The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[JAG]

All I can say is bring on a hung parliament! maybe the we can get some proper voting and politcal reforms.

As and aside I've always wondered what the effect would be of putting a "none of the above choice" on the ballot paper, sure you can spoil you vote but most poeple don't know about that.
Maybe if they saw that a large proportion of people only vote for them because they are the lesser evil, the major parties would actually start adopting proper political viewpoints as opposed to trying to chase as many votes as possible and ending up not really standing for anything.

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

[Furunculus]

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

i'll hold you to that. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

We shall see, from what I have read, however, compulsory voting simply favours the parties near the top of the ballot. This has, apparently, been the case in Australia.

And as for this post, wow, what a piece of self deception.

We shall see, follow this now:

Firstly a 'little leg up' is what drives Labour politicians and the Labour party, in fact not a 'little' leg up but a real, sizeable and lasting leg up so that those who are not born into money are not left behind and defined by it. We believe that there is more to a person than their circumstance - and that is what drives those of us who are in and campaign for the Labour party.

Labour raises taxes for the poorest, then increases benefits and employs more functionaries and creates more red tape to administer the system. Net loss to the government, and probably the average tax payer because they can't understand the system and don't get their dues.

Better to reduce taxes and fire the tax-men.

Also, don't spin me the whole "we don't want you to be defined by your circumstances" rubbish. As a Liberal I believe that wholeheartedly.

You cite education and universitys - yet are voting Tory? Excuse me have I missed something over the last 24 years of my life?

Well, if you're 24 you (like me) missed Labour "top up" fees. I vote Tory because Geoffrey Cox is a Tory, prior to that I would have voted Lib-Dem because our last man was Lib-Dem. I'm not an ideologue like you; but I see Labour's rank corruption and incompetence and I want them gone.

Who is it that pushes MORE funding - and delivered - pushes MORE places for people who want, yet can't afford to go. The Labour party is REJECTING Tory appeals to INCREASE top up fees, and though it was introduced by Labour - under significant rebel opposition, if you forget a 161 majority was reduced to 5 due to Labour party opposition in the house - there were vast increases in grants to poorer students so they avoided the fee's altogether.

So, top up fees are wrong, but still a good thing? My sister is currently studying and she pays full wallop. Those grants don't cover the additional expense, or anywhere near.

Which party has updated our school buildings which were in TERRIBLE shape because of chronic underfunding by successive TORY governments, but I guess you are too bitter to see all this, all you see is Labour bad right?

I'm not bitter, sorry. Educational standards have continued to decline throughout the late 90's, only exam results have improved. Massively excessive spending has done nothing to improve social mobility, university is still dominated by the Public Schools because the state system is crap.

You have some cheek in declaring yourself disgusted with Labour yet give two examples of areas where the Labour party is one which actually attempts to deal with the actual problems for underpriviledged kids, yet the Tories only care if it affects middle class areas. Disgusting, nothing gets me more pissed off than people who vote Conservative preach about things they don't give a sh.. about, or if they do, are simply too ignorant to realise what they are voting for.

The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.

[Beskar]

So, top up fees are wrong, but still a good thing? My sister is currently studying and she pays full wallop. Those grants don't cover the additional expense, or anywhere near.

Your sister pays the whole 11k per year tution fees that foriegn-students pay? Or are you saying that she pays all the costs herself with no parental support?

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.

The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.

Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your sister pays the whole 11k per year tution fees that foriegn-students pay? Or are you saying that she pays all the costs herself with no parental support?

Neither, she has a loan, but I was given a grant to cover ALL my undergraduate fees. My sister worked and saved for two years prior to Uni, while savings made when she was born have covered some of the cost for thsi year. However, my parents may have to dig her out and that might involve them having a mortgage for the first time in over 25 years.

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.

This is totally notmal, I'm afraid. I saved in order to study my Master's degree, got no help from our overlords, and thence emptied my bank account.

Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.

Thatcher's Poll-Tax was 20 years ago now. What's more, the much maliigned tax makes a certain sense, you shouldn't have to sell your home once you retire just because it's nice and you worked hard. In the same vein, a small house full of people puts a greater stress on public services. The Poll-Tax was a means of introducing a per-Capita tax for local services.

The alternative was to raise the base rate of income tax, again.

In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.

[Beskar]

Thatcher's Poll-Tax was 20 years ago now. What's more, the much maliigned tax makes a certain sense, you shouldn't have to sell your home once you retire just because it's nice and you worked hard. In the same vein, a small house full of people puts a greater stress on public services. The Poll-Tax was a means of introducing a per-Capita tax for local services.

That is never the case though. No one sells their house unless which seems to be typical, granparents sell their two-storey house for a bungalow (which are usually more expensive but and smaller).

Also, public services are the same. You only have a certain quota they collect for garbage, no matter who lives in the house. Also, it is only poor people who have high number of people in the house, compared to those who are wealthy, so the poll-tax affected poor people more than anyone else. Since they were all in the house in the first place, since they can't afford to live in smaller numbers.

In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.

I just have to point out that old Labour were Socialists.

However, since there have been changes since those days, New Labour is pretty much "Middle Class" politics now a days with Tories as "Upper Middle Class and Upper Class" politics. Only people on the grass roots level of any sort are the Green party, BNP, Respect. So unfortunately, Tories are still quite Toffee. Well, I have to admit, looking at the political party groups on Campus, it is quite amusing. You get to see unwashed Greens, Conservatives in suits, Labour seemingly casual smart/scruffish with casual smart members being New Labour, and scruffish ones are Old Labour. Liberal Democrats seem to be strange mix of people who are fiercely zealous in promoting themselves.

[Furunculus]

However, since there have been changes since those days, New Labour is pretty much "Middle Class" politics now a days with Tories as "Upper Middle Class and Upper Class" politics. Only people on the grass roots level of any sort are the Green party, BNP, Respect. So unfortunately, Tories are still quite Toffee. Well, I have to admit, looking at the political party groups on Campus, it is quite amusing. You get to see unwashed Greens, Conservatives in suits, Labour seemingly casual smart/scruffish with casual smart members being New Labour, and scruffish ones are Old Labour. Liberal Democrats seem to be strange mix of people who are fiercely zealous in promoting themselves.

stereotypes are a wonderful thing, i was the scruffy gimp wearing surfer rags............... who was also a toffee nosed tory.

[tibilicus]

Personally I think we'll see a Parliament with a small Tory majority. Yes, labour have been making gains in the polls but I'm not sure it will be enough.

In all honestly though they would of done better if they ditched Brown a couple of months ago. That guy is damaged goods. I think the problem that a lot of people see is not the Labour party itself, but the guy leading it. He's attached politically to two very unpopular wars, questionable economic decisions and numerous other bad decisions.

I'm not really writing this from the point of view of a Tory/ Labour supporter, I probably wont actually vote at the next election, I don't see much point. Besides, my constituency is the fourth safest Tory seat in the country, therefore it's kind of irrelevant anyway.


Edit:

JAG might have a point..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ung-parliament

[Beskar]

I personally think the Liberal Democrats should win, just because it will shock everyone.

Labour and Conservatives are both power hungry dogs just trying to gobble everything up like pac-man. Getting some fresh air in parliament will do it some good. It is just a shame that those who go "but they are the 3rd party, blah blah blah" should actually vote for them, instead of doing that dull mantra, then you would actually see them do it.

[Beskar]

Tories reveal using "Obama Dinner Plan" to win over voters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8539619.stm

David Cameron and his croonies have revealed their new election slogan "Change we can" which is expected to be a hit with the illiterate dietry masses as inspired by Obama in the US elections.

Mr Osbourne comments:
"Our country stands at one of those moments when our forks come across a dinner table laden with either a fruit tart or a profiterole - and we have to make our choice."
"We can either continue with eating strawberries, oranges, apple, laden with a sticky fruit syrup and pastry in an attempt to give our country a 5-a-day special"
"That is Labour's choice. It always has been. We know where it leads and we must never allow this country to be dragged there once again." whilst making motions of stomach trouble.
"Or we can change the dessert - accept the difficult truth and get ourselves a mountain of chocolate covered, pastry puffs filled with cream, and create the flabs of a Britain that works for all. That is the Conservative path"

Tory front bencher Theresa May said the party would be setting out "real change" that the country needed as she eyes up the profiteroles.

Labour's Douglas Alexander said the proposals were "reckless".

Labour, holding a Welsh Labour Party conference in Swansea, will argue that Tory policies would damage the fight against obesity.

They will use the Conservative conference as an opportunity to launch a new poster attacking Mr Osborne over his proposed change, suggesting he will use full-fat cream and not a semi-skimmed variant in his profiteroles.

The election must be held by June but is expected to take place on 6 May. Recent polls have suggested the Conservative lead over Labour may be narrowing.

The message of change likely to be central to David Cameron's main speech on Sunday.

It was a theme underlined by Ms May, shadow minister for work and pensions.
She told the BBC: "Over 80% of people think this country is going in the wrong direction for desserts."

Danny Alexander MP for the Liberal Democrats:
"For people who want real change, real fairness in Britain there is only one choice: the Liberal Democrats with their choice of a strawberry sundae with optional extras such as wafer stick and chocolate sprinkles"
"Labour has totally failed to make Britain tastier, and the Tories can't be trusted to."

Ian Jenkings, Green Party representative:
"It is a case of the major parties policies of 'have your cake and eat it' which started this in the first place."

[bobbin]

I think that whole "change" tactic is doomed to fail, David Cameron isn't Barak Obama (who in the election at least really was different from most US politcians in recent years), he isn't bringing anything new to the table.

People are hardly going to swallow the whole "change" message when Cameron comes from the same Eton/Oxford wealthy background as most Tory leaders came from and when he proposes many policies that are conservative classics (raising the inheritance tax threshold for example). His choice of colleages doesn't help either (Letwin anyone?).

Also the Labour government is nowhere near as unpopular as the republicans were in 2009 and there are a lot of people who are still very bitter about ations taken during the last Tory governments .

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.

Not having to pay tuition fees* is one of my favorite joys of being scottish.

*kind of, if you earn above a certain threshold (11 or 15k i can't remember) you have to pay back a ~2k lump sum but thats all.

[Furunculus]

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

ah well, courage of your convictions and all that, so here is my prediction for what it is worth.

i believe the cons will continue to do very poorly in the polls, i.e. they lose under the current electoral boundaries, and i think this is electoral pressure to force the cons to show what substance they have got.

i believe they cons will continue to keep their powder dry even tho they know the electorate despise the tactic, because they are more afraid of labour stealing their clothes.

in the end, the conservatives will let free with the 'substance' of their ideas and the electorate won't be impressed, but it will be enough for a conservative victory, but not a landslide.

if i'm wrong feel free to call me on it, but it is my gut feeling, and i'm not even going to vote conservative unless i like the substance to their proposals, if they're going to run scared of being branded the nasty party then they don't have the balls to make the changes i want made, and they won't deserve my vote anyway.

[Furunculus]

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

David Cameron promises to create 'neighbourhood army'
David Cameron
David Cameron says he wants every adult to join a community group

David Cameron has said that a Conservative government would train a 5,000-strong "neighbourhood army" to set up community groups.

The Tory leader said in a speech this offered a "positive alternative to Labour's big government" approach.

"Our aim is for every adult citizen to be an active member of an active neighbourhood group," he said.

Meanwhile, Labour is promising communities more powers to take over the running of local services.

The parties are attempting to take control of the "localist" agenda ahead of the general election, which is likely to be held on 6 May.

'Galvanising'

The Conservatives are promising to fund the training of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers "over the course of the next Parliament".

They say this is based on a movement in the United States which has "trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama".


The era of top-down government is over
Tessa Jowell, Labour

In a speech in central London, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think the state should be funding directly the community organisations, but the state can fund the training, can do some of the galvanising."

Repeating his description of Britain as a "broken society", he said: "We are determined to create a bigger society, to give people more control over their lives. We believe we need to get Britain running."

Mr Cameron also announced plans to create a "Big Society Bank", funded from unclaimed bank assets, which will "provide hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other non-governmental bodies".

The party says it will transform the civil service into a "civic service", by "making regular community service a key element in civil servant staff appraisals".

Mr Cameron said: "In Labour's world, for every problem there's a government solution, for every issue an initiative.

"This is not what Beveridge dreamed of when he created the welfare state."

'Important step'

He added: "We want every adult to be a member of an active neighbourhood group.

"I know some people argue that there isn't the appetite for this sort of widespread community participation. I don't agree."

The BBC's Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton said the grass-roots initiative was ambitious and there was a danger it would be easier to put forward in opposition than implement in government.

For Labour, Cabinet Office Minister Tessa Jowell said a pilot scheme would look at giving parents a greater role in deciding how Sure Start children's centres are run.


The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense
Julia Goldsworthy, Lib Dem communities spokeswoman

There would also be a "movement to allowing staff in the NHS who want to run their own services to keep their existing pension".

Ms Jowell said: "The era of top-down government is over. Often, the best people to decide how local services should work are the local people using and running those services.

"These measures are an important step in achieving a big increase in the number of 'mutual' services that will give real power over the services that matter most."

The Liberal Democrats said the Conservative proposals were a "gimmick" and they were "out of touch" with existing examples of community activism.

"The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense, particularly for the thousands of dedicated people who are working to make their communities better every day," said the party's communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy.

"David Cameron will say anything to get a headline. The Liberal Democrats will give people real power over things that matter like their local police and health services."

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

[gaelic cowboy]

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

Is that not Blairism????????

[al Roumi]

Is that not Blairism????????

It does smack rather strikingly of Blair's "third way"...

[Furunculus]

perhaps in its appearance, but it won't have to be forced through the teeth of a labour party still clinging to stupid ideas about class-war, the disadvantaged, and how the two should be forced to meet by policies that try to force equality of outcome.

we could genuinely end up with a government that does less, (a good thing), and empowers people to make up that deficit themselves (also a good thing).

[al Roumi]

perhaps in its appearance, but it won't have to be forced through the teeth of a labour party still clinging to stupid ideas about class-war, the disadvantaged, and how the two should be forced to meet by policies that try to force equality of outcome.

we could genuinely end up with a government that does less, (a good thing), and empowers people to make up that deficit themselves (also a good thing).

Why not?...if there was any evidence to trust Cameron to deliver anything. Either way, this is still a vague concept.

And I'm not saying that "big governement" or Brown is the answer here either...

[Banquo's Ghost]

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

[Furunculus]

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...tion-2010.html

[Beskar]

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...tion-2010.html

"Your best match is with the Liberal Democrats. "

Green 2nd, Conservatives 3rd, Labour 4th.

[Furunculus]

i was 77% UKIP, and 66% Con

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

You're not coming around to the "oik" are you?

[Subotan]

Labour Party: 62%

Liberal Democrats: 55%

Green Party: 49%

Is that surprising?

[InsaneApache]

http://www.slapometer.com/

Be careful or you might hit one of the other two! :)