Thetownend.com

tef poll, vote away....

You need a 'Not voting' option.

er thats not voting though is it

No, but it will apply to about 60% of respondents. I think that is more telling than who does bother to vote and for which party.

Where's the option for I wouldn't vote?

Where's the "Denim Rebel Anarcho-Capitalist Peoples' Front Against the Lizardmen Save Shaw Tip Party"? Eh? Eh?

Judean People's Front.

same as

Fuck off, the People's Front for Judea  - fucking splitter.

That's what I was thinking. You just dislike minorities, don't you Mex?

who voted BNP?

Tough one for me. I'm not fond of Cameron but can't stand Labour so i'd probably vote for the Tories to get rid of that useless Scottish idiot.

I would vote Tory aswell.

However if the Monster Raving Loony Party had a candidate in our constituency i would vote for them.

I would vote other - if we have an independent then they will get my vote.

I voted other. Spoilt ballot for me. Better than wasting your right to vote.

I decided the Green Party in the end. The way I see it, if we're all a bit greener then the immigrants won't effect our natural resource use.

Same as, Brown is not the man but then I'm not in favour of voting for the toffs and landed gentry.  What worries me is that Cameron has pledged to make massive cuts, the pensioners bus pass, working tax credits, winter fuel allowance will all go.  The minimum wage is another and they have pledged to bring back fox hunting, fuck me if only there was a credible third way.

I've voted Green for the last 3 elections, i would never vote tory or labour.

I can see that the next election will not result in a clear majority - whoever gets in will have to work with other parties to get anything through - not a bad thing in my view - will prevent one party steam rolling of new laws/swathing cuts/excessive spending...

I can see most Labour candidates losing their deposits. It will be landslide.

I'd vote Tory, as i'd see anything else as a waste. In the Euro's, i'm going for UKIP

I keep reading Labour as Labrador, its really weird

I think there is little chance of labrador getting another term. The general public and media seem to be quite damning, though I think a lot of it at the moment is down to the expenses scandal.

Labradors are useful though. They keep fetching that ball and want you to throw just one more time....

In truth though, in response to the original question, I don't know. Traditionally, I have NEVER voted for the Conservatives, and nor will I EVER. That said, I can't bring myself to vote Labour after the last 12 years, and I don't think the Lib Dems currently offer a viable third option in a national environment. I don't know enough about what the fringe parties really stand for to vote for them - at the end of the day, I'd study their manifestos carefully before voting for any of them.

Having said that, I live in a constituency with a massive Tory majority, that even in today's political climate, is unlikely to change, so even a tactical vote on my part will make no difference.

If I had to make choice for the purpose of this poll, it would be Lib Dem.

What he said, basically. Labour are crap. Tories are always crap. Lib Dem isn't much of an alternative. I'd be voting for a fringe party - perhaps the Greens. They tend to have policies aimed to attract students, as we are the most likely to be tree hugging loonies :)

Talk is cheap though, the chances of them implementing any let alone all of those (and other) things is remote to say the least - especially during a first term. There will be far more important things for the next government to worry about. Only exception is the massive cuts, but then Labour are going to have to do that as well to try and balance the books over the next 10 years.

Errrrr...that is wasting your right to vote.

If you can't distinguish between the candidates on offer then you're better off refusing to enter into the whole fucking shoddy farce of democracy than to make it look like you're happy to participate but can't use a fucking pencil.

Like that..made i chuckle.

I was scared to answer him, must be a commie :D

I think we should start a party called "please put a cross in this box to confirm your vote" party.  I can't think of any credible policies, but it would be interesting to test the nations thickness which I'm hypothosising is pretty thick, doorstep bread sized thick.

lumps seems an angry chap.

Youve got my vote..my name is Hovis.

About a decade back, somebody stood in a safe Lib Dem seat as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to poll about 12% and if I remember correctly, lost the Lib Dems the seat to the Tories.

So yeah, that stupid.

I think ill be Lib Dem in a general election,though ill possibly vote Labour.

In the europeans Ill vote for the Cornwall party or that hatefull evil bird off the Apprentice..Katie something :eek: or there a Party that seems to have taken its political ideals from the Ebbsfleet football thingy whos name I cant rememeber.

Katie fecking Hopkins is running to be an MEP? Good lord.

On the other hand, the Conservatives are winning a poll on a Football forum, Labour really are going to get a kicking.

People only say they'll vote Lib Dem in the run up to an election. When it comes down to it most people bottle it as they wouldn't want them having any kind of power in a million years. Besides, if by some miracle they won a general election the country would be fucked for 12 months whilst they tried to figure out what the fuck they were supposed to be doing and coming up with policies for the run of the mill stuff they don't give a crap about.

Not sure a hung parliament will do us any favours in the near future either. With the state of the economy you need a government with a big majority so they've got the power to make the difficult decisions and implement them.

I think you're wrong,people have bottled voting Lib Dem in the past because they haven't wanted to let the torys in by default,its always been considered a wasted vote .Im starting to wonder if a vote for Labour is now a wasted vote..

Like going to war in Iraq, for example?

A big majority does not always lead to strong government - but it very often does lead to arrogant government.  In the case of the two Labour Governments from 1997 to 2005, the size of the majority enabled Blair to effectively bypass Parliament and govern from within the Cabinet.  When you have 1.5 million people marching through you capital city to protest against a policy that you defined yourself with, you know something must have gone wrong.  History will judge him harshly for that.

I can very easily see a hung parliament next time around.  And if there is, there's a fair chance that the Lib Dems will hold the balance of power - maybe just the bargaining chip they will need to get some concessions on proportional representation.

Names of political parties have to be 6 words or fewer. All parties have had to register their names with the electoral commission since the Literal Democrat spoiler candidate in Winchester (at which the candidate had also changed his name by deed poll to a name almost identical to the Lib Dem candidate)

A hung parliament could be very messy if the balance of power is with parties outside the main three, then they'll be too busy trying to cut deals to form a government and to keep it going rather than running the country. We could also end up with the party with the greatest number of votes / seats not being able to form a government, which will just cause even more crap.

There's also a good chance the government would be so weak that it would have to call another election within a year. Again, none of which seems like a good thing when the country is so fucked financially.

No it's not. IMO, it's the best way of saying "In all normal circumstances I would vote for somebody, but as it is I have the democratic right to a vote but think you're all a bunch of cunts". It's a lot less apathetic than just staying at home and not voting.

No one really cares, takes offence, or pays any attention to spoilt ballots though, so it's a waste of time really...

I will vote ABC anyone but Conservative.

I will never forgive them for the Poll Tax.

Might exercise my right not to vote. Otherwise Labour / Lib dems/ maybe green if I'm feeling sunny. Possibly Socialist Labour but from what I've heard they sound a bit angry and mental.

So what was wrong with the Poll tax.? In principle it was fine, it meant that those using council services had to pay towards them. Now it's only those who own a house.
Why should a couple of pensioners have to pay the same if not more than a household of 2/3/4/5 working adults.

My party name would be "None of the above - spoilt vote"

Of course it would have to be at the bottom of the ballot paper - can you request where you go on a ballot paper or is it in alphabetical order?

I too would vote Tory in a General Election, but am going UKIP for the Euro's.
My reasoning is that their are only 3 choices for a goverment. Labour & Brown in particular have basically wrecked the country. Liberals promise what they think you want to hear but are basically incompetent, as shown by the way they messed up NWDC.
I don't think the tories are perfect my any means but we need a goverment who will make cuts in the right places. (Any goverment will HAVE to make cuts) The national debt is out of controll, & lot of this is down to Labours reluctance to cut Quangos, & the public sector in general. This is because they have ever since 1997, been busy creating non jobs / votes for labour with OUR money
Cuts will even need to be made in Health & Education, but this can be done by removing layers of management etc without affecting the services that matter.

The poll tax was correct in principle but it hit the family's hardest who hadn't kicked their kids out at 18 to fend for themselves and suddenly saw a massive increase in their 'rates'

I think many people will take the UKIP route in Europe

Will UKIP & the BNP will change their names when Scotland gains independance?

I probably wouldn't bother, but if pushed at this moment would probably vote Labour.

My philosophy with taxes is that they're always going to piss you off and some taxes more so than others. That is, unless you feel you're getting adequate return on the taxes you pay through services, infrastructure and good governance. As an aside, Poll Tax got replaced with extra VAT and Council Tax didn't it? In hindsight maybe Poll Tax wasn't so bad after all.

I can't think of any government which has succeeded in doing this in living memory and it's generally not through poor policy selection it's through poor execution of such policies. I think this leaves me with little choice other than to analyse the policies of each party and take a punt on what I feel is best. Like Pumbaa, I'd have to sit down and go through the manifestos to weigh up the pros and cons of each and the one which ticks the most boxes would be my preference. My cynical side tells me that party will still make a hash of it though. Which is probably why parties are increasingly going for middle ground to sweep up the majority of votes because this is what more and more people are doing.

I think the danger in the future is a more fascist party like the BNP will continue to win votes on the basis that they represent not something slightly right of middle, but far right which people may turn to as an objection to the middle ground. Unfortunately a party like the BNP (aside from the obvious) is that there is too much emphasis with the man at the top. Sure, this will probably lead to less internal bickering unlike the other parties, but with such extreme politic views this would be a very dangerous combination in my opinion.

I have only just begun to take a pssing interest in the Euro elections and I think I will have to read up on things before I decided who to vote on. I'm not all that clued up on the EU other than a lot of passing objections are often media hype and bollocks.

Fully agree on that. Anyone but that Scottish tosser currently got. I've just received this joke about the man :

A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front of the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him

He asked, 'What are all those clocks?'

St. Peter answered, 'Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock move.'

'Oh', said the man. 'Whose clock is that?'

'That's Mother Teresa's', replied St. Peter. 'The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.'

'Incredible', said the man. 'And whose clock is that one?'

St. Peter responded, 'That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.'

'Where's Gordon Brown's clock?' asked the man.

'Brown's clock is in Jesus's office. He's using it as a ceiling fan.'
 

 

Only when Wales goes independant and that won't happen until they can work out an economy based on sheep and coal...

Exactly.

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with Scottish Independence at all if that's what the majority wanted. Granted we wouldn't have most of whats left of the oil, but we also wouldn't be subsidising them or have to put up with them running England whilst we have no say in running Scotland.

Agree, with what you are saying. I guess the best solution would actually be a local income tax which I think is a Lib Dem policy is it not

Love this!

I'd vote for the lib dems, not sure why anyone would want to vote ukip, they seem a bit of a joke party, I can't really see any benefit to dropping out of the EU anyway.

Are ukip not just a diet BNP? Im going to vote lib dem. Someone has to

I dont call asking people to fork out £30 a week on top of all your other taxes very fair.

One Benefit

Costs in 2008
£28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations,
£17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy
£3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters
£14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.

Thats £65,000,0000,000 reasons why we should leave & that is a consevative estimate. Here they reckon its twice that
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/CostoftheEuropeanUnion.pdf

Some of us have to with Council Tax though

Thats what i meant Phil...it pisses me of big time.

I think their is a world of difference. The BNP are racists. UKIP is not.

Not to mention that the main financial backer of the Eurovision song contest is indeed us also!

Me too,  far as I'm concerned thats a lot of money for empying the bin once a week / fortnight.

Depends on how you look at it. At present if you've got two identical houses next door to each other, two adults in one and four adults in the other then both houses will pay exactly the same Council Tax despite one house using a lot more services than the other. That's not fair on the house with only two adults is it?

Its just plain stupid to tax people based on the value of their house alone. Some form of local tax system would be the logical solution and would be a lot fairer to everyone. Especially those who don't earn much as they'd end up paying a lot less.

Why not put 2p on the basic rate...and forget about all these piddly little scams to grab our money...Council tax goes on paying people to work for the council...i rest my case!

I'd agree the EU is fucked up especially with the way some of the money flows and especially with the CAP. But rather than throwing our toys out of the pram and saying we want to leave, why not try to change things instead?

Plus its bollocks saying we lose our sovereignty with the EU, its just a different level of government which we have a say in - same as we have local and national government levels. If anything the biggest problem at the moment is allowing Scottish MP's to vote on solely English matters - at least one bill was passed which only affected England due to the votes from Scottish MP's, without them it would have failed.

Totally agree. Infact the same should be appled to as many taxes as possible. Eg Why is it that we have to pay two taxes on wages (Income & NI),  Motoring (Road Tax, fuel tax),  & why do those with kids pay tax on one hand & then have to claim tax credits on the other.
The administration & costs with collecting this money must be horendous.

Thats my big gripe...of course we all have to pay for what we have,but having your tax taken off your wages costs....mmm nothing,but thats to easy.

But I don't think we can change the EU fropm inside. Its a club run by politicians & Bueaucrats for themselves. Its' corrupt, wasteful & self serving ... makes our MP's look like saints

That's an extremely one-sided, meaningless way of looking at it and only looking at the costs without even considering the benefits is a waste of time. So, no, that's not "£65,000,0000,000 reasons", (whatever the fuck that means) it's not even one reason.

Well we sure as fuck can't change it from the outside, which is pretty much where we are at the moment.

The obvious solution would be a flat rate tax system which is being used with success in quite a few countries, especially eastern European where corruption and tax avoidance has been rife previously. It comes up in the news every so often and I seem to recall some senior Tories being supporters, possibly the same with Lib Dem.

Can't see it being on the agenda in the near future though.

For anyone who is thinking of voting UKIP at the Euro elections but is also pissed off with Scottish MPs voting on English issues when we don't get a say up there vote for the English Democrats. They hold the same views on Europe as UKIP but also want an English Parliment. I shall be voting for them at the Euros.

Never heard of them ?

Neither had I until I looked at the voting slip. Google them.

What are the benefits of the EU then ?? (to the average guy in the street not the politico's). If you think £65 billion is meaningless you must be mad

Just did. Agree with the four policies I found on the website... food for thought

Well it's you who should be telling me the benefits and not just the costs if you want to convince me it's not worth being a member. I just think that arguing that it costs a lot so it's bad is simplistic. I'm not interested in how much it costs, I only care whether it provides an overall benefit to the country and the continent and telling me how much it costs doesn't tell me that.

The key reason is that the trading agreement is almost certainly profitable for the country, whatever the poltical shennanigans.

I appreciate UKIP et al want out of the EU but in for the economic sections, like Switzerland are, but I'm not sure that would be quite as easy to negotiate as they make out. I may be wrong though.

We can still benefit from free trade by joining the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) and we won't be ruled or governed in any way by Brusells. Europe can do what it likes with a consitution or whatever but i'd much rather be able to vote knowing that my vote will not be outruled by MEPs. The only issues I see from pulling out of the EU are relations with the rest of Europe but over time they can be healed.

But is it as simple as us just saying "Out of EU, into EFTA"? Surely we need some sort of permission and leaving the EU would probably burn a few bridges.

Did anyone watch the party political broadcast on the Beeb for the BNP?

They likened immigrants to Hitler's invasion, saying we're going to feel like foreigners in our own country. The war heroes would be turning in their graves over the current 'invasion'. Thank you for speaking on their behalf Mr Griffin.

Griffin went on to say that they did not blame the immigrants, but the greedy MPs who 'opened the floodgates'. The icing on the cake was that they think the 50s and 60s immigrants who came to work are ok. Thank fuck for that.

It was the most laughable, contradictory bollocks I've watched in a while but it's not racist, it's common sense!

The idea of David Cameron as PM frightens me... but it's going to happen.

We were in efta before (may even have set it up if iirc). We ditched it pretty sharpish though when we realised we were in with the no-marks and all the big players where in the EC. Now every man and his dog is in the EU, would efta actually be any good at all?

i put ukip, but in hindsight would vote labour in a general election.it's a 2 horse race and i hate the tory party.
so to try to keep them out i would vote labour.

The European debate if often a clouded one, with nationalistic views constantly making the negatives seem like the only outcome and equally people in favour forgetting to argue the real benefits to the man on the street (minimum wage, maximum hours etc all being arranged by virtue of our involvement).

One thing worth doing is reading some of the headline detail of the original Treaty of Rome.  The wording undeniably means that the end goal is a single european government, so by signing-up we were accepting this (rightly or wrongly).  It's born from some very noble desires, namely to avoid future divisions within Europe like those seen for hunderds of years before, while promoting greater social and economic cohesion across the countries.

Europes biggest problem is the same as at all levels of politics it seems, and that's the fact that people rarely act in an altruistic manner - see the current expenses problem with our own government and opposition parties.  Are we any better than Brussels?

Having had a big long look at it all I generally find myself pro the concept, but ultimately dissapointed at what we have got.  Personally I'd do away with party politics and vote locally for a person to best represent my views, accepting that my views may not be those of the majority and the person was intelligent enough to handle the responsibility.  On top of that we vote for one person to represent the country with structures in place to support them - they can get some level of authority, not sure what though.

Worth remembering as well that when the forerunner of the EU was formed, one of the main reasons was to stop another World War starting in Europe by bringing the countries closer together. Fast forward to the present and its worked, with Eastern European countries falling over themselves to sign up and having to implement major reforms to do so.

Personally I think it is worth whatever it costs us to play our part in stopping another World War and in helping tens of millions of people to move towards a standard of living and human rights that we all take for granted. I still think the EU is our best chance of stopping the shit in the Middle East, once Turkey join we'll be right on their doorstop and the rogue states will quickly start to fall in to line once their citizens see just how great life is in the EU.

But then I'm also in favour of a single European government, president, army etc and I'm in the minority with that.

Conservatism is simply not an option for me.Cameron as a PM is just too horrific for me to contemplate.Personally I've never had it so good so a vote for status quo is my choice.Anyway if I didnt vote Labour my dad would beat me to within an inch of my life!

Cameron or Brown...at least Cameron will get voted in..unlike Brown of course who hasnt been and wont be.

i feel sorry for brown.he gets blamed for stuff that is, or was out of his control.if anyone thinks things would currently be better under the tories,then i think they are wrong.
i'm sure we will find out soon enough.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think we should pay whatever it costs to get out.

Brown was voted in - as MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.  As a voter you vote for your local MP, and this contributes to which party form a government.  The party that form a government elect a leader - in this case Brown.  

I'm no Brown fan, but this line of argument, which is often thrown his way, is not accurate under our electoral system.

So in that case our democractic system is flawed?

Also, the world is round.

Its not really if you think about it. The prime minister is really little more than a figurehead for the ruling party. The alternative is the american system whereby you forget about all sorts of real policys and vote for whoever has the best speaking voice and wants to ban homosexuality

Are you taking the piss?

Brown has been in charge of the UK economy or the entire country since 1997. As chancellor he laid the ground work for the economy going tits up, then as prime minister at first he did nothing to prevent it going tits up and now continues to not do enough to get it out of tits up status.

He isn't to blame for everything but when it comes to people in the UK, he is solely responsible for the economy and its current tits up'ed ness.

ok einstein,what should he have done differently?

He shouldn't have sold off our gold reserves on the cheap for a start.

How the fuck am I supposed to know? If I knew that I'd have made billions on the currency / trading markets and would be sat in the Bahamas sipping cocktails rather than chatting on an internet forum whilst watching Holby.

But greater financial controls would have been a good start which would have meant a good chance of avoiding our entire banking system failing. Banks and traders were allowed to use very high risk strategies, which worked fine for a while but when it went wrong it went badly wrong.

When the shit hit the fan there should have been forced nationalisation's of any and all UK banks in financial trouble. No fucking about with loans, bail outs, guarantees - just nationalise them. Then pump in all the money necessary to get lending going again, ring fence the dodgy shit in a separate company then re-privatise all the banks. At the same time start a massive house buying programme, rent them out or use them for council housing and when the prices recover sell them for a profit.

Or something like that.

You can't blame the recession on Brown, if indeed that's what is being suggested. This whole thing started because of the subprime mortgage market and the blame begins with the credit rating agencies. The whole mess started in the US and it has had global repurcussions.

However, Brown cannot be forgiven for the monumental fuck up which was auctioning off the majority of our gold reserves a decade ago. I'm amazed such a disaster hasn't stopped him from leadership. All we heard for nearly 10 years was how great the economy has been doing, yet where is the rainy day money? Instead national debt has soared.

So yeah, feel sorry for the cunt because he never made any mistakes.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading UKIP wanting to build an English Parliament.

They'd initiate a 40% increase to the existing defence budget which those in the military might enjoy.

I'm not saying he's to blame for the world wide recession and credit crisis. But the UK got fucked up on his watch and he can't just stand there and point his finger at the USA. The problems didn't all happen over night, they built up over the years and he was in a position to do something about it during those years and didn't.

Northern Rock is a good example. There were major failings with the regulatory bodies, whether they were government departments or not, the buck stops with the government and primarily the chancellor. We're not talking about a few dodgy expense claims here, its the entire UK economy that got stuffed.

Brown is the worst chancellor we've had in living memory as far as I'm concerned. First thing he did was help himself to 5 billion a year from our pensions. Stealth taxes galore, all aimed at middle income families. Petrol is now as dear as it was two years ago when oil was twice the price. Labour promised they would reduce the number of Quango's. The number has risen from 78 to over 900. Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, & broke that promise. They have consistently announced & reannounced policies that are never implemented. Eg The goverment help for mortgage holders announced last year (1 person in the uk has managed to qualify).
They have wasted money hand over fist, creating goverment debt & no benefit to any one other than those with the jobs (who would obviously vote labour). Billions wasted on NHS supoer computers that don't work, Equipment for the forces that won't work, an ID scheme that won't work.

UKIP for me

dont get me wrong i think brown has made mistakes,and alot he has brought on himself.equally, alot he inherited.
people seeing the tories as a party to put things right,i think is a bit short sighted.i'm sure we as a nation would be in the same postition we are in now,or an even worse one,had they been in government now.
it's easy to slate and critisise,but damn difficult to get things right.
everyone was lapping it up when brown had the economy booming,but now it's all his fault when things are on the slide.what goes up must come down, it was inevitable.
labour have failed the nation on alot of issues,but i'm stuggling to believe that another party would have dealt with it all.

True. Which is why Brown should have been preparing for this. There was no sensible saving when times were good for these 'rainy days'

i agree.i think he thought it wasn't going to come down for a long time yet, and didn't prepare early enough.

No need, because there will be "no more boom and bust".

I suppose that's true,  they opted to remove the boom rather than the bust.

The basic pjilosophy of labour though is that they think that they know best how to run our lives & spend our money. So inevitably they take as much as they can & then spend it on what they think is important. The problem is that the state is very wasteful & so a lot of the tax take goes into a black hole.
I believe that the person best qualified in spending efficiently is the one who earned it. If you've worked for the money you think twice about throwing it away. Sure we need taxation, & a central government, but this should be for basics , eg. Defence, Health, Education, Law & Order, transport & basic welfare support for those in genuine need.

The MoD is a prime example of beauracracy gone mad. I know someone who used to be in the Navy & was responsible for requisitioning items for ships comojng into port. If he wanted a bolt he would need to fill in countless forms & get so many authorisations that the bolt would cost £50 & be delivered a week after the ship had sailed again. His solution was to go to B & Q & buy it hiomself from his own pocket.

I was going to vote Labour because I would get a free doughnut out of it, but no more.  :cry:

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/politics/Labour-drops-plan-voters-doughnuts/article-1024982-detail/article.html

Probably for the best ;)

You've just reminded me that I still have a doughnut left over to eat. Thank you sirs.

So who do you think shoudl replace Labour then?

nobody.i'd keep them in government

Really? Fair enough.

yeah.i think they will try to rectify their mistakes,and what wasn't caused by them.i also think of all the parties, labour do the most for the most.
i'm as pissed off with them as anyone else,but voting them out wont solve anything imo.
in a local election i probably wont vote labour,but as this debate is about a general election i would vote for them.

I'm not sure that Labour can get out of their ways, they've been pretty Thatcherite in the last 12 years.

I doubt the Conservatives will be much better in terms of changing things up, Cameron's vote for change slogan (or whatever it is) has clearly been cribbed from Obama's Presedential election campaign and is quite clearly marketing guff.

New Labour, New Tories, old ideas.

Brown Inherited an economy that was paying off the debts, & going well, we'd suffered the pain & he reaped the rewards. The boom years were NOT of his making at all. In fact if you remember he didn't change anything too much initially because it was going so well. In fact the economy was doing so well it kept growing in spite of him raising taxes continually throughout his period of mis management.

You may well be right there. I would prefer the tories to be a bit more right wing, & you clearly would prefer the socialists to be more left wing.
As fot the liberals I remember when they were in the centre, about 4 yaers ago they were more left wing than "new" labour, & are god know where now.

Historically Labour have been the party that has left the country heavily in debt. Don't forget the country nearly went bankrupt in the 70's due to they spend, spend, spend policies, and now Gordon Brown has done exactly the same.

As Phil S has said, Brown has ruined most people's pension funds(unless you work in the civil service) via his stealth tax when he first came in. I think nobody would object to paying extra if you could see something for that extra cash, but all I can see is that he's made us get more in debt and we'll be still paying it off in 20 years time.

But as Si Pie said, the whole point of New Labour was that they basically swallowed the whole Thatcher monetarist legacy in its entirety - we are where we are not because of excessive government spending but because of reckless behaviour by a largely unregulated banking sector, following the Thatcher/Reagan doctrine that the markets must not be hindered. So any comparison between the Labour of the 70s and the Labour of the 90s/2000s is pretty pointless - they're two fundamentally different parties. New Labour is fundamentally Thatcherite economically, it has far more in common with the Tory Party of the 70s (and today in fact) than it does with the Labour Party of the 70s.

We are now paying the price for Thatcherism/Reagonomics - and yes New Labour certainly deserve their share of the blame for that, for failing to do anything to correct it because they were a) scared to go against the chattering class consensus that market ideology had won b) more than happy to cash in on the boom times the tail end of the wave brought.

One of the things I found most ridiculous is Cameron trying to blame the recession on Brown saying hes the one that got us into this mess, as if without the benefit of hindsight the conservatives would have managed the economy totally differently. Oh yes David I am sure you would have places more restrictions on the free market!! ::) ::)

Depends what market you're talking about, I'm guessing you mean financial. In which case sure, the Tories wouldn't have placed more restrictions (possibly less though I'm not sure that's possible) but they would have placed greater regulation on it. Or at least that is what they would argue.

One major difference is that the Tories wouldn't have raised public spending the way Labour has. By raising taxes and cashing in everything they could to support public spending increases the cupboard was left bare, so when the recession started there wasn't much scope for them to increase public spending to boost the economy.

Plus whilst the economy was booming, Labour could have been saving for a rainy day. If they had, again they would have had more to play with to get the economy back on its feet. We'll never know what would have happened with the Tories in power but there are major holes in the way Labour have managed things since they came to power.

I think it's fair to assume that no Government in the Western or Tiger market regions was able to do jack shit about the impending implosion of the financial markets and thus their economies, be they right or left of centre.  North Korea seems to have been rather stable, although that may have something to do with the fact they have no economy to speak of and essentially were already living off basic rations.  Once companies went global, governments were taken out of the equation.  The economy is not theirs to play with anymore, they need to focus on what they CAN do with any revenues they can generate.

Wot Rob said. As usual. I'm going to vote for the Rob T party.

I'd vote for a party that outright accepted that they had very little part to play in the economy of their country and instead focussed on what regulation they may or may not use and produced a budget focussed on how they can raise revenue and where it would go to benefit me or people I care about (and I may care about more people than just my family).  The economy shouldn't even feature in an election debate anymore, or at least not what we all know and love/hate as the economy.  Let Branson and Gates sort that one out.  The only money they need to discuss is tax and expenditure and get involved more in how they'll regulate business.

Meh, we should get rid of all this fancy-shmancy modern global economics and go back to medieval barter systems. Then we could combine the "imminent economic collapse will cause entire nation to collapse in chaos and rioting" stories with the "yet another breed of livestock has caused a global pandemic that will melt your intestines as you sleep" stories into one easy-to-terrify-yourself-witless-with mega-scare. Imagine that - a currency that can cause economic catastrophe and global pandemics all in one. I propose we move to the International Badger Standard forthwith

What a load of crap. I haven't got the time or inclination to fisk this as I am too knackered but the problem with the finance sector was caused by over regulation, not by truly free markets.

Ever heard of the FSA?

<sigh>

Sorry, the FSA who keep saying they didn't regulate hard enough?

But for a government to come to power and just say "right, that's it, britain is now fully open to trade" is above all else impossible - you can't just strip down trade barriers overnight. Also, I can't imagine those who are already unhappy about immigration being overly thrilled at a completely open border policy - immigrants coming in and providing cheap low-skilled labour, and foregin products replacing those produced at high cost in the UK. And if you don't believe that's what will happen, you don't believe in the neoclassical theory from which free trade economics arises

Yep and the SEC. Neither of whom did their jobs properly. Although even if they had, both the US and the UK have deliberately "light touch" regulatory frameworks (especially the UK, it was one of the key attractions which the City used to promote itself as a global financial centre throughout the 80s and 90s in the boom years) and so they wouldn't have been able to do much anyway.

But please do explain how the wicked cruel FSA forced UK and US banks to involve themselves in such hugely overly complex derivatives and other financial instruments that even their own risk management teams were unable to truly assess the nature of the risk they were taking on? And how the FSA forced these banks to repackage and sell on that risk, so that when Lehman Bros went they all shat themselves because no-one knew how much of each other's paper they all held? Or what it was worth? So they all pulled down the shutters and stopped lending to anyone, even each other, because they didn't know who was going to be next to go pop.

The banks lost track of the basic value of their grossly overvalued assets against their woefully underestimated exposure? How did this supposed over-regulation force banks to get involved in products they didn't understand to the extent that Barclays (to take just one example) STILL don't know their actual exposure?

I'd have thought a simple stiffening of the regulations to require banks to hold enough capital reserves to cover their exposure and sufficient teeth given to the regulators to be able to inspect and explore to satisfy themselves that they do actually have that (and prevent the banks from undertaking exposures they can't adequately explain) would be a pretty obvious remedy to prevent it happening again, albeit shutting the stable door way after the horse is long over the horizon. I'm dying to hear how less regulation would protect us.

You've neglected to consider that fact that said bolt would need to be manufactured to a military specification, which automatically turns a 5p bolt into the 50 quid bolt. Especially when you HAVE to buy it from BAe Systems, who like many other major defence manufacturers place a hefty markup on item you can effectively buy off the shelf.

A bit like the 4GB SD Card that's needed for a certain military aircraft to load a fairly simple database into the aircraft's computer. You can pick up such a card, for what 10 quid in the shops? Oh no, we HAVE to buy them through the aircraft manufacturer at 4k a shot. They were politely told to fuck off by yours truly. And did I get any recognition for saving the UK taxpayer thousands of pounds? Absolutely not........

Our industrial base has to take as much blame as the bureaucracy of government (which has not improved, btw) by taking the piss in trying to maximise profit to their shareholders at taxpayers expense.

The FSA went as close as they could to saying "we fucked up over Northern Rock" without actually saying it and accepting any liability. They were aware of the flaw in the way they funded their business and did fuck all about it, other than ignoring it and pushing back reviews.

Bearing in mind how reliant the UK was on the major banks (HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds, RBS) there is no way they should have been allowed to get in a position where they could fail. Where the fuck did the regulation go? HSBC and other major world banks (Santander for example) didn't fail, what did they do right and what did the others do wrong (and why did the FSA let them do it)? That is the sort of shit the FSA should be taking care of, and didn't.

The problem with the FSA is that they focussed on regulating the sale of mortgages rather than the mortgage companies & banks them selves.
They never seemed to question how the mortgages were being funded.
Prior to mortgage regulation in 2004 the Mortage Code Complaince Board (MCCB) did a good job in making mortgages clearer to understand for the consumer & laid down specific procedures & documents that had to be followed. Whilst it was a "voluntary" code it had to be followed or you could not operate in the market.
The FSA took over & introduced principled regfulation. They don't tell brokers like me exactly what to do. You have to follow principles & hope your interpretation is correct. This results in masses of paperwork in triplicate & massive additional costs & fees.
The blame for the banking crisis is often blamed on Northern Rock supposedly giveing out 125% mortgages. They never did this. In fact they were doing 95% mortgages with the other 30 % being unsecured but at the same rate & term. Not IMHO a bad thing as many people have a mortgage AND other loans / HP any way (but not at mortgage rates)
The real cause of the problem was the way that mortgage funding was raised by the banks. Satring in the US they would give mortgages to any one with little reagrd to the ability to repay it. They would then sell the mortgages on (which is why they weren't bothered about the ability to pay), & use the capital to lend out again repaeting the process. Three things occured to spread this to the UK. Some Uk banks bought some of these packaged loans which had been sold several times over (Toxic debt), Some of the UK banks were operating in the states, & to a lesser degree the same thing beacme common practise here too. I say to a lesser extent here because the MCCB & subsequently the FSA did ensure that mortgages were not given so freely as in the states.
The main problem caused by this coming to a head is that banks / investors are no longer interested in buying mortgages from other banks. Hence the other banks do not have the same amounts to lend.
So the question is why did the FSA seem to focus just on the sale of mortgages & not the funding as well. I think that least part of the answer lies in the fact that the FSA has been focussing on implementing European Directives.

What I don't understand is why, the government doesn't use its buying power to bring the prices down. Supermarkets do it... eg. By telling farmers how much they will get for their milk. Why can't the MOD, NHS, etc dictate the prices to suppliers a bit more. It's not like their are too many other places the suppliers can go to sell their wares, or that there is only one supplier.
Same with major projects, they always seem to go over the budget & the tax payer has to pay. If I havce an extention done to my house I agree the price before hand after getting several quotes. I would even draw up a contract to agree the price if it were a major job. I would only expect to pay extra if I kept changing the specification. (Which I suspect is the answer)

I think it's because the FSA were as short sighted as the banks and didn't think what would happen if? With Northern Rock they blamed high staff turnover and not having a review for some time.

But you're absolutely right about the myth with Northern Rock, they don't have a high default rate on mortgages and had enough assets to cover themselves, it was a shorter term funding issue from what I've read.

To be brutally honest Phil, I just don't know. I do know its been going on for years, and it will continue to go on. The costs on some of our major complex projects are just mind-blowing, but when you factor in labour and material costs for design, development and manufacture, you can see how they run into the multi-billions. The capitation rate for a PM at someone like BAe Systems in > £100 an hour.......

If I was a cynic, I'd note the amount of defence ministers who have gone on to get non excecutive directorships at BAE.

The NHS is a bad example. Drug prices are generally fixed by the NHS and the NHS as a whole has been turned in to a market place of sorts. Not sure that that its a brilliant idea or that it works and the whole target thing with the NHS is a joke and reduces the quality of service provided if anything.

Though I'd agree with the point in general. But the whole system is rotten from top to bottom, you've got MP's milking the system and everybody else takes their kick backs as well. Its not just limited to government and public services though, you see the same thing in private business.

Good points from Phil and Si.

Without getting embroiled in explanations (I'm doing 16 hour days at the moment) I would just say two things:

- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sub prime lending in the US
- Mark to market asset valuation in the US and the UK = collapse of liquidity

Both of these were the result of interference in the workings of finance, i.e. regulation. They wouldn't have happened in a free market.

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=319:political-correctness&catid=26:key-issues&Itemid=32

Is there anybody out there who has a good knowledge of these...are they credible,cant say i know alot about them...maybe a poor mans UKIP,cant be bothered to read the whole site...have they actually ever won any seats in Europe...will they do well on the back of the main partys in strife.

I don't know, but they sound like the ruling party from V for Vendetta from their spiel. "England Prevails!"

They're the best political party ever created leefer!

In all seriousnous, asking people on here is probably the worst thing you could do.

Probably Sie...its the elections next week and the family are banging on to me cos i havnt voted for a while and hadnt intended to this time....weighing up ALL options but will probably stick to my guns.

i will vote a different party in the euros to a general election.ukip has my vote in the euros next week

I posted about these earlier in the thread. They're getting my vote at the Euros anyway.

I think they will do well next week Arriba.

Didnt see that Onion...

i honestly have no idea leefer,i just like their stance on europe.
so will vote for them for that reason.

Fair play..did see there leader on Question Time but only briefly...so not sure how he came across.

UKIP for me in the Euros. I've got fuck all in common with some Greek goat hereder or some pimp from Latvia. Fuck Europe. I'm not European, I'm English - well the half that isn't Irish. I'd rather be attached to the USA than some French communist cunt.
At least we've got things in common with the USA - like historically killing any cunt who gets in our way - genocide of indigenous populations, Coca Cola etc.

Like a big stupid spastic face.

 I am voting for the Fat White Bastard party.

Just another far-right splinter group, fighting in that tiny corner of Judean Peoples Front politics that makes the far left look cohesive and united, hoping to pick up on the crumbs from the "disillusioned with UKIP/BNP for some obscure I'm going to write a stiff letter in green ink to my local paper about this reason" vote. Google them and you'll find a load of hits on blogs/forums full of people who're worried that UKIP/BNP are becoming a bit mainstream and then a load of other people arguing that EDP are a bit too mainstream and so you should back yet another even more infinitesimal far-right splinter group even more absurd than the last lot ad infinitum. Bascially a couple of retired Army majors, an embittered spinster and almost certainly a loony vicar who thinks the Bible proves that Jesus lived in Chichester and black people are wrong because they have funny shaped heads.

Couldn't you just say they were cunts, rather than me read, and more importantly try to understand, all that......

Sorry, I'd had a few :) They're fringe nutters. How's that?

Thaught you were a canidate Crozzer...

I was quite tempted by Cameron's "let anyone stand as a Tory MP" offer so I rang up to see if the free moat and floating duck island are like one of those book club things - you know the "Yours to keep whatever you decide" jobs. I quite fancy a moat and a duck island, but I've not heard back from them yet.

What tickles me is the secretive aspect of it all...booths and crosses,and hands round voting slips..we should all be proud and not bothered who we vote for and not care who sees us.

That's to stop parties from intimidating people - a secret ballot is essential for democracy

Yes, this will be the first time running.

The FWB stands for:

Fat - Hardworking, pays bills and taxes on time, believes government should do the same.
White - Not belonging to any minority group.
Bastard - Despised by Do-Gooders for being hardworking, paying bills and taxes on time as well as not belonging to any minority group.  Targeted by government for additional sources of taxation.

The constituency is the majority of the people in the United Kingdom who think government, especially government Do-Gooders are self-serving and incompetent, irrespective of party allegiance.  Basically, the typical fat White Bastard thinks that this and previous governments deserve an F-minus, and that ordinary people who pay their way have been royally shafted.  The typical FWB has never played the system in any way. 

The English democrats sound like a bunch of retards. Completely ridiculous policies and inaccurate maths, quitting the EU would not save us £63 b a year, that's not a net cost. I am very proud to be European and would far rather have close ties with Europe than the us, Europe is the greatest continent in the world.

Consider yourself a complete twat.

Well argued there.

Ok then. My comment was not about some wanky made up party, more about our membership of the EU.

Nobody can seriously argue that membership of a wasteful, useless, ruled by fucktard stealing power hungry cunts organisation like the European Union is beneficial to anybody.

Will that do?

No, you've just added a selection of adjectives rather than points.

And it certainly is advantageous to some, Ireland has done very well out of it until recently.

Jesus wept, how many times do I have to link to this post?

http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,34268.msg698218.html#msg698218 (http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,34268.msg698218.html#msg698218)

Anyway, I'm a bit pissed so I am qualified to say 'fuck off, don't be so bloody annoying'.

Ireland is well fucked, it serves them right for relying on EU funds. Erm, sorry, read that as my tax. It's always the same. The EU or our government don't have any fucking money. IT'S OUR HARD EARNED CASH. Why should I give it to the Paddies?

They can all fuck off, time to get rid of the EU and governments.

You sound like a broken record Talk Talk. There are some benefits to being in the EU, whether these outweigh the costs is another matter and a point for debate rather than a fact.

Vote for the "National Honest and Accountable Government", NHAG, Party, formerly known as the "Fat White Bastard" party.

Our mandate is change.  Government for the people, not for a few privileged individuals with influence.

We are proposing an M.P. code of conduct.  If the code is judged to have been possibly violated by a random selection of the general public, a by-election will be immediately called.  The incumbent will have to make a case to the electorate in his/her constituency.  No pension will be provided to any M.P. or cabinet minister.  The idea is to serve fellow citizens for limited terms of office, not for a lifelong career.

Once we have cleaned up the cesspit of British politics, it will be onto the festering sewers of Europe.  The party will be then renamed the "European National Honest and Accountable Government", ENHAG, Party.

We also stand against political correctness (a.k.a. being dishonest), and we stand squarely behind free speech.

A contradiction in terms if ever ive heard one.

Whatever do you mean?

Government for the people or to intimidate the people?  If government intimidates the people, then said government should be detained for many years at Her Majesty's pleasure.

When you talk do you go 'mmnnuummnnuurrgghh'? If you held your hands out in front of you and waggled them about, you could complete the effect.

If you learn to read, you retarded cunt, you would see I said I was proud to be European not a member of the European Union and just said it is total bollocks that quitting the European union would save us £67 b a year which it is, absolute shite. You cannot say that because we spend £67 b on it a year that quitting would save us that much, even a complete moron should be able to understand that that is total nonsense based on completely illogical moronic maths. So no, I will not consider myself a twat but I will consider you a lot worse than that.

[url width=375 height=300]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/2hats/alan2.jpg?t=1243730016[/url]

Yes, I usually do.

Hilarious as ever.

I guess that really told me.

 ::)

I should hope so. I think it has to be worth being a member of the European Union purely because it pisses off wankers like you.

and wankers like me.

all the irish people i know hate the euro,and being in europe.if you think the immigration is a problem here,the irish have it worse.
the polish are under cutting the irish builders, etc.and are not spending the money.instead they steal the fish from the rivers,and steal livestock.
also crime has increased,with violence,muggings etc.

LOCK UP YOUR CHICKENS.......HERE COME THE POLISH !!!!

You crack me up arriba you really do !

I think you'll find that Ireland has done quite nicely from Europe thanks (not just winning the song contest at will either).

 i visit ireland regularly as my mrs is irish.
tell her unemployed cousins they are doing alright out if it.
the euro saw prices rocket for daily goods too.

Not saying the Irish problems aren't partly down to Euro membership but from everything I've heard/read it's mainly internal - they built a boom on the back of soaring property prices and overvalued assets (sound familiar) and when things took a downturn, the illusion was shattered and the economy collapsed. It's the same "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome that's knackered our banking sector and hit the US, and has at its root the same global banking collapse that's done everyone. Just hit the Irish worse because they had a bigger bubble to burst. Don't think membership of the Euro has much to do with it, other than it was via their membership of the Euro that they built their "Celtic Tiger" bubble in the first place. I guess you could say that they might be better off if they'd never had the good times as the crash wouldn't have been so hard.

Arriba was talking about cheap labour and rise in crime though that is causing problems now.

i was hearing people moan about the euro from the moment it was introduced in ireland.the job losses and fish thefts were talked about in 2005.our slide into recession has been swift and recent in the uk.irelands natives have been struggling for a while now.

Fair enough, I was just recycling what I'd heard on news/current affairs stuff on the radio.

What cracks me up is reading some of you accusing groups of being nutters extremists fanatics etc. Look back through this thread at some of the crazy rantings,its fucking comical.

For generations the major parties have shafted the general public, and it's worth taking sides?  Haven't you realised that they are all in it together?

Don't vote for a candidate in a major party, and you might find out that they might come up with something worthwhile the next time.

If you are getting worked up about politics that's really sad, get worked up about football.

OK not all about Europe is rosy and Ireland has had and is having hard times (they are not the only ones though) but your previous comment about the Poles is totally out of order.

why?
actually i'll answer for you.you think it was racist.
well it wasn't.it is fact.fact because i heard it on a news report on galway bay fm,and from family.
it was on a local river to them, and the poles were caught red handed.
yeah not all poles do it,but alot do as the river stocks in ireland are depleting.not only are mature fish poached.small fish are stolen and pickled.
also irish men are jobless due to polish undercutting them.again fact.
you can say i crack you up,or i'm out of order.but the fact is what i said is 100%true.

please tell me how the irish have benefitted from being in the eu.

Crozzer. I am not worked up over it hence why i think its funny people on here think that calling someone a twat,wanker etc to make it seem their point is more valid. I know who i will vote for and this thread has not changed my opinion.

DRS, it is rather funny as you point out.  Unfortunately, idealism of my youth has given way to greater understanding of the political process.  I have very little time for politicians or political discussion.  The same tired worn out crap is gone through during every election, and usually with the same result,.... public disillusionment. 

Yep i am fairly up to date on most policys but to me no amount of forum dick waving on a forum will help me make a decision(as you also said)  the way i see it you vote for who you think will cater for your current needs best not who does the best speech etc

I love waving my forum dick on a forum.

I love the occasional waft of mature cheese that it produces.

I should wash your mouth out young man....

I am sorry

Re Ireland:
Agree they have probably done well overall out of Europe. So have Italy Spain & Greece As they all get a lot more out than they put in (along with france who coincidentally wrote most of the rules). Historically these countries have been subsidised by the UK & to a lesser extent Germany who are the main nett contributors.
Now the money that was going to these countries is flowing EAST to the former eastern bloc, who of course love Europe just as the Irish once did.
Proof of this is in Ireland voting NOT to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

I have a problem with subsidising Scotlands free NHS prescriptions & Universities with my taxes, let alone subsidising Italian olives groves that only exist on paper & the whole of Luxembourgs economy.

Pro- Europeans always find it difficult to justify our memebership of the club. Hence the breaking of the promuise for the referendum, & the general lack of an opportunity to vote on it for the last 3 decades. The ONLY opportunity for me to make my mark is to vote in the Euro elections, & I will place my vote with the party that stands most chance of making a mark. At present that has to be UKIP. (the other parties are too small to make any difference (even with PR) even if they actaully have better policies
Should we ever be lucky enough to get out of europe, we could still trade with them as Norway does PLUS we would increase trade with the rest of the world (eg The common wealth & US).

As for the GENERAL ELECTION, I will NOT vote UKIP, because they don't stand a chance at present of getting a seat. I will vote for anyone who will get Brown & Labour out. The only place for my vote then is Conservative. (The liberals are as bad as Labour)

Oops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8077101.stm

:)

Sounds like they should be posting in this thread.

Having seen a picture of Stuart Cullimore it seems like an accurate description, what's the problem? If he sued for libel it would be thrown out.

Stuart Cullimore is on the far left - PHAEDOPHILE ALERT

[url width=800 height=431]http://trelawney-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dscf2162.jpg[/url]