The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

Admiral Stanhopes address to the International Institute of Strategic Studies:
http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addre...nhope-address/

Why do i mention this in an election thread?
Because both political parties have promised Defence Reviews at a time of budget cutbacks, so the question of what capabilities we keep, and what we lose, is both imminent and critical.

If you think the RN is important, go find a petition on the no10 website and sign the thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny you should say that. T'other week I was chatting with one of the wifes friends who's Labour through and through. Always voted Labour, always will. Bit like being a footy fan, if you will. She was griping and moaning about how her pension and benefits were going to be reduced and it was all Maggies fault. The way she was talking you'd have thought she left office last year, not twenty years ago.

Anyroad, I said to her, "You do realise that Labour has a vested interest in keeping poor people poorer and if possible drag a few more down into the bog".

She said, "How do you work that out?"

That sums up the quality of most of Labour support.

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.

[Subotan]

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.

You still need a substantial proportion of the working class to exist to fuel the Tories' claims of a "broken society" though. If everyone was rich, we'd all vote for the Lib Dems, but having a underclass allows the Conservative Party to enforce their moral agenda upon the rest of us Britons.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

[Furunculus]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

lol.

[InsaneApache]

Indeed.

[Subotan]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.

I totally agree. When it comes to the crunch of governance, the Tories will put their chums before the people of Britain.

[Louis VI the Fat]

One will find that poverty is lowest in the countries with strongest social-democratic policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

[InsaneApache]

Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood British politics.

[JAG]

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.

I do not think I have ever seen since a piece of utter bullshit. If you actually believe that - blimey you need help.

[JAG]

Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month.

He is also an ass... And in lock step with the Tories, so he is probably floating that for their benefit. The election is going to be when everyone expects it to be, there is no benefit for Brown in bringing it forward now, with the polls narrowing more and more everyday - unless he feels we will go back into negative economic growth and after today's figures it does not look like that will happen. The Tories are doing what they have done over the last 13 years, panic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not think I have ever seen since a piece of utter bullshit. If you actually believe that - blimey you need help.

Really? Think about it for a moment. When Thatcher came to power she increased wealth and tried to get people to buy their Council houses, because wealthy home owners vote Tory.

Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers. In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.

Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.

Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".

[Beskar]

Really? Think about it for a moment. When Thatcher came to power...

Where will this go?...

she increased wealth

By stripping the nation of its assets to fund an unworkable system... (also, she basically gave those assets away)

and tried to get people to buy their Council houses

At a very undervalued price, which caused chaos due to lack of Council Housing for those who need it. and at the undervalued rate actually caused a netloss all around in taxes, council funds, interest and a host of other things, which resulted in only the buyer benefiting while everyone else suffered.

because wealthy home owners vote Tory.

Council House = Wealthy?

Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers.

So poor people vote labour? Those dirty poor people, they should get a job and go to Eton. When they are getting 150,000 p.a. then they can be a good ol' conservative voter like you.

In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.

In summary - You rob a old man of his walking stick, so he can walk. Rob some ones glasses to make them see. Instead of trying to get people off the streets, you should just let them stay on them. What a compassionate person you are, wanting to kick people when they are down. But no, wait, getting people out of poverty some how makes them poor... Some logic somewhere might make sense to you, but it doesn't to me. I think soical welfare and support is quite explanatory and does completely the opposite result then you are suggesting.

Also, just to actually explain to people, what you mean by public sector - Increased Healthcare (NHS) and Increased Education (Schools, etc), etc. It sounds far less omnimous now.

Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.

Right, so your solution is to do the opposite? Slash all the public welfare and support programmes (which affects poor people the most), redistrubute taxes from the rich to the poor (which widens the gap), etc... or you are not sure what you are talking about.

Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".

We don't have a 50% tax-rate... Only people who will have a 50% tax-rate are those earning over £150,000, which came in this year and those earning over £150,000 won't be affected much. Afterall, all, joe bloggs down here have the average wage of what, 18,000? I am sure they can manage that tax fine. If you are wondering. Basic rate tax we pay is 20%.

[InsaneApache]

Typical socialist claptrap.

[Beskar]

Typical socialist claptrap.

... or as Colbert puts it, "Reality has a well-established liberal bias."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

[Beskar]

some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

The conservatives were number 1 supports in increasing the costs for University, so unfortunately, you are placing bets on the losing side. Also, poor people don't spend all their lives sucking the "government tit", as you said yourself, you are not one of them, I am not one of them either, etc.

[JAG]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

Why do you address this to me? I didn't even respond to your second post..? Never mind.

And as for that second post of yours - if you believe that Labour's motivation for giving poor people more benefits is to increase their vote share - then again I say, you need help.

[JAG]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

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

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.

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

[bobbin]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Myrddraal]

That spoof was great Beskar!