Thetownend.com

There's been a real lack of any political debates on her for a while now, which is a pity as I used to enjoy reading the informed(?) opinions of such a great cross section of society. Let's face it, the only thing we all have in common is our football club so opinions will also vary considerably, as will our political stances.

As much as Russell Brand comes across as a bit of a tit, I'm finding myself agreeing with a lot of what he says; the current political parties are all unappealing and uninspiring. Abstaining from the process however can't be a solution, can it?

What is the single biggest issue facing The UK and how would you like it addressed?

Ban all political debate?

What actually changes when there is a change of government?  To the average person I guess not a lot.

More worryingly, a lot of people feel the same way about Nigel Farage.

The biggest single issue the UK is facing right now is public apathy. If people are not informed about our politics then how can it be reformed? Many people seem to have little/no idea (or interest) about the way politics works, nor what the consequences of an alternative political landscape would be. Proper, comprehensive change, regardless of what that change is, will not arrive unless people become more engaged and politically informed.

How about the fact that our electoral system has a pretty solid chance of leaving UKIP (13% in the polls) and the Greens (9%) with 5-6 seats between them while even the zombie-like Lib Dems will probably retain about 30 seats on 9% of the vote because their vote is nicely concentrated?

The system is insane. I realise that AV got rejected in a referendum but that was only a marginally less shit system.

It just doesn't seem democratic in any sense that there's such a ludicrous disparity between the % of the vote and the number of seats allocated.

^^ which is why I dislike all things political. That,  and the arrogance of people who think they are right about absolutely everything (voters and politicians)

Also, career politicians.

The fact that the guy in charge of public finances is "qualified" to do this because he's got a 2:1 in Modern History quite frankly scares me.

Quite simply climate change, and finding answers to the questions raised about managing planetary resources, if a slow down in global warming is to be achieved.

The summit in Lima at the weekend, at least on the surface came to some agreement for a way forward to be further debated in a year's time in Paris, but time is of the essence.  If anything is to be achieved, then a lot of politicians are going to have to make some very unpopular decisions...as for this country, the BBC wont even allow The Greens to a debate before the next election.

He might be a bell end, but he makes more sense than any of the self-serving tosspots fucking about wasting our taxes. I've not voted since I was a teen, but I will vote next time and I will vote UKIP.

I hate politics and I absolutely despise politicians. I'm voting for UKIP as it'd be nice to at least attempt to fuck the twattish system up. (Not that I believe it'll have any effect at all.)

(http://i.imgur.com/k39jtsT.jpg)

Agreed. However, since AV was trounced there appears to be no appetite for reform; immigration, welfare, NHS etc. seem to take precedent over the core issue of improving our democratic process in the public conscience. The average Joe couldn't tell you how other electoral systems work, what the benefits and drawbacks are, let alone which one they would replace first past the post with.

This was my second choice axe to grind. Awful.

How do we address my apathy. Currently I intend to draw a massive cock (with spunk bubble) on my ballot form.

Conservatives are posh twats.

Labour may as well be the conservatives these days.

UKIP .. Ferage is head knob jockey of a bunch of closet xenophobes.

Lib dems are a bunch of lying bastards who sacrificed key principles so that clegg could nosh off Cameron while in power.

But most of all, what's the point. Nothing changes. Manifestos get backtracked on in a blink of an eye. And the country is financially screwed anyway.

I'd look at independents maybe. But Independents have no clout.

I reckon Scotland is the biggest issue at present. The concessions that were offered were rushed and not thought out properly and as a result things could very easily turn in to a massive cluster fuck after the next election.

There is a very real chance we'll end up with a coalition government between Labour and the SNP, with them only having a minority of the seats/votes in England/Wales/Northern Ireland. Not convinced such a government would last 5 years.

It would be complicated further if changes to voting are pushed through before the election, reducing or removing the voting power of Scottish MP's. Giving a Labour/SNP government who wouldn't have a majority for non-Scottish votes.

Then add UKIP in to the mix and fuck knows where it could end.

Having a weak or non-functional government would be bad news all round.

I really don't get this argument. The Lib Dems manifesto said what they would do if they won the election.

They didn't win the election but by forming a government with the Tories they were able to get some of the stuff they wanted.

They were never get it all and they had to make concessions. I think Clegg did a pretty good job with the negotiations.

I really don't think the LD's have got very much of what they wanted but they have stopped the posh boys from doing a lot of what they really wanted to do!  Their biggest single mistake was going back on their election pledge of no increase in university tuition fees - that will be remembered for a long time to come!!

Think they got more than could be expected given their share of the votes and MP's.

Don't get people saying they won't vote for them again over the university fees as every other party would have done it as well.

The new vastly higher personal allowance is solely down to the Lib Dems, this benefited millions of people on low wages and they don't get anywhere near the credit they deserve for it.

Your best bet is to leave the ballot paper completely blank. It counts as none of the above - spoiled ballots are ignored whatever you draw on them.

But surely drawing a massive cock is more fun?

 :) It might be but depending on where you draw it, it might count as a vote. When I stood, someone had written next to the Lib Dem candidate that he was a "fucking wanker". It counted as a vote because it was mark against the candidate and no-one else.

Perhaps, but the Lib Dems to a man signed a commitment not to vote to raise fees. Full stop, no caveats. They then tripled them. Was it a stupid thing to sign? Yes. Does it smack of the very worst of politics? Absolutely.

I voted Lib Dem at the last election. I may even do so again at this (It's Bath, it's them or the Tories under aforementioned shit system). But if Labour can unseat Clegg in Sheffield Hallam I shall be dancing around my flat at 4am and laughing myself into a hernia.

You really don't get why people get pissed off at them for abandoning their key principles, ones that were absolutely fundamental in people voting for them, in order to power share?

Ok then....


That reminds me, add to the list people who vote for a party simply because they/their family always have done .

No one should be allowed to become an MP until they have done a proper job for at least ten years.

Example in point Ed Milliband, a professional politico who would not know what a days work is if it bit him in the arse!

Too many like him telling the rest of us that they know best. Wankers all.

Vote Green!

Russell Brand is trying to sell a book
Nigel Farage is looking for celebrity and leads a rag tag bunch of dangerous nutters
Nick Clegg is responsible for an unelectable party that has no proper policies
Ed Milliband is unelectable
David Cameron is slimy and cringeworthy

So it would have been better for them to hold their ground, refuse to make the concession, not to be a part of the government and to have absolutely zero of their policies implemented? The poorest people in the country would have got shafted even more by the Tories, but the Lib Dems would have still had their principles intact - which is all that counts right?

I can understand people being pissed off but you also need to live in the real world. Though if you want to have a go at them, it should be them making a promise they could never guarantee to keep, rather than the breaking of it.

I think this coming election and the summer following could be extremely interesting...

Tory - whatever happens Cameron is going to have a massive problem post election regarding Europe - in power they are going to push for a referendum if out of power  (if he survives) party going to want to head right.

Labour  - it get it would have to rapidly come up with some policies... If don't get in Unions already stated they may split which would remove most funding and hugely change the political landscape.

Lib Dems - I  suspect in for a kicking, however what would the Tories done without their calming influence!  However if they can cut loose post election and find a leader post Clegg i do wonder what will happen going forward?

UKIP - I wonder at what stage will they become a mainstream party and begin to be treated and subject to critical scrutiny as per the others. Can you imagine the outcry if one of the other leaders made some of the statements Farage makes!

Please don't! Having had Green local councillors for 10+ plus years up here they are the ultimate one issue party.

They get tons of scrutiny. Every time one of them says something mental they go up in the polls. It's baffling.

Well I'm surprised to read more on the Lib Dems here than virtually everyone else, and much of it a sight more balanced than their media portrayal. I didn't vote because as an ex-pat of more than 15 years' standing, I don't get to vote anywhere any more (but that's a grudge for another day), but I think the LDs get precious little credit for a lot of work they've done in tempering the Tories, while being predictably rogered by them at every turn. They took that risk when they opted to sleep with the devil rather than be held responsible for forcing a second election, but I'm sorry that they'll inevitably get hammered next time round, while dribbling knee-jerks like Farage are given the benefit of the doubt simply because no-one has yet seen what an almighty clusterfuck his merry band of bigots and retards would offer up given the faintest sniff of real responsibility for anything.

White, working class, ex Labour, ex Union card carrying member and non skilled. Nobody speaks for the real working class anymore.

UKIP will get my vote this time round, maybe the election after that. By then they will be discovered as Tories with a European fixation. then back to spoiling my ballet

So in answer to your question, eight years max.

UKIP are/were a one issue party and look at them now.  Although I think a lot more people ultimately care more about UKIP one issue than the Green's one.

The next election is going to be quite interesting, there are any number of potential outcomes considering all the possible collation partners if that's what is needed.  This election should have be Labours for the taking but the choice of the 2 Ed's for the top positions is going to cost them I believe.

I could have seen that coming

Ukip are truely horrible people. Do a bit of research and you'll see for yourselves. They'd be so much worse than the abominable Tories and that's saying something.
I'll vote Labour as they are the only realistic option, best of a bad bunch.

The biggest problem in my opinion is the population explosion. Worldwide and nationally. That in itself is a major factor in climate change and many other of the world's problems.

It was a hung parliament, the Tories couldn't have done what they wanted carte Blanche.

And yes if it means betraying what you say are your fundamental principles you absolutely should not sell out.

We'll see that a large majority of their voters agree with that comes election day. After that fuckwit clegg will be stood down hopefully.

To be fair to the tories they are the only major party who haven't sold out their fundamental principles. 

They have remained a bunch of absolute cast iron cunts.

I would never vote for UKIP, but I do recognise that there is a good reason why they exist.  The other 3 main political parties have, over a period of decades, refused to address an issue that is of great concern to a significant portion of the electorate: net migration.  It is not the concept of migration that many object to, but the numbers involved.  For many years, the main political parties have looked the other way and have refused to consider the issue.  And worse, they have been instrumental in even closing down the debate on the subject (for example Gordon Brown and his 'bigoted woman' comment about Gillian Duffy).

All UKIP is is a vent for the frustrations of millions who needed a voice for their feelings.  Once the other 3 parties do address the issue sensibly - and recognise that having a population policy is not something to be ashamed of - support for UKIP will atrophy.

For the first time in my life, I honestly have no idea who I will vote for in the next election.

Tories...no chance.  My local candidate is an arch-homophobe and Section 28 supporter.

Labour...I could never trust them with the economy, especially while Ed Balls is in a position of influence.  They still don't get what went wrong in the early 2000s.

Lib Dems...used to get my vote, but I'm not sure what they are for any more.

UKIP...single issue party with a fringe that I could never get in to bed with.

And on top of all that, my vote in a FPTP voting system is useless/worthless anyway.  The Tories could put a pantomime horse up for election here, and the horse would win.  Voting is utterly pointless here.  It influences nothing.  There's a part of me that does not feel easy with this, but I may well not even bother voting next time around.

I can see why working class Labour voters would lean toward Farage and UKIP, but if they bothered to understand his views a bit more than the anti-immigration sound bites in the press they'd realise he's perhaps even more of a capitalist than Cameron.

I've been a labour man all my life until a couple of years ago but wouldn't touch them with a fucking barge pole at the moment. Any party that has Ed Balls and Yvette Copper in deserve nothing but utter contempt. Every attempt to talk immigration was shouted down as racism. Well now you want to talk about it, go fuck yourselves you racist snotgobblers.
I could never vote Tory. Lib Dems as well as selling their souls are a bunch of sexual deviants.
Greens - no.
UKIP - yes. I don't mind being called a xenophobe, nutter or whatever. I'm not actually that bothered about immigration, that's a by product. I don't want to be a member of such a corrupt and self serving institution.  

I can never understand it when people say that they'd never vote Tory but they'll vote Ukip. They're led and bankrolled by former Tories, their 2 MPs are former Tories and a fair chunk of their prominent members are former Tories. 

Indeed, I would never vote Tory but I think what Labour have done is a bigger u turn and betrayal of their true members!

I'm sure we will, I'm just struggling to see what it will achieve. Other than giving an outright majority to the Tories/UKIP or Labour/SNP, both of which will result in even less Lib Dem policies making it. Seems counter productive to me, though of course you'll have the comfort of Clegg getting his comeuppance.

I voted Tory and I'm appalled by what they've done to the poorest and least fortunate. Fuck only knows what they would have done without the Lib Dems reigning them in. Without the Lib Dem's in coalition I can only see the Tories arse raping the poor even more and Labour bankrupting the country even worse than they managed last time.

Quite simple Tories want in UKIP want out.

I agree with spacey.
If you look at ukip aside from the in or out of Europe issue you will see just how far away from Labour or the left they are. I think working-class former Labour voters will be apalled by them if they researched a bit about them.
I find it worrying that people will actually give those utter cunts their vote.

Looks like I'm in a massive minority here, as for the first time in my life I'll be voting Conservative. Simply because I don't trust anyone else to run the economy.

In the sense that Labour would just go on a spending spree again, I agree. But to say that the Tories have been "running" the economy is nonsense - it's been more by luck than judgement.

Exactly this.

I will never ever vote Tory and UKIP are just a xenophibic Tory led party.

I am between Labour and Liberal but the Libs lost a lot of supporters for being a soft touch in the coalition and Labour are led by several idiots not just the leader.

I live in one of the strongest Liberal seats in the country so not actually much point in voting as David Laws got 55% of the vote last time and is a shoe in no matter what in the next election too.

But pretty much all of the parties are lying wankers anyway who are only in it for their own personal gain and with me being on very low income none of them will benefit me whatsoever.

What this country needs is a new party that will benefit the low paid and not just the high paid, one who taxes companies fairly and if you earn massive amounts of money then you have to pay your dues and have no loopholes to save paying taxes, and one that looks after the young/infirm/elderly but get the idle long term work shy people into work by creating employment and giving a living wage to the low paid possibly by taxing the very highest earners (£500k per year) at a higher rate.

It won't happen in my lifetime and I don't expect many people on here to agree with me either.

You don't have to do a lot of research into UKIP to see they're not into helping the working class and currently sit on the right of the Tories. Its for the other parties to explain why they've allowed a right wing party to gain this kind of popularity so quickly. (also people who in the past who have shouted racist at the first opportunity when immigration was raised)
As immigrations effects on the lower wage is my personal concern, then UKIP is mine and other old style Labour voters obvious short term answer.
Providing UKIP didn't win an outright election. Then I really would be in the shit. As I will if the Tories get in.

I'd agree with most of this. Sounds like we should move to Sweden.

Simply put I have more faith in the current chancellor's tactics than any other potential chancellor.

After an uncharacteristically promising start, you appear to have painted yourself back into your corner.

To pick up on PV's post, I think David Laws is very able, and would go some way to rebuilding the Lib Dems' credibility as their new leader. And in answer to Janaage, I think Danny Alexander and Vince Cable could be trusted with the economy - they've had a very positive moderating influence on their respective departments over the past four years.

Won't happen though.

The usually admirable Cable was pretty much squarely responsible for selling off the Post Office well below value though. Badly advised he may have been, but that's a pretty obvious fuck up.

I'm afraid human nature will never change, so whether we are talking about governments or virtually any other organisation it is run, primarily, for those within it.

Life is full of fraudulent, corrupt 'leaders and followers' and getting rid of one only to be replaced by another corrupt, fraudulent organisation is hardly democracy in my view.

Badly timed comment.  Sweden has plenty of problems of its own.  It's currently in political limbo because the new government couldn't get its budget (which would authorise tax increases) approved by parliament.  So another election has been called...just months after the last one.  The liberal Swedish tax & spend consensus of the 1990s is starting to look very strained.

I think that was heavily overplayed by the media actually. The report said that it estimated between another £120-180m (and not only the £180m figure the media quoted) could have been made by raising the initial offer price by up to 30p. Share value has stabilised at under 2/3rds of its peak after issue, which has undermined a lot of earlier criticism.

In overall terms, this is actually a pretty minor adjustment with the benefit of hindsight on what was a complex projection. For instance, a bigger loss would have been made if the government had chosen to retain 25% rather than 30% of the shares. The more interesting conclusion was that there should be a change to the rules to allow a revaluing of the share price later in the offer process.

This report on the BBC site is a lot more balanced than their (and others) media coverage was yesterday. On this more detailed reading, Cable comes out of this much better:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30527392 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30527392)

He didn't sell the post office
He sold Royal Mail

2 separate entities, Post Office is still wholly owned by the government and split from RM around 5 years ago.
Though some areas are still linked re pensions

Carry on  ;D

A love a bit of political debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcaUer4fuU8

This, and it could be the Monster Raving Looney party supposedly running the country but the real power as always lies with the long serving Civil Servants in Whitehall and always has. As a friend of mine likes to say, the old Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister shows on BBC were not comedies, but forerunners of reality TV.

Civil servants don't write policy though do they. It's multiple-national companies that run the world now not politicians IMHO

In my opinion the biggest single issue is the health service,unfortunately for the majority of people it's immigration which to me is pretty much bottom of the list.

At a time when public services, public utilities and public infrastructure (transport, in particular) are as stretched as they are, surely having a population policy is absolutely vital?  And by extension, having a workable net migration policy is, therefore, also vital?  For far too long, the political class in this country has sought to close down discussion/debate with accusations of racism towards those who raise the subject.

A few of the political parties are only just starting to wake up to this.  But instead of setting the agenda/debate, they have been dragged kicking & screaming to it by an electorate that's way ahead of them.

Population is the elephant in the room.  If population is going to increase to 70 million in the next decade or two, then let's be honest about where all the new schools, houses, railway lines, motorways and supermarkets are going to be built.  Or do we just look the other way and leave the next generation to work it out for themselves?  It's disingenuous and dishonest.

Of course immigration will continue, and so it should.  Isolating ourselves from the outside world would be pointless and futile.  I just think it's becoming increasingly obvious that net migration needs to be controlled and not left to chance and market forces.

The health service is a real problem and was not surprise to hear it had it's worst week this year in A&E.  I got woken a few weeks ago with a sharp pain in my chest, it went off and I went back to sleep.  In the morning I got one or two stabbing pains and rang my surgery - had to explain to the receptionist what my problem was and she told me there were no doc's appointments for three weeks!  Said she would get somebody to ring me but the nurses were busy, finally got a call at 12-15 from a nurse who told me I should have seen a doctor!!  When I asked if I could come round now she said they were shutting shortly as it was their half-day (a tuesday!).  Then I got told the classic, if I was really worried I should take myself to A&E or the walk-in centre.  Thankfully i had no re-occurrence so I did not go to A&E, but if surgeries up and down the country are under so much pressure it is no wonder the hospitals are full to bursting!  

[quote author=Ardiles link=topic=55431.msg1302229#msg1302229 date=1419082106
Population is the elephant in the room.  If population is going to increase to 70 million in the next decade or two, then let's be honest about where all the new schools, houses, railway lines, motorways and supermarkets are going to be built.  Or do we just look the other way and leave the next generation to work it out for themselves?  It's disingenuous and dishonest.
[/quote]unfortunately this is just what is happening and Swindon Borough Council is absolutely to the fore in that regard!!!  Councillor Dale "Grinner" Heenan has just announced that they will not proceed with the new road linking West Swindon with the rest of the town, instead they want to upgrade certain other roads that they say will solve the problem and mentioned Akers Way.  A residential street basically, that they allowed hundreds of new homes to be built on without the correct infrastructure, and now they plan to expand in the east on the A420, please explain where the traffic is going to go from that development?  Closer to my home is the plan to put 150 new houses on the playing fields at Headlands, with no plans to upgrade the roundabout onto Cricklade Road, already a dangerous junction if you are turning right as visibility is not good. 

not sa
not saying that,just that its importance is over stated in the grand scheme of things.Contrary to popular opinion,I dont think its out of control.Most people say we are a "soft touch".Why,then, are people dying while clinging on to the bottom of lorries?

I am starting to doubt whether the 'free at the point of service' model for the NHS can have a lot longer to go.  Even most other socially progressive western European countries have adopted a health insurance model (where you pay up front and claim most or all of the cost of treatment/consultancy from an insurer).

It may not Ardiles,but every government should strive to make it so.

I agree totally.

The amount of wastage in the NHS is incredible. I work in pharmacy, and everyday patients bring back carrier bags or bin bags FULL of medicines. Often completely unopened, unused, within the expiry. That stock all goes to be incinerated. Two Seretide inhalers? £120. People just don't realise the cost of the drugs they're using.

Then there's the people who get doctors appointments for colds, headaches, and other minor ailments to get a prescription for Paracetamol, because they're 'entitled' to it. Yes, maybe, but the appointment you've just had has cost the NHS vastly more than the 40p you could have bought a box for.

Unpopular as it would be, I believe there should either be a small charge to visit the doctor or prescription charges should be applicable to everybody. £5 to visit your doctor, still great value, but makes you think twice if you've only got a sniffle. £2 per prescription for your first 20 items a year, then free after that?

You only have to have a quick look at ebay for things like Nicorette products being sold on. How many of those were on prescription, which the patient probably paid nothing for, then decided they'd rather carry on smoking?

I was born in a shitty estate (Blackbird Leys), and spent my first 7 years there.
I still have relatives there.

The older ones won't even go out during the dark, and so are virtual prisoners in their houses for most of the winter.

Virtually all of the working class residents want the police to sort the place out, and get rid of the scum bags, but all the Labour councilors do is stick up for the rights of the crack heads and thieves.

The labour party has totally lost touch with what it is like to live in these places, because it has become the party of the fucking champagne socialists, who refer to their old core support as "Chavs"

They haven't represented the white working class for about twenty years.

I won't be voting UKIP, because I don't need to, but I can fully understand why the abandoned working class will vote for them in huge numbers

UKIP appear to have changed tack, now claiming public services and infrastructure are over run due to migrant workers and for that reason we need to leave the EU so we can limit migration. I'm guessing they've given up on claiming they're taking all the jobs, with unemployment falling sharply now it's not a valid argument.

It's simple to blame the problems on migrants but you need to look deeper to see what the real problem is, or you risk taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. For me the problem is primarily the inefficient spending of public money and to a lesser degree there not being enough money due to everyone wanting lower taxes and the rich/large companies not paying their share.

Far too many people seem to fall for the tabloid grabbing headlines that are spouted by UKIP and the SNP, ending up voting for what isn't much more than a pack of lies. Didn't the SNP base their future independent Scotland spending on oil being $100 a barrel? Imagine if they were now independent and in a currency union with the remainder of the UK, we'd all now be royally fucked as we'd have to bail them out.

What if you haven't got £5?

There are far better and simpler solutions to the issues with the NHS.

It was only recently I found out you can make appointments with nurses for minor complaints and that a doctors appointment isn't necessary. If more and better use was made of nurses it would reduce the strain on the doctors and provide a better service.

You are on your own. Have been for a while.
The politicians are only in it for themselves and do not represent those who elect them.

Put a box at the bottom of the ballot paper with " none of them and detest  them all" and you would get a landslide victory and the biggest turn out in recent times.

Fucking hate all of them. Sad but true.

I was working up in Edinburgh this week, and I was chatting to one of my mates up there (he was a massive supporter of a Yes vote, as was I, from a "England's better off with out them" POV).
I was amazed that nobody in the media up there had challenged the SNP on how they would have funded their socialist utopia on oil at $60 a barrel when it costs $90+ to get it out of the ground.

I so wish they had had the bottle to vote with their hearts and not their heads

There are some genuine, Labour back benchers who care. They keep my hopes alive that their party will come good again after the new Labour bullshit

Are you serious ?
Get the Country back in debt with their wasteful spending plans.
Please no..... Every time that shower get in they leave the Country in a bigger mess than when they takeover.

Keep saying it, and say it louder. It's become such an article of faith in Britain, soaking up a huge and largely unquestioned budget that could be used so much more productively. The NHS really isn't as good as people like to pretend, and the waste it generates is truly shocking.

My old man until the last couple of weeks had lived in France for 10+years. Last couple of years had some quite unpleasant back problems requiring multiple operations.

His friend who stayed over here at had similar problem at similar time. Long and short of it, in France referred to consultant, diagnosed  (including scans MRI) operated within 3 weeks, had to have further operation took another three weeks to sort - friend over here still not sorted after 18 months +.

I know they pay and claim back via insurance over there but still seems to be an altogether better system.

I think the number of people who genuinely would not be able to find £5 for a doctor's appointment is sufficiently small that you would be able to introduce a safety net that would ensure everyone who needed to would get seen.

STFC_Chris puts it better than I could, so no need to repeat the point.  The flaw with the 'free at the point of service' model is that there is absolutely no disincentive to use the service when you don't need to.  While it may be free in cash terms under the current system to visit A&E (for example), having a 4 or 5 hour wait there as standard is the price we pay.

So it's more like private healthcare then? Is the cost the same as something like BUPA? The good thing about the NHS is that you don't need to pay, I'd rather it wasn't there but private healthcare is available too, and you get treated quicker.

I am not insurable privately, so I'm fucked then! Lucky I've still got the NHS.

Our doctors pretty much almost push you through the nurse first, or a telephone appointment with the doctor, before you actually get to an appointment with one.

You can of course refuse the nurse appointment.

Must be practice specifics how hard they push that kind of thing.

There would be a way.  You only have to take a look at the French system and others like it to see how.

I'd worry about the scandalous level of charges that would get levied. Hospitals being run for profit just doesn't quite sit right with me.

Having to argue with insurance companies over what is and what isn't covered. Being left with bills for tens of thousands of pounds because you didn't use your insurance company's preferred choice.

You'd isolate the poorest in society even more because they wouldn't be able to afford the insurance. Just look at the US where they've had to bring in "Obama care".

Isn't the French system just a slightly different take on the NHS and National Insurance? It's still mostly state sponsored.

I think so, yes.  It's not a free market free for all.  But it's not free at the point of service either.  Seems to be a lot more efficient than our set up.

The NHS is one of the best things about the UK. The fact that it's survived for over a half century is testament to how valued it is. The waste of money is from the unwieldy administration apparatus that seems to be constantly added to.

This is more true than you would believe.

While I was temping over the summer I accepted a 12 week contract with Wiltshire NHS to help set up the administration for the new Clinical Commissioning Group.

The amount of money wasted on furniture/printing/secretarial staff was mind blowing. I was asked not to come back after 2 weeks because I kept arguing about the inefficiencies. I did more colour printing in 2 weeks with the NHS than I did in 16 years with the Council. The clinical leads are all jealous of their little bit of the empire, and none would take a wider strategic view.

putting right services and making improvements costs money.
It's a vicious circle at the moment as the Tories close things down and sell things off to balance the books, then Labour spend years repairing the damage. They then get ousted and the Tories sell off and cut back again.

The problem is, we don't have the money to make improvements and putting right services.

I've never voted Tory, can't stand the snivelling public schoolboy pricks, but I think their approach to the economy via cuts is unfair, horrible but unavoidably necessary.

Spot on.

Alernatively for balance is it....

Labour create thousands of public sector jobs to get unemployment down and leave an economic mess and Tories spend years removing said jobs balancing the books again and then the cycle begins again!

FWIW it's somewhere in the middle I suggest - each party has its dogmatic position and due to this i don't trust any of the buggers!

our political parties, not that different - the problem with cutting services is that maintenance is not done and then it's really expensive to repair/replace - very evident with roads.

Yep. I for one never have and never will vote Labour. Clueless mongs. The rest aren't much better though.

That did make me smile.  The idea that Labour is out there repairing damage is extraordinary, surely?  They took a wrecking ball to the economy.  Heart is in more or less the right place, maybe, but they were and - so far as I can tell - still are economically incompetent.

The damage they inflicted economically is going to take years to put right.  I'm no fan of Tory austerity, but neither can I see much of an alternative, sadly.

Just for a little balance, here's the Blackbird Leys council election result from a few weeks ago:

The Conservative Party   27   
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition   13   
Liberal Democrat   11   
Green Party   21   
UK Independence Party   91   
Labour Party   509

Make your own minds up as to who's totally lost touch.

 :suicide:

On a turnout of 15.7%...

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/Election_results_occw.htm

So yes, the French system (like other European healthcare systems) delivers fantastic service, but it's at the price of a huge public deficit + huge private contributions. For all that, I still think the system answers requirements better than than the NHS, that people without a point of comparison have been brainwashed into thinking is the mother of all healthcare systems.

Out of interest, did you feel the same during what i think was the longest period of sustained economic growth that this country has ever had - from the later Major years, all the way through Blair and into Brown?

And if so, who do you hold responsible for the crippling early 90s recession and Cameron's unique double dip?  Labour's wrecking ball again?

At the time, no.  I enjoyed the 'benefit' like everyone else.  But we all found out, to our cost, in the years that followed that the 'sustained economic growth' was completely unsustainable.  A giant bubble, fuelled by debt and household spending.  It was not my job to spot this.  It was the government's.  They failed.


The Tories.


Labour.


Pls see above.

No. They did a pretty good job of repairing the services that the Tories ruined. The Tories are doing the same thing again now with their attacks on almost everything.
The financial world recession would have happened regardless of who was in government.

Yep, had to be done unfortunately and will continue to have to be.

Was never going to be popular and the Tories have unfairly penalised certain sectors of society more so than others. They inherited one big mess though and it was never going to be pretty to sort out.

It would.

But the implications of a Labour government trying to spend their way out of it would've been catastrophic.

The response to the financial crisis from Labour  (and I suspect the Tories would have been exactly the same so I am not singling Labour ) out just summed up how clueless and more depressing patronising politicians have become

C.12 years of growth were apparently singularly down to Labours frugal policies  (I will gloss over the sale of the gold), but the minute the wheels fall off and the shit hits the fan  it becomes an international problem they have no control over!

We are not stupid, the fact that you treat us thus just shows the disdain politicians have for the public!

Hasn't the nations debts risen under the current condem coalition?

As did the financial boom that preceded it?

Public sector debt will always rise. Economies function on debt.

It's the debt to GDP ratio and, more to a point, the structural deficit that is the concern. Yes, debt:GDP has risen since the austerity measures started because the country is still being run at a deficit. Labour are somewhat to blame for the spending they introduced during their government. All of the cost-cutting measures we've seen so far are designed to reduce the deficit so that by 2018 the country will be in surplus and debt:GDP will start to fall. So there is far more austerity to come in the next few years. We didn't cut costs fast and hard enough, unlike the US who did and are now 2+ years ahead of us in terms of recovery.

Labour might've "did a pretty good job of repairing the services that the Tories ruined" but at a significant opportunity cost.

Why did the recovery have to be done with such haste and at such a cost to services etc?
Why couldn't things be done more gradually so the impact is less severe?

With respect Red Frog,your take on things is exactly what this Tory government wants,then they abolish it,seemingly with public approval.When its gone we will all be sorry.You say its not all its cracked up to be,but that's not the fault of the NHS.

The way I liken it to, no doubt wrongly, is trying to pay your credit card off with the minimum amount each moth while still spending on it.

This thread is like watching a bunch of spastics who have been thrown into a swimming pool.

With respect... and I don't have the answers but...

a) the privitisation of the NHS actually started under the labour when they started limited outsourcing.

b) many of the problems with the NHS now relate to them being tied up with with PFI  contracts which left huge debts.

I don't disagree that the Tories have an idealogical issue at play here, but fuck me labour have made it bloody easy for them!

Delightful. Feel free to go and lick a mains socket you fuckwit.

Oh god yes, I've seen a few ridiculous PFI contracts recently and it's crazy how politicians (all sides) will make patently stupid financial decisions just because they have a policy edict to somehow make look successful to the public.

A bit like pm's questions then?
Why not contribute to it and correct us spastics oh wise one?

Did you forget your armbands again?

Yes, I understand that's the risk anyone takes in criticising the NHS, so that even the Tories ring-fence spending on it. The system's full of waste, but protecting people's right to abuse it seems to be untouchable. It would take a huge mindshift to move to a system supported by private insurance (related to ability to pay), but the public funds that would be freed up from fundamental NHS reform would transform the economy.

I'll take a wild stab in the dark, that Christy and Arriba work in the public sector

They have been taking it easy with the cuts, worst of it is still to come.

I'll guess that arriba drives trucks  ;) and his hobby is fence erecting and shopping.

yeah pretty much apart from the shopping bit. Certainly not a hobby of mine.
I don't work in the public sector. Know plenty of people who do though.

Given that I either do or don't, it's not exactly a wild stab in the dark.  Suggesting I was a geography teacher from Melksham might be more like it.

But anyway, you're wrong on me too.

Speechless. Just speechless.

Theresa mays plan to force all foreign graduates to leave the country is the most ass backwards, short sighted, completely fucking retarded idea I've heard in a lon long time

It Theresa May though, so not a total shock.

Absolutely spot on, total madness. May seems to be angling for the top job in a big way by trying to be hardline on everything but it's odd to see a Tory minister picking a fight with the CBI.

As a Surrey resident who doesn't usually bother with a midweek match because of jams on the M4, I was curious to learn from UKIP that this was the fault of the EU or migrants - presumably heading to the Cotswold homes of the political classes who appreciate their low cost work ethic compared to the locals..

The answer's pretty simple. Immigration is a significant electoral issue (and has been for a long time) and both Labour and the Tories are facing significant pressures from their constituents. The problem is neither Labour nor the Tories want to take the very difficult decisions which might actually genuinely control immigration numbers, so they both go for "easy options" - to meet targets if nothing else.

Yeah, I know that. It's still fucking stupid

It's not all foreign students just non-EU but still......

This may be the historical position, but now changed by the Tories, so that fracking can happen beneath your house without your say so....here's the Green MP Caroline Lucas  take on matters....not that the BBC would allow her access to share a platform with someone like Farage, after all she's an MP and he isn't.

Not really changed as such. Oil and gas has been an exception to a landowners mineral rights since the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. The only (well, I say "only"..) thing that the tories want to change - and it isn't law yet by the looks of it, although they appear hell bent on pushing it through - is allowing a more or less unfettered right of access through the landowners land to extract the gas.

The land under the property remains *owned* by the landowner. Not that that'll be much comfort to any poor bastards who end up having tons of shite dumped under their property mind :)

I believe the semantic sleight of hand is that drilling under someone's land, would once have been considered trespass, but not now.

I've always had a suspicion that there must be some oil or shale gas, lurking under particularly Old Town....due to the fact the geology is remarkably similar to bits of Dorset, where you get oil fields like Wytch Farm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/entertainment/days_out/walk_through_time/02.shtml

Apart from the usual green hysteria, can anyone tell me what is actually wrong with fracking ?

I'm not in any way saying that it isn't wrong, just that I've never heard a rational argument either way.

I tend to be swayed in favour, simply because the usual crowd of hippies and rent-a-mob types are against it

Happy to be persuaded either way.

(and Reg, the fact that the Tories like it, and the Americans do it, isn't necessarily a good enough reason to not like it)

Well it involves setting off massive explosions miles underground, I.e near the water table etc, close to cities and built up areas.

I'd have thought the more pertinent question might be "what evidence is there that its definitely safe?"

The fact that the Germans and French wont touch it is a bit worrying.

You don't mind flames coming out of your taps then?

This was a pretty balanced Documentary by Iain Stewart on it a while back. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1z39ui_e14-fracking-the-new-energy-rush_tv

Nigel Ferage, The Times Briton of the year

Odd from a paper that's desperately trying to bring him down

Drug policy should be far more of a political issue than it is. The fact that we have a government who ignore - and even it appears deliberately suppress - scientific advice and evidence in favour of kow-towing to the Daily Mail, is an absolute disgrace.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exminister-norman-baker-leaks-details-on-home-secretarys-drug-stance-9945643.html

Surely they are widely available in Manchester aren't they ?

Anyone who thought Scottish independence was a good idea still think so with the price of crude oil disappearing down the plug hole? Mr. salmond is strangely quiet for a gobby revolutionist.

Interesting to see that the Pope, is issuing an encyclical on the subject of economic systems and climate change....good stuff from the Pontiff...


There are of course plenty of climate change deniers in Christian churches, particularly in the US....in the same way there are probably of climate change deniers on the TEF.

The Pope's been saying a lot of stuff lately that goes against what fundamentalists might think. It seems that he is recognising that religion needs to stay in touch with the modern world or risk fading away.

With the discussions about the TV debates with the party leaders, I want to know why we can't have local debates?

Hold it at the Wyvern (one night for each constituency), allocate tickets by ballot, have all the candidates present, then go for it Question Time style. Broadcast it on the internet for those that can't attend, have a Twitter discussion go on and all that stuff.

Would be a good way of getting people a bit more involved in political debate and to find out more about the candidates.

Local debates happen all the time, we had one in Bath the other day, but they tend not to be broadcast.

Do they? Have we had them in Swindon?

Never heard of any happening before.

We had Question Time in Swindon less than a year ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMYw9SasAg

They already do, they're called hustings events...

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1516726.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_02_07

LMFAO

Another reason to hate the Tory cunt

Not a big fan of the Tory party, but Buckland has been a big help to my parents with a few issues regarding my brother's education so whatever else he may be, he's a good local MP. Which is another difficulty with our electoral system - in 2005 I wasn't eligible to vote but it would have been a very tough choice as Julia Drown was an excellent constituency MP but Labour was suffering from the Iraq hangover (as it was, Drown stood down, but you get the point)

On the other hand, I didn't hear too many positive things about Snelgrove, who I believe is re-standing for Labour in South Swindon.

He may have helped you on an individual basis and that's good to hear but that doesn't excuse him or his party.

Agree about Julia drown, she was excellent. Also agree about snelgrove but to be fair she knocked on my door recently and I grilled her. She was very reasonable She got too close to Gordon Brown but is still the best option I reckon.

I find Snelgrove intensely irritating, and she comes across as a suck up career politician. Which presumably isn't true given her age. But I have heard some good remarks regarding her local work.

But I think you've made a good point. How do you pick when your local MP is actually pretty good for your area, but when the party the represent are a bunch of (ed) ball bags

Your local MP is going to be whipped to vote along party lines in all of the important votes...so the party consideration comes first, in my book.

Interesting that the Labour wipe out predicted in Scotland this May could lead, in all probability, to a Labour/SNP coalition at Westminster.

Guardian: Scotland Poll Shows a Nation on the Verge of Abandoning Labour (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/feb/04/scotland-poll-shows-a-nation-on-the-verge-of-abandoning-labour)

I'm trying to work through the likely chain of events that would follow if Labour tried to form a government with the SNP.  One way or another, I think that there's a good chance that it could lead to independence for Scotland by the back door.

Yes, I think so.

Did you see inside the commons? The Tories send e-mails to their mps telling them to ask camoron prepared questions at pmq's. Rather than using the time to do their job and represent their constituents. I wonder if our Tory boy wanker mps have followed these orders?

That's long been the case, under Labour it became embarrassing it was so obvious. The problem largely arises from the fact the legislature is not properly separate from the government. MPs have a vested interest in being sycophantic so they can get a ministerial job etc.

Quite interesting that program, although the nature of the internal politics of Westminster is a joke. It did show that there are some decent MPs out there as well (the 2 birds), irrispective of your party allegiance

Agree. That's what grated me with snelgrove. I think anyone asking preloaded questions should be ousted. The practice itself should be banned from the commons. agreed

Of course, the saintly Mr Buckland, so beloved of some on here, would never do anything wrong to further his own interests...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698664/New-law-chief-guilty-misconduct-race-hate-trial-didn-t-tell-PM-Professional-misconduct-illicitly-getting-case-notes-involving-school-governor.html

What makes me laugh about this election is that there are actually people who will vote for the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. That's the thing that's fucking insane!

Yep....would be so much better if people never bothered, so leaving the way open for the BNP....I see why you equate this to insanity.

The definition of insanity, according to Einstein: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That sounds like a typical Labour voter to me.

I take it you'll be voting for the respect party, ironside?

Yeah, 'coz that's fucking logical...

They're all a bunch of cunts.

The end.

Snelgrove was absolutely worse than useless when she was our MP- stuck up for the locals but then voted with the Govt everytime.
She has no chance of being re-elected

Except that Ashcroft has her neck and neck with Buckland (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/south-swindon/)

If you're a bit of a political nerd like I am, Ashcroft's local polls are fascinating.

He also has Clegg just three points up in Sheffield Hallam. People talk about Portillo in 1997, but if Clegg loses his seat I will laugh myself into a hernia.

Edit: take that back, he's three points BEHIND. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/sheffield-hallam-doncaster-north-thanet-south/#more-7536

Snelgrove is certainly putting the work in and knocking on doors. She's out and about and has been for months. I think she will win and I think Tomlinson will win the other seat, splitting the town.

She has got no chance- is about as intelligent as a wet fart. To win in Swindon you have to win over floating voters and considering her record last time in post she has no chance.

The only thing she does do is get herself into the paper a lot by jumping on every bandwagon going. Clueless as is the whole of the Labour Party- they only evwe have one answer Tax, Borrow and Spend- they've learnt nothing from their past mistakes

Lets fucking hope so

So until this enlightenment, did you think that the questions at PQT where off the cuff ?

To a point. I certainly didn't think it was loaded to the level it is. I naively thought questions were genuine on the whole.

really? You do surprise me....

Almost 40 Labour MPs employ staff on zero-hours contracts despite Ed Miliband claiming they have 'no place' in Britain........oh my days!

Nasty Tories eh Reg? Wait a minute, they're not Tories, or are they?    :hmmm:

They are all cunts.

Zero hour fucking contracts should be illegal. They are convenient for the unemployment stats though.

Flash is right.

Anyone tried this: https://www.politicalcompass.org/

My results attached

No great surprise in my result, however I wonder how many Labour voters consider the party to be so right wing and authoritarian!

Well I'm just to your left. In reality I think I'm a bit closer to the centre than that. But it doesn't matter since I don't get a vote anywhere.

(http://i.imgur.com/lAtEKce.png)

Political compass is renowned for telling everyone that they're left wing libertarian and that all the established parties are basically Hitler.

This one seems to be a bit more accurate, based on UK political parties and generally doesn't tell people they're all utopian lefties https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_uk1

I got bored and gave up half-way through, which sums up my political alignment perfectly.

My result showed Liberal Democrats, which is a shame.

I got 5 squares from the left directly on the horizontal line on the first one.
Labour top on 85% on the second one.

You sunk my battleship.

Im slightly to the left of Gandhi.  That fascist twat.

The Greens are the party I have least in common with.

Thank fuck for that, I don't do tree hugging

90% labour
83% liberal
82% green

You'll have to shag Norman Scott now.

Could prove a bit messy

No huge surprise

(http://i.imgur.com/niizEdQ.png)

Green on the first one, Labour 86% on the 2nd one.

OK, I thought I'd make an effort:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/jamiethon/chart_zpsvgve6o53.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jamiethon/media/chart_zpsvgve6o53.png.html)

I think the last 2 pages of question influenced the results rather a lot.

Me too. How disappointing. I vote Labour. Now I'm confused.

(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y524/Duncoman/political%20leaning_zps3g4vwfbq.png)

Bit more libertarian than I thought I'd be.

That's pretty much where I landed on the first survey which, I think, equates to the Green Party. The second one showed me as Lib Dem, which leaves me in quandary.
Do I vote for a useless bunch of cunts, with no chance of having any influence in Parliament, or do I ......(you can make the last bit up yourselves).

Just did the second test thing. I'm surprised how lib dem my views make me. Not that I ever plan to vote in anything other than jest, if I can be arsed.

Lib dems 93%
Labour 89%
Green 76%

Green 94%
Labour 89%
Lib Dem 83%

I was planning on voting Green.

Anyone still considering voting green ?

yea ?................have a listen to this............

http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384

Labour  92%
Lib Dem 76%
Green   76%

Holy shit, that was bad.  I won't even be able to use them as a protest vote after listening to that.

You'd think she might have learnt her lesson after her car crash interview with Andrew Neil in January...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFn8RIXOBE

And anyone thinking of voting for UKIP should watch the BBC "Meet The Ukippers" documentary that was on the other evening, it was so bad in places it was more like a mockumentary than the real thing. Nice write up here....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11429785/Meet-the-Ukippers-9-slightly-terrifying-things-we-learned.html

Yes, Bennett's interview was bad, but she didn't try and lie her way through it, and is only human at the end of the day. Her 'performance'.shouldn't effect how you read the manifesto or judge your local candidates.

That interview was the funniest political 5 minutes I've seen since In The Thick of It.

She's obviously completely out of her depth and shouldn't be anywhere near the TV debates, for her own good. Complete laughing stock and to blame it on a cold? Dear oh dear.

I agree to a degree, however she/they really need to up their game, just imagine if Milliband had stumbled over  policies like this it would have been everywhere or if Farage had been as poor it would be grasped as being evidence of their lack of substance.

The thing is it does affect the manifesto as it makes it clear that some substantial parts of the document have not remotely been costed which makes you wonder what else is just hypothetical in the document. Whilst this is not surprising, very naive to admit this.

I suspect that the Greens need to learn from the LibDems and if they have any interest in getting involved in a post election coalition make sure they don't have any eye catching manifesto points which are included on the basis that it doesn't really matter as they won't get elected - which haunt you if you do obtain an element of power.

I only read the transcript, but it doesn't appear to at all. She says there is a fully costed programme which will be set out in the manifesto.

It's a gaffe, obviously, and will of course be seized upon but it's a failure of communication/presentation rather than a reflection on the actual policy.

God help her in the TV debates though.

What with recent tv exposure on UKIP / Green party and Milliband`s general confusing message surely it`s going to be Cameron`s to lose.......?

I may be a little blurred in my approach to the Greens, we have had them as local councillors here for many years and the simple fact is they don't have any workable policies. We get a monthly newsletter which outlines their successes (mainly litter picking and writing letters to people complaining about things - which never change) - and they are as happy to spin the truth as the next party when it suits them.

Our ward is an odd mix of terraced housing mainly populated by the liberal academics who work at the university and a council estate (I am not an academic but live in that bit). They were elected by the academics and if you want policies to suit the middle classes then you are laughing.

A particular highlight was an attempt to change the parking regulations in our street so that I (and everyone else on our side) would have to pay £40 a year to reduce overall parking by 60%, after three consultation process (god knows how much that cost) when challenged they claimed that it was the County Council pushing it through, I used to work at the County Council and know people in highways - they confirmed that they had told the Green Councillors repeatedly there was no evidence to support the policy but had been overruled.

Sorry to go on, I just get angry when the Greens present themselves as being whiter than white, they may not be as corrupt as the others but they sure as hell will play the political game and lie when it suits them!

Green Party me hairy arse!

Might as well vote for the Raving Loonies

The Greens do have some people who are competent with numbers, it's just that Bennett isn't one of them. I really don't know why she's the leader to be honest, she's pretty regularly a poor media performer.

Molly Scott Cato is a Green MEP and is an economics lecturer, so I'm presuming she can at least add up.

That's exactly why I'm voting for them. If lunatics like that vote for them, I'm in. The idea of UKIP having a say in our affairs (if they actually do get to have a say) is highly amusing.

Yeah, fucking hilarious having racists in charge.

At least the Greens are harmless.

The green leader is guilty of getting nervous, forgetting things and not being the best orator. That said they would have made calculations etc before coming up with policies. Cameron is a good talker but lies through his teeth. Ukip are idiots. I'm staggered anyone could seriously consider voting for them

I wouldn't say giving a bunch of clueless lentil knitters any responsibility in running the country is 'harmless'.
That's the problem though, isn't it? The choices on offer to the electorate are very underwhelming:

Conservatives - Sponsored by Big Business, run by Big Business, selfish, arrogant & looking out for themselves. Appeal to businessmen, tax dodging businessmen, rich people who want to be richer and self serving Public school boys.

Labour - Run by someone with all the charisma of a limp lettuce and full of great ideas, but no tangible ways to pay for them. Appeal to middle aged Trade Unionists and working class people who vote Labour because they always vote Labour, like some kind of fucking statement of their roots.

Lib Dems - Not trusted by a large proportion of people for their performance in government and a leader who appears to be Cameron's bitch. Appeal to people who don't want to vote Tory but hate Labour and aren't racist.

UKIP - Racist, bigoted, madder than a box of frogs and dangerous as fuck. Appeal to people who 'don't like coloureds' and those who think that immigrants are the cause for all their problems. (They're not. You are the cause for most of your problems).

Greens - Some great ideas, but let's face it they haven't got a fucking clue. Appeal to sandal wearing, middle-class, right-on bellends. 

I can't for the life of me understand why so many people feel disenfranchised.....

Talk to people from Brighton, where the Greens run the council and have their only sitting MP, and they'll tell you the Greens are far from harmless.  The party is split down the middle between those who are genuine environmentalists and those who are there because they believe in progressive/liberal politics and think that the Greens are the only party that can deliver that.  The result is that local services are in a complete mess.  Unbelievably, the recycling record there is well below the national average.

I simply don't buy the argument that Natalie Bennett's performance in recent interviews is down to being off colour.  I think it demonstrates that she's out of her depth and calls the Greens' competence/ability to govern in to question...which is highly relevant when deciding who to vote for.  I wouldn't go anywhere near them at the moment.

'Harmless' meaning actually not doing any physical harm to people. I'm not saying they're brilliant or even good, just that unlike UKIP they don't have a platform built upon the twin pillars of casual racism and fear.

Agree with all of the above, what is grating a little is it seems to be the same commentators in the media (and being repeated all over my Facebook feed) who slate Farage for being unprofessional and lacking substance who are peddling this idea that its the poor little Greens and people should cut them some slack.

Yes criticise UKIP for what they are, but can we at least have some sort of consistency.

Better to do something that's going to be unsettling and might at least cause a problem. Why fuck about pretending one of the other cunts is the answer? This country is fucked and every one of them is a hateful idiot.

I at least like the idea that if enough people were to do it, it might send out a warning shot across the bow of the establishment. Why do we have to continue to be fucked by the ruling class? Why should we continue to vote for the same old white* posh twats who only care about themselves? It's clearly worked so well for so long... Yeah, lets keep doing that.


*who obviously provide enough soundbites to prove they're definitely not racists

You mean like Nigel Farage for example?

Yes. You've slightly missed my point though - Farage is a protest vote. (Although in reading back I suppose that isn't obvious, I'd never want a cunt like that in power.)

I did get that. Just a very odd protest - unless you're protesting against immigrants, the EU or the NHS? Because that's mainly what differentiates him from the other old white posh twats.

And Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Bennett the list goes on, not sure when you would get to someone who didn't meet this criteria!

Politics as it stands in this country is somewhat dominated by 'White posh twat'

Not sure where one should go with a protest vote, as I would be loathe to give any of the emerging parties a vote as it would only encourage them... possibly a nice local independent candidate who is actually standing for something real....

Or as a friend of mine suggests, just draw a cock on the voting paper... Although I fear that could be misinterpreted as a vote for some of them.

Perhaps, but all other forms of protest are toothless and I refuse to vote for another goon who doesn't do anything worth remembering.

If they were to somehow end up having a say in our country (or maybe come close) it might fuck some shit up and cause some actual passion to emerge from people. We might grow some balls and start to stand up for ourselves (as a populace, en masse).

Shit isn't good and we all rollover and continue to vindicate this broken system. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.


Exactly.

Bennett is Australian, is it even possible to be Australian and posh?

(http://www.quotecollection.com/author-images/dame-edna-everage-3.jpg)

I assume she is a British Citizen now anyway?

I get that. And I'm struggling to suggest a decent alternative tbh as I share your despair at the current establishment, all different shades of the same shite. But I struggle more with the concept that despairing of the establishment would lead me to vote for a rabble of racist bigots with barely a coherent thought between them.

But they are asking the questions no-one else is. Such as what happens when we run out of renewable energy...

As people have said, there's no appealing options regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum.

Complacency, and far too many vested interests have resulted in a number of shades of the same shite.

The Tories may be backed by big business but Labour as they currently are are no better - they're just in different people's pockets.

This lot are too small and unknown to be a legitimate option (yet) - I think they might have candidates standing in two constituencies?

http://www.yppuk.org/p/manifesto.html?m=1

But their values seem closest to my own, personally.

Progressive, different policies that get at the heart of what has driven inequality between rich and poor, and a headline policy that seems fair as well as economically stimulative? Not something I've seen from any of the established parties.

Surely, the point of renewable energy is that it doesn't run out

Henceforth, no one else is asking that question...

I dearly hope you are playing along but for completeness....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-victoria-ayling-asks-in-meeting-what-happens-when-renewable-energy-runs-out-10057008.html

I understand where you're coming from, but voting the same way has achieved nothing. Something has to change and it'll only change by doing something drastic. Besides, do you actually think they could ever get into power? And if they did get in, do you not in anyway think that being racist and bigoted wouldn't cause some sort of uprising, the like of which we need?*

Actually, typing that makes me realise nothing would change. People will still moan about their neighbour who drives a BMW, because they don't, and will still watch X-Factor and spend their lives on Facebook debating soap operas.

*In all honestly, why, unlike every party since the dawn of time, would they actually follow through on any policies? I can't imagine business would allow them to do anything that harms their interests and I sadly don't think anything would change.

Anyone who votes UKIP, however they justify it to themselves, is a fucking idiot at best.

Herthab for PM.

I'm a fucking idiot at best

I am effectively disenfranchised.  Live in a safe Tory seat, and do not intend to vote Tory.  Under the current First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system, my vote is therefore worthless.  I might as save myself the bother going to the polling station, because my vote will change nothing (other than to improve the turnout figure.)

For that reason alone, I am giving serious thought to the possibility that I might not vote at all this time around - which would be a first for me.  To vote would be to lend support to the current voting system, which I do not approve of.  I'm politically interested...always have been.  So it depresses me that I feel this way.  But I do.

This post helps show exactly my motivation for voting UKIP. If it makes you angry, hopefully it makes countless others angry. Then, if they somehow ended up getting to have a say in our lives, maybe people can get really angry, wake the fuck up and actually do something.

No, I think the most likely outcome from a strong UKIP showing at the election is to drive the mainstream parties even further into knee-jerk rightwing policies on all the standard Daily Express issues UKIP stands for. Or at the worst case they form the minority part of a coalition with the Tories - that's what the country really needs, a Tory government with a minority partner egging them on to be even more right wing, even more dismantling of the NHS, even more authoritarian, even more dog-whistle racism. That's quite some vision you're voting for there.

A genuinely terrifying prospect.

Do you honestly think they're going to get any power?

I suppose the reality of the situation is nothing will really change. Maybe red for blue and a few token words about something making headlines, then maybe a short period of occasional justification as to why none of their policies have come to fruition.

And to acknowledge what you've said: you know far more than me about the political system, and clearly have greater trust in it, so what you say carries far more weight than anything I've typed (obviously :) ). I would hope though, that if something that awful were to happen I'd firstly be stoned to death and secondly people might start trying to fight this fucked up system.

My local constituency is North Dorset.

UKIP lost to the Conservatives here by a very narrow margin

The fact I could be typing this from a place where 'immigrants should get out because this is OUR country' is our political leaning is a fucking terrifying concept.

They don't need to get power, they just need to get enough support to get the Tories to turn rightwards. I know internet lefties (although I usually am one) generally paint Cameron as the devil incarnate, but far worse than him lurks on the right of the Tory party.

and on the left side of the ahem "New" Labour party. Or are they really the "old" Labour party? Just for balance, just for balance.

I don't think I do
I definitely don't. I think the most likely outcome of what you're advocating would be a whole series of very tawdry deals which would push our political mainstream several shades to the right with some very unpleasant consquences for the most vulnerable. And I don't think any of our oh-so-principled mainstream parties would blanch even a shade if they sniffed power at the end of it.
No it doesn't, that's daft. But I don't share your faith in a Russell Brand style uprising brought on by the excesses of the right. It's been tried before - the European far right and far left both tried it in the 70s - the Italian fascists referred to it as "The Strategy of Tension", the idea being that if they bombed enough tube stations as a counter to far-left terrorism there'd be counter-reaction from the left and eventually a military coup as the state fell apart. While the ultra-left thought if they bombed stuff, then there'd be a state crackdown which would force people into revolt. Neither happened. But a lot of innocent people suffered and died.

I think you're making the mistake that UKIP has any polices - on the NHS or indeed anything else.

Get involved then at the grass roots...democracy is a fragile flower, for example in Swindon South, there are 30/40 people prepared to put themselves out, to try and get Buckland re-elected....slightly less in Swindon North for Tomlinson.

:nod:

To be fair, I don't think I've ever accused UKIP of having any actual policies (best exemplified by Farage dismissing any commitment given in their manifesto at the last election on the grounds that he hadn't even read it!) but "Nigel's knee-jerks" which is what they have in place of policy are consistently unpleasant and he's plainly extremely hostile to the NHS.

Considering your previous comments on political issues I'm surprised you could consider voting for a party which seems to represent the complete opposite of your personal views. You hate the Tories yet will you vote for an even worse option?

I think a lot of people this time around are simply looking to shake up the Establishment/established order.  The Expenses Scandal in 2010 was the start; and it's grown from there.

How do you achieve that?  In England, many feel that voting UKIP represents the clearest way.  And in Scotland, it's voting for the SNP.

Christ on a fucking bike.  A UKIP vote a protest against expenses scandals?  For fucks sake those cunts have taken some lovely european jobs and are hoovering up every bit of cash they can out of it.  Not because they want to expose the waste in the political system but because they want their snouts in the trough.

Yep, "Farage's knee jerks" is not a bad description. I won't worry, UKIP's polling trend is most decidedly on the down trajectory - he's taken the once promising party (20 years ago) into a political cul-de-sac.

I'll be very surprised if they end up with more than one seat -Carswell, which has more to do with his own personal popularity locally than anything else.

arriba, i know its a strange one as I'm a Labour man but the biggest issue for me is Europe, their creeping federalisation and the arrogance of knowing better than anyone.....even Ed Balls. I suppose one of the plusses of never being elected or accountable to anyone.
I'm not particularly bothered about immigration. If we have a let all come in policy then let it be our policy - not a dictat from Europe.
I'm not bothered about sovereignty as I'd happilliy put the Queen in a council house in Halifax or even better next door to Thor.
I'm not against Europe - I'm anti EU. I'm quite happy to trade freely with them as originally signed up for.
For me its about having more control of our own destiny.
I know this will be controversial buit I'd happilly be more aligned to the USA than Europe, althuogh preferably neither.
Labour used to be the anti EU party.

Yes...often forgotten that. Labour, up untill 1988, had a proud history of opposing membership of the EEC/EU project. Particularly Hugh Gaitskell who was (and remains) the only leader to see properly the project for what it is.

Imagine being prime minister and be actively trying to avoid debating Ed sodding Milliband.

And then trying to give an air of legitimacy to the raving nutters on the far right of your party who are fleeing like rats by insisting they appear in the debate.

I nearly agree with you.

Where I disagree.

Believe it or not the Royal family bring in far more than they cost in terms of £'s & standing within the world. Getting rid of them and becoming a republic would IMHO be a retrograde step, the commonwealth would also suffer.

Unfettered immigration had been detrimental on so many levels to everyone, not least the unskilled working class that labour new or old has purported to represent. Not withstanding the amount of undesirable scum that has entered via Europe and the world at large and is underminding our way of life and pissing in our faces. The human rights act also needs to be repealed.

Europe is my beef massively. Corrupt. Anti competive, full of ex communists, un elected beaurocrats pissing billions of € & our £'s Down the drain. The scaremongering by certain political & vested interested individuals WRT jobs and business. As a child of an immigrant myself I fully support immigration, however this needs checks and balances and I have to say that Ukip is offering millions of disenfranchised voters of ALL sides a voice whether mainstream politics like it or not. It is the fault of mainstream politics and the political elite over the years that Ukip have and are gaining critical mass and why the broad sheets as well as red tops report regular smear and scare stories. This is to maintain the status quo, which brings us all in to line as good little subserviant citizens of the system.

Eight weeks out from a general election, and the main political story of the day (according to the main broadsheets) is what Ed Miliband's kitchen looks like.

Jesus wept.  And they wonder why people are turning away from politics.

Negative campaigning as usual.

Nobody has actually got any new, exciting policies so it all disintegrates into scaremongering, ya boo sucks to you politics.

A curse on all their mansions

It's worse than that though.  I try to get a balanced view of most stories, so have got in to the habit of visiting the Telegraph site followed immediately by the Guardian - and they're as bad as each other.  Stuff like this is no more than gossip.  It's truly pathetic.

Whichever party advocates on the spot fines for people who walk whilst - using mobile phones/reading newspapers/books/watching films/tv programmes on their ipads gets my vote.

Fines should be doubled for doing this on train platforms and/or steps.

I think I've already mentioned this in the irritates me thread.

I've had a look at my Guardian, and can find a headline story, about how invasive surveillance of people's personal data will get a complete overhaul....and inside how Labour is proposing to give Ofgem powers to cut fuel bills if elected, and a massive Tory privatisation plan for the NHS.

I don't think you can turn away from politics, but you can fail to see what is going on around you....

Not saying there is an absence of serious debate, Reg.  Just that the irrelevant gossip/twattery is given undue prominence.

Both the Guardian and the Telegraph have the picture of the Milibands in their kitchenette at the very top of their respective web pages at the moment.  The Telegraph leads with the 'story' (in the Guardian, it's second) - and they even have an informative follow up piece on how Kate Middleton also has a second kitchen.

It's worse than pathetic.  These are two of the leading broadsheets/serious news outlets.  And they've turned in to comics.

Not in the hard copy.....maybe it's something to do with the perceived audience.  The Guardian last year won the Pulitzer prize for public service....due to its work on exposing the kinds of activities undertaken by the security services....which suggests to me it's still a serious newspaper.  However, to survive in this post modern world, you can't be too po-faced...so it does throw in some bollocks.

Yes, although that process can be aided by having your attention redirected elsewhere

It is the most uninspiring election campaign of my life so far, and I think this is part of the medias problem with it. Instead of any policies its just tit for tat rubbish, take the last PMQ's on one hand we have Milliband banging on about debates (something which incumbent parties always shy away from - seem to remember Cameron baiting Brown similarly last time), and in response we have Cameron banging on about what Labour may do after the election.

I can understand why the media are looking for other stories, Millibands second kitchen looks quite nice, although green basket..... really!

Anyone watching the channel 4 not quite a debate? Cameron struggling, Paxman is going in strong. Think Milliband may be a little nervous...

Squirming fucker - but TBF no politician is any different.

Paxman will be only winner here.

He has the better of Cameron and he will absolutley destroy Ed

But no politician can defend every single thing they have said in the past and the public realise it.

The only choice we have, as voters, is between one lying bastard and another lying bastard.

As ever, it's a choice of the lesser of two evils.  Ignoring all the false promises, lies and other bollocks they both come out with, it comes down to which of the parties would you prefer to have control of the country's purse strings for the next 5 years.

Cameron very disingenuous asked about private providers in the NHS: talking about charities and hospices. That clearly isn't what people have a problem with is it?

I have recently had a knee replacement - via the NHS I got it done privately at the Ridgeway.

Done within 18 weeks between getting the OK and getting it done.

Brilliant!

Kay Burley has interrupted Miliband twice in three questions, didn't interrupt Cameron once. Hmm.

Why hasn't Paxman grilled him before the audience questions?

Cracking cheese, Gromit

They're saving that for the end.

Don't think Paxman has given Milliband a chance to answer his questions properly, at least he's been honest and not tried to hide behind lies.

Nail. Head. Hit. As much as I think Cameron is a smug, slimy posh twat I still think currently he is the best bet to continue the recovery of our country. The thought of Ed Milliband as PM somewhat worries me.

I think Ed's held up fairly well, certainly better than I expected. The two times he's cracked have been mentions of his brother being a better candidate though, that wound still looks pretty sore.

I don't personally see what will be achieved by talking about his brother.

Does that surprise you in any way whatsoever? Kay Burley actually doing a reasonable impression of an actual journalist, rather than a partisan hack, now there would be an image to conjure with

They might make him cry. That would be great telly. Oh, sorry, were you wondering about who might be better at governing the country?

That's probably been in his favour, doesn't let him give away what a twonk he actually is

Actually, Milliband - when he was allowed to - communicated much better than Cameron, certainly in the audience questions, and gave clearer answers.  Although Paxman was pretty ruthless with him, I would say Milliband won the evening.

I'd be more concerned about Ed Balls being in charge of the Treasury.

only saw the paxman part of Milliband, the thought of him in charge of the country nearly make me want to vote Tory, nearly.

Cameron finds it almost impossible to answer a direct question and comes across as a bit of a cunt. Milliband looks like a rabbit in headlights and doesn't appear very statesmanlike at all.

Unfortunately politics in this country is becoming more and more like The US, where it's personalities, not policies, that are the most important thing. Cameron is a fucking lizard, Milliband is a bumbling incompetent, Clegg is a wimp and Farage is a joke.

Tough choice for the masses....

Couldn`t bring myself to watch as I see absolutely no point in the TV debates - a few years ago it made Nick Clegg look like a bloke who knew what he was talking about.....the threat of Milliband having to ask Alex Salmond for support in running this country just fills me with a dread that makes Cameron seem like the only choice.....heaven forbid. The media seemingly want to encourage a coalition of any sort....

well summed up Hethab.

one point though, not seen a manifesto yet. and if there was one, would anyone a) read it, b) believe it ?

I'm convinced most votes have always been cast on habit, leader personality, or failing that who has the best hair.

Well that's my planned Political career fucked then.

If Salmond was not intent on breaking the country up, he'd have a lot to recommend him as a leader.  You can't fault his commitment to his ideals (even if, like me, you don't agree with them.)  And he has more statesmanship/gravitas than the rest of them put together.

Have to say I have a sneaking (& grudging) admiration for the man.  Not hard at all to see how the SNP vote has taken off in Scotland.

This makes me shudder.

The coalition is happening anyway, regardless of what the media want.  Majority government is likely when you have 2 or 3 serious contenders.  But this time around, we have 5 party politics (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, SNP).

Once the electorate gets used to the idea that coalition government is the new norm, I am hoping that one of the key arguments against Proportional Representation (fear of coalition government) will fade away.  I am certainly thinking that the Tories' traditional support for First Past the Post will wither when they see the SNP winning 90% of the seats in Scotland with 45% of the popular vote (which is what the polls are forecasting at present).

Thought Ed easily came across better and didn't dance around the issue of each question like Cameron did.
I think we have to look at the bigger picture and the parties their leaders represent though to make our decision when voting. The Tories are extremely unpleasant, just look at how that cunt Hague was yesterday with his devious plot. Labour have my vote already to get them bastards out. It's the only vote that can do that.

I was thinking this the other week, are the manifesto's normally this late - much of the problem with the coverage at the moment is that we have a media all geared up for an election but nothing of substance to talk about - hence the series of 'at home with the party leaders' interviews!

I watched last night, having not watched any of them in 2010, and I actually though Milliband came across better than Cameron, but that's not saying much! Cameron is very poor at disguising that he is avoiding answering a question and once you notice that he is doing it, you cannot help noticing that he is doing it all the time! I actually quite liked that they had obviously told Milliband to be a big aggro with Paxman as it at least made it interesting - but in both cases nothing of any substance was said!

The response on social media afterwards was interesting if only that many of the left wingers I follow (and the 'friends' I have on Facebook who live their life by posting Guardian links) don't seem to have a good word to say about Milliband, this lack of confidence in their leader jut doesn't seem to look like ending well!

Miliband (E) strikes me as another Iain Duncan Smith.  Useful senior level party politician with some interesting ideas, but not party leader material.  He was over-promoted, and even his own party now recognise this.

I would imagine that Labour have probably now learned their lesson and will be unlikely to allow the unions to choose their party leader again in future.

You're absolutely right. The problem is how many of the electorate will do that and how many of them will dumb down and vote based on little more than who looks better in Hello, or Heat magazine? Or who looks more natural eating a bacon sandwich? Or which of them likes real ale and a fag?

I can understand people saying Miliband came across better last night, but I'm at a complete loss as to how anyone could think his performance was that of a Prime Minister. He does come across as genuine and honest but also as weak and easy to push around - the SNP will have a field day with him if Labour need their support to form a government.

I don't particularly like Cameron and I won't be voting Tory but we will all be royally fucked if Labour get in.

They have just replayed the Miliband - Paxman interview, Paxman just really cannot be bothered anymore can he, his questions seemed to have as little substance as the answers!

What I don't understand is if, as expected, the SNP win virtually all 57(?) Scottish seats, how come they voted against independence.

The sweaties just seem shit scared to go it alone but still turn their back on Westminster.

I would vote for any party that promised English independence.

The more MPs they have the more influence they have at Westminster to influence their own affairs, whilst retaining the benefits of staying in the union

Two things.

Firstly, the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system creates a distortion.  The SNP is on course - according to latest polls - to win approx 90% of the parliamentary seats in Scotland.  But they will do so with approx 45% of the popular vote.  And 45% was the proportion of the electorate that voted for independence.  No coincidence there.  So while it could well be an SNP landslide in Scotland, they will likely achieve it with a minority share of the vote.

FPTP distorts both results and political discussions.  You would think, from a lot of political commentary, that virtually all Scots are going to vote SNP in May.  Not true.  And you might also think that the Tory voter is all but extinct in Scotland.  Again, not true.  One in 7 voters in Scotland votes Tory; but the FPTP system conspires to give them just 1 MP (out of 59) up there.  Again, a distortion.

And secondly, there is deep unhappiness with Westminster politics across the UK.  You can see it in this thread.  In Scotland, voting SNP gives many up there a viable way of expressing that dissatisfaction.  There is not a similar viable option down here - other than UKIP, who appeal to a narrower base.

 The most interesting political development recently, has been the Supreme Court's decision to back the Guardian, and quash the Tory's efforts to keep hidden Charlie's letters to ministers, which may undermine his "neutrality"

 Will be interesting to see what these look like....as it potentially exposes the fault lines in our process of government, which look increasingly unfit for purpose in a post industrial, post colonial age.

 

If nothing else the leaders' debates show that we should be electing Prime Ministers directly and formally separating out the government from MPs (legislative). Unless anyone lives in Doncaster, Witney or Sheffield (or indeed Thanet South) we don't have a say on who is PM.

Do they show they show that we should be doing that? Or that half the country mindlessly thinks we are? The two are quite different.

That leaders' debates exist in itself is an indication...and via the polls we see that Labour, as a party, is more popular than the Tories but is being held back by the unpopularity of its leader.

Cameron according to polling is more popular than Miliband, but his party is not...

...or maybe less unpopular?  ;)

Yes... :)

Still voting Green.

 :nod:

Knitting your own yogurt, eh.

So potentially we could be ruled from both Brussels and Edinburgh

A bit like we were when Labour pulled the strings, de je vous

quote author=Ardiles

the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system creates a distortion.  The SNP is on course - according to latest polls - to win approx 90% of the parliamentary seats in Scotland.  But they will do so with approx 45% of the popular vote.  And 45% was the proportion of the electorate that voted for independence.  No coincidence there.  So while it could well be an SNP landslide in Scotland, they will likely achieve it with a minority share of the vote.

FPTP distorts both results and political discussions.  You would think, from a lot of political commentary, that virtually all Scots are going to vote SNP in May.  Not true.  And you might also think that the Tory voter is all but extinct in Scotland.  Again, not true.  One in 7 voters in Scotland votes Tory; but the FPTP system conspires to give them just 1 MP (out of 59) up there.  Again, a distortion.
[/quote]

Some really interesting points on this thread.  I had no idea on what support the Scots Nat polling landslide was based, so thanks for that insight, Ardiles.

Westminster had its PR opportunity early in this term but a poor version was proposed by the government and rejected.  Tories and Labour have always opposed PR so they can hardly be put out about the distortion having enjoyed outright majorities on minority votes for years.  

Interestingly, the Euro elections which are based on PR produced these results

Party                                           %   MEPs

UK Independence Party                27.49    24
Labour                                        25.40    20
Conservative                                23.93   19
Green                                          7.87      3
Scottish National Party                  2.46      2
Liberal Democrat                          6.87      1
Sinn Fein                                      n/a*     1
Democratic Unionist Party              n/a*     1
Plaid Cymru                                  n/a     1
Ulster Unionist Party                      n/a*     1

(*No PR and more seats per vote than the rest of the uk!)





 

Dunno about anyone else but I'm warming to Ed Milliband more and more as time goes by. The Tory press going after him with pathetic insults only endears him more. They're doing him more good than damage.

Chicken Cameron on the other hand getting biased coverage isn't painting himself in glory is he?

Ed Milliband comes across as a rabbit caught in the headlights every time I see him. he could be a genius, but that's not the way he's coming across. Cameron is far more polished even though he rarely actually says much.

they both seem like public school, not got a clue about the average man in the street posh pricks through.

but more so, though I probably understand less than 1% of the actual issue, labours financial noises make me worried that they'll fuck the economy even more than last time.

for the first time in my life I'm more likely to vote Tory than labour.

Why, waste of time..........

I live in Spelthorne and the MP is Kwasi Kwarteng who was Camerons fag at Eton who was Boris Johnsons fag at Eton also.

So basically Kwarteng has consumed Camerons Jizz on a Digestive and Cameron has consumed Boris's Jizz. Also on a Digestive.

Milliband doesn't seem capable of consuming anything without getting it all down his shirt.
I suspect he could give my windscreen a good clean though.

Milliband got turned down from Eton on the basis of he wouldn't pass the FAG initiation ceremony known as soggy biscuit.

Alex Salmond is treasonous Cunt of the highest order.

Farage will take all the tax off a pint of Beer.

From where I'm at exactly at this point in time I know who gets my vote. If I can even bother ............

 

That's pretty much where I am, if Balls gets his hands on the economy we could go backwards again. More cuts are needed and the Tories relish that stuff.

Live in a fairly safe Tory seat but UKIP are only party who might have a slight sniff of it so a Tory vote here is a no brainer.

How anyone could vote Tory is beyond me unless you are loaded.  Benefit the wealthy. Protect paedophiles. Hammer the vulnerable. The list of their despicable acts are endless. Truely abhorrent people.

If cuts have to be made then why are they damaging everything in the process? These are things that inevitably will have to be repaired. Schools, the nhs and frontline services are being wrecked by them. They are pro hunting with hounds too which disgusts me. I hate them!

the economy is so screwed the cuts are needed regardless of the consequences. we can't afford many basics, let alone the overblown public sector labour created last time.

I'm not saying I'll vote Tory, just that I have them ahead of labour.

This really annoys me.  I'm no Tory, but I do completely understand why a large proportion of the electorate votes for them.  In terms of economic competence, they wipe the floor with Labour.

I also dislike the cabal from elite public schools that runs the party, but to suggest that only the wealthy should vote for them is grossly simplistic and ignores a myriad of reasons why they are favoured by millions of voters.  And if you can show me stats that proves that Conservatives are more predisposed to paedophilia than anyone else, I'd love to see them.

No one likes cuts to public services.  But sadly, after the monumental fuck up of Balls/Brown 'no more boom & bust' years of the early 2000s, they are regrettably necessary.  Unless, of course, we are comfortable with saddling our grandchildren with crippling debts to pay for an uncosted, early 21st century spending splurge.  I know I'm not.

Er...Rotherham?

To be fair you do a very good impression of one.

Economically, I am.  I recognise that.  Socially, I'm not.

I've voted for them once, in 1992.  But that was a sensible thing to do in 1992.

You know what party ran Rotherham council and therefore social services don't you?

Not that any party actually protects paedophiles mind you, deary me

I wouldn't trust Miliband to tie up his own shoelaces let alone run the country

That was kind of my point. Rotherham (and other examples) was/is a cover-up by the establishment; Police, Social Services and the Council.

Child abuse is a serious crime, and one that is politically neutral, to use it as a way of scoring political points as arriba did is pretty low and diminishes the scale of the problem.

I get annoyed that anyone could vote Tory. Hey ho. Tell me how we'd have been better off had the Tories been in government pre financial meltdown? I'd think that even if things were better financially(which I doubt) the public services improved under Labour wouldn't be there to ruin now. Something else would be destroyed instead. what's your point? Were Labour ministers ignoring mp's over Rotherham?
Thatcher and Leon Britain on the other hand eh?

Of course it was.... 5 years of the most corrupt, sleaze riddled administration, since the 1832 Reform Act.  Privatised the railways as a final scorched earth policy as they retreated. Well done.

Bollocks. Has nothing to do with point scoring. It's just another example of something I dislike them for.

I agree on pretty much all of that.

I fully appreciate you don't like the Tories, and there are many decent reasons not to like them, but that was political point scoring using child abuse as a reason - when the issue covers members of all political parties. Please don't try to wriggle out of it.

er, I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. I've explained why I posted that comment. If you want to dismiss my reasons then fine but I listed a few examples. The peado cover up was one of a few.

People list historical happenings for current political debate, why is this issue, which happened on Thatcher's watch not a relevant reason for me not to have included it in the list of dislikes? That's all I did whether you accept that or not.

I hated Blair, mainly for the Iraq War, but it seems strange that he is Cameron's hero and they are great social chums, if what I have read is correct. Does this suggest anything?  I'm confused.

Fair enough.  And I am sure that was at least partly why they did not get my vote in 1997.

I was referring more to the quality of the alternative on offer in 1992.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROKXlvYMKQc

You weren't the only one taken in by Rupert Murdoch, after all it was The Sun Wot Won It.

Why bring Murdoch in to this?  The ginger twat in the video needed no help from anyone to end his domestic political career.

Never voted Tory before but will do in May. Hoping that some how there's a swing as a labour govt would be a disaster for the economy.  Plus not overly excited at the thought of a labour/Snp coalition. The efforts of bitter together may well come back and bite us on the backside.

It's going to be a coalition again. Looking at Tory policy and how the disadvantaged are penalised, while the privileged are protected, fills me with unease. I suppose it depends on whether you want a society where greed and selfishness are priorities and where welfare and fairness aren't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not enamoured by any of the options, but the Conservatives would never get my vote.

In response to those who see the Tories as somehow doing a good job, re austerity, it's interesting to see where all the cuts are coming from and what sectors of society aren't being penalised.

All in it together? Yeah, right.

Labour are no better than Tories. Professional politicians who have fuck all idea of the real world bar a few back benchers. Labour need to get rid of the north London intelligensia. They need to get a blunt northerner, simon danczuk possibly and get some real people on the front bench. They need to get back in touch with the working man. They are as far removed as Cameron and Gideon and the other posh boys

There really are no credible options this election. All of them are hopeless.

I don't like Cameron and can't stand Millaband. To be honest I'm not overly political but always make the effort to vote but this time I'm tempted not to bother at all and if I do it will probably be a spolit ballot.

Labour spent money we didn't have, so when the crash came we were harder hit than we would have been under a Tory government (as our debts wouldn't have been as high). We're still paying now for the Labour spending and will be for a long time to come. GWH being a good example, Labour get the credit for building it, but the current Tory government are the ones still having to find the money to continue making the payments on it.

So what would you suggest, we don't build hospitals? The financial crisis wasn't a result of over spending in the public sector was it?

No, it was PFI.

Anyway, would you rather be treated at PHM?

You build new where you absolutely need to and re invest where you have existing, like PMH and when you can afford them. PFI were in financial terms to the tax payer like fucking timeshare scams, representing a scandalous waste of money that as said our kids will be paying for. Actually it is, that and piss poor financial regulation. Both responsibilities of the government of the day, who were?

In my adult life time, on the two occasions where the conservatives have come to power, they have had to rebuild an economy wrecked by labour. The last labour government inherited the best set of donestic economic figures of any incoming government in history. So where did it all go wrong? See my first paragraph. The coalition government inherited the worst figures an incoming government has in history.

You cannot turn a super tanker encconomy round like a speed boat. Those of you reading this who have gotten into financial difficulty think how long it took you to get out of the shit and then think of the sacrifices you made along the way to achieve it. You just cannot declare yourself bankrupt as a nation like a private individual BTW if you managed to pull that one off.

A countries finances are no different, the figures are obviously bigger but the rules and principles remain the same.

If labour had won the last general election I shudder to think of what things would be like now. They too would have had to make some very hard choices. The difference being is they would have borrowed more to try and sort them out and taxed more into the bargain.......

Would you jeopardise your family's security and future by borrowing more when you're already up to your neck?

It is remarkably two faced of labour to keep bashing the bankers. They happily cosied up to them when Brown was chancellor and reaping in the tax reciepts at the same time. I wince at the naivety of Brown & Balls that they not only thought they had abolished boom & bust but that it would carry on ad infinitem, astonishing.

You don't need a degree in economics to realise that an economic cycle has peaks and troughs.

I don't particularly like Cameron's style and substance on the other hand Milliband is a puppet for the unions and I don't believe he has the where with all to cut it as PM. David Milliband on the other hand, different class.

For me it comes down to hard cash, not mine personally but that of our great country. If we as a nation prosper so do we today and our kids tomorrow, everything else is a side show because no matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

How do you know that the Tories wouldn't have spent as much? I don't remember their respective leaders being critical of the then Labour government. Maybe I'm wrong?
 I do remember them agreeing with a lot of the decisions then taken and everyone was riding along with it nicely. As with all past political arguments and mistakes, hindsight is a useful thing.
I'm sure that the main reasons Labour were ousted(the iraq war and financial crash) would have happend anyway. A lot of the good they did is forgotten.

Labour should take the credit for the new hospitals and other improvements made. They were needed. The old pmh was in a right state(my Mrs worked there) and was not fit for purpose.

What we are seeing now with the nhs is people being treated in car parks and dying on trolleys in corridors. It is in rapid decline if the comments from the staff who work in it are to be believed.

We don't but they didn't. They were not in power were they?
I think you are. I seem to remember a lot of opposition to the PFI initiatives, nationally and locally. I agree with you the Iraq war was a contributing factor. Again Arriba, with the money rolling into the exchequer, money should have been put away to mend the roof when the sun was shining in financial terms not flittering it away (I go back to mcboom & bust again and his favourite buzz word prudence), prudence my arse. I can't argue WRT the state of the old PMH. However, the new hospital as new as it is appears to not be fit for purpose either....

Again I can't disagree about the treatment of patients as like those who do not work in the NHS I can only go by what I see in the media and personal experience. But let me remind you that the last government put on an extra 800k-1m non jobs onto the P&L account of GB PLC, who has to pay for them? It has taken the coalition five years to get some financial stability into the economy and forecasts show another five years to reach the target of being in the black. That's ten years to "undo" what 12 years of labour did.

As I said I'm no fan of Cameron but as it stands the punitive tax raising that labour are proposing is like pissing in the wind and the really, really wealthy that labour despise, though most of them seem to have done ok themselves will find ways of avoiding the extra levies placed upon them. The more you tax the more the black economy grows, something labour seem to no recognise. I wonder how may "cash" receipts Balls really asks for?

It's Mostly all with hindsight though isn't it? I'll take your word for the at the time opposition of pfi(I cannot remember) but I do remember the Tories endorsing much of what Labour were doing during much of their term. Remember the Tories were a joke for quite a while and totally unelectable during that time.
Undoubtedly Labour made mistakes but even with those mistakes I'd still take their years in government over any other party.

I voted lib dem last time as I was disillusioned with Labour. Again with hindsight that was a big error on my part. It won't happen again. We learn by our mistakes.

So what about the punitive measures the Tories inflict on the most vulnerable in society, in the name of austerity, while their old school buddies in the City and large corporations are hardly affected? If revenue needed to be increased  (and it obviously was) fine, but there has to be a more equitable way of doing it than the Conservatives method of robbing the poor to pay the rich.

I assume your first sentence was a retorical question and not aimed at me? However, I'll humour you with a reply. I don't know about the "punitive" measures, I'm sure in your mind you have examples so could you be more specific? You mean the movers and shakers in the city and big business that labour cosied upto while the going was good and who they now vilify as it suits their bash the posh boys and their money? Just have a look at the private schools attended by labour MPs and their respective career paths and directorships, you may be surprised, hey you could even class them as pseudo Tories if you did not know they were labour MPs. I think robbing the poor to pay the rich is a best a bit dramatic, as if you are yourself working and living in relative comfort you would have benefitted from the raise in the personal tax allowance for starters. You could always give it back as could anyone.

I'm not condoning or condemning either of the two main parties, just trying to add some balance. The electorate tends to have short memories.

Personally I think overseas aid is to much and should be stopped for some and realigned for other countries but I don't make those decisions the government do. I also think we'd be better off outside the EU, just think what we could spend £53m PER DAY on?, every day. Maybe those vulnerable members of society could be given more? We could also spend more on our armed forces, the NHS, the police.

However you look at it the tax take of any government in any fiscal year is only so big, how you divvy up the cake is down to the ideological view of the incumbents at the time.

It's pointless to get into a debate on politics. For every argument there is a counter argument, for every example, a counter example.
I am not a Labour sympathiser (At least not since Blair turned them into a ideologically  bankrupt party) I just think that The Consevatives version of society is not as fair, just or equitable as it should, or could be.

Agree with this totally ...then I looked at who started the thread   :eek:.

My opinion still hasn't changed  , bunch of cunts the lot of them just filling their own pockets.

It is pointless, but I'm still interested in how other people think. For what it's worth, I agree with you on the bunch of cunts stance.

Who you going to vote for then herthab?

To be honest I don't know yet, it's easier to find reasons not to vote for any of them but that's a cop out. I voted Lib Dem last time, which didn't work out the way I thought it would!

Maybe it's because I don't really align with a party but I find it odd that so many people are convinced that one party can do no wrong and that all the others want to ruin the country and sell the remains to the Unions/private Companies/the EU/Darth Vader (delete as applicable). Every party has their better points and their worse, and I don't believe they're all pigs in the trough with no interest in society, there are people on all sides of all parties that I am sure are doing what they think is right.

All this adversarial bollocks over relatively minor policy differences feels like a bit of a dumb sideshow to me.

I don't think the vast majority thought their vote for the lib dems would have seen the results we've had with it. They're now a joke party and will get absolutely trounced. Worryingly ukip will get their share I fear which is even worse

Interestingly I nearly agree with your last sentence. Life is not and never has been fair. That said it does not hurt to try to make it so. Just need to be careful that the hand that feeds the needy has the means to supply the demand and the more you give the more is wanted. What started out as a safety net has turned into a nice comfy feathered bed with entitlements.

That Nicola Sturgeon is a right old hound.

And is it a pre-requisite for SNP MPs to be named after fish?

Aren't there Swindon Borough Council seats up for grabs on 7th May too? Which candidates will give STFC the best consideration if elected? Can we get a few candidates on here to give their STFC manifesto? Got to be votes in it for them from the local TEFers.

It would be utterly pointless. They'd all just give the usual platitudes about how important the club is, pride of the town etc etc. If it's that big a decider for you, you'd be better off looking at their voting records. But tbh, while there are some individual councillors who do genuinely care what happens to the club, overall the club will benefit from the town overall getting back on it's feet from the stagnation of the past 6-7 years.

Well that debate was crap, wasn't it.

The only moment of any interest was Farage deciding to have a go at foreign people with AIDS. Those evil bastards.

Load of wank, resulted to trolling the lib dems and labour on Twitter to keep me awake.

Twitter was a definite winner tonight, know it's easier to take the piss from afar than do something positive but I only really carried on watching for the reaction on there.

All you can ask for is a chance the rest is down to you. I was lucky to be given that chance.
People need to understand one rule in life, sad but true. You are on your own.
Understand this and you are more prepared for the shit that is going to come your way.
Life is one big game with no rules. However you are tested on your values and morals.
The politicians do nothing and represent themselves.
Kind of glad I am in the latter part of my career. Didn't do fantastic at school or go to University.
Done it back to front and studied whilst working.
Milliband is an absolute twat of the highest order and how anyone could vote for him. Cameron no understanding of how people live and so far away from the average man in the street.

Ha - Cameron told me he couldn't even control his own um 'free spirited' Tory Town Council...and to be fair it's one thing he's been right on.

You have seen that he never wears shoes with laces right?

So what did I learn....

Nothing about the usual suspects, I find Nichola Sturgeon incredibly annoying and I am still a sucker for a Welsh accent.

This for me.

Anybody who thinks voting a particular way will change things is deluded.

Do you know what Flash, I would love it if the ballot paper had s tick box at the bottom that said "none of them."
This way at least it shows people are bothered to vote but can show their sheer resentment for them all.
Sadly this time I would vote this.
Would be great to see a landslide victory.

Out of interest what would you like to replace the current democratic system with?

The option already exists. It's called "spoiling your ballot" and has traditionally been used for this purpose. Doesn't tend to get talked about much though, unless you and Russell can mobilise the millions to your cause.

There are certain names you are not allowed to used on ballet forms. 'None of the above' being one. I see that the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party had to change their name to Beer, Baccy and Crumpets to be accepted so as not to offend the feminists.

Is the CISTA Party fielding local candidates? Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol.

I'm going this route I think

http://www.votenone.org.uk/none_of_the_above.html

Tories are probably the most credible big party, but I can't bring myself to vote for the self serving toff scum

So like The DoB I'll ask you what you would like to see in place of our democratic process?

Being disillusioned with the current crop of self-serving arseholes doesn't mean people want rid of democracy. Most folks I talk to would like to see more democracy in the process, rather than the current five-year circular stitch-up between different shades of the elite.

The most interesting thing for me about Homage To Catalonia was how the anarchist regiments all obeyed order, not because they had to, but because they realised it was necessary.

I can't even vote in this election, however, in the past it always irked me that I couldn't vote for a party of choice if they weren't standing in my constituency. Is that okay for a start?

With respect, I'm asking Duke and Batch....I'd like to hear what they think first before assuming your analysis reflects their ideas.

In my case its not a vote against the democratic process, its a protest against there being no real party that represents what I want to see.

I used to live in a very very safe Tory seat, so my vote was somewhat irrelevant then, so I used to think at least in PR my vote would count. Now I'm not so sure that's really relevant.

All I see are a load of career politicians, spouting the normal "lets be clear", "lessons have been learned" bland bollocks that doesn't seem to distinguish one from the other. The two main contenders, the Tories and Labour are the worst culprits.

Labour make some good noises, talk of helping families, talk of ending zero hours contracts (though Ed Balls has used the to employ people so..). But I seriously think they will fuck up the countries economy again. Plus Milliband doesn't seem up to it.

The Tories seem to make financial sense. But we all know how they have to pay for the cuts, and which section of society will be least hit by this financial necessity.

In any case what's the point. I voted Lib Dem last time around because of some key manifesto pledges. And look what happened to one of those. My kids will cost at least 54K in today's money to put through uni, and that's just fees. In any case Labour already fucked up further education before them with their "uni for all" saying this is a good thing, but leaving the government unable to properly assist funding it and providing dubious benefit to the countries future workforce.

So is voting for the least bad candidate a proper way to vote. Or should I be looking at who is best for Swindon - erm, no, the economy is far more important than that.

My real choices are don't vote or protest vote.

I'm sure someone will say, why not change things if you don't like them. Well, I can't quit my job, have no income and embark on a political crusade. We'd all starve and be homeless.

So I'm registering a protest vote. If 10 million people did the same, something will change. They won't, nothing will change, but I'd rather do that than vote for someone who doesn't represent me.

^^ I see. So you like democracy, but don't want to vote for anyone unless they agree with everything you think.... :hmmm:

OK, Batch has replied. OK so how do you propose to get more democracy into the system... ?

no reg that's not exactly what it is. I disagree strongly with some of their policies. I'm not voting for them under those circumstances.

I'm not stupid enough to think there will be a 'batch party' that provides everything I think it should. in fact I wouldn't vote for that ;)

An electoral system which actually makes most people's vote worth casting would be a start.

Well you lot had the chance to vote for one of those and missed your opportunity. Typical British conservatism.

If you think what we have is democracy, you are deluded. A true democracy would have no party whips directing MP's.

MP's would listen to there constituents and vote for what they wanted. An honourable thing to do in my book as it was those said constituents that elected them into the House in the First place.

People are fooled into believing we live in a democracy, when in fact all we have is a bit of paper to scribble on every 4 years.

I think we can define a process that gives you what you want though Batch.  Get rid of political parties, which have to be self interested or of someone else's self interest to survive.  Instead we already have Civil service, just employ some administrators to carry out the countries wishes.  Then potential individual policies can be voted on in an X-Factor style weekly vote on TV, replacing said programme on ITV.  You could probably get through 10 or so policies a week with a results show on Sunday's.  It'd be a right mash-up of right left and everything inbetween.

As it is, voting any which way based on the economic policies is pretty much flawed because Govts lost control of economic influence years ago with global business now all but dictating that.

I shan't be voting because currently no single party offers anything substantially different, and those that do are generally to a further extreme away from own views - UKIP for example who presume I give a shit about immigration.  Personally I'd vote for a party with a selection of right and left wing policies, hence my daft suggestion above.

I would vote for:

Very limited immigration control - I'm not very nationalistic and would love the freedom to choose where to live (if any area becomes shit people would soon move back out).
Free health and social care run by a central body with not interest in profits within the system
High tax on higher earners to fund the health, social and welfare policies needed, but a winding down of the need of charities to make me feel guilty about everything (this would be me voting for a financial impact on myself).
A welfare state that is flexible enough to change but protects a set% of the population ensuring every family has a base minimum regardless of circumstances, but a working family could earn more.  Part of this right now would be to extend retirement age due to the change in population demographics (far less children vs. pensioners).  Maybe a part time pension for a number of years for example.  To fit alongside my immigration shackles being removed this base amount is sufficient to give a an agreed minimum living standard and nothing more, so would do little to entice people.  I'd also probably break this into regions of the country, but haven't thought that through.
A single education system that all must attend, with private education as a supplemental offer once the base one has been completed.
Removal of nuclear deterrents (what a stupid term) - how do all the non nuclear countries possibly survive?
Defined sentences for criminals - behaviour in prison should be expected to be good, so no need for early release.  Sitting alongside this, some offences to be completely removed, certainly around drugs - it's already an offence to steal stuff, so if someone wishes to harm themselves that bit is up to them.

So, some of it is completely nuts, and hence I find nobody worth voting for.  If Labour or Conservatives or Lib Dems get in, it makes little overall difference to me.

I voted for it, thank you. But AV really isn't much better, progress perhaps, but the moment it turned into a referendum on what people thought of Clegg it was sunk.

Nothing wrong with the Democratic system, the fabric with what this Country stands for.
Will start with fraudulent expenses claims for one.
These are the pillars of society that people put their trust in.
Absolute scum.

Disagree. Having the "none of them" actually gets people to vote, a protest vote to tell the politicians of the overall dissatisfaction and lack of trust the public actually have.
Would have a negative impact though on the UKIP protect vote.

Spot on. vote PD :)
At least in your tenure you were influential in defeating another low life piece of shit :)

This thread is hilarious.

There's a bottom line in play. It's called 'the bottom line'. It's a financial term for those that can't see the wood for the tree's.

The sooner the UK can get it's trade deficit down and start reducing the National Debt, the sooner the likes of Red Ed et al can start getting their investment in public services back.

The Labour party fucked it up. They spent, not only every penny they took, they borrowed in a delusional belief they had 'abolished boom and bust' (how fucking stupid are these cunts?) and they mortgaged future generations livelihoods in PFI agreements.

Now, not only do they not admit where they went wrong mis-managing the economy, they want to borrow more to 'invest in Britain'.

Why, when the British economy was was running a surplus as opposed to deficit, just a decade ago, did they choose to not 'invest in Britain' but to expand the welfare state to unsustainable levels? Why?

What on earth makes these fucking idiots believe that borrowing money to invest money has one iota of sense to it?  Anyone who has ever invested money on a serious level will tell you that it's nothing more than a 50%50 bet.

Is that how our economy should be run, on the toss of a coin?

I have been trying to get that message across myself! well put.

"The Labour party fucked it up.".... What is surprising about that. History will tell you they always do.

Sadly for Ironside, the Labour Party has been a bastion against the sort of political system that he favours....history tells you that.

I know, anyone with of age knows it, anyone brought up through the 'Labour years' should be able to see it.  Yet some on here keep voting for them!

Sadly for Reg, people aren't stupid enough to continue voting for the same old self destructive idiocy.

Are you still a BNP member or have you jumped ship to UKIP?

has been..

Blair sold their soul to make them more electable. Kinnock was the last true labour leader, now they pay lip service to their old ideals.

Would you care to engage in a debate about the issue and perhaps propose some soloutions? I think everyone would agree that this would be preferable as opposed to the 'you said this' kind of debate you appear to wish to engage in.

I'm always up for a debate...what issue have you in mind?

Oh good.

The economy?

Let's always remember that the last coalition government started from the perspective of that glorious note explaining that 'there's no money left'.

Yes, not unexpected after we had to bail out the bankers and hedge fund operators after the 2008 global crash.

True. It's not even as if the British Government had some kind of contingency fund or something, you know, just in case their imaginary banishment of boom and bust might not have happened to be the case...

I was a kid during Thatcher's years. A kid on the breadline. Wearing clothes from jumble sales, my cousins passed on items and my mum going without meals so my siblings and I could eat. We were so poor as my mother fled the marital home due to an abusive husband. This was a house that she saved the deposit to buy and until leaving lived in a desirable part of town. From that point it was a harsh reality of living under a cruel and heartless Tory government. They are doing exactly the same thing now to people in a similar position and this is 30 odd years later. I will never vote for those bastards. Ever!

Yep. She's still dead and hasn't been in charge for 20 years. Any solutions you fancy putting forward or is it all a dead woman's fault?

Do immigrants take our jobs or fleece our benefits system?  Not sure which is the one I'm supposed to be angered by?

Banks - should they have been left to fold?  I think they probably should have been.  Would have wiped out a load of "savings" (investments really, and if your bank gambles it, that's the risk you take even if it is normally less risky than shares).

Social Housing - should we be building social housing stock rather than funding housing benefit?  It's a yes for me, investment in infrastructure equals jobs, reduced benefit reliance = reduced govt admin burden = equals reduced jobs, so it will al come our in the wash but it helps people.

Private housing - should it receive any kind of stimulus from governments?  Why should prices always go up?  Always ways onto the ladder, nobody makes people move into a house of their own or make them live in the South East.

Tax - should we remove taxation for anyone claiming benefits today, but also remove the benefits - why administer taking money and then giving it back?  I'd say so.  If I receive benefits while earning, why am I being taxed at the same time, equal them out.

Tax - should those earning more pay more, than they do today?  Yes.

There's a few "debates" to be had.  Unfortunately a party system makes these tough to combine, that's my problem with our democracy.  Let me vote for policies I want and maybe intelligent people to administer them?

Having read your post again, it's fair to say that your upbringing has less to do with Mrs T and more to do with an abusive and ultimately absent father.

Stop blaming someone else and take some responsibility for yourself.

Fucking loser.

Well you were the one raking up history, seems fair to bring other controversial figures into the debate.

While we are on history, why do people who voted into Europe get so agitated by it?  The Rome Treaty clearly outlined the path it should take as an ideal - if you don't bother to read up on it, you take your chances.

Unskilled immigrants take entry level employment opportunities from the native, partially skilled population and, when they come from an economy that has invested in education for their population, they leave that economy with a skills deficiency. When they arrive in a higher-wage economy, and consider themselves, and are considered by the government of that economy to be transient, they will have a negative effect on the wages of the existing population. The simple fact is that a transient workforce doesn't have the same commitments financially that the local population have.

Other than that, I broadly agree. There's a fucking suprise!

the same thing is happening now. Different leader, same party.
My upbringing was great and full of love despite an absent father and my mum being skint. I'm not sure how a 4 year old could take responsibility?

Dunno how I'm a loser? Is it because I have a different view to you or because my mum got sick of being a punchbag and took herself and kids away from that situation?

Well the last referendum on Europe happened before most people who post on this forum were born. In fact, I'm almost 40 and my father wasn't even old enough to participate in that referendum.

That referendum incidentally was mis-sold. Everyone who was there at the time says so an they all agree they were blagged into an economic treaty which has since morphed into a political treaty.

It's about time the current generation asserted their rights, which as far as I'm concerned (and my father), means a vote.

A four year old can't 'take responsibility'. A grown man, which you apparantly are can.

Can we have a political thread that doesn't involve Ironside and Paul (Okay, not Paul at the moment, but I'm sure he's firing himself up...) posting text walls at eachother about how their side makes everyone free cakes and the other side punches babies please? It's tiresome and you're about as likely to change eachothers' minds as you are to turn into pumpkins.

How am I not taking responsibility for myself currently then? I'd argue I am taking my responsibilities seriously enough and who are you to conclude I'm not, and how?

I remember the last EU referendum, being in 1975...so your old man must have been very young.  At the time Labour was opposed to membership, after all it was the Tories who'd taken us in, under the much maligned by the Thatcherites, Edward Heath.

I thought of Heath just recently when in Salisbury, as he used to live on the Green, and there were always armed coppers, outside his house....of course no longer.  I digress, for me the thing with Heath, was that he'd fought in WW2 in Europe, and so had witnessed first hand, what happens when European powers do not co-operate. Churchill himself, had been an advocate of a European Union.

Labour opposed, as it was believed the EU would be a construct to the benefit of bankers and bosses, with working conditions suffering.  When this proved not to be the case that opposition dropped.

I don't buy the immigrant thing - the jobs exist and we have unemployed people, they shouldn't have any jobs to come over to in that case.  I am all for forced employment - anyone worth their skilled salt can absorb a few months in a job they don't want while still seeking employment more befitting their skill level if that's their problem.  By forced I mean take a job that is on offer or lose the minimum level of benefit I talked about before.  Seek your own money in that event by self employment or live outside of the supportive society.

I'd reinvest much of the save money into proper job seeking skills - this is most likely the fundamental problem that immigrants are beating them on - they show willing, the right attitude, suggest they will be great employees.  I've recruited a lot of people and this is the real challenge.  I was shit at interviews despite thinking otherwise until I got made redundant and was given 3 months of coaching on CV & letter writing, interview training etc.

Oh and I'd either renationalise the rail network or at least make one company responsible for both the track and carriages for cut up sections.

Having read Ironside's posts previously, can I politely suggest that you ignore him? He's proved himself in the past to be a racist, tiresome, angry little troll. It's probably something to do with not enough affection when he was a child, or something.

In or Out Reg?  I'm all for it, in fact I'd give up the Pound, but I know my view is probably the minority.  Alongside it, you probably need less National Govt structures and more regional set-ups to make it fully work.  I accept the likely long term end is out, then back in, sort of, and so on.

Ironside...Baby Punching Party. 1

Davis.....Free Cake Party. 23,869.

Well, you have blind hatred for Thatcher, who hasn't been Prime Minister for over 25 years, keep blaming her for everything. Full stop. It's all her fault. It's pretty weird when you think about it, I mean, you were only '4 years old'.

Still, you've declared yourself for Labour earlier in this thread and elsewhere on here, which is fair enough because it's not as if you've even actually thought about it, researched the facts, and drawn an informed conclusion to base your allegiance on, is it? It's clear, based on your post's, you're a tribal voter and not a considered voter.

Do you have constructive proposals or solutions to the very real problems facing this country?

He informes me he missed the cut by 6 weeks and 3 days.

The rest of that post is irrelevant and superfluous.

I'm in. Definitely a case for reform, as it's not perfect.

Herthab has it right. Pointless debating with you. Your inaccurate conclusions about me and abuse mean we can't really go anywhere with this can we?

Why did you give us your sob-story and not answer any of the questions I posed in my post then?

Sob story? Nah mate just a life experience.
I answered the first question you asked. I then asked you some questions which you ignored, so why should I continue to answer questions for you? particularly when you've been deliberately insulting and made some ridiculous conclusions that mean whatever I say is irrelevant anyway.

Yep, sob story, it's all Maggie's fault.

The only question's you asked we're relevant to my criticism of you and not  relevant to the question of the wellbeing of the economy which, as I made clear in my original post, is the bottom line.

How about giving us some solutions instead of bleating on about how hard done you are? Which party do you think provide a solution and why?

It's funny people putting Thatcher down and saying they'd never vote for the Tories. Fact is that the main thrust of Thatcher's polices have now become the norm and adopted by Labour as much as the Tories - low personal taxes, a reduced state, privatisation for example. The current Labour party are as much a relation to the Thatcher Tory era as the current Tories are.

As regards the migrant worker debate. My experience is that migrant workers (especially those from Eastern Europe) work harder, don't moan and don't take the piss like their British counterparts do. The problem isn't the migrant workers, it's the British workers who need to stop relying on everything being handed to them on a plate and do some proper hard work instead.

We've got a pretty high number of eastern Europeans in our area,  considering we're in the middle of the countryside,  and frankly there are zero problems with them.  They work their arses off and I would be highly surprised if they are a meaningful percentage of people who claim benefits.

Yes there are people who take the piss.  But they always exist no matter what their nationality is. I could name two dozen or so 'native brits' who do fuck all work and yet are always in the pub buying ten or twelve pints on a regular basis. What fucks me off is that I, and others like me are working out collective arses off serving them , and part of my wage is essentially going to fund their habit. I don't see why in this day and age benefits (universal as they now are)  couldn't be stuck on a card of some description that won't accept a transaction including non-essentials. The dole is there to pay the rent and put food in people's mouths, not to buy them fags and booze.

I have been on the dole and I am happy to pay back into it now I'm making some half-decent money. The benefits system and the NHS are both brilliant things that need protecting. Reform,  probably, but protection,  definitely.

That was hilarious. If your foreign and have AIDS fuck off back to where you come from, he's right in a sense to be honest

How much a year is lost to the country through benefit fraud? How much is lost through tax loopholes for big business? Both should be addressed, but why is the main focus on the first one?

Jonny is right in the sense that Thatcher's legacy has been widespread and affected not only her own party. That doesn't make it a good thing though. Take privatisation of essential services; how many of those have been improved because of it?

Remember some figures saw the other day 1.2 billion v 102 billion ( in that range ) but as the larger amount is from the Tories cronies you know which one is chased.
Also the figure for unclaimed benefits is amazingly huge as well.

Pretty much all I reckon. Plus they pay their way and contribute tax into the system rather than being dependent on tax bailouts that were the norm before they were privatised. You must bare in mind and remember that any investment into a business either via a tax handout or by private means (share issues, loans or owners own cash) demands a return in productivity and profitability, which the unions always fought tooth and nail over, that's why this country got overtaken in the 60's, 70's & 80's.

I have no issue with privatisation, but the regulators are toothless.  Have things improved - yes, because huge investment has been made.  Now look at why the investment is being made:

Capital investment is an allowable tax offset, so investing reduces tax burdens allowing profits to be made and then distributed to shareholders in higher %'s.  Sort of ok with that, but....

The companies often loan themselves the money for the capital projects through offshore companies they own, Cayman Islands being the norm.  They charge interest, which is also offset against profits to wipe out the tax burden.  The interest is paid to themselves in an offshore company making billions which is not subject to any taxation.  We pay for it in rising prices.

It's this that winds me up about privatised companies.  Also you get Gas and Electric providers bemoaning the wholesale price of Gas but they sell it to themselves as they generally own the entire chain.

A little more thought about why the service is being provided and you can could come to a much more equitable set-up.  A company driven to make profit is likely to innovate, but it shouldn't have such carte blanche to print money like they have now.

Basically, the system today over rewards capital investment meaning we get improvements, but not at a good rate of return for us as the general public.

Oh and I'd add it probably isn't much use in a complete monopoly market.

Gas and Electric can compete against each other, sort of
Trains have other forms of transport to compete with
BT - wide market, especially once mobile came about
Water - utter nuts, and I worked in it!

Now that's not to say a private company cannot be used in Water, but it should be heavily geared towards public provision.

NHS - not a chance in hell.  One of the great ideas of recent history and private companies should be kept well away.  Self interested drug companies have no place in the provision of service.  Allow competitive purchasing power, but this should remain completely in some for of government control.

Here's an example of the home building policy I was against earlier:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes/supporting-pages/empty-homes

If people want a home, they exist.  They have already been built.  If people are hard-up and need support, social housing should be designed to sort that problem out, but I really don't understand why we seem intent on making housing a commodity and then support everyone to buy them? especially when we don't really need the extra 200k houses all the main parties seem to be committing to.

How much is created by benefit fraud and how much is created via the loopholes you have a problem with?

Eastern Europeans aren't the problem though, are they?

The problem is not where people come from. The problem is how many of them come here.

I gave up about ten years ago trying to debate this sort of thing, as I could see it was futile. I'd just like to make one point, and that is it serves the interests of those at the top if everyone else blames each other, because it allows them to keep taking the food from our tables unnoticed.

What improvements have there been to the previously public services? I struggle to see them. I do see an unfit for purpose and expensive train network still propped up by the tax payer. Utilities companies confusing their customers and often ripping them off on high tariffs whilst recording huge profits too.

Blah blah fucking blah. The best improvement to public services would be to cull 50% of them, mainly desk jockey's and the money diverted to the front line.

Red Ed's pronouncement about price controls was fucking retarded and only served to increase prices. Almost immediately in fact.

The answer is not to impose controls, but to encourage people to invest.

Decades of underinvestment means years and years of reinvestment. The tax payer now pays less and less in subsidies each year my dear fellow. The rail companies and infrastructure are miles better than they used to be but still need more investment. You clearly are not old enough to remember shit service shit rolling stock that BR under ASLEF & NUR dictatorship used to laughingly call a a service.

years and years of investment needed regardless of it being publicly owned or private. We're still paying for it though aren't we? If subsidies are down then is this being coupled with increased ticket prices which are extortionate. So still paying really?
 Yep, I am not old enough to remember the times you mention. That was then though, not now. People generally have nothing but complaints regarding rail travel. I don't see how privatised services have improved for their sales.

'the tax payer now pays less and less in subsidies each year'. Maybe, but we pay more and more for the services. And fat cats are now getting richer than they already were from services that the state used to own and control, albeit not always as well as they could.
Oh, one other thing. I don't mind being insulted (I'm used to it) but I'd be grateful if you could keep the patronising out of your posts. There's a good girl.

What an amoral question (hardly surprising, given the source). I'm not talking about penalising big business, or increasing corporation tax, merely closing the loopholes that allow them to fleece this country out of tax they should be paying. I can't understand how anybody, apart from those few benefiting from this, can possibly defend it.
But yeah, much easier to target those on benefit, or immigrants.

 I see there's been a leak, that Sturgeon has said the SNP want a Tory victory, as this will hasten Sweatie independence.

Expect a lot better from you Reg. Telegraph report on a 'leak' that Sturgeon and the French ambassador deny. Sturgeon and the French denied this last night, around 30 mins after the telegraph made up the story, yet the media have ran with it any way all day. Labour supporters  seem to be happy to repeat the lies just to try and score a point.

Truth is labour jumping on this has yet again backfired in their fight v SNP, at this rate they'll be wiped out in Scotland. SNP are going to take some stopping now.

Propaganda at its finest, disappointing to see people like Reg swallow this kind of shit and repeat in such a manner.

There isn't anyone to stop the SNP this time.  They're the only party in Scotland with any real credibility at this election.  The speed with which the Labour vote up here has collapsed is breath-taking.

And the great thing is it's all labour's own doing! Getting into bed with the Tories, and the overly negative fear ongoing Bitter together campaign. They're fucked up there, hopefully for good. Good luck to Sturgeon, she's stepped up to the plate well.

Must admit, I don't really understand the loathing of Labour for working with the Tories on securing the No vote.  Politicians are often accused of being disingenuous and taking an opposing position for the sake of it.  But when there is a genuine cause that they agree on (in this case, preserving the union), Labour get flamed for fighting for what they believed in.  Should they have fought for a Yes vote just because the Tories wanted a No?

I do agree with you that the tone of the No campaign was all wrong.  Still do not understand why the No side did such a bad job of setting oyt (or didn't even bother to set out) a positive message for remaining in the UK.

hope over fear. The No campaign just used scare tactics, it'll live long in the memories up there. Not sure how Labour will recover. Murphy's a complete bellend, Miliband well what can you say, knob jockey. And SNP are playing a blinder. Soon to be playing that blinder at WM I expect.

The snp and plaid cymru will appeal to their respective voters so are bound to do well in their countries. Apart from the comical bnp what do English people have that appeals solely to them as English citizens?

I wonder, as stupid as it sounds, if there could be an English offshoot of the SNP, like a devolution for all kind of party. One of the problems the SNP Scots have with Labour is the way Labour are trying to make the SNP out to be like a Scottish BNP, which they're not, they just want to be able to look after themselves. The whole armed guards on the border, messy divorce picture painted by Bitter Together has led to this.

Could be a hell of a game changer.

Devolution for all has to be the way if the UK is going to continue.  The assymetry in arrangements for each of the UK nations is currently pulling it apart at the seams.  The English have, up until now, been fairly lukewarm to the idea of English devolution.  But those in England who would like to stay in the UK are probably realising it needs to happen now in some form.

Quite like the idea of a federal UK myself.  And the Lib Dems are keen on it.

Scots dodged a bullet there, the Picses, duo (Salmond & Sturgeon) have quietly dropped the fact that they would be financially fucked with the drop in the cost of North Sea oil, strange that eh?

Amoral? Are you fucking serious or are you retarded?

Ironside, just out of interest, does your tag line of "we must exterminate the Jews Liberals also reflect your political leanings at all?

amoral
eɪˈmɒr(ə)l/
adjective
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Ah TEF political season.

Roll on election day.

It doesn't say that - it says Liberals, not Jews. But he's BNP, so broadly in that direction yes.

I'm finding it a welcome distraction from thinking of today's events....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3IV6v89gqg

Source please, I haven't read that.

And the Scots wouldn't be 'financially fucked', as if it had been a yes, they wouldn't even be independent yet. That's my understanding of the timescales involved, I could be wrong on that though.

A large chunk of the yes campaigns stratagem involved the revenue that North Sea oil & natural gas for that matter would bring in, fact. The price of a barrel of Brent crude peaked @ $120 + in November 2011 & fluctuated to just under $120 until the second half of 2014, luckily for the Pisces duo the collapse in the oil markets came after the vote. The current price of Brent crude is $60 per barrel the other, natural gas has also seen a slump in price. Would you like me to show you those spot prices too? Other than tourism and whiskey what else would they have to flog to pay their way, coal?

Trident could be relocated, after all the SNP and labour would like us to stick our hands up and surrender at the first sign of homeland trouble. The EUSSR were saying you're not joining if you go it alone and you're also not having the wonderful overpriced Euro to boot. Remains open to conjecture if that would have been the case. In any case if they had said yes they could consider themselves unlucky in the respect that they went from the frying pan into the per-verbal fire.

Personally I wish the jocks had said yes....... :D

The Taffs & the N. Paddy's on the other hand know which side the bread is buttered, even then they both think Westminster should throw more cash at them.

Understand that, however, you've stated that Salmond and sturgeon have come out saying Scotland would be financially fucked if they had voted yes. Can you provide a source for that please?

BBC reporter tweeting he's been abused for reporting that snp members had made comments to him that were the same as those attributed to its leader. No smoke without fire it would appear.

Sorry if you got that impression, maybe we did not read each other's posts properly. I'm saying that the duo have remained silent since the vote WRT the financial aspect of their campaign. That being how they would survive financially without Westminster funding when the largest part of Scotland's income came from oil & gas which as I've stated has collapsed.

I obviously don't know as much as some of the learned posters on here, regarding Scottish independence, however as all the main parties in the UK joined together to campaign for them to stay, they must feel that Scotland is an important and integral part of it. as to whether Scotland could survive on their own, it's pretty silly to spout the same old bollocks about North Sea oil, as if that's the only thing they could use. there's many countries with little or no natural resources that survive and even thrive.

Let's not forget the huge oil find they made in the Falklands this week. Cue the Argentines ramping up their efforts to get them back again.

Me too. Seems to be the perfect solution, we'd still be the UK but each state would have the control they want.


There was one senior member of the SNP campaign who genuinely believed devolution could have been achieved prior to the general election. Which is another good example of just how deluded the SNP are.


A large part of the SNP campaign was how they would be better off financially if independent. Their increased financial wealth was based solely on the price of oil and gas. IIRC the SNP used a price of $100USD a barrel, there was a lot of debate about the price going forward with the SNP claiming all the industry experts saying this was a realistic price.

If they were independent now, they would indeed by totally fucked financially due to the reliance on high oil prices. And if they'd got their way of continuing to use a shared currency, who do you think would now be stuck with bailing them out?

Back to politics local to Swindon. Can we campaign to get that giant puddle in the CG car park next to the Town's shop to be fixed?! My feet get wet everytimes its rains.

Vote Down!

In fact.... Up down!

Out of interest what would be your proposals for reforming the EU?

Out,.Cameron will get fuck all if he has a mandate to "negotiate", Wallace even less if he tries but of course he won't as it is not on his agenda and even less so the SNP & Limpdens who's support he'll need. The only way we will get what we need as in the British interest is to walk away and make no mistake they AKA the other 26 nations will shit themselves if we do. Oh they love the British, no, they all love our money and obsessiveness in abiding by the rules which most of them ignore. Once out we can name our price to go back should A) there still be an EU to go back to & B) should we need to.

The bbc haven't exactly covered themselves in glory re:Scotland of late. And so what if 'SNP members' have expressed that view, not all members will agree on everything.

Roll on May, hoping we have a Tory government but if not it'll be interesting to see the SNP shake up WM a fair bit. Sturgeon's a class act and the media will have to up their smear game if they want shot of her.

Spot on.... Only party offering this is UKIP. I know there not everyone's cup of tea. Time for change. Farage at least says it how it is. Most of the time. He's a bit rough round the edges but that is his appeal to the masses I guess. The more he puts his foot in it the higher his rating go. He's only human like the rest of us. Political correctness has knocked most English people into believing displaying our own flag on our own Patron Saints day is Racist. Fucking madness.

Hmmmmm, maybe it's the fact he thinks the country should be worried about people coming here to get their AIDS fixed is the policy that has me despairing?

We've got a nuclear deterrent for fucks sake, I'd rather Raving Lord Such got in.

Can someone explain why we need to leave the EU and what the benefits of doing so are?

Think a lot of people just take everything Farage says, especially regarding the cost of the EU and migrant workers, at face value when the facts are somewhat different. I'm yet to read or see anything that makes a convincing argument for us to leave.

And I'm yet to read a convincing argument to stay. Facts in politics are what you make of them. Everyone will take anything that supports their stance and it then becomes fact.

You can only judge an organisation when you know what it was set-up for. Most people talk about the EU in terms of economics, but it was never set-up for that purpose. The European Union was set-up to prevent another war in Europe.

The EU is a front for German-based economic imperialism-- sucking value from the peripheral states into its centre and flattening all with the IMF in the one hand and required NATO arms purchases in the other. Poor Ukraine
is only the latest butterfly to be lured into the Venus Trap for Brussels/Berlin/Frankfurt digestion.

That was placed by FlammableBen or whatever his name is now and has nothing to do with me, nor does it reflect my views.

Cheers for dictionary reference.  Who the fucking hell are you to dictate my morals?

I don't believe I've dictated anything. Highlighted a lack maybe, but not dictated....

I always thought Ironside liked Dictators...he must be going soft in his old age.

Not only are you going soft, you are clearly going mental.

Still, nobody addresses the points made, but they attack the person making the points...

Come on for fucks sake.

We have so many gobshites here who consistently fail to address problems but bitch about anyone who raises them, you would think we have a PM in the making!

Give me solutions, not stupidity.

E=mc2

Well done, however that poses a question not a solution. Or does it?...

It's all relative

So they say. I'm yet to be convinced...

[quotThe  uthor=Ironside link=topic=55431.msg1320605#msg1320605 date=1428345975]
So they say. I'm yet to be convinced...
[/quote]

.... The truth is out there........ somewhere.

Maybe if you weren't such an unpleasant twat people may engage with you more?

How about dealing with those points instead of being little b
itches an getting you knickers in a twist over the delivery?

Arriba, you have constantly complained but offered no solutions. Come on, tell us all how you're going to solve the country's problems, particularly the financial ones. I would love to hear it.

Here's a few questions that you can answer:

1) If you have a massive debt, what is your plan to deal with this? Are you going to borrow more, that you can't afford or are you going to get your spending in order, or are you going to choose bankruptcy?

2) If you can't afford services at home, do you think it's sensible to give £12b a year away? Or is it more appropriate to reduce A&E instead? Which of the two should be reduced? £12b abroad, or £8b making up the shortfall the NHS is going to have over the course of the next 5 years?

3) Despite almost 13 years of a 40% higher tax rate, bar 2 months prior to The last election when it was raised b to 50%, followed by a reduction to 45%, are you clever enough to work out which regime was the most accommodating to big business?

4) Labour expanded the welfare state to the extent that people who get off their arses, and graft all week, are condemned to a maximum wage. It's a maximum wage and Labour made it so. They decided to give people 'in work credits' and actively supported and encouraged a low wage economy. Labour fucking hate you. Look at their front bench, and look at their leader.

I love the fact you are the same age as me.  Thought you would of been older(not a criticism)

As has been said  opinons are like arseholes ..etc etc etc. I know its a debate. But no
Ones gonna win.

If we could park the dull personal abuse briefly, let's all marvel in the bizarre reflected glory of the Green election broadcast

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg&feature=youtu.be

What the actual fuck.

That's the theory.

Ironside, which side of the fence are you on? :sherlock:

The right side, obviously...

Your 1st point - who has got the country more in debt? Try looking at this http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

I had to turn over when this was on - I felt embarrassed watching it.

Christ, they are serious I think. 

Labour. The Labour party had 13 years to reduce national debt, didn't and then when the economy went kaput, had zero reserves to deal with it. I've already explained, they mortgaged the country to the eyeballs (they even left a note saying the country was skint). Increased the national debt and expanded the welfare state to unsustainable levels.

It took them 13 years to bring the country to it's knees and some people think that the current government are responsible for the state of public finances, but that they should have been sorted out in five years. It's just bizarre to be honest with you, especially considering the Tories have been hamstrung by being in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

I've pretty much decided that the vast majority of people in the UK have some kind of mental deficiency when it comes to financial management, whether that be on a national or personal level. The National and personal debt levels support that assertion.

Despite that, some people seem to think that Labour are a good idea for the next government!

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess

Perhaps it's you with the mental deficiency.

Some interesting data there Arnold Corns.   That said, I haven't scoured the NEF Website but they describe themselves as "NEF is the UK's leading think tank promoting social, economic and environmental justice".  Thus, you can't help but wonder whether they would - by definition - be likely to be pro-Labour.  Not saying that their data is false of course but isn't this a bit like a (admittedly more intellectual) Daily Mail precis of the current Tory Government?

The country was left royally f*cked at the end of the Labour tenure, even if it wasn't in that state during the early years of the Blair government.  I have no doubt at all that the level of debt was substantially due to the banking crisis, as it was in most other European countries.  The question is, of course, how much can you attribute to the Labour Government.  What would the Conservative view of increased controls over global banks' London operation by a Labour Government?  Global banks tend to be very mobile in terms of where they locate people.  A potential exodus of jobs in the City would have been widely condemned.

The crisis was pretty deep and balancing the books would be no mean feat.  However, if five years isn't enough time to resolve things, how long is?  Should the current government be judged over 8, 10, 13 years?  How many years is the correct number?

I don't understand the maximum wage point.

As Exiled Eric pointed out, the source you site is indeed a leftist publication.

So they have made it all up have they. Even the ex Bank of England Governor agreed that it wasn't the Labour government that caused the mess.

If Labour hadn't bailed out the banks the Country would have gone into a deep depression.
Anyone who thinks the Tories will look out for the ordinary working people in this country is deluded.

This is exactly how I feel.

I suppose the question is will any of the parties look after the ordinary people?  Do Labour's elite really resonate any more with the average working guy than the Bullingdon Club members?  I'm really not sure any more (and have voted Labour in every election since I turned 18 in 1983 and was living in Park North)

So, just so I've got this right, Labour are to blame for the financial crisis, which was part of a Global financial crisis? I'm not a Labour voter and don't plan on voting for them time, but to blame a financial crisis that affected many countries worldwide on a single national political party is bizarre.

I haven't said Labour were to blame for the global banking crisis though.

Labour are to blame for overspending and under saving. Simple terms for simple people...

Ah right, thanks for simplifying it for me. Just out of interest, when was the UK last in a no debt situation? Most countries run with debt, including Germany, Japan, The US, Canada.... The list goes on and on. It's not that important really, is it? I mean it only really affects us, the great unwashed, when governments use it as a reason for cutting essential services, victimising the most vulnerable and selling off anything that's still publically owned. At the same time protecting big business and turning a blind eye to high level tax avoidance.
I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, someone of my limited intelligence couldn't possibly understand it fully.

How will Labour look out for the ordinary working people?

Under the current Tory government, someone earning £20k a year pays about £800 a year less in taxes now than 5 years ago and unemployment is currently down around 0.6m from 5 years ago. i'd have thought more take home pay and more jobs are the best thing any government could do.


A lot of that applies to Labour as much as the Tories. They continued to privatise (NHS privatisation increased dramatically under them for example), protected big business (pressurising the FSA to minimise banking regulations for example) and did absolutely nothing about tax avoidance.

To be honest I don't think there is really much between the two parties on a lot of this stuff. Most of it is just how people have somewhat outdated views of the two parties and the rest of it is just spin from the parties or their media supporters.

Absolutely. I've got no bias toward any of the main parties, I distrust them all.

You are correct, the Labour Party is too far to the Right for my liking at the moment but they are more likely to do more for the average working person than the Tories.
People may pay a little less in tax on their pay due to the thresholds being raised but that doesn't compensate for the majority having no pay rises and also the hike in VAT by this Government.
As for unemployment, the figures are grossly misrepresented. The amount of people in zero hours contracts make the figures seem better than the reality.

You seem to be confused between the trade deficit and the national debt.

The trade deficit can be closed by exporting more and importing less. (this is simplistic but clearly simplistic works).

The National debt, is a whole different kettle of fish. It needs sorting out sooner rather than later. We can't afford to increase it. We must start decreasing it. The sooner we pay less in interest on debts, the sooner we can pay more to our essential services.

I thought it had been established that Labour privatised 4% of the NHS and the Tories only increased that to 6%? Labour - talking shite since inception...

Not confusing anything. The countries I mentioned all have national debt, as do we. In fact our country has never not been in debt, going back as far as the Napoleonic Wars and beyond. I'd agree that it would make sense to reduce it, but it's the how I have a problem with. Billions of pounds in unpaid corporation tax, that successive governments seem to turn a blind eye to, would certainly help.

I don't disagree with any of that, especially the bit about corporation tax.

Like the political debate and there`s a Tory on board - whatever next......!!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_a_OnZVAAATNSB.jpg)

I love the simplistic "Labour run up debt and the Tories sort out the mess" argument that Cameron seems to still be peddling without anyone in the media even bothering to challenge it, and the uninformed or stupid (pick whichever label you think you deserve) that swallow it whole and regurgitate it in every political debate.

My favourite website is this one:

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

Which shows a graph making it pretty bloody clear that budget deficits under the Tories and Labour have been much of a muchness, fluctuating with the worldwide economic cycle of boom / recession rather than any tendencies towards financial prudence or ineptitude whoever it is that sits in number 11 might display. But then ignores the data and makes the argument that the main problem was Gordon Brown waving his credit card around.

This one shows pretty much the same thing in a bit more detail:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

That's my entire adult life on that chart, and in that whole time there's been a balanced, or surplus budget 6 times, 4 of which have been with Gordon Brown as Chancellor.

Oh and don't be fooled by the reassuringly low looking deficits in the late 70's and 80's into thinking "oh but Thatcher at least didn't overspend too much". Bear in mind that table isn't showing deficit as a proportion of GDP but in actual £Billions.
Quarterly GDP in 1979 was only £45-50m. By 1993 (the biggest year of deficit under the Tories) it had grown to about £145m, and by 2005 (the biggest deficit year under Labour until the shit hit the fan in 2009) it was between £310m and £325m a quarter. As a proportion of GDP Tory deficits are MASSIVELY larger than Labours.

It all only goes really tits up when the crash hits in 2009 and tax revenues plummet whilst benefits costs rise, and the Tories "triumph" in reducing the deficit there is largely down to the weak, gradual but inevitable economic recovery.

Government debt ( and consumer debt for that matter) I'm afraid is not the product of wanton overspending, fiscal incompetence, or over generosity, it's a necessary function of market economics.

Globally a free market economy will always produce more goods and services than the world's population can afford to buy. After all if all firms paid us the value of the goods and services we provided, they wouldn't make a profit would they.

They've got to sell that shit somehow, and out of the kindness of their hearts they're prepared to lend us, and the state, the money to buy it all. Eventually that debt mountain gets so high everyone loses confidence it can ever be repaid, they all shit themselves, there's a run on banks and it either all collapses like in the 1920's or the more stable states wade in and prop it all up, based on even more fecking debt.

It can't go on like that forever of course but for the time being everyone just seems to be whistling and looking the other way when one of the props creaks, or are pretending they have a magic way to "fix capitalism".
 

Those 4 times being when the international economy was booming...all that graph illustrates is that  our economy is very dependent upon the international situation.
 
I am somewhat surprised by the scale of deficit that was running 2002-2008 when one considers that was a booming period!

The graph actually illustrates how much the economy is dependent on matters way beyond the governments control. You complain about the Tory pushing the "Labour run up debt and the Tories sort out the mess", I am inclined to agree however is it any different to the argument at the last election that was "Labour was responsible for all these booming years and then the market collapsed, but that was nothing to do with us it was an international economy issue - they all want their bloody cake and eat it!

Sturgeon is bloody impressive again tonight, think she is a class act as a party leader

The Welsh bird mesmorises me every time she opens her mouth

Appears to be a ridiculous decision for Cameron to turn down being part of this debate. He's just made himself an easy target tonight.

As a point of information, Clegg said he would have liked to debate.....but wasn't invited  :)

I think that was their plan, and in turn showing the people of England that the alternative to a Tory government, is a Labour/SNP/Green/Welsh coalition led by Sturgeon. A lot of people are saying how great she is but that will eventually turn in to concern when they realise she only cares about Scotland and will shit all over Miliband.

Still think the most likely outcome of the election is a shit storm for 6-12 months before we have to do it all again.

 

What a shower of shit before the nation.
How on earth can any of those gain any respect I will never know.

Clever move by Cameron. Just sit back and watch.
Millipede is an absolute clueless muppet and would put the Country back in debt once again.
Talks without any substance.

Speak for many here, not convinced by any party. Having to pick the best from a very bad bunch is a sad state of affairs.

Don't think chicken Dave was clever in not being involved in the debate. Quite the opposite I'd say. People will be asking why he refused to take part. The prime minister not showing up doesn't look good for him. I'm glad as it should help lose him votes.

The country's still in debt. Billions and billions of pounds of it. Has been since the Napoleonic wars and will likely remain so long after you or I are long gone. So no-one's going to put the country back in debt

I'll refer you to my post a page or so back, but you probably won't bother to read it. Why let annoying things like facts get in the way of your self righteous outrage after all.

That's pretty much the point I was making. The only difference in the two major parties is that when the Tories are in charge during a boom they hand out tax cuts to the wealthy rather than invest in public services, and when Labour are in the same situation they throw money at public services trying to patch up what the Tories left to rot when they were in charge.

And now you're the one ignoring the facts. The Tories cut taxes for everyone, the 20% basic rate is a Tory policy, started by Thatcher and then continued by successive governments (including Labour) - prior to Thatcher the tax rates were 33% and 83%. We've also had the increases in personal allowance over the last 5 years, which benefits the lowest earners the most. Labour on the other hand removed the 10% tax rate for the lowest earners and increased NI for everyone.

The Tory philosophy is to reduce taxes, putting money in to everyone's pockets so they can decide how to spend it.

Labour on the other hand increase taxes for everyone so they can increase public spending, thinking it's best the state decides on and controls spending.

Problem is the Tories go too far with cutting public spending whilst Labour go too far with increasing it.

One of the first things Osborne did was to increase VAT to 20%....having said previously there were no plans for an increase.

I thought the cuts in the starting threshold the coalition introduced were Lib Dem policy, not Tories? They cut taxes for their own, Labour raise taxes to spend on their own.

I see the repulsive IDS is at it again today regarding zero hour contracts. What a fucking wanker he is

Farage is getting bolder, making less attempt to hide the nationalist agenda - I suspect he is already aligning the party to be try and morph into the English equivalent of the SNP after the election to jump on the inevitable response to the large gains the SNP will make in Scotland and thus the idea that politics in England is being overly controlled by a Scottish party!

Natalie Bennett has got a bit of a temper on her really lost her rag at least once last night.

The fact that Sturgeon is coming across well is hardly surprising, it's a lot easier to perform in such events if you have essentially won your election already (as the polls show the SNP have) and thus are essentially preaching to the converted.

Finally I would agree with you regarding Leanne Wood's accent!

The same way Labour promised no tax increases, then raised NI.

As I said though, the Tories reduce taxes to put money in your pocket to spend how you want. Not everything is subject to VAT giving you some choice as opposed to it being deducted directly from your pay packet.


It was a Lib Dem policy, but it took the Tories as well to implement it and balance the budgets. It's also now a Tory policy going forwards to increase it further. Even if you ignore it, they're still the party that reduces taxes and will continue to do as finances allow.

That Nicola Sturgeon needs a good kick in the hole.

Whatever happened to English votes for English matters.

Keep your sweaty nose out.

We'll rue the day our 'politicians' campaigned to keep the Union

Ha ha ha, brilliant to see Sturgeon stir it up. Good on her.

Did their appearances north of the border do any good? If anything it probably got the Yes campaign more votes every times the party leaders appeared to campaign for a No vote

If the UK can have a referendum on leaving the EU and the Scots can have a referendum on leaving the UK, why (oh why, oh why!) can we English not have a referendum on seceding.

We could leave the jocks to get their Barnett formula and other demands from a Celts-only UK rump and leave Plaid Cymru, DUP, Sinn Fein and SNP in their Utopian English-free state?

This is brilliant.  The Conservative candidate for Witney forgets which football team he's been a life-long fan of.

Independent: David Cameron Forgets if he's an Aston Villa or West Ham Fan (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-david-cameron-forgets-if-hes-an-aston-villa-or-west-ham-fan-10203685.html)

The main message here, of course, is that the likely winner of the Witney seat has absolutely no interest whatsoever in Oxford United.  (Although, to be fair, there are probably more Swindon fans living there than yellows anyway.)

That prick is my MP

I've just found out that the Labour candidate in my constituency is a Swindon fan.  What were the odds of that?!

He'll never win, mind.

Not sure that it means anything for now, but my wife works in a large technical college, with over 2000 full time, day release and evening students of votable age. They are running an election poll, and bearing in mind its very multicultural, the current standings are surprising. She said there has been around 300 votes so far, and ukip are polling at 80%, the rest barely register. And this is in a Liberal safe seat. Go figure.

With that high a following for UKIP that does upset me that so many people (especially the young electorate) are influenced by a few policies that they feel so strongly about but ignoring the bigger picture and probable damage that Farage could do to the country and economy if he gets into No 10.

Truly disappointing and disheartening.

I don't do politics but isn't that the case for all the parties? i highly doubt there is a party out there that someone argees with 100%

I wouldnt have thought that 1 or 2 policies would be enough to get most peoples votes.

For me I can allow 1 or 2 policies that I don't agree with through the net and not stop me voting for a party (as long as I dont disagreee strongly with them) but to ignore 99% of all the other policies totally to get 1 or 2 that you do agree with is mental.

Just my personal opinion.

The danger isn't UKIP winning an election by majority, that's certainly not going to happen (yet). The real danger is a vote for UKIP is most likely to put Labour back in power and I really don't think the economy is robust enough for the two Eds to dick around with.

Most of those will not be registered to vote...there's something like a million young people disenfranchised, a situation not helped by the change in rules regarding registering.

Quite possibly, but then again, there are a lot of apprentices, and a lot of mature students doing evening classes, so I think its an interesting outcome. Incidentally my daughters secondary school are doing the same excercise. And i'm sure though their opinions will alter a million times.. currently there the Greens are romping it!

FE, is one of those sectors which is already experiencing cuts, especially in subject choice, I suspect this will continue whatever the outcome of the election, although the degree of cutting may vary.

Of the Tory education initiatives, I liked the UTC idea, to provide apprenticeship type courses for young people 14-19 in engineering etc, sadly some are already closing due to lack of interest from the kids.  I'd like to think the Swindon site will prove viable.

I suspect it won't be too long before Gove's folly in academies and free schools hits home, when the initial bribes run out, and the schools are leftto fend for themselves on dwindling central funding.

Are Labour not fully supportive of Academies?  (In fact, I'm fairly sure they introduced them.)

The academy program shows signs of slowing down in the south east, and there is a pretty even split between those moving to academy status and those moving into federations now, whereas it was fully tilted to academies a couple of years back. Academies started on the back of the aborted BSF new school buildings projects. Most as soon as they got the government funding quickly ditched the local authorities managing them.

Yes, Labour introduced sponsored academies, but Gove moved it on to more or less force all schools out of LEA control.

Wouldn't worry about UKIP, they are projected to win 2-3 seats by the bookies.

A far more accurate method than the polls of predicting what will happen

It's been interesting quite how totally partisan some of the press are being on who to vote for - and who not to vote for. Can't remember it being quite so biased before.

Will it work though? To quote Mark Steel:

If the polls haven't changed by Friday, The front pages of The Sun, Mail and Telegraph will be "OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE JUST VOTE TORY YOU CUNTS"

It has been ever thus....dating back to the Daily Mail's forging of the Zinoviev letter 4 days before the 1924 election, purporting to show that an incoming Labour administration would be the puppet of the Bolsheviks.

14 or so years later, they were backing Mosley and Ironside's mate.

The Sun this time is backing the SNP in its Scottish paper and the Tories in England :)

What is it about the Tories that multi-millionaire newspaper-owning, media moguls seem to like so much? Oh, wait ...

See Harry Toffolo showing his (blue) colours on Twitter

Most footballers are, especially top end types. 

Sol Campbell is currently doing his bit for the Tories, because he's upset about the propsed Mansion Tax, biting into his 34 mill fortune.

I know, just think they would be wise not to publicise it.

The Independent have just backed another Tory/Lib coalition. That's a genuine surprise in an election campaign devoid of them so far.

It seems like Thursday's election is going to lead to either a weaker Tory/Lib coalition with very little if any Scottish MPs or a Labour/SNP horse trading agreement.

Think we may be heading for a second election later this year. Hopefully at least one party finds some new ideas from somewhere before then.

I just read their op-ed too, and broadly agree with it. I'd really like a stronger balancing Liberal component next time round, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

My biggest worry about a Lab-SNP axis is that the SNP will have every interest in making themselves so obstructive at Westminster that it will polarise the national debate to such an extent that everyone will quickly want to cut Scotland adrift, which plays precisely to their agenda.

How one of the historically most stable unions in the world got into this mess so quickly reminds me of that expression about suicide: a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Be careful what you vote for.

From sitting miles away in New Zealand it looks like Britain is a total car crash waiting to happen... in fact it's already happened and there is a delayed reaction and denial of the current situation.

This was the case here in New Zealand until common sense became a possibility due to in a strong government that got into power. The government is a National party similar as to the Conservatives in Britain.

That said, I now do most of my business in Fiji and that the Country is really buzzing after a military coup some 6 years ago. For the record Fiji was divided by native Fijians 49% Fijian Indians 48% and others approximately 3%.

When the military took over in Fiji every Western power were totally critical and black listed Fiji for 4 / 5 years including Britain and its commonwealth members, USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Since then common sense has taken place where basically everyone in Fiji is supporting Fiji First.... No more division where there are cultural differences, racial unrest, mass corruption and the bullshit that comes about with the very rich, working class and the poor.

Yes, this now elected government is very much a left wing socialist favour

Why I am highlighting the present situation in Fiji and to a lesser part New Zealand is.... Basically, until Britain has a leader who has the mandate / power and the balls to deliver what Britain really needs to get back to reality including basic common sense and to get back to Britain First.

Britain is so divided and unmanageable...Basically you are all fucked  !!! 

Hope I don't sound like a little Austrian with a mustache as I don't mean too..

COYMR's  :)
 

         

Must admit I broadly agree with all the above.

Have to say, I completely fail to see how any intelligent person would wish to see another Cameron/Clegg axis.  Both have shown that all they'll do anything necesary to cling to power.....Cameron, his Freudian slip about this being a super important election for his "career" interests, when he ws supposed to say country's.  Clegg fessing up he'll stomach an EU referendum, if it means getting his ministerial chauffeur back.

Clegg knows full well, that said referendum could prove disastrous for the UK....and should have nowt to do with it.

Fair dues, so what would be an ideal outcome for Chez Smeeton?

I vote Labour to get a Labour government....but all the punditry and polls points to a close run thing, so at this point in time, it's let's wait until Friday to see how things look.

Do you really think a coalition government could possibly work in Britain.

Cameron and Clegg have made a joke of this possibility.

Surely, only can see a very small minority (King maker) such as UKIP turn the country into a worst situation. 

Worst thing for me is that we've somehow managed to avoid there being a debate on the real issues.

Scottish independence hasn't been resolved and will continue to run and run. Exactly what does Scotland want to remain in the Union? How about moving to a federal style government? What do Wales and Northern Ireland want? What about England?

The EU, in or out? What exactly are the issues people have with the EU, can they be resolved?

The deficit. How quickly do we want to clear it, how much austerity can be tolerated and what should be cut. It's been portrayed as "Tory cuts" and "Labour spending", which totally misses the real issue that needs to be discussed.

No matter what Sturgeon says, her only goal is independence and she'll do whatever it takes to achieve it - including fucking over the rest of the UK. I wouldn't have an issue with a Labour government, but a Lab-SNP government will be a disaster.

Despite what the polls and experts say, I still reckon there will be a swing to the Tories on the day and we'll end up with another Tory-LibDem coalition, maybe with the DUP and UKIP on board in some form.

You're very right jonny. The way the media have let all the main parties off the hook of actually discussing any of the main issues has been quite shocking.

That's a good point Paul, and let me tell you why!

The whole 'campaign' has just been dominated by the personalities (I use that in its weakest form!)  and their painfully detailed media training!

Might that be something to do with the owner, Evgeny Lebedev, being a billionaire friend of Boris Johnson? 

What could possibly lead the Independent to dislike the top-rate-tax-rising, non-dom-abolishing, mansion-taxing Labour Party I wonder...??