing MP to do anything with any authority?

Darat
3rd May 2005, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by demon
Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
"You take yourself too seriously. I only included Respect because then I get to say "Sir, I salute your indefatigability"..."

I've been astonished by the sheer weight of resources being bought to bear against Galloway and Respect. The attitudes of Nick Cohen and his ilk - David Aaronovitch, Respect Watch and all the rest - verge on the obsessional. And the ostensible reason for these extraordinary attacks is a sentence spoken by Galloway to Saddam a few years ago.


This reads like a conspiracy theory... ? Are you implying that there is some overall organising faction behind these various people's views and activities against Galloway and Respect? (I'm discounting the normal political campaign against a political rival e.g. Labour/Tory/Libs not wanting Respect to win a seat.)

If that isn’t the case why don’t you believe their criticisms of Galloway stem from a dislike of what he has said and what he states he stands for?

Originally posted by demon

I've yet to hear anyone explain what benefit Saddam derived from half a dozen words spoken by an obscure back-bench Labour MP most of the world's never heard of.


Publicity is one benefit, both for Saddam and Galloway - after all afterwards Galloway was no longer an "obscure back bencher".


Originally posted by demon


And yet to listen to Cohen and the rest of the warmongers et al, you'd think Saddam had, with the aid of some reverse swords-into-ploughshares alchemy, been able to take the vowels and consonants from the sentence "Sir, I salute your courage and indefatigability" and build a Death Star that threatened all life on earth.


A little bit of hyperbole creeping in? :)

Originally posted by demon

It's just a nonsense. Galloway met Saddam Hussein twice, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld and on neither occasion, unlike Rumsfeld, did Galloway sell him anything to do with WMD.

Apart from anything else, the opprobrium heaped on Gallway rather than on those who facilitated Saddam's worst crimes - often the same people who're now posing as Iraq's liberators - indicates a pretty screwed-up sense of priorities.


I disagree with this. The vilification poured on Galloway has been nothing in comparison to the vilification of Saddam and his henchpeople.

Originally posted by demon

Galloway was very active in the movement to get sanctions on Iraq lifted visiting Iraq often;


Shows terrible judgement, in my opinion of course.

Originally posted by demon

on these visits he got to know a few members of Saddam's regime, particularly Tariq Aziz. By mid 2002, it was clear to Galloway that the US was going to go to war over the pretext of WMD so,


I'd like to see the timeline you are using. As far as I was aware his visits wouldn’t fit in with this idea, but happy to be educated.

Originally posted by demon

on one of his visits to Iraq, he asked Aziz to arrange a meeting with Saddam because he wanted to make a personal appeal to him to allow the UN weapons inspectors back into the country.


Which I wouldn’t criticise him for.
Originally posted by demon


Galloway thought that this might be enough to head off the US. He wrote in his book "I'm Not The Only One" that
"After what has happened I am sorry that I helped persuade the Iraqi regime to allow the inspectors to return. It is now clear beyond sane argument that Bush and Blair had decided long before to fall like the wolves of Sennacherib upon the people of Iraq, no matter what concessions the Iraqi leadership made. All that was achieved by the readmittance of the inspectors was that Iraq ended up breaking up its conventional missile defences before the approving eyes of the inspectors and most of the world, while British and American forces massed on their borders awaiting the order to invade."

I don't think anyone could dispute the truth of that.


Why not? In fact I do, after all are you saying to me that if Saddam had say stepped done and gone into exile the coalition would still have invaded? I don't think they would have done.

Originally posted by demon


There's a bit more to the story than Galloway's detractors tell. About 18 months before the meeting with Saddam, Peter Hain asked Galloway to set-up a "back channel" to the Iraqi regime. Later, when Galloway asked for a meeting with Saddam, it was agreed to straight away - Saddam obviously assumed that Galloway had a message from the British government - and Galloway was taken by surprise when he was more or less instantaneously ushered into Saddam's presence. I think he was just flustered and babbled the "Sir, I salute you etc" comment and his later claim that he was addressing the Iraqi people was just a cover. As a serving new labour M.P. he probably could not mention the "back-channel".

Evidence?

Oleron
3rd May 2005, 04:35 AM
I'll be voting DUP.

Before anyone starts throwing stuff at me, let me explain that it is for the sole reason that my local MP has been incredibly helpful in a local issue I have been involved in. I feel I need to thank him by voting for him this week.

It's just a pity he's DUP.

asthmatic camel
3rd May 2005, 12:16 PM
Is the economy really safe in Labour's hands? I've argued before that it's not, and this guy agrees with me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1475557,00.html

Read it and weep. The only boom we've seen since Labour gained power is in the cost of housing and the levels of consumer debt. When the bust comes, as it surely will, it's not going to be pleasant.

As a complete cynic, I wonder when Blair will choose to hand over the top job to Brown. Could it be when the real truth about the economy becomes inescapably obvious?

Cleopatra
4th May 2005, 11:07 AM
General elections in Greece are taking place only on Sundays. Good citizens go to vote after the church. Of course this constitutes a solid proof that God does NOT exist considering the 20 dark years of socialism :D

So, tomorrow before voting THINK: Do you really wish to be related to religious, socialist southern europeans by voting for the Labour?


At least I tried

:p

Darat
4th May 2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
General elections in Greece are taking place only on Sundays. Good citizens go to vote after the church. Of course this constitutes a solid proof that God does NOT exist considering the 20 dark years of socialism :D

So, tomorrow before voting THINK: Do you really wish to be related to religious, socialist southern europeans by voting for the Labour?


At least I tried

:p

If people wanted socialism they’d vote for a left wing party like… er.. er.. er…

asthmatic camel
4th May 2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Darat
If people wanted socialism they’d vote for a left wing party like… er.. er.. er…

Like the one they'll get when Brown becomes PM.

Darat
4th May 2005, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Like the one they'll get when Brown becomes PM.

If you're waiting for that then I think you'll be waiting a long, long time, Brown is no more for old style Labour policies and socialism then Blair is! :)

geni
4th May 2005, 11:27 AM
My block just got sent a load of BNP leaflets. What's wird though is they only sent them to the female students in the block.

brodski
4th May 2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Like the one they'll get when Brown becomes PM.

The political differences between Brown and Blair are much more style than substance. For domestic matters Brown has been pretty much running government policy through treasure targets since he became chancellor. Treasury officials often dictate top level policy to other government departments.

asthmatic camel
4th May 2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Darat
If you're waiting for that then I think you'll be waiting a long, long time, Brown is no more for old style Labour policies and socialism then Blair is! :)

I'm not too sure about that, Brown is clearly way to the left of Blair in his opinions. I think the country is in for a nasty surprise when and if Gordon gets the top job.

brodski
4th May 2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I'm not too sure about that, Brown is clearly way to the left of Blair in his opinions. I think the country is in for a nasty surprise when and if Gordon gets the top job.

As I said, for all practical purposes (on domestic matters) brown has got the top job, what Gordon lacks is the prestige which comes from being head of government.
Oh and any power when it comes to foreign affairs

brodski
4th May 2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by geni
My block just got sent a load of BNP leaflets. What's wird though is they only sent them to the female students in the block.
Well we all know that women are the purest personification of the Anglo Saxon race. It's well known that Human can trace their ancestor back to a single female ancestor Africa sometime between 140000 and 280000 years ago, but that we trace our heritage back to a single male who lived much later, so women where here first and therefore all men are immigrants who should go back to Russia ... or something like that. ;)

Lucky
4th May 2005, 03:44 PM
From Darat:
Brown is no more for old style Labour policies and socialism then Blair is!I think you are absolutely right, unfortunately; but the popularity he enjoys amongst Labour supporters is because people think (or hope, or wish) that he really does have some (well hidden) socialist ideals. I have given up arguing about this with friends and relatives, as they may have the opportunity to become disappointed and disillusioned before too long without any help from me.

I wouldn’t say that socialist policies are ‘old style’; they are out of fashion for now but the pendulum swings, the wheel turns, whatever.

If people wanted socialism they’d vote for a left wing party like… er.. er.. er…Well, we can’t do that, so a protest vote seems the most sensible option. That’s what I’ll do (the Greens) as I have done for the last two general elections.