The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by nomadking

People should be thinking about more than just the economy when deciding who to vote for. Just think about the further damage to the country that has been planned.

I take you are going by what the main parties have stated so far in this campaign, because regardless of which of the three main parties you vote for we are going to be royally screwed whoever gets in power.

A Conservative government will not make any real impact as they will have their own agenda, nor will a new Labour government change anything.

As for any hung parliament that requires the help of the Liberal Democrats for either party to gain the upper hand then we will be dead in the water as they wring their hands.

The last hung parliament was a fiasco and any future coalition will go the same way.

[Osem]

I wish the Lib Dems would get off the fence and clarify whether their support for PR extends to who they're going to support in the event of a hung parliament. I heard Nick Clegg dodging the question again last night..

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

I wish the Lib Dems would get off the fence and clarify whether their support for PR extends to who they're going to support in the event of a hung parliament. I heard Nick Clegg dodging the question again last night..

To be honest this sitting on the fence ability of there's is what i would have expected if they ended up in power so nothing new there. The libs Dem's sit on the fence till they see which way the wind is blowing then make a statement.

They don't seem to have the ability to make there own decisions which is another reason i cannot trust them to defend this country in time of need. In fact they remind me of the actions of Italy in WW2

[Osem]

If the Lib Dems want to be taken seriously they have to get to grips with the difficult decisions which have to be made and this isn't helping that cause one little bit. They've been unequivocal in their support for PR for years and it really ought to be easy for them to spell out exactly what the basis of their role in a hung parliament would be. If they can't do that it seems that any clarity on this issue is being sacrificed in a desperate quest to get votes from disillusioned Tory and Labour supporters.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Osem

I wish the Lib Dems would get off the fence and clarify whether their support for PR extends to who they're going to support in the event of a hung parliament. I heard Nick Clegg dodging the question again last night..

Why? Until a hung parliament is a reality no negotiations could or should take place. Every party is out to win based on their manifestos. Only when there is no clear winner can any horse trading commence.

Look at it another way - How would Tory supporters feel if DC were in talks with NC before the results were known. Then throw in to that scenario the corresponding reaction from Labour.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Angua

Why? Until a hung parliament is a reality no negotiations could or should take place. Every party is out to win based on their manifestos. Only when there is no clear winner can any horse trading commence.

Look at it another way - How would Tory supporters feel if DC were in talks with NC before the results were known. Then throw in to that scenario the corresponding reaction from Labour.

They don't have to name which side they'll support, they just have to be honest and open about the process they'll go through to decide. Will they support the side which wins most votes in line with basic PR principles and if not why not? That shouldn't be too difficult and if they have an argument for not doing that then let us hear it. As yet all I've heard from them on this subject is meaningless drivel....

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

They don't have to name which side they'll support, they just have to be honest and open about the process they'll go through to decide. Will they support the side which wins most votes in line with basic PR principles and if not why not? That shouldn't be too difficult and if they have an argument for not doing that then let us hear it. As yet all I've heard from them on this subject is meaningless drivel....

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Osem

They don't have to name which side they'll support, they just have to be honest and open about the process they'll go through to decide. Will they support the side which wins most votes in line with basic PR principles and if not why not? That shouldn't be too difficult and if they have an argument for not doing that then let us hear it. As yet all I've heard from them on this subject is meaningless drivel....

As you are a clear Tory supporter and they are known for wanting to keep the outdated FPTP system, how can anyone say what they will negotiate on until they know WHO they will be dealing with. Different tactics are required for different situations. Who is to say that in a hung parliament that the Tories may offer more concessions on other Lib Dem policies but only by sacrificing PR. Given the Labour promises on PR would you trust them? So being rigid on one thing may end up with nothing, where flexibility will gain more. Would someone constantly ask DC this question - NO!

A long term goal of the Lib Dems is to WIN under the current system & then change it.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Osem

They don't have to name which side they'll support, they just have to be honest and open about the process they'll go through to decide. Will they support the side which wins most votes in line with basic PR principles and if not why not? That shouldn't be too difficult and if they have an argument for not doing that then let us hear it. As yet all I've heard from them on this subject is meaningless drivel....

What basic PR principle says that a minority party should side with the biggest party? The basic PR principle is that a minority party will try to form a coalition with whatever party allows them to put into action the largest part of their manifesto. It's their duty to their voters.

[Ignitionnet]

This is an interesting story.

The widespread unpopularity of the National Insurance increases, which it is feared will put the economic recovery at risk, has led to a rancorous inquest into who made the decision - which was taken against Treasury advice.

Allies of Chancellor Darling are desperate to avoid the blame, although the decision was announced in his pre-Budget report last November. Astonishingly, in an act of naked treachery, they are letting it be known that Gordon Brown himself was responsible.

Details are being circulated of a furious Cabinet confrontation in which Darling argued that it would be best to raise the extra funds through a rise in VAT, and leave National Insurance alone.

Although Peter Mandelson weighed in behind Darling, both men were overruled by Brown and his lackey, the Schools Secretary Ed Balls.

Ignoring the Mail's usual rhetoric this would make a fair amount of sense given past 'disagreements'.

That story was in the Times yesterday as well.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

What basic PR principle says that a minority party should side with the biggest party? The basic PR principle is that a minority party will try to form a coalition with whatever party allows them to put into action the largest part of their manifesto. It's their duty to their voters.

If that's what they believe then why not just be be unequivocal about it?

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

As you are a clear Tory supporter and they are known for wanting to keep the outdated FPTP system, how can anyone say what they will negotiate on until they know WHO they will be dealing with. Different tactics are required for different situations. Who is to say that in a hung parliament that the Tories may offer more concessions on other Lib Dem policies but only by sacrificing PR. Given the Labour promises on PR would you trust them? So being rigid on one thing may end up with nothing, where flexibility will gain more. Would someone constantly ask DC this question - NO!

A long term goal of the Lib Dems is to WIN under the current system & then change it.

Can you find me a single post in these forums in which I've urged anyone to vote Tory or even singled out one of their policies as being a vote winner? If not, I can't be much of a Tory can I? I've made this point a number of times in this forum and will repeat it just for you - I'm no Tory and find the notion of being 'stuck' to the ideaology of one party a nonsense in this day and age. I am, however, very much a New Labour hater, having been badly let down ever since I voted for them in 1997. I've voted for all 3 parties over the years and the Lib Dems would be more likely to get my vote this time around if they were just clear and open about this.

sky link

can anyone tell me what the point is behind this load of garbage ,it seems pointless to me and discrimates against people (like me) who have been in a relationship for 20yrs but not married

[Arthurgray50@blu]

It seems that some members feel that the Tories will do a better job if they get into power, please remember that the Tories only think of one thing, and that is saving money for themself, its like at the moment there are business's complaining about an increase in NI payments, two reasons for this, one who says the Tories won't do this, two, the big business's are probabely Tory voters anyway.

Surely this country does not want to go back to the Thatcher days, and this is what will happen, she still has some punch in the Tory circle, all this hype from Cameron about we will do this and that, remember what Thatcher said, and this country went through hell.

Like in one borough of London, one side of the road the poll tax was £300 per year and on the other it was £500 per year, and every person had to pay it. This what the Tories will do to find ways of saving money on services, and the public paying more.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

That story was in the Times yesterday as well.

Thanks!

Well I have no problem with Labour lurching to the left. Should make them nicely unelectable and have them lose their more centrist supporters to the Lib Dems.

It's quite amusing the parallel between UK and USA. In the USA there's a bunch of wingnuts on the right pulling the GOP (Republicans) further to the right while centrists are freaked out, here in the UK we seem to have a bunch of Union-powered wingnuts on the left pulling New Labour who at least gave lip service and some policy consideration to being centre-left to the hard left.

It's both amusing and tragic when you have the Dark Lord advocating the more centrist point of view while the incumbent Prime Minister's charade of being centrist is washed away more and more to reveal an old school socialist whose views and beliefs do indeed belong in the past.

Still a minority will still happily vote for this. I should say they won't vote for 'this' as they have no idea what they're voting for they just see 'Labour' on the ballot paper and mark it. Labour could advocate killing of all first-born children and large swathes of Wales and the North would still vote for them. Of course on the flip side the Tories could advocate similar and would still get votes from some but purely my opinion Labour have a larger base of safe seats and FPTP favours them quite heavily at the moment as it's out of date with the population and unfair, especially in Wales.

NB:

Wales - 40MPs, 2.9mill population = 72,500 population / MP
England - 539MPs, 51.5mill population = 104,600 population / MP
Scotland - 59MPs, 5.06mill population = 85,762 population / MP

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It seems that some members feel that the Tories will do a better job if they get into power, please remember that the Tories only think of one thing, and that is saving money for themself, its like at the moment there are business's complaining about an increase in NI payments, two reasons for this, one who says the Tories won't do this, two, the big business's are probabely Tory voters anyway.

Surely this country does not want to go back to the Thatcher days, and this is what will happen, she still has some punch in the Tory circle, all this hype from Cameron about we will do this and that, remember what Thatcher said, and this country went through hell.

Like in one borough of London, one side of the road the poll tax was £300 per year and on the other it was £500 per year, and every person had to pay it. This what the Tories will do to find ways of saving money on services, and the public paying more.

I would speculate poll tax isn't set for a return and Council Tax is set at a Borough level, everyone in each Borough and in the same band pays the same, please try again. If you could supply a citation for where poll tax was so granular it was set at postcode level that would be appreciated, I have never heard of such a thing and as far as I am aware it was administered in a similar manner to Council Tax.

If you could please let me know where you think all this money that will be saved will be going. I would presume that it would be going to paying off the national debt but if you know otherwise that'd be appreciated.

I would speculate that business don't like the NI increase for the same reasons I don't - it'll cost us money and isn't necessary.

Well Arthur, just for you and courtesy of Guido here's the massive cuts that the Tories have planned for this financial year: