The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3

Apparently, GB got a standing ovation from the nurses after

he promised to protect their pensions, to avoid a pay freeze and to increase NHS spending

Really? Go figure.

(and I am not knocking the nurses on this one - if he came to my place of work and made those promises, he would probably get a standing ovation - anyone would, imho).

None of the figures from any of them add up right now and there is something none of them are telling us that they will have to do. But right now i prefer the "all together" message coming from the tories and despite being a benefit claimant i like what they are saying in terms of welfare reform which is long overdue in this country. As for whether nick clegg approves every leaflet or not when your campaigning on an honesty ticker having any condidate pull that sort of stunt doesn't show a trait of honesty throughout does it.

It is election time and politicians are infamous for tailoring their speeches to whatever audience they are speaking to at any given time but the number of policys that the lib dems support and would implement that are falling to pieces under scrutiny is not good. It is all well and good to keep parroting the "old parties" line but i want some clear answers from the lib dems on many policys they have such as regional imigration and how that would work in practice not just a speech. How will this amnesty work in detail and so far on the few things i have heard them questioned hard on this they have been less then convincing.

These tele debates are a farce as far as i am concerned they are clouding the real debate with appearence fluff and the fact that people are making their mind up on who they are voting for after seeing someone on tele for a few hours is quite disturbing and shows how lazy some are in this country.

[punky]

Does anyone know where to watch the 2nd debate?

iPlayer only has the radio coverage. Newgroups doesn't have it. Its supposed to be free on Sky Player but every time I click on it it tries to get me to subscribe to £15/month. Youtube dpesn't have anything obvious.

Any other ideas? I though it was supposed to be free and readily distributable.

[Pierre]

The issue I have is with Brown saying that the Tories will take out £6 Billion out of the economy, because they are not putting up the N.I.

Surely he means he's taking £6 Billion out of Labours planned Government spending???

Surely by putting up N.I. in order to obtain the £6 Billion in which both Employers and Employees will have to pay, He is taking £6 Billion out of the economy, that is money that we would spend elsewhere, it is money that business might use to invest in new products, projects?

Does he think we are that stupid? Does he think we don't know he is just juggling money about. Cameron can't be accused of taking £6 Billion out of the economy when the £6 Billion isn't there to begin with?

The nurses by stomp their feet and clap their hands in jubiliation, and Brown promise more NHS funding But don't they realise how much more money Brown is actually going to take out of the NHS by this N.I. Rise, and out of their pocket?

[Ignitionnet]

That's easy Pierre - Brown thinks his spending is the economy.

He's telling the nurses what they want to hear, and never mind where the money will come from to pay for these promises, minor issue.

That Nick Robinson thinks getting an ovation for telling a group of people you'll give them more money speaks volumes, as has been noted on the comments to his blog.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

Does anyone know where to watch the 2nd debate?

iPlayer only has the radio coverage. Newgroups doesn't have it. Its supposed to be free on Sky Player but every time I click on it it tries to get me to subscribe to £15/month. Youtube dpesn't have anything obvious.

Any other ideas? I though it was supposed to be free and readily distributable.

This (Sky) works for me.

I wish people should have more sense about a hung parliament and a more representative parliament rather than the "It's what gave HITLER power!!!!" approach they have taken so far.

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

This (Sky) works for me.

Works fine, thank you!

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Apparently, GB got a standing ovation from the nurses after

Really? Go figure.

(and I am not knocking the nurses on this one - if he came to my place of work and made those promises, he would probably get a standing ovation - anyone would, imho).

He wouldn't get a standing ovation from me - after all the lies and spin of the last decade and more I don't believe anything he says anymore and I'm very surprised those nurses seem to be lapping up more of the same old rhetoric.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

That's easy Pierre - Brown thinks his spending is the economy.

He's telling the nurses what they want to hear, and never mind where the money will come from to pay for these promises, minor issue.

That Nick Robinson thinks getting an ovation for telling a group of people you'll give them more money speaks volumes, as has been noted on the comments to his blog.

Brown's clearly banking on there being enough deluded, desperate and/or just plain stupid people out there to keep him the custom to which he's become accustomed. Frankly it staggers me that anyone takes him seriously but there's "nowt as queer as folk" eh??...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

I wish people should have more sense about a hung parliament and a more representative parliament rather than the "It's what gave HITLER power!!!!" approach they have taken so far.

I find it quite funny how people keep harping on about Labour in the 70s and Thatcher in the 80s. Under Coalition governments this sort of stuff is virtually unheard of as all major parties will collaborate with each other at some point, and perceptions just aren't as black and white. Politics in the UK seems to revolve around trotting out old negative cliches about the other parties rather than emphasising the strengths of the own party. Much of it is just tribal rhetoric which you get a lot less of with the consensus-based politics that you get with coalition governments. Whether UK politicians are capable of changing their mindset to one of cooperating in a constructive manner remains to be seen though.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

There have to my certain knowledge been a lot more teachers trained in the last 10 years.I have to say that was not the experience under the conservatives under Mrs Thatcher and John Major.Indeed in 1974 I stood in a hall of over 100 probationary teachers being welcomed to the City of Portsmouth by the LEA.6/7 years later there were only 5.

Agreed there are still shortages in key areas such as Maths,Science and IT but education has benefited where new teachers are concerned.

A small point but one I feel compelled to point it out.

This is one of the strongest reasons not to allow the Tories back in. I draw a cold sweat and shudder with fear, when I think of Flyboy11, left to the mercies of a school system that could be comparable to that of fifteen years ago. His many learning difficulties would go ignored and untreated with teachers left alone to manage classes of thirty-five or more, with no assistants to help with students who struggle to keep up and cope with school life. No time to prepare lessons and review work. Crumbling buildings with areas of infrastructure closed because it is unsafe to teach in a hazardous environment. This is what can be expected from a Tory government.

Originally Posted by danielf

I find it quite funny how people keep harping on about Labour in the 70s and Thatcher in the 80s. Under Coalition governments this sort of stuff is virtually unheard of as all major parties will collaborate with each other at some point, and perceptions just aren't as black and white. Politics in the UK seems to revolve around trotting out old negative cliches about the other parties rather than emphasising the strengths of the own party. Much of it is just tribal rhetoric which you get a lot less of with the consensus-based politics that you get with coalition governments. Whether UK politicians are capable of changing their mindset to one of cooperating in a constructive manner remains to be seen though.

I agree. It's absurd that a party who wins an election with 36% of the vote is given a disproportionate licence to run the country in which ever way it sees fit, ignoring the other 64% who did not want that party to govern them.

The amount of rubbish Labour has managed to pass that could have been prevented in a system in which they did not have the power to pass what they want is depressing. Our laws would be much fairer, sensible, and effective if they were achieved via consensus with the majority party having to make concessions to others.

The Tory press needs to stop harping on about Hitler or how PR would cause national meltdown.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

I find it quite funny how people keep harping on about Labour in the 70s and Thatcher in the 80s. Under Coalition governments this sort of stuff is virtually unheard of as all major parties will collaborate with each other at some point, and perceptions just aren't as black and white. Politics in the UK seems to revolve around trotting out old negative cliches about the other parties rather than emphasising the strengths of the own party. Much of it is just tribal rhetoric which you get a lot less of with the consensus-based politics that you get with coalition governments. Whether UK politicians are capable of changing their mindset to one of cooperating in a constructive manner remains to be seen though.

Coalition governments however tend to collapse when they can't agree which can cause rather regular elections.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I agree. It's absurd that a party who wins an election with 36% of the vote is given a disproportionate licence to run the country in which ever way it sees fit, ignoring the other 64% who did not want that party to govern them.

The amount of rubbish Labour has managed to pass that could have been prevented in a system in which they did not have the power to pass what they want is depressing. Our laws would be much fairer, sensible, and effective if they were achieved via consensus with the majority party having to make concessions to others.

The Tory press needs to stop harping on about Hitler or how PR would cause national meltdown.

Please understand I agree with much of what you say, however I am absolutely convinced that in the short term a coalition will fail to achieve enough at a time when it's essential that progress is made towards longer term prosperity and encouraging the private sector to return to generating the wealth (and in turn tax revenues!) we so badly need right now along with reducing the public sector's hunger for that wealth.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Coalition governments however tend to collapse when they can't agree which can cause rather regular elections.

Yes, they can, but it's not all that common*, and (imo) preferable to the seesaw politics that you get in a two-party system. Also, one of the biggest threats (imo) to any political system is if it leaves large numbers of the population feeling unrepresented. Which is exactly what is the case in the UK. A coalition government (normally) represents at least 50% of the people that voted. That can only be a good thing in my book.

*Edit: Interestingly, looking at your own link, which shows Dutch elections since 1918. With a regular 4 year term (disregarding WW2), you'd expect ~22 elections. There were 26 including the upcoming one. Hardly a shocking increase.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Please understand I agree with much of what you say, however I am absolutely convinced that in the short term a coalition will fail to achieve enough at a time when it's essential that progress is made towards longer term prosperity and encouraging the private sector to return to generating the wealth (and in turn tax revenues!) we so badly need right now along with reducing the public sector's hunger for that wealth.

Now is probably the best chance to implement such reforms. As it stands the polls suggest that the result may be the perfect example of how screwy our current system is. Labour would well come 3rd in the popular vote and be the party with the most seats. Not to mention that it is looking likely that the Liberal Democrats are likely power-brokers in the event of hung parliament and they are the largest party in favour of voting reform.

The two main parties are unlikely want to change a system skewed in their favour if they had a majority. Public pressure and the need to make concessions to the Liberal Democrats is the only environment in which I can see reforms taking place.