The United Kingdom Elections 2010

There will be a general election in the United Kingdom this year - perhaps as early as March, but by law it must be held before June 3rd.

It's a remarkably interesting contest this time (for those scholars of politics) because of the electoral map, the thorough disillusion with Parliament, the devastated economy and consequent unpopular decisions, the visceral personal loathing for Gordon Brown yet the apparent lack of enthusiasm for the Conservative alternatives. add in a lot of expressed support for minor extremist parties, a deeply unpopular war and the increasing likelihood of a hung parliament (both in terms of seats held and the fervent wish of most of the voters) and we have the ingredients of a fascinating time.

All these strands mean we may well end up with myriad threads starting. To keep some sort of order, please add all political commentary pertinent to the elections herein.

Now, over to CountArach (Poll King) and Lemur (Blog Tzar). :wink:

(My own question is: Given that everyone I talk to has despaired of Labour and has no enthusiasm for the Tories at all, why is no-one even considering a vote for the Liberal Democrats? I know the electoral mathematics mean it's almost impossible for them to gain even on a huge swing, but it does seem odd no-one wants to give them a go).

(Oh, and what chance a regicide of Brown in the next couple of weeks?)

Liberal Democrats! Talk about making it up as you go along. :dizzy2:

I've voted tory twice and SDP once. This time none of the main parties will get my vote, the thieving bastards. I've not made up my mind yet, although the UK Libertarians look interesting. Needless to say I wont be voting for the corrupt Labour party who can't even get their own financial house in order, never mind the countries. Imbeciles. :furious3:

*Quickly catches up on months of polling data*

Yes, it's a case of the best of the worst.

Labour: discredited (did they ever have any credit?)
Conservatives: too keen to get into power to have any thoughts what to do when there, probably too "fair weather"
Lib Dems: Leftie, pro Europe. Too concerned with giving power elsewhere to have policy; too fringe to need policy.
BNP: statutory IQ being less than 75 obligitory since race admission no longer required.
UKIP: One policy party. What would they do with any real power? Might be useful as a force if no party has a majority to force the one issue.

Brown will hang on as the next leader wants to lead the party forward, with the baseline set on an utter failure - rising like a phoenix from the ashes, not starting with a prat-fall.

As it happens I'm helping with strategy for one of the Tories, but just to reassure people it's almost certain he'll loose :beam: Of course, he states he's independent and thinks for himself, but don't they all say that?

~:smoking:

I don't have a personal dislike of Brown. I think he's way more integral than Cameron, who tries to present himself as middle class, normal, Daily Fail reading guy who sends his kids to the local comprehensive, despite being filthy rich/posh. That said, most of the Labour cabinet are made up of middle class people; iirc there's only one senior working class minister.

Unfortunately I can't vote; I'll miss out on my birthday by just over a month.

I haven't voted since '97 and probably won't vote again. Democracy in this country is an illusion, whoever you vote for you still get the same corrupt self serving scum that look after the interests of the rich elites.

I'm voting for Geoffrey, because he's our local man, he's done weel over the last four years, and he was recomended by a friend. He's also a Conservative, but that's because when John retired the Lib Dems replaced him with Charles Kennedy's Spin-doctor.

I'm despairing. After the past decade, surely it is time to move away from New Labour. But Cameron looks like an impending disaster. :wall:


Go Liberal Democrats indeed!

My question: will we see the unthinkable, a Labour/Conservative coalition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Given that everyone I talk to has despaired of Labour and has no enthusiasm for the Tories at all, why is no-one even considering a vote for the Liberal Democrats? I know the electoral mathematics mean it's almost impossible for them to gain even on a huge swing, but it does seem odd no-one wants to give them a go).

---

because the lib-dems stand for nothing, they are an act of positioning whereby they straddle the fence between the competing ideologies of the left and the right in the hope of attracting disaffected voters from the two polar opposites. this leads them to be inconsistent and opportunistic, neither likely to attract voters.

if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise:

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian

LibDems are trying to straddle the divide, which is difficult to do because people are fairly polarised to one blend of politics or the other, not a mix of the two.

What kind of campaign will most likely resonate with most UK voters this year, do you think? "Transperancy in Government", "Bring our Lads home", "Good jobs for all", or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian

---

Labour are more of a "just right of centre" party these days rather than simply "left wing".

No idea who I will vote for if I do vote at all. It's kind of irrelevant anyway seeming my constituency is the fourth safest Tory seat in the country and as such Boy George is guaranteed to be elected.

Hurrah for voter apathy! Hurrah!

This is the opinion of the average poster -
"You vote between the lesser of the two evils of Labour and Conservatives, Lib Dems are a waste of a vote."

It's the media-myth.

Also, New Labour being left-wing? They are Right-wing, argubly more so than the Tories, in some areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

What kind of campaign will most likely resonate with most UK voters this year, do you think? "Transperancy in Government", "Bring our Lads home", "Good jobs for all", or something else?

---

I'd have to direct you to my siggy. If you vote for anyone, make sure they are NOT an MP. Of any flavour. :yes:

@ AN and Beskar.

Labour are left-wing in the context of british politics because wing'iness is defined by the relative difference between Conservatives and Labour.

Labour may not be as left-wing as you might desire, but they still define what left-wing IS in the context of british politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

@ AN and Beskar.

Labour are left-wing in the context of british politics because wing'iness is defined by the relative difference between Conservatives and Labour.

Labour may not be as left-wing as you might desire, but they still define what left-wing IS in the context of british politics.

---

No, it was a case that Old Labour was actually left-wing, untill New Labour came and did a top-bottom change. So instead of obviously noting this, some individuals just stick to the historical alignment, but since the party has been re-branded, etc, it is inaccurate.

The left of British- politics is the Liberal Democrats and the Green party.

but as we already know with our wonderful FPTP system neither of those parties actually count for squat.

This election will probably have an historically low participation. I am going to watch it closely. Next election is going to be a circus here as well, even more so than with Fortuyn. Not going to vote at all methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian

---

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'd have to direct you to my siggy. If you vote for anyone, make sure they are NOT an MP. Of any flavour. :yes:

---

Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

---

£65k a year is hardly buttons. :juggle2:

The best thing about the bastards is that they no longer decide their own pay and expenses. Now stop me if I'm ranting but if they can't be trusted to take care of themselves, why do they think that they can be trusted to pass laws that effect us, the sheeple. Ropes and lamposts are too good for the lying thieving scumbags. Bastards the lot of them.

and breathe.....:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.

---

Are the Tories pushing "family values" which are boo to single people/divorced people, etc? (Yes)

Are the Tories the biggest opponents to drug decriminilisation? (Yes)

Tories failed basic liberal-check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.

---

May be referring to "classic liberalism" whilst your thinking of modern liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.


Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

---

i'm quite happy with my original statement where the definition of tory = right wing / libertarian derives from the following statement: "if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise"

The Lords do an excellent job, and they did an excellent job before they were reformed too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

£65k a year is hardly buttons. :juggle2:

---

It is compared to legislators in many other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The best thing about the bastards is that they no longer decide their own pay and expenses. Now stop me if I'm ranting but if they can't be trusted to take care of themselves, why do they think that they can be trusted to pass laws that effect us, the sheeple. Ropes and lamposts are too good for the lying thieving scumbags. Bastards the lot of them.

---

Time to end this disastrous democratic experiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i'm quite happy with my original statement where the definition of tory = right wing / libertarian derives from the following statement: "if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise"

---

I would say that the Tories very much enjoy interfering in my personal life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

The Lords do an excellent job,

---

Somewhat true. The majority of them are good lawmakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and they did an excellent job before they were reformed too.

---

Yes, at keeping those democratically elected socialists in their place :yes:

Go Liberal Democrats! :cheerleader:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Are the Tories pushing "family values" which are boo to single people/divorced people, etc? (Yes)

Are the Tories the biggest opponents to drug decriminilisation? (Yes)

Tories failed basic liberal-check.

---

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

Anyway, Libertarianism is not Liberalism. The Right to Free association, Free Speech, the right to Bare Arms, the right to Privacy.

They are Libertarian causes, and Labour goes against them all.

A right to Bear Arms might get the RSPCA angry.

First/last one I can vote in, unless I come back and dwell within the UK again. So... I want to, but none of the parties appeal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

Anyway, Libertarianism is not Liberalism. The Right to Free association, Free Speech, the right to Bare Arms, the right to Privacy.

They are Libertarian causes, and Labour goes against them all.

---

correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

---

So what constitutes an important issue? You're incredibly naive if you think that drugs policy is "irrelevant".

Although I agree that they may be a liberal party, they are not Libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yes, it's a case of the best of the worst.

Labour: discredited (did they ever have any credit?)
Conservatives: too keen to get into power to have any thoughts what to do when there, probably too "fair weather"
Lib Dems: Leftie, pro Europe. Too concerned with giving power elsewhere to have policy; too fringe to need policy.
BNP: statutory IQ being less than 75 obligitory since race admission no longer required.
UKIP: One policy party. What would they do with any real power? Might be useful as a force if no party has a majority to force the one issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

I haven't voted since '97 and probably won't vote again. Democracy in this country is an illusion, whoever you vote for you still get the same corrupt self serving scum that look after the interests of the rich elites.

---

I'd broadly agree with both of those assessments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian

---

Conservatives are libertarian?!? They may well advertise so, but they are very much authoritarian. They were the party who first mooted ID cards, who introduced the draconian police powers and public order laws. They are all in favour of the liberty of rich people doing what they want with their money, but beyond that - no way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Conservatives are libertarian?!? They may well advertise so, but they are very much authoritarian. They were the party who first mooted ID cards, who introduced the draconian police powers and public order laws. They are all in favour of the liberty of rich people doing what they want with their money, but beyond that - no way.

---

sure they are not a libertarian party, there is an authoritarian theme to Tory politics just as there is a libertarian theme that derives from the Whig rump that joined the Tories back in the day, but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.

labour should defer to no-one when it comes to pushing ID cards and public order laws.

but more importantly; labour also define the authoritarian genre of british politics by introducing legislation and regulation at a phenomenal rate, and justifying the intrusion into individual behaviour by citing the benefit of the many.

Quote:

---

but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.

---

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

To all those saying to Tories aren't Libertarian, I'm pretty certain the US Republican party is Libertarian, and look how supposedly "right wing" they are. Libertarianism holds very different values from modern "liberalism". A "libertarian" set of principles are based on aspects such as the upholding of individual rights, separation of religion from the sate and small government. Starting to see the difference now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

---

i agree with what you say, but would argue that given the UK's FPTP system and their electoral percentage they simply don't count as part of the active fabric of british politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

To all those saying to Tories aren't Libertarian, I'm pretty certain the US Republican party is Libertarian, and look how supposedly "right wing" they are. Libertarianism holds very different values from modern "liberalism". A "libertarian" set of principles are based on aspects such as the upholding of individual rights, separation of religion from the sate and small government. Starting to see the difference now?

---

The Patriot Act was a great example of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

---

I got 80% on their test. Obviously, the first and second points were "illiberal", but then again, I am obviously a Liberatarian Socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The Patriot Act was a great example of this?

---

you mean the legislation that was rushed into place once the american government browned their pants after realising that crazy nutcases with big bushy beards were quite happy knocking yanky sky-scrapers down, while they were full of people?

not defending the patriot act by any means, but it could reasonably be viewed as a product of its time, just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I got 80% on their test.

---

20% I loved how they told me why my opinions were wrong. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I got 80% on their test. Obviously, the first and second points were "illiberal", but then again, I am obviously a Liberatarian Socialist.

---

Your Results

Well done!
You scored 90%
You are a liberal
--------------------------------
We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society. If they are over-taxed they will simply move themselves, their assets and capital offshore. Which will in turn decrease investment in the country.
--------------------------------
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal

The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
--------------------------------
The state should bailout large corporations in financial distress?
Your answer was liberal

This is an illiberal incursion on the free market — at the taxpayer's expense. No company should ever receive a taxpayer backed bailout. It encourages bad financial practices and corruption between the state, corporations and unions.
--------------------------------
It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal country people can protect themselves as they see fit. Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone. In addition it is very dangerous for a people to allow their state to have a monopoly over weaponry and therefore force.
--------------------------------
People who hold racist or extreme views should be allowed to publicly express their ideas?
Your answer was liberal

To not would be a gross and illiberal infringement on freedom of speech. And it sets a dangerous precedent for further reducing freedom of speech. It must be noted that defining things as extreme or dangerous is a purely subjective activity. Therefore the state will only define things as extreme if they pose a threat to it. But not necessarily to the people.
--------------------------------
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for the police to retain the DNA of anyone not serving a prison sentence?
Your answer was liberal

There is no reason why in a liberal society that the state should be allowed to steal the property of a person when they have not been convicted of any crime or are currently serving a prison sentence.
--------------------------------
The state should ban people from watching violent pornography?
Your answer was liberal

This is an illiberal incursion on freedom of thought. It is not the business of the state to involve itself in the sexual preferences of consenting adults.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
Your answer was illiberal

It is illiberal, and a sign of gross arrogance, for one state to impose their will on another in this way. These issues are for the people of said state to resolve themselves with their leader(s).
--------------------------------
Free market capitalism should be forced on other nations to help create a better world?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for one state to impose their way of life on another. A liberal foreign policy involves free trade with all willing participants. It does not involve forcing states to behave in a certain way if they do not wish to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you mean the legislation that was rushed into place once the american government browned their pants after realising that crazy nutcases with big bushy beards were quite happy knocking yanky sky-scrapers down, while they were full of people?

---

As I recall the chaps that "knocked down the skyscrapers" were for the most part clean shaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

As I recall the chaps that "knocked down the skyscrapers" were for the most part clean shaven.

---

they were in disguise, pretending to be normal people. :juggle2:

Some questions are rather biased.

"Bailout" corporations implies throwing money at them. Purchasing equity at rock bottom rates can be good - Quatar made $1 Billion from Barclay's in less than a year.
And the gun ownership question well, the devil is in the detail. Purchasing a gatling gun from the corner shop is different to a Farmer owning a shotgun locked in his shed.
Police not retaining DNA unless the person has a prison sentence again is odd. Surely a better endpoint is if the person was convicted, and the nature of the crime - especially if it is related to violence.

~:smoking:

You could argue that they should have records of everyones DNA, as it is only used when coming in contact to a crime-scene and they want to match and pair examples up. Thus, you only need to worry if you are a rapist or commit violent crimes.

But that is a devils advocate.

Quote:

---

We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society.
...
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal

The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
...
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.

---

...?

wazzup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

So what constitutes an important issue? You're incredibly naive if you think that drugs policy is "irrelevant".

Although I agree that they may be a liberal party, they are not Libertarian.

---

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.

On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose you identify those drugs most socially harmful, control them and put people who break the law into some form of social program.

The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

...?

---

When they use the word "Liberal" they mean what you would consider "Libertarian", preferenceing personal freedom over collective society.

If the past 2 pages are any example of the forthcoming campaign, I feel sorry for our Brit friends and their fellow voters/TV viewers; what dreadfully tedious stuff to have to endure. Where are the hookers, the love-children, the corruption, the smokey back-room deals, the pay-offs... you know: the scandal(!) ?

Or if your in Canada the PM's shutting down of parliament over the phone with the GG. And announcing it on the same day as the olympic hockey team and hoping know one will kick up a big stinck about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.

On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose you identify those drugs most socially harmful, control them and put people who break the law into some form of social program.

The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.

---

Well, a couple of things. The executive is not to rule or perform social care, it is more of an administration, more of checking the cogs are turning correctly and applying oil where needed, and performing upgrades and reform to produce a better functioning machine.

As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us. You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison? The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.

Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

why are the users the one who should go into prison?

Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian),

---

because in Britain we have the concept of legal responsibility, something assumed at adulthood provided the individual is of sound mind.

that is a very poor definition of authoritarian, when used to distinguish it from libertarian, and really has no relevance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.

---

That's what gets me about your statement. A Libertarian government wouldn't care what people do to their bodies with drugs. Yet, the Conservative Party retains a reactionary policy of the criminalisation of various lethal and non-lethal drugs, and their abuses. That isn't libertarian is any sense.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose

---

Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.

Quote:

---

The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.

---

Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.

but to the extent that libertarian politics exist in british politics the conservatives are the more libertarian, because they introduce:
> lesser number of restrictive legislative acts
> have less emphasis on using legislation to enforce social aims

That's wildly hypothetical, since the Tories aren't in power and lack the ability to pass legislation, and thy historically have a tendency to like stick their noses in where they're not wanted in order to prevent moral decay and "Broken Britain"

Another half-hearted attempt to unseat Gordon Brown is launched.

Whilst the Labour party clearly knows it is doomed with GB leading it, they simply can't seem to discover the ruthlessness to dispatch him. Amusing to watch them try - thereby demonstrating a fundamental cowardice that probably proves he's actually the best they've got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Another half-hearted attempt to unseat Gordon Brown is launched.

Whilst the Labour party clearly knows it is doomed with GB leading it, they simply can't seem to discover the ruthlessness to dispatch him. Amusing to watch them try - thereby demonstrating a fundamental cowardice that probably proves he's actually the best they've got.

---

You should advise them for Beskar from the .ORG to take over. Then I will sweep out the ranks and replace everyone with people with spirit, idealism, and the drive and the initiative the country needs. :egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

That's wildly hypothetical, since the Tories aren't in power and lack the ability to pass legislation, and thy historically have a tendency to like stick their noses in where they're not wanted in order to prevent moral decay and "Broken Britain"

---

nothing speculative about it all.

look at the rate of new legislation created each year in the last 12 years, and compare it to the rate of new legislation created each year in the preceding 12 years

interesting post on the gathering forces forces of the left, collating their strength to stop the right in the forthcoming titanic battle of ideologies:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...ndon-with-ken/

Quote:

---

How to stop the Right – loonies, commies, Stalinists gather in London with Ken

Later on this month I’m going to a conference hosted by Boris Johnson in which he’s invited various allies and friends to discuss how to “stop the Left” this year. Among the speakers will be General Pinochet’s former ambassador to Britain, a Christian journalist who describes non-believers as “cattle”, another journalist who took payment from Nazi Germany, a BNP member, and Polish political leaders from a group who have refused to attend Holocaust Memorial Day in the past.

Oh sorry, that was just a really weird dream – says a lot about my inner psyche. But this isn’t:

Ken Livingstone invites you to Progressive London conference:
A progressive agenda to stop the right in 2010

Among those speaking at this laugh-a-minute conference will be:

Mehdi Hasan – Senior Editor (Politics), New Statesman
“The Kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

Richard Gott – writer
“I took red gold, even if it was only in the form of expenses for myself and my partner. That, in the circumstances, was culpable stupidity, though at the time it seemed more like an enjoyable joke”.
Yes, hilarious to the millions of people imprisoned in Soviet Russia. Just hilarious.

Kate Hudson – Chair, CND
No, not Goldie Hawn’s daughter, but rather the CND activist who’s also a member of the Communist party of Great Britain, and the woman who invited the Iranian ambassador to the CND conference to defend Iran’s policies.

Professor Tariq Ramadan
European Islam’s leading thinker, so progressive he’s called for a “moratorium” on the stoning of adulterers.

Dr Abdul Bari – Muslim Council of Britain
Won’t this party clash with Holocaust Memorial Day? Oh, never mind.

Samuel Moncada – Venezuelan Ambassador
How to stop the Right? El Presidente Hugo has a few ideas.

George Galloway MP
Friend of the centre-left, pro-gay rights, Hamas and the über-liberal Islamic Republic of Iran.

Karen Stalbow – Shelter
A charity that is 21 per cent taxpayer-funded. I hope the Conservatives remember that come May.

What a strange and awkward event – feminists, gay rights activists and greenies next to supporters and allies of some of the most brutal and repressive religious movements around. It reminds me of the Onion’s headline: “Japan Forms Alliance With White Supremacists in Well-Thought-Out Scheme”.

---

i really don't understand how these people hold any traction in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Well, a couple of things. The executive is not to rule or perform social care, it is more of an administration, more of checking the cogs are turning correctly and applying oil where needed, and performing upgrades and reform to produce a better functioning machine.

---

This is only true of the Cabinet, the "Executive" includes all the operative organs of government, certainly the Police and Armed Forces, and the Courts (but not the Judges), it also arguably includes the NHS, and definately Social Services and the Education Authorities. Those organs are currently used to enact social reform.

Quote:

---

As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us.

---

If you want to ban alchohol, I'll go along with that. I'll miss the occasional pint of Ale, but I won't cry myself to sleep over it.

Quote:

---

You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison?

---

Only because use is illigal; if you break a law you should recieve the punishment that law carries. This is a wider problem with society; punishments are inconsistantly enforced. This is true even of assualts and thefts.

Quote:

---

The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.

---

I am not in favour of decriminalisation. If it is illegal to sell them it should be illegal to take them, also... if it is illegal to sell them it must be illegal to buy them. Ergo, anyone in posession should be prosecuted for procurement. The position is legally inconsistant and therefore unenforcable.

Quote:

---

Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.

---

I'm not going to claim that drugs policy under the Conservatives are Libertarian on drugs, but conversely Libertarianism has a very strong moral streak (it started with non-conformist Christians in Britain), and one issue does not make a part either authoritarian or Libitarian.

Also, the Conservatives pass laws and then enforce the punishment, and this is Libertarian because it stems from every criminal being treated the same under the Law. I.e., regardless of the Law you break you recieve the full force of the Law. Labour's current practice of not prosecuting under the Law is inconsistant and favours certain groups; therefore not Libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

That's what gets me about your statement. A Libertarian government wouldn't care what people do to their bodies with drugs. Yet, the Conservative Party retains a reactionary policy of the criminalisation of various lethal and non-lethal drugs, and their abuses. That isn't libertarian is any sense.

---

One issue, see above to Beskar.

Quote:

---

Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.

---

Labour banned hunting, Labour issues fixed-penalty notices for bizare things (feeding pigeons). Fixed penalty notices are Authoritarian, they place power in the hands of an Officer of the Executive, and deny recourse to due process and the Judiciary in the first instance.

Quote:

---

Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.

---

Looking at Labour today, I no longer believe they are "macro" Libertarian, we have overtaken almost every country in terms of survaillence and detention of unconvicted citizens.

It reminds of that in law, it is illegal to commit suicide. Hate to think of what punishments for them Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla would come up with just because it is illegal.

Also, you say that it is illegal to sell something, so it should be illegal to have it/use it. That is just crazy talk. It would be illegal for a hotdog stall owner to sell hotdogs topped with arsenic, but why should it be illegal for some one to put an arsenic topping on their own food and be punished by the law, in a way the hotdog stall owner would be punished. It just speaks of idiocy. There are reasons as to why the hotdog owner cannot sell an arsenic topping, due to health and safety, but why should it be illegal for some one, with full facts of the risks and of this, to decide to have it? Argubly, the punishment is already recieved from doing that action, having the law laid down on top is just pointless.

I don't think committing suicide is illegal any more.

In the UK, the NHS is for everyone. Arsenic has no known value apart from being poisonous, delineating is slightly from tobacco and alcohol. As the country has to pay for one's health this gives the country some say in what one intakes.

One could argue that anyone deciding ot do such a tihng is a danger to themselves and hence can be sectioned under the Mental health Act.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

As the country has to pay for one's health this gives the country some say in what one intakes

---

Indeed. That's the aspect of national health care that scares the american right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Indeed. That's the aspect of national health care that scares the american right.

---

Yet they do it already with free emergency treatment - it just costs vastly more this way around.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It reminds of that in law, it is illegal to commit suicide. Hate to think of what punishments for them Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla would come up with just because it is illegal.

---

The proper punishment was death, which is perfectly logical, as the Law was aimed at preventing a Mortal Sin, by executing them you prevented this and increased their chance of entering heaven.

Perfectly logical.

It is, however, no longer on the Statute books, because these days we try to prevent people reaching that stage.

Quote:

---

Also, you say that it is illegal to sell something, so it should be illegal to have it/use it. That is just crazy talk. It would be illegal for a hotdog stall owner to sell hotdogs topped with arsenic, but why should it be illegal for some one to put an arsenic topping on their own food and be punished by the law, in a way the hotdog stall owner would be punished. It just speaks of idiocy. There are reasons as to why the hotdog owner cannot sell an arsenic topping, due to health and safety, but why should it be illegal for some one, with full facts of the risks and of this, to decide to have it? Argubly, the punishment is already recieved from doing that action, having the law laid down on top is just pointless.

---

That's not the same, Arsenic is legal to sell (but controlled) for some purposes. Illegal drugs are just... illegal. Also, I'm pretty sure it is both illegal to buy or sell arsenic if you believe the intent is to harm (you hotdog analogy would be self-harm).

Edit: I see Rory caught it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yet they do it already with free emergency treatment - it just costs vastly more this way around.

~:smoking:

---

Exactly. That also angers the Right.

Whoever gets into power next is going to both cut spending and raise taxes because they have no choice about it. The rest is quite frankly rather irrelevant because, for the next parliament at least, there won't be any money to actually change policy significantly. I'm just waiting to see who actually has the balls to tell us what spending and which taxes...

it should prove a pretty easy guess to figure out which party has the firmest commitment to reduced public spending, and the better track record economic management.

In the UK democracy, there are far more votes to be won in Denial than squaring up to the truth. The minute you mention cuts you ostracise whichever group it is you feel are going to loose the money; pretending it's all fine and dandy means you loose a tiny number of votes that still have to either abstain or vote for one party of liars.

~:smoking:

Also, the argument of where to cut? as Rory says.

Should we cut welfare? Should we cut pensions again ? Should we cut ournuclear arsenal? Should we cut healthcare and education? Should we stop updating and improving the countrys infrastructure, which destorys the longer term investment and benefits of the future?

A lot of things shouldn't get cut at all, if you are sane. By cutting them, you make a situation worse or worse for the future.

Argubly, we should cut investment where we don't get a return on. Which might sound cruel, but Africa is just a blackhole for money, leave it for Oxfam, etc, to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Should we cut welfare? Should we cut pensions again ? Should we cut ournuclear arsenal? Should we cut healthcare and education? Should we stop updating and improving the countrys infrastructure, which destorys the longer term investment and benefits of the future?

---

Cut, no cuts, cut and reform by moving money into conventional forces or research, reform and reform, no cuts, in that order.

Quote:

---

Argubly, we should cut investment where we don't get a return on. Which might sound cruel, but Africa is just a blackhole for money, leave it for Oxfam, etc, to deal with.

---

Once I took precisely that stance. And now, while I still believe that charity is better than foreign aid, I do realize that foreign aid is also a tool used by governments for political leverage, and is therefore useful. I am less hostile to foreign aid because of that argument.

Quote:

---

A lot of things shouldn't get cut at all, if you are sane. By cutting them, you make a situation worse or worse for the future.

---

Leaving aside the sanity of our Prime Mentalist for a moment, there is no choice. The moneys run out. The well is dry. We've lost the paddle and the canoe is leaking. Expect deep cuts and tax increases, especially for the poor.

The thing that amazes me is that some people are actually considering voting for the great snot gobbler and his dysfunctional credo. Must be all those diversity outreach officers one reads about in the Gruniad job vacancy adverts.

:juggle2:

I for one think that the benefit system (including local housing allowance) in the UK is way too generous. Make people who are able to work actually work. Benefit recipients should not be able to live a comfy life of staying at home and making more money than those who actually put in effort to go to work even for minimal wage.

There's people in the UK who just act as baby machines because they can get away with doing so and not going to work at all while getting incredible amount of state payments.

Also, benefit payments should be restricted to UK nationals only - not commonwealth + EU nationals.

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.

Doing so would free up quite a bit of wealth to be invested elsewhere.


Disclaimer:
I am an EU national and not on benefits. I would rather work than be on benefits too. I am outraged that people on benefits can make more than I make for a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

There's people in the UK who just act as baby machines because they can get away with doing so and not going to work at all while getting incredible amount of state payments.

---

this is absolutely true. they even time it to about seven years to get theb maximum benefits for the minimum babies (period of maximum benefits given to the mum after the child is born).

First off, the public services need to be massively reduced. These basically mean that all private enterprise has to pay taxes to pay for the state bodies. The bigger the state bodies, the greater the taxes, and hence the competitiveness of the private enterprises decreases.

Housing benefits are paid to individuals (more kids = more money) but also the size of house you get. Completely counter-intuitive that adults are not expected to show any control as the worse their situation gets the state will bail them out again and again. Benefits manage to not only increase taxes, but also to provide inflationary pressures to wages:

1. The amount one would get for no effort compared to working for 40 hours a week
2. The tax on one's earnt salary to pay for others who aren't working

This in turn helps to kill off production of low value goods as their costs are too high.

Social services. A monolith that takes away responsibility for all and doesn't really work. Local reliance and community crumbles as the SS is expected to do it all - after all, there's billions spent on them. The amount of money that has been spent on trying to stop the next "baby P" is easily in the millions. But of course the rate is the same at roughly 1 a week. Without 24 hour supervision someone is going to kill their child. We waste money pretending we can stop it. Young male suicides? 80 a week. Not catching as a story though.

State pensions. Why be thrifty? Why save? You need to have a large pension to make up for the decrease in state pension as it's means tested. Enjoy life now, and then let the state pay for it all.

Education. Why can India do so well with such poverty and we do worse? Why do many other parts of the world? It clearly makes a difference to one's quality of life, so it's worth going for. Not so true here. Education is free, therefore has not perceived value. All are entitled to it, so no need to worry about loosing it. All down to the schools so no need for the parents to do anything.
Big budgets don't equal better results. Everyone to Uni does not automatically equal a more intelligent or even better trained workforce.

But, everyone can vote.

Piss off the Public Sector? c. 20% national votes - and of course all those that use the services
Piss off the unemployed? c. 10% votes
Harshen up long term sickness? Unsure of numbers, but not good.
Take from the elderly? c. 15% and growing.

Bankers? AHA! probably less than 1% Get 'em!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.

---

We have too much weaponary around? That must be why the Navy is overworking it's ships and crew (when it even has enough money to put them to sea) to fulfil just its basic obligations, the RAF and Navy are being forced to scrap helicopters despite there being a shortage of them and other squadrons despite there being no replacement ready leaving a capability gap in the sky, and you never ever read about the equipment shortages the Army and Marines suffer in Afghanistan, right?

You know when I last heard this arguement about no longer needing conventional weaponary because the way wars were being fought had changed...let me think...oh yes, it was in 1982! Oh and of course there was the time before that...now when was it...oh yeah the 1920's/30's, can't possibly think what happened soon after that though...

The whole point of keeping an effective armed forces is that they are prepared for any situation where they may be needed because you never know what will happen in the future. Just because not all the weaponary we possess is being used in current operations does not preclude the fact it may be needed in the future.

Anyway, back to the spending cuts in general...seems Darling has come out and said there will be big cuts before we even have an election. Who wants to bet they will be long-term, well planned cuts for the better of the country rather than popular but ill-thought out cuts that will have worse long term consequences?

Oh, and I did like his quote at the end:

Quote:

---

"Most people know that public spending has doubled over the last 10 to 12 years, so we are coming off a much higher base, " he said.

"We are not talking about a situation where we have already cut to the bone."

---

At least they know they've been throwing our money away rather than spending it only where it was needed...

I think that a Strategic Spending Review is overdue to sort out exactly what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. This would enable us to stop trying to do everything but never quite enough to succeed at any of them and so some things well.

Personally:

1. RAF hasn't got much of a need for an independant role. Amalgamate the relevant bits into the Nazy and Army
2. Less on sexy hardware without thought to use. Eurofighters might be technically great, but are so few in number they will be unable to make a strategic difference. In a serious conflict they;ll quickly be worn out or destroyed by missiles.
3. Massive blue fleet navies are pretty and I imagine for men who'se own members are failing are reassuringly phallic. We need to protect our vestiges of Empire, but that's about it. Several, smaller modern ships can deal with any threat that we would be involved in. If the Falklands are a concern, build some decent bunkers, a lot of SAM sites and station some troops over there. Showing up with a naval force and undertaking a amphibious landing shows we were not prepared.
4. Get rid of heavy armour. Blitzkrieg was great, but we've not got the numbers for this, nor a potential conventional foe. They cost a lot of money and do practically nothing. We can barely move them out of Germany in a reasonable time scale.
5. Increase special forces and appropriate equipment for their use.

In essence have a small force that can defend the homelands, detect and pick off pirate threats and do what they do well; it will also mean that we'd be unable to get entangled in wars. We might possibly have more respect with the current system, but we so quickly become overstretched I don't imagine that this lasts.

And a military budget that is shrinking by the year needs to be rectified as building up at the last minute for defence is expensive and risky at best.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.

---

while your suggestion seems quite anodyne in its simplicity and apple-pie-is-good bon homie, it is a very dangerous sentiment that if applied could make the world a very much more dangerous place for Britain.

before i am willing to discuss the multitudinous benefits of unilateral disarmament any further i would invite you to read the first link in my sig................. and then come back and tell that you still think chopping defence spending (which is what your anodyne statement really means in practice) is a good idea.

I couldn't help but think there was a peculair similarity between the chilly bleakness of this picture taken today, and Britain's electoral forecast. Bleak and dismal. Not a single spot of solace to be found.

Brrr...

https://img109.imageshack.us/img109/...debretagne.jpg

(All-white and no global warming. Could this predict a BNP landslide?)
(Note how Ireland is still green. Nothing can beat the greeness out of the Emerald Isle.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think that a Strategic Spending Review is overdue to sort out exactly what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. This would enable us to stop trying to do everything but never quite enough to succeed at any of them and so some things well.

---

UK defence spending is already low, 2.4% in 2005 according to Wiki, and I believe still falling. There is a strong arguement that it should rise, as it is already well below the Cold War peak. Now, if you would allow me to respond to your points.

Quote:

---

RAF hasn't got much of a need for an independant role. Amalgamate the relevant bits into the Nazy and Army.

---

Financially, this may make sense. However, the RAF was created because Army Commanders are usually not pilots, and therefore do not understand pilots and aircraft. I don't believe this has changed much, and the need for the RAF remains so that there is an Air Marshall to stand up to the General.

Quote:

---

Less on sexy hardware without thought to use. Eurofighters might be technically great, but are so few in number they will be unable to make a strategic difference. In a serious conflict they;ll quickly be worn out or destroyed by missiles.

---

True, we need more Eurofighters, or a cheaper interceptor designed to launch missiles from long range.

Quote:

---

Massive blue fleet navies are pretty and I imagine for men who'se own members are failing are reassuringly phallic. We need to protect our vestiges of Empire, but that's about it. Several, smaller modern ships can deal with any threat that we would be involved in. If the Falklands are a concern, build some decent bunkers, a lot of SAM sites and station some troops over there. Showing up with a naval force and undertaking a amphibious landing shows we were not prepared.

---

Ships are useful for so many things, including patrols, anti-piracy, hummanitarian efforts, etc. Also, they are built in Civillian dockyards, which are major local employers when successful.

Quote:

---

Get rid of heavy armour. Blitzkrieg was great, but we've not got the numbers for this, nor a potential conventional foe. They cost a lot of money and do practically nothing. We can barely move them out of Germany in a reasonable time scale.

---

The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

Quote:

---

Increase special forces and appropriate equipment for their use.

---

Special forces are drawn from the rank and file, less rank and file means either less Special Forces or a drop in quality.

Quote:

---

In essence have a small force that can defend the homelands, detect and pick off pirate threats and do what they do well; it will also mean that we'd be unable to get entangled in wars. We might possibly have more respect with the current system, but we so quickly become overstretched I don't imagine that this lasts.

And a military budget that is shrinking by the year needs to be rectified as building up at the last minute for defence is expensive and risky at best.

~:smoking:

---

What you describe is what we currently have, "a small force". Only two British Divisions can be deployed at short notice, and the total stength of the regular army, trained, is around 98,000. Consider that as a proportion of the total population of the UK.

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.