The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

That spoof was great Beskar!

agreed, it gave me a laugh.

[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.

[JAG]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7044185.ece

And to think, you people doubt me -

GORDON BROWN is on course to remain prime minister after the general election as a new Sunday Times poll reveals that Labour is now just two points behind the Tories.

The YouGov survey places David Cameron’s Conservatives on 37%, as against 35% for Labour — the closest gap between the parties in more than two years.

It means Labour is heading for a total of 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories languishing on a total of just 263 MPs. Such an outcome would mean Brown could stay in office and deny Cameron the keys to No 10.

As for the 'well this is just one poll' - go look at the very brilliant and impartial UK polling report. When people focus with the election coming, the polls were always going to narrow - the question was, and still is, how do the Tories react and deal with it and thus far they have done terribly.

Furthermore I have been trying to get my head around the Tory strategy - their new one that is - for the last week and I simply cannot fathom it. People do NOT want significant change, they simply didn't like Brown all that much and didn't like the recession. People have consistantly liked what Labur stand for over the Tories all through this period - it is the reason Cameron went to such lengths to show he had changed his party's policies. People do not want significant change when it comes to economic policy, people do not want striking, stringent tax cuts and public spending cuts. People do not want schools being, effectively, privately run pet projects by big business and busy bodies - they want every school to be better and well funded. Yet The Tories are going into the election with a huge change message - it isn't what the people want. People have had one hell of a hard time over the last year and a half and they want stability and a sure hand and Labour are increasingly being effective at making people criticise and look at the Tory position, rather than the governenments action. With a platform of significant change - it only gets easier.

I find it quite mind boggling to say the least - anyway as a Labour member and campaigner, I am loving it. And people should learn never to doubt me ;)

[CountArach]

Yep there is no denying that the polling has shown some sort of narrowing... my bet is on a hung parliament with the Lib Dems giving Labour government.

[Furunculus]

there is no doubt the polls have narrowed, whether that will be emulated on election day is another matter, lots of people are pressuring the Cons to see their own special interest invades Conservative HQ consciousness.

I have made plain that i will vote UKIP unless I see something worthwhile on the EU and Defence.

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

in other news; labour is infiltrated by islamic radicals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...our-Party.html

[Beskar]

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

I was actually house mates with a Conservative councillor (laugh all you like), he was also quite toffee too. In his spare time, he was always scruffy looking and you wouldn't suspect it, except for boxes and rows of ties and various suits he had. He came from some rural posh area from the south, and had lots of money.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf too (dumdeedum!) but it makes sense since he was a History Student.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

On paper, but they had significant Communist and Anarchist wings. You don't pick the colour Red during the Cold War casually.

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

Quite standard. You aren't from within a 100 mile radius of Guildford, are you?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7044185.ece

And to think, you people doubt me -



As for the 'well this is just one poll' - go look at the very brilliant and impartial UK polling report. When people focus with the election coming, the polls were always going to narrow - the question was, and still is, how do the Tories react and deal with it and thus far they have done terribly.

Furthermore I have been trying to get my head around the Tory strategy - their new one that is - for the last week and I simply cannot fathom it. People do NOT want significant change, they simply didn't like Brown all that much and didn't like the recession. People have consistantly liked what Labur stand for over the Tories all through this period - it is the reason Cameron went to such lengths to show he had changed his party's policies. People do not want significant change when it comes to economic policy, people do not want striking, stringent tax cuts and public spending cuts. People do not want schools being, effectively, privately run pet projects by big business and busy bodies - they want every school to be better and well funded. Yet The Tories are going into the election with a huge change message - it isn't what the people want. People have had one hell of a hard time over the last year and a half and they want stability and a sure hand and Labour are increasingly being effective at making people criticise and look at the Tory position, rather than the governenments action. With a platform of significant change - it only gets easier.

I find it quite mind boggling to say the least - anyway as a Labour member and campaigner, I am loving it. And people should learn never to doubt me ;)

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.

Does that mean nothing to you?

I was actually house mates with a Conservative councillor (laugh all you like), he was also quite toffee too. In his spare time, he was always scruffy looking and you wouldn't suspect it, except for boxes and rows of ties and various suits he had. He came from some rural posh area from the south, and had lots of money.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf too (dumdeedum!) but it makes sense since he was a History Student.

Ok, I'm betting this one was from near Alton (Hampshire/Surrey border, Hampshire side).

[Furunculus]

Quite standard. You aren't from within a 100 mile radius of Guildford, are you?

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

i should point out that i have no idea what the phrase "toffee nosed" is supposed to signify in class-war parlance, i just used it because it appears to be the traditional epithet applied to a tory. if it means i was rich and/or privileged then i certainly am not.
merely pointing out that tories at uni don't all have a wardrobe full of suits and a tie-press in their 'digs'.

it is fairly disgraceful that this imbalance still exists, even after the electoral boundary commission had its last go at straightening things out.

[JAG]

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.

Does that mean nothing to you?

I support a change in the voting system, but the Tory party and the right wing in this country does not. Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats. So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.

[naut]

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

Doesn't give me time to overseas register. Not that I was going to anyway. I'd rather eat sandpaper than vote either Tory or Labour. And the Lib Dems are like 'Magical Floating Candy-dispensing Models', a nice idea, but not really feasible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I support a change in the voting system, but the Tory party and the right wing in this country does not.

This:

it is fairly disgraceful that this imbalance still exists, even after the electoral boundary commission had its last go at straightening things out.

Get it? We're not fooled, voting reform is a smoke screen to hide the reality of the situation. One man (or woman), one vote; one vote is used to elect one MP. The problem is that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than any other kind.

Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats.

Wales and Scotland have too many MP's relative to their population. This sop to their fear of being dominated is especially disturbing given the high level of Anti-Anglo sentiment.

So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.

Labour had the chance to enact reform in 1997, as I recall they re-drew the boundaries to make it harder to oust them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yep there is no denying that the polling has shown some sort of narrowing... my bet is on a hung parliament with the Lib Dems giving Labour government.

That would not be a good idea for Lib Dems the voters of Lib Dems would likely be annoyed they allowed labour to stay in power and obviously Tories would never waste a chance to proclaim that the people had been denied etc etc. Course they will be secretly hoping to cause them to walk across the floor and then using them as a figure of public hate for all the things they will end up doing the public.

Lib Dems will have to go Tory even if its not a natural home for then politically. however it is possible the Tories may not get enough with Lib dems to convene a government this election is shaping up to be a far better run than I expected. It will be hilarious to see them all incapable of copping that the public hold them ALL in contempt.

[Furunculus]

looks like the convention against standing in the Speakers constituency during elections is now thoroughly broken:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...in-buckingham/

to paraphase someone earlier in this thread, who said they would rather have a decisive leader like brown, i give you our decisive leader:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...d-defence.html

[Subotan]

Farage just wants to become an MP, and is willing to resort to any dirty tricks to get his bum on a green seat. Hence, the convention breaking.

[KukriKhan]

...to see them all incapable of copping that the public hold them ALL in contempt.

That's a prevailing mood over here too. "T'row da bums out!" is always present, though this year it seems to be capturing the minds of more and more voters, Dem, Repub and Indie.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lord Ashcroft goes from Tory saviour to election liability in marginal seats

The financial clout that has given the Conservatives a dominant position in the polls has rebounded spectacularly with last week's revelations about the tax status of the man with the cash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...marginal-seats


[...]

"It is huge, huge. We are putting it in every letter. Why should a billionaire who does not pay full taxes in this country be allowed to buy the election in places like this?"Ashcroft, a deputy chairman of the party, has used his huge personal fortune to fund Tory campaigns in dozens of marginal seats, the ones that the Conservatives must seize to win the next election. The secretive Ashcroft has run his own nerve centre at party headquarters masterminding the strategy that could bring Cameron to power. Since Cameron became party leader in 2005, the peer, who is a close friend of the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague (whom he flies round the world in his personal jet), has donated more than £5m.
His influence on policy and tactics is immense. Although not an elected politician, or a member of the Tory frontbench, he has accompanied Hague to Washington, Cuba, China, Panama, the Falklands and the Turks and Caicos Islands in recent months, prompting speculation that he will be given a ministerial role under a Conservative government. Labour has also raised concerns that Ashcroft may have used the visits with Hague to open doors to talks with business leaders in those countries.

The row over Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis last night as questions were raised over whether the Queen and the former prime minister, Tony Blair, had granted him a peerage under false pretences.

As David Cameron's aides confirmed that Ashcroft would be retiring as Tory deputy chairman after the election, the Liberal Democrats called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to publish all documents relating to the peerage as a matter of urgency, so that it could be established whether the sovereign had been misled.

The monarch confers honours mostly on the advice of the Cabinet Office and the prime minister. Ashcroft's declaration last week that he was a "non-dom" has been seen to contradict "clear and unequivocal" assurances given to the then Tory leader, William Hague, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of 2000. This assurance was seen as crucial. Members of Blair's inner circle suggest the former prime minister now feels he has been misled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...chael-ashcroft

The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.

Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.

Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.

Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.

Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.

Hur, hur! Ashcroft is being delicately disengaged by Cameron, and Hague. The interesting thing will be to see if Osbourne says something stupid and is finally replaced by Clarke (oh, God, please let it happen!).

With that said, the money does not belong to the tax payer because Labour has not, in twelve years, reformed the Tax Code. This may be because they have their own non-dom Peers and benifactorcs.

[Furunculus]

The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.

Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.

Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.

hmmm, what did that report into ashcroft conclude..........................?

[Louis VI the Fat]

hmmm, what did that report into ashcroft conclude..........................?

The conclusion? The conclusion is that the Tories are sneaky, cheating bastards who made common cause with a billionaire tax evaser. But nothing illegal, no. The only thing that was broken, was the spirit of the law and the morality of the Party. Well done!

Sir Hayden Phillips, then the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, also disclosed that the revised terms under which the billionaire businessman became a peer had been fully approved by House of Lords Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
In comments welcomed by Lord Ashcroft's supporters, he said: "I wanted to make sure that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative party leadership were of one mind as to what he was agreeing to, and that was agreed.

"I agree the words that were then formulated were different from those that were originally announced, but both the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative leadership at the time agreed with those words ... Let's be clear about one thing, there is nothing illegal in what has occurred." Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was at the centre of a political storm throughout last week after he revealed on Monday that he is a "non dom": a status which means he does not have to pay tax on his substantial overseas earnings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...n-tax-row.html

[Furunculus]

*reads Louis's post - fails to get too bothered*

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

oops, yet one more person tells Chilcot that Broon underfunded defence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-defence.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The conclusion? The conclusion is that the Tories are sneaky, cheating bastards who made common cause with a billionaire tax evaser. But nothing illegal, no. The only thing that was broken, was the spirit of the law and the morality of the Party. Well done!

Sir Hayden Phillips, then the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, also disclosed that the revised terms under which the billionaire businessman became a peer had been fully approved by House of Lords Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
In comments welcomed by Lord Ashcroft's supporters, he said: "I wanted to make sure that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative party leadership were of one mind as to what he was agreeing to, and that was agreed.

"I agree the words that were then formulated were different from those that were originally announced, but both the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative leadership at the time agreed with those words ... Let's be clear about one thing, there is nothing illegal in what has occurred." Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was at the centre of a political storm throughout last week after he revealed on Monday that he is a "non dom": a status which means he does not have to pay tax on his substantial overseas earnings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...n-tax-row.html

What about the Labour Peer Lord Poul, who MUST be a non-dom because Harriet Harmen is refusing to say otherwise? Her excuse? Labour doesn't require its own Peers to declare tax status.

So who's really sneaking and underhanded?

[Louis VI the Fat]

What about the Labour Peer Lord Poul

And Sir Ronald Cohen!

However, afaik, neither received their peerage on the distinct promise to end tax evasion, as is the case with Ashcroft.

(As an aside - I'd be bloody embarrased to hold a British title. What a bunch of crooks. It's not a badge of honour, it's a public acknowledgement that you've stolen so much money you are now entitled to run Britain)

[Furunculus]

And Sir Ronald Cohen!

However, afaik, neither received their peerage on the distinct promise to end tax evasion, as is the case with Ashcroft.

(As an aside - I'd be bloody embarrased to hold a British title. What a bunch of crooks. It's not a badge of honour, it's a public acknowledgement that you've stolen so much money you are now entitled to run Britain)

maybe we should have thought twice before we decided to reform the lords then.........?

[Beskar]

Being chosen by parliament isn't much reform.

If you want my ideas, then those truly would be reform.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No elections please, we have enough of that with the Commons.

[Subotan]

maybe we should have thought twice before we decided to reform the lords then.........?

Oh, come on. There is no way that you can consider the hereditary House of Lords to have been suitable in a modern democracy.

[Furunculus]

Oh, come on. There is no way that you can consider the hereditary House of Lords to have been suitable in a modern democracy.

i don't really care aboutwhat is suitable, i care about what is effective.

the house of lords pre-1997 functioned in an effective way.
the conduct of the reformed lords on the other hand..................

[Boohugh]

Ah, seems that Brown has noticed the defence debate isn't really going his way so has taken the obvious course of action: Prevent the press from reporting from the frontline in Afghanistan, cleansing the MoD website of any incriminating evidence and gagging all the armed forces between now and the election!

Link

Particularly like this bit:

The prohibition on public speeches by senior officers is likely to be seen as a response to the increasing outspokenness of military chiefs

Good to see Brown isn't beyond press censorship in his stuggle to maintain his desperate grip on power...