So it's May 6th after all

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/ is the site you want to start at and register online.
Assuming you get it done in time, they'll post you your polling card.
You don't need a polling card to vote, but it helps. You can use photo id with an address such as your driving licence.

Although you don't need to have your card, you will still need to be registered? It would be prudent to confirm registration, by calling them to make sure.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Would that be the same arrogance that "Boy George" and "Dodgy Dave" show when they make promises they have no idea about?

Aww bless, did I make you feel all offended by accusing the PM of being arrogant with his speech? I thought it was quite appropriate given his previous record to suggest he was being arrogant. As in his record of being chancellor / PM for 13 years and racking up debt through excessive public services spending even while increasing government tax take of GDP. Perhaps deluded would be a better word if arrogant isn't appropriate, though it's good to see them basically admitting they've wasted a ton of money, these efficiency savings must be coming from somewhere and given the previous efficiency reviews they've done and the past 13 years they've had to make things more efficient I guess they must have made a brand new set of inefficiencies to cut in order to avoid harming services while reducing the deficit to a mere 6% of GDP in 4 years.

Saying that though it is a touchstone on things when even you have no defence of Gordon Brown's speech beyond calling Osborne and Cameron names.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Would that be the same arrogance that "Boy George" and "Dodgy Dave" show when they make promises they have no idea about?

Excellent idea - can we put every "politician's" name in "quotes"?

My wife put it best (imho) - it would be nice to hear what the parties have to offer, rather than them being negative about the other parties; in her opinion, that will just turn voters off, and have the reverse effect intended (why would we vote for them, all they can peddle are negatives).

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Aww bless, did I make you feel all offended by accusing the PM of being arrogant with his speech? I thought it was quite appropriate given his previous record to suggest he was being arrogant. As in his record of being chancellor / PM for 13 years and racking up debt through excessive public services spending even while increasing government tax take of GDP. Perhaps deluded would be a better word if arrogant isn't appropriate, though it's good to see them basically admitting they've wasted a ton of money, these efficiency savings must be coming from somewhere and given the previous efficiency reviews they've done and the past 13 years they've had to make things more efficient I guess they must have made a brand new set of inefficiencies to cut in order to avoid harming services while reducing the deficit to a mere 6% of GDP in 4 years.

I think excessive public spending is a subjective statement, after all we still spend less per head on our health system than France or Germany and when you consider the dramatic spending under Labour then that's is a awful reflection on previous Tory administrations.

Although I have faith the current Tories will not cut the NHS, I am worried about social care and other less visible, but important, services.

Damien, everyone focuses on NHS when they discuss public spending - it covers a much wider remit than that, and unfortunately, the only way money can be raised to fund the public purse is from private enterprise - it eventually ends up everyone losing unless it is balanced appropriately.

Also, Germany and France top up their health spending with insurance, and both countries have a larger private health sector than the UK.

PS I am Lib Dem in case people want to know my bias.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think excessive public spending is a subjective statement, after all we still spend less per head on our health system than France or Germany and when you consider the dramatic spending under Labour then that's is a awful reflection on previous Tory administrations.

Although I have faith the current Tories will not cut the NHS, I am worried about social care and other less visible, but important, services.

The NHS is funded differently and we have considerably lower taxation than France or Germany. Not as 'considerably' lower as it used to be but we aren't France or Germany, we're the UK. In any event spend per head isn't the best measure, it's a convenient metric to claim the NHS in underfunded, it could be that France and Germany are inefficient or have a larger private insurance base. Money doesn't equal results, just look at the USA and the amount they spend per head.

Some things will inevitably have to go, fundamentally everything is paid for by the private sector despite Labour's best attempts to prop the economy up over the past decade and massage employment figures with public sector expenditure. We traditionally swing between two points and at the moment are too far to one way, and the money to finance going too far that way has come from borrowing. While our GDP grew and unemployment remained low it was largely debt and public sector fuelled growth which had to unravel eventually, and has, big time.

EDIT: Fundamentally even while the economy was allegedly going through a fantastic period of sustained growth and everything was going swimmingly the public sector grew so fast and was having so much money thrown at it we were in deficit and public sector productivity was dropping at the same time - that is excessive public sector spending.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

PS I am Lib Dem in case people want to know my bias.

Good man, don't you wish your MP rocked like mine?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

What makes you believe the Tories though? I agree with you on Labour but the Tories were hardly a friend of public services in the 80's and they seem to be promising both savings and no reduction in public services which doesn't make sense to me?

Who mentioned the Tories? I didn't. The Tories of the 80's aren't in the race so far as I can see, whereas the New Labour of the present (and the last 13 years) is. However all will become a little clearer over coming weeks as some flesh has to be put on the bones wrt spending plans, budget cuts etc. Whilst none of the parties have my full confidence, New Labour started lying to us in 1997 and haven't stopped since so they won't be getting my vote no matter what else happens. It's up to us all to make our own decisions as to who we believe, who's changed and who hasn't... Possibly even just choose the lesser of the evils..

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Aww bless, did I make you feel all offended by accusing the PM of being arrogant with his speech? I thought it was quite appropriate given his previous record to suggest he was being arrogant. As in his record of being chancellor / PM for 13 years and racking up debt through excessive public services spending even while increasing government tax take of GDP. Perhaps deluded would be a better word if arrogant isn't appropriate, though it's good to see them basically admitting they've wasted a ton of money, these efficiency savings must be coming from somewhere and given the previous efficiency reviews they've done and the past 13 years they've had to make things more efficient I guess they must have made a brand new set of inefficiencies to cut in order to avoid harming services while reducing the deficit to a mere 6% of GDP in 4 years.

Saying that though it is a touchstone on things when even you have no defence of Gordon Brown's speech beyond calling Osborne and Cameron names.

Not much new there then...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Can we start an petition demanding that he never gets made a lord?

I would sign that.


Meanwhile

Glad to see the game is a foot but at the same time cannot wait for it to be over and see the back of Brown

As if anyone did not know i will not be voting for

The we are only interested in ruining the economy, Lining our own pockets and selling the country out to europe party "Labour"

The tree hugging roll over at the first chance to europe or any other country party "Lib Dem's"

The we need to be different than the other's but have no clue what we would do in power party " Greens, Raving loony, Independents"

The neanderthal racist party "BNP"


No there can only be one party for me and that's the Conservative party

[Xaccers]

I'd like to see Labour left in 3rd or even 4th place, with the Tories having enough of a majority but not too large.
I'd like them and the other parties to then see it as the electorate signalling we will not tollerate being lied to, having our funds misspent, having our troops denied the support they deserve.

[Hiroki]

I am going with Labour.

I was going to go with the Conservative but slimy Cameron really reminds me of Obama so that put me off and I don't trust him one bit.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I strongly believe that Labour will win, Cameron does not have the bottle to win, he will come out with all that crap, aexactly the same as what Thatcher did, If Cameron got in, he would do what Thatcher did, and that would be to tear the country to bits to save money, he will help the rich, but everyone else, can go stuff themself.
The Thing about Brown is that, he has run the country, he has the experience, no matter what people will say, about wars etc. We need a man who can run the country, with bottle, and that is not Cameron.

It could be a shocker with Lib Dems coming a very close second, and don't forget the BNP might win a few more seats, than before.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The Thing about Brown is that, he has run the country badly, he has the experience and still screws things up, no matter what.

Fixed it for you Arthur, saves you having to use the edit button now

Seriously, most people I know who were working class before Thatcher came in are now middle class, and most people I know who were working class when Labour came in are still working class now.
Under Thatcher I would have gotten a grant to go to university and come out debt free, under Labour students are saddled with huge debts.
Under Thatcher, when I was in hospital, it was clean, the sheets were changed daily. Under Labour you have to ask for bedding to be changed.
Under Thatcher I could phone the doctor and make an appointment in a week's time when it was convenient for me, under Labout this changed to having to make an appointment on the day by calling before 9am and hoping to get lucky so that the surgery could meet their targets of no one having to wait for an appointment. My not getting an appointment that day of course was not recorded.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The Thing about Brown is that, he has run the country

He has, he's run it badly of course but yes he has run it.

If you are only wanting someone with experience doing it why not get rid of the limits and give someone the job for life.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The NHS is funded differently and we have considerably lower taxation than France or Germany. Not as 'considerably' lower as it used to be but we aren't France or Germany, we're the UK. In any event spend per head isn't the best measure, it's a convenient metric to claim the NHS in underfunded, it could be that France and Germany are inefficient or have a larger private insurance base.

A former neighbour, native of Germany, recently rengurned to her home country. Unfortunately she fell ill and spent quite some time on hospital. Whilst there she suffered MRSA, C-Deff, and food poisoning. This was in Dusseldorf's top hospital. By the end of it, she was begging to be sent back to the UK.