Open discussion thread
Posted on November 7th, 2009 by Anthony Wells
There’s rather too many partisan comments cropping up in the comments threads, so I can I remind people to follow the comments policy please… except in this thread, where you are welcome to indulge yourselves in tiresome and pointless partisan rants and oneupmanship.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Labour Suck Ass.
Well, its feels good to have got that out of my system. Back to serious discussion now.
It’s no surprise to see that NHS managers – and others who enjoy spending Brown’s largesse that the country can’t afford – are still strongly supporting Labour if the poll can be believed, which is not certain.
I said I would so i have no choice but tgenerally I prefer to stay close to polls when posting. To say in advance that I am not a blinkered Labour supporter and recognise that in many ways the last 12 years have been a disappointment and many mistakes have been made.
I am 46 and did not get to vote in my Northern England home town in 1979.
I saw Thatcher play the race care (swamped), the Monday club, Tebbits cricket test and they gave succcour to Apartheid South Adfrica calling Mandela a terrorist. They needlessly tightened in the 81 budget to create more misery than was necessary especially in the North, Scotland and Wales and opened up social wounds that have never been closed.
Lawson then mismanaged the other way which led to negative equity and high uinemployment again.
The Tories introducd the poll tax and section 28 and were rightly considered the nasty party.
I believe in the EU and would like to join the Euro (a shame Blair did not use his initial capital to push shortly after 97)
I can not ever see myself voting Tory and this means the best way of keeping them out is voting labour as they are the only realistic alternative ‘UK’ Government.
In the last 12 years Labour has, inter alia, introduced the minimum wage, increased ODA budgets significantly, recognised civil partnerships, saved the NHS, enabled devolution.
All of the above accpeted by Cameron but opposed at the time by the cons.
Above all this, though, as per James L’s parents on the AR thread even though it is badly damaged the Labour Party bests reflect my values in a way the Cons never can nor the LDs.
In essence I believe that individuals are best able to achieve their aggregate potentials if supported through collective action. In a fundamental sense the wealth of the nation belongs to us all but I accept that the market and some differentiation is necessary to best administer and nuture that wealth.
Liberal and Conservative philosophy would have individuals acting on their own as paramount with the view that the aggregate effect is greater.
The need to ward of insurrection drives their social policy not inaliable rights (exagerrated but this is the difference)
I disagree fundamentally with DC that governmemnt action is to blame for the current crisis, rather the opposite it is recent inaction.
Most posters will disagree with me on here but please don’t insult me and those with mental health problems by calling me insane.
Oh good! A thread I can totally ignore!
“I said I would so i have no choice”
Sorry JimJam! It wasn’t deliberate to make you do the post (but your comment did remind me it was about time I had one).
Oldnat – bingo! That’s what I normally do with them.
I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points on the Angus Reid thread, to do with UKIP minded folk “returning to the Tory fold” in the General Election. I’m all in favour of friendly relations with other EU members, so staying in the EU is fine – so long as we can opt out of most of its provisions. If other EU members are happy with that, great. Otherwise, leaving is better. We can pursue friendly relations from outside the EU. Since UKIP is a fringe party that will never displace the Conservatives, the only prospect of a sensible EU policy – either departure or a genuine negotiation on opt outs, ie one backed by the threat of departure – is to have (a) a Conservative party committed to a sensible EU policy (see above) and (b) a Conservative government elected. Since we do not have (a), there is no point whatever in trying to achieve (b) by “returning to the Tory fold” in the general election. Much better to strive for a Tory defeat, in the hope of getting (a). Only then would it be worth trying to achieve (b).
It’s no use saying – let’s put the EU on the back burner while we deal with more pressing issues, like the economy or immigration, because you can’t adopt conservative economic or immigration policies while being subject to EU control. If Mrs T got in now, she could never adopt the policies she did in 1979 to dig us out of the Heath/Wilson/Callaghan trench. They would all require permission from Brussels, which would never be forthcoming.
Since (sadly) the next general election cannot achieve a crushing defeat for both Brown and Cameron, the best that can be hoped for is a Cameron defeat, from which, subsequently, a genuinely Eurosceptic Conservative government might eventually emerge. If it takes another twenty years, then so be it. If it never happens, fine. Who cares whether we are ruled by Brussels with a “Conservative” satrap, rather than a “Labour” satrap ?
The thing that irks me is that so many Labour supporters and a few Liberal Democrats seem to believe that the Conservative Party is stuck in a 1980s time warp. While most Conservatives accept that Labour has ditched Clause 4 and the Liberal Democrats are not the old Liberal Party or the SDP but something that genuinely emerged from the merger, there are too many on the political Left who think that Thatcher still pulls the strings in the Conservative Party.
I think that while most Conservatives are nothing short of horrified by the levels of expenditure under Labour, most also accept that the 1979-97 government underspent on capital investment. By the time John Major left office, schools and hospitals did desperately need new capital expenditure. That part of Labour’s spending spree was welcome but Labour’s absurd expansion of welfare was nothing short of profligate and ill-advised.
I desperately hope that the Conservatives will win next year, not just because I think that they’ll be best for Britain but also to show left-wing doubters that the Conservatives can move on and modernize too.
The ungratefullness fo the GPs defies belief. 12 years ago they were leaving the NHS in droves. And the thought of that economic numbskull boy george in charge of the treasury keeps me awake at night.
I’m desperate for a hung parliament which I believe will lead to a Lab=Lib coalition and hence some form of PR!
Lee Moore. While you may not fully support Cameron’s new European package if it is achieved it will provide some opt outs and could slow down further European integration. The Tories will have much more credibility and negotiating strength in Europe if they secure a large majority.
Conservative Home & others have approached the new Tory candidates & it is generally accepted that most of them are Euro sceptic. If the Tories win “big time” then more of these new candidates would be elected and I expect there to be much more pressure on Cameron to secure opt outs. If there is the will to negotiate opt outs then I believe they are achievable as the Tories would no doubt use there muscle in areas such as whether to allow other countries to accede to the EEC. Don’t forget Ireland & the Czech Republic will only secure their recently negotiated opt outs if the UK accepts that Croatia goes into the EEC. By contrast if Labour is re-elected then the best assumption is that further European integration will be allowed to gallop ahead, we will progressively lose our independence and it may become much more difficult for us to ever leave the EEC.
@Jim Jam and Charles,
I have often heard comparisons made between the “investment” of the current Labour government in public services and the “underinvestment” of previous Tory governments in public services. Whilst there is an element of truth in this (and as “small government” person by nature its part of the reason I am a Tory) I think you have to bear in mind that a) the Tories took power during a recession, b) they had a second severe recession ten years later and c) Blair inherited a very healthy economy and went on to stoke a massive boom.
Part of the reason that Labour has been able to invest so much in public services is that they have been raking in tax revenue from (wait for it) stamp duty, pension taxes, fuel duty and the profits of the financial sector for over a decade. If you are going to give them the credit for doing that, you also have to give them the brickbat for causing the perilous financial situation we now find ourselves in. You can only spend money on services if you have the money to spend. Had the Tories decided to borrow a few hundred billion in the 80s and pump it into public services, we’d be flat broke by now.
Evening Mike
Even if the Tories won 100% of the seats in the next Parliament, no meaningful opt outs could be secured with the current policy, which is : “Give us some opt outs, please, please, please, because the British people would like them. But under no circumstances will we let the British people have a vote on whether to stay in your club or not.”
If you start a negotiation by tearing up your only card, then you ensure that you will achieve nothing, except having sand kicked in your face.
Question for JimJam (if you’re around) or anyone else.
I totally get what you’re saying about the Tories in the Thatcher years – I wouldn’t have voted for them either, had I been old enough to, back then – but I was wondering what your thoughts are as to voting for policy rather than ‘tribe’?
Far too often (in my opinion) people seem to base the alloting of their vote on the fairly distant past. For example, in my view, the greatest obstacle to the Conservatives present success is not their policies, or the other parties, but their own members – I am much more comfortable with present Conservative policy than with the other main parties (how I wish there was a Gladstonian/Distributist party!), but apart from about 3 of the frontbenchers, I don’t trust THEM.
Not that I particularly trust any of the parties as a whole – I’m kind of anti-partisanship generally – but it’s something I’ve noticed. It sounds like you could NEVER vote Conservative, even if every single one of their policies lined up with your own – would you care to elaborate? Thanks
I preferred this site when all non discussion of polls were either pulled or not made.
But hey—All UKIP / anti EU tories / BNP members (and I cant make a difference between them) are mad. Why? Try and live in the real world and evaluate your fantasy.
1. Only Mexico has more emigrants than the UK (so if migrants are bad we are also messing up the rest of the world even more…) OECD figures. But if migrants are good…
2 Given global crime, global capitalism, global terrorism, global trade unions, global environmental issues etc why be so stupid as to believe that national governments have all the answers
3 Given that SNP / PC / and Sinn Fein are in power why the belief in a UK?
4 In Australia, for example , 50% of the population are born overseas or have a parent born overseas. What’s the problem with migrants?
5 Migrants- heavily shown by USA and Australia – do the dirty jobs which the locals don’t do and they use social services less than the normal population do and their children do better than the average local inhabitant–why? Migrants leave their country to do better for their children so their children are more inclined to do well as they have parents who care. (Oh, go on then check the Academic studies for the BNP morons who will disagree…)
6.UKIP BNP are mad–what makes them think that if we do decide to leave the EU (and stuff them up for 10 years or so doing so) that they will then say ‘hey that’s fine you can still be part of the economic / business part of the EU?’ NOTHING. They’ll say get stuffed and we’ll be left to drown in our tiny economic alone state – the USA will reject us as why would they want us ? No reason- the money will be with the EU
But, hey, we once had an empire so if we continue to keep England as an historic them park rejecting al change – and go off following the USA on illegal and immoral Christian imperial wars – that’s okay…
Misterdavid (No relation)
I think you raise a very valid point, about a number of the contributors.
It seems that David C, and many of his policies, appeals to alot of people; the main threat to him is not the labour party but people in his own ranks.
As the election approaches, our presidential style campaigning will mean attention will be focused on Gordon, David and Nick rather than their parties, and therefore as election day gets closer I suspect the Tory chances will further improve, but I could be wrong.
We have now had unprecedented criticism of Labour from the military, governor of the bank of England and leading scientific advisors. It should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that we have an unprecedentedly incompetent government.
Even Alan Johnson, the most probable successor to Brown, has demonstrated his arrogrant, clumsy, heavyhandedness with his response to criticism from Prof. Nutt.
Their are even making the Tories look good in comparison:-)
Davey – if it depends on personality and character, skeletons in cupboards and track records., I would imagine Cameron being more worried. His deal with Murdoch might well protect his reputation, and paradoxically, I’m quite pleased that it will be more about policies than about character.
I agree with Charles Stuart that Cameron’s Tories should be given the benefit of the doubt over Changes within and lessons learned, and I don’t think it’s healthy to use arguments that rely on old evidence.
On the GPs (much betteer paid under Labour, surely?), my own limited experience is that they see patients in their surgeries or homes, prescribe drugs and refer them to hospitals, and manage their own budgets for doing so.
Many of their patients don’t appear for appointments and have little wrong with them It’s not brain surgery.
I believe the experience of NHS managers is far more stressful, and more sensitive to Govt spending controls, and I refer to bed shortages for wmergencies as life and death situations that GPs don’t face everey day.
That couls explain the discrepancy in voting intention, but it’s more likely to do with the fact that GPs are now threatened by supertax and IHT under Labourm, having been lifted into that earning brackets, while NHS managers geet management levels of pay (ie much lower than GPs)
Despite Anthony’s intended ignorance, I hope my remarks are not offensive to people of other voting habits and I remain open to considering original and intelligent thoughts of others
Why do people focus on Cameron changing policy on Europe when he has only been forced to do this because Brown broke a manifesto pledge? Isn’t the break of a manifesto pledge that relates to a decision that has such a significant impact on our democracy a slightly, only just slightly bigger issue?
All this squabbling between Lab and Con supporters will soon pale into insignificance when the “peek oil” start to fall soon, by about 3-4% /year, when power cuts will be a daily occurrence, petrol and food prices will skyrocket in about 10-15 years from now. You will all remember these days as the “good old days”.
Remember the exponential growth, maybe the Mayan calendar will prove to right after all.
Misterdavid, back from watching x factor, at least GB right about something J&E awful.
You could say tribal whilst I would say it goes to the core values.
So the history, membership and underlying Conervative Ethos are what makes it very very unlikely I could ever support them and what makes me support Labour. So whilst policies are important, (e.g in 83 I hated Labour’s pull out of the EU policy and dislike immensely the target culture created by the cons but grown out of control under new Labour) it the soul that matters most to me.
RC – the ‘consitution was voted down in France and the Netherlands who both passed the treaty without a referendum.
Yet we here no complaints from those countries and I asked my French and Dutch colleagues about this.
Only the right wing press and Euro-phobe persist that it is the same thing.
A consitution is a constitition is a constitution.
No promise broken by Labour who are the only political party ever to trust the people with referenda.
LEE MOORE
Cameron has more sense than to start a negotiation with Europe (before he is even elected as PM) with his guns blazing. It would be counter productive and just unnecessarily upset other European politicians.
However I believe the Tories given a strong mandate in a General Election would be listened to in Europe for the reasons I mentioned above. Also because other European countries want us to stay in the EEC. They would recognise that if Cameron in the next Parliament fails to deliver on Europe the next stage may be a Referendum in the UK as to whether the UK stays in the EEC.
To summarise I am very optimistic that with a large majority Cameron will broadly achieve his European objectives in the next Parliament but if he fails to do this there will be a Referendum on our continued membership.
It frustrates me when people dismiss the possibility of the UK ever leaving the EU under any circumstances. Personally I am in favour of our membership under current terms, and could probably stomach a bit more integration if I had to. But “Never” leave the EU, ever?
What if the EU brought in a law stating that the monarchy and national parliaments were abolished, that all UK citizens from 18-25 were to be conscripted, that Cornwall should be renamed Brittany North West, that the entire EU fishing fleet were to be centralised at San Sebastian and that Judaism and Islam were cults of which it was illegal to be a member….
OK, deliberately stupid and over the top, but I’m trying to make the point that EVERYONE has a bottom line. A “this far and no further” position beyond which they would rather leave the EU than stay in it. The question is where they draw the line in the sand.
Can’t resist an open thread – so refreshing. The Lisbon treaty is great – at last the EU can get working efficiently and at lower cost, with 1/3 of the commission made redundant as 27 shrink to 15, and with power transferred back to member states from the unelected commission. The EU parliament will also get more power over the unelected commission. National Parliaments will now be allowed to veto and reject Commision proposals. The extension of QMV will stop a single intransigent state blocking reforms. Great – hopefully that will rattle a few cages.
The really entertaining thing is that with any chance of a Lisbon referendum gone, the Tories are finally exposed as the most pro-EU party in UK politics. they are the architects of British Memebrsership of the EU and will never take us out. Euroscepticism has been exposed as a sham – the only question is In or Out or varying shades of In. On this issue alone I agree with Cameron – Well done! the UK should continue to play a major role in the EU. If you want to get out then join UKIP, ‘cos the Tories are Europhiles to the core!
Anthony describes these open threads as “tiresome” but this one is filled with excellent posts.
JIM JAm and others. I too remember the tories’ errors and I too agree that Labour 1997-2003 made some impressive achievements.
Had you asked me in 2003 I would have described Labour as progressive and successful, having introduced interesting legislation and reforms.
Ask me about the period 2003-2009 and I’d replace the word progressive with reactionary and the word successful with “survivalist”. No significant domestic policy springs to mind except doubling my marginal rate of taxation (the day they lost my support) then denying that I had been affected.
2005 was the election that a good few people gave Labour a last chance, and their faith simply has not been repaid. The results are plain to see on the voting-intention-over-time chart.
Evening RC
I agree that Brown’s welshing on his referendum promise is wickeder than Cameron’s welshing on his. For Brown merely pretended that the facts had changed (ie that the Lisbon treaty was different from the EU Constitution) whereas in Cameron’s case a ratified Lisbon treaty really does present a different legal starting point than an unratified one. But politics is not about electing the marginally less untrustworthy fellow, it’s about getting the policies you want put into practice.
The essential issue is not whether Brown is wickeder than Cameron, or vice versa, but how to get out of the EU (or stay in and opt out of its most undesirable elements.) For, as I said, you can’t solve many of our most serious problems, including the economy and the public finances, without leaving the EU (or staying in and opting out etc.)
Mike, alas, is dreaming if he thinks that Dave “Clark Kent” Cameron is simply pretending to be feeble before the election, so as to dazzle us with the appearance of Dave “Superman” Cameron after the election, threatening in or out referenda so as to get those opt outs that he claims to want.
The only way to get out of the EU (or etc etc) is to elect a Eurosceptic Tory government. But before you can elect such a thing, you have to have a Eurosceptic Tory leader. And we haven’t got one. The problem with Dave, therefore, is not that he is wickeder than Gordon, but that he will block up the chances of getting out of the EU (or etc etc) for another ten years. So it is better to re-elect the wickeder Gordon, so that the Tories can continue with their policy of chucking out the old leader and selecting a new one, after an election defeat.
This is unlikely to happen, I concede, but there is still some hope of a hung Parliament with Gordon clinging on with LibDem support, so one must not despair.
I was once an active Labour Party member, leaving the party a few years ago. My belief in Civil Liberties was offended by the attempts to imprison people without publicly declared evidence, and the drive towards (in my opinion) to over-zealous and counter-productive anti-terrorism laws.
Looking at recent economic events, I have heard nothing to suggest the Tories would have done something to change the banking system to prevent the credit crunch and recession leading from it, or anything from them to deal with the consequences better than Gordon Brown. They have been slick, and they look good because they are shooting at ducks in barrels.
While I am not happy with all things Labour, I have met enough grassroots Tories to realise that that my whole ethos and outlook on life would prevent me from ever supporting them. The “reasonableness” of David Cameron to floating voters is a sharp contrast to the grassroots activists I met.
This is not to say The Tories are wrong, or bad, but they have a different outlook to me and other people, such as Jim Jam. Political policy is my opinion mostly subjective. I do really detest posts by people who suggest by supporting one party or another is stupid or illogical. It suggests they merely have a different outlook.
For all those naive and gullible people who think it would be madness to pull out of the EU might I draw your short attention span to Norway and Switzerland who have prospered enormously from NOT being in the EU. Countries which have much smaller budget deficits to us (possibly from not having to give away £billions in charity money every year), where unemployment is less and where the quality of life is much higher.
Now please tell me what exactly is so mad about them?
Understand your point Garry K. Different outlook / different perspective is totally reasonable and understandable.
I would just like to point out several issues that would surely convince a voter of any outlook and any perspective to never vote for Labour again:
- Unelected prime minister who bottled an election because he might not win
- Unelected deputy prime minister, twice disgraced
- Reneged on manifesto pledge to give us referendum on Lisbon treaty
- Taken to war in Iraq based on inaccurate intelligence – Dr Kelly who told us the truth tragically died a few days after revealing the truth
- PM who does not provide equipment needed by our troops
- Party that openly admits immigration policy was wrong
- PM who has given so much power to Scotland, English did not have any say on whether Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds – three months on, apparently there has been little or no deterioration
- PM who is entirely responsible for setting up a regulatory regime that failed to monitor macro economic risks
There are so many additional arguments that could be listed, regardless of outlook or perspective, which would make any voter very unlikely to support Labour again. So much deception, spin and disrespect. So unlike the British.
I would be interested to hear positive arguments to suggest why anyone should vote Labour.
@ JIM JAM
From someone who considers himself firmly to the right of centre, may i say i enjoy your posts.
I always find them objective, intelligent and informative and even though it’s not often i fully agree with your points your level headed views and consideration for other peoples opinions is, for me, what these pages are all about.
I personally believe the last 12 years have been a disaster.
I agree that the Conservatives policies in the 1980’s were too divisive and they left a generation of people from certain areas in the country on the scrapheap.
I will also accept that the Poll tax and ERM debacle meant that by the time 1997 came around they fully deserved to spend time in opposition.
But 12 years is more than enough!
Cameron and co. may not have all the answers but another 5 years in Brown’s Britain is unthinkable!
The welfare state has often been the reason for many of my rants over the years but New Labour has plunged it into an unprecedented level of choas.
Many people say middle Britain decides our election.
Well, there’s nothing middle Britain despises more than feeling the pinch while this government has made sitting on your arse a viable career path.
This government thinks it has a devine right to be in power and has always believed it is better at spending our money than we are, it isn’t.
When the Labour party is backed into a corner it always does the same thing.
It strarts a class war.
Well, this is one it wont win. Cameron may not come across as a typical man on the street but i’ve never come across anyone like Gordon Brown.
I don’t know about anyone else, but i’ve never met anyone who can stand the sight of him.
Why could Labour MP’s not see what was obvious to the rest of us, he would never win a GE.
The voters are about to call time on this government, and although other opinions are respected i cannot agree with anyone who thinks there is a better option.
Labour has transformed the nation – we now have a Tory Party who support the NHS, State Education, Public Services and the EU. We have delivered a decade of steady economic growth, (the current recession is a world wide phenomena) – supported innovtation and industry especially SMEs (R&D Tax Credit, Technology Strategy Board etc.) redistributed wealth, reduced NHS waiting lists, raised educational achievement, extended higher education, substantially increased tax allowances for pensioners and targeted additional benefits (free travel, annual heating allowance), recuced income tax to the lowest since WW2, introduced tax credits for working low-paid families, adopted the Social Chapter, delivered peace in Northern Ireland – need I go on. The achievements of Labour are outstanding.
RC
You raise many points, and I will answer what I can!
- Unelected prime minister who bottled an election because he might not win
Our constitution means we vote for the party,not the Prime Minister. We have been governed in living memory by John Major and James Callaghan, off the top of my head, who were Prime Minister mid-term. Gordon did call an election because he chose not to, as is permitted. Gordon has done nothing wrong under the rules. If people don’t like the rules, we should legislate for fixed term Parliaments
- Unelected deputy prime minister, twice disgraced
First time, he was right to go, second time he was completely clear by independent inquiry into the matter. His greatest crime to his opponents was he simply got one over them far too often!
- Reneged on manifesto pledge to give us referendum on Lisbon treaty
Was it treaty a constitution or a tidy up of the treaties already in place? I probably agree with you there.
- Taken to war in Iraq based on inaccurate intelligence – Dr Kelly who told us the truth tragically died a few days after revealing the truth
The intelligence wasn’t greatly accurate in hindsight, but do you really trust intelligence anyway? I suspect historically that many decisions based on intelligence have been dodgy, over many decades. These days, it is easier to see when it’s wrong. David took his own life as he got caught in a political storm. Very sad, but it the Government didn’t kill him (unless you believe the conspiracy theories).
- PM who does not provide equipment needed by our troops
Every war we have fought has been against a background of this. you could double MOD expenditure, and still they would want more equipment. The shortages of equipment in WW1 and 2 were massively greater, but no-one seemed to complain.
- Party that openly admits immigration policy was wrong
Party admits a policy might have been wrong?? Surely, in the grown up world we live this is good. Don’t people want Politicians to be open and honest? Do we expect any body/Company/Government to get 100% of decisions right? I’ve never worked for such an organisation.
- PM who has given so much power to Scotland, English did not have any say on whether Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds – three months on, apparently there has been little or no deterioration
Scottish devolution has been popular and successful. It is good for democracy too, when people moan about centralised power. The decision was made by the Scottish Government. Whether it was right or wrong to release him is for the Scottish electorate to decide at the ballot box.
- PM who is entirely responsible for setting up a regulatory regime that failed to monitor macro economic risks
So Gordon Brown failed to set up the right framework to monitor vastly complicated movements in the Global finance system. If this is a crime, every world leader is guilty. I do not recall The Conservatives calling for tighter financial regulation over the period. In addition, it was reforms by Mrs T in the earlier 80’s that reduced the requirements for secure reserves vs credit in our banking systems. I am not saying she is to blame, but over a long time changes were made, that were not fully understood. To simplistically say it’s Gordon fault is grossly and incorrectly simplistic.
Some mistakes have been made, but it isn’t all bad. Here are some good things:
- Massive investment in NHS. It isn’t perfect, but no-one waits 18 months for an operation any more. In terms of operations performed, the NHS is massively better.
- National minimum wage. The Tories said mass unemployment would be caused. Balderdash! For the first time, a minimum level of acceptable wage exists.
- Scottish and Welsh devolution. Both major shift of power from Whitehall in exercises of democracy.
- Record investment in Schools.
- Improved employment laws via social chapter. People now have a minimum entitlement to holidays, and cannot be forced to work excessive hours.
Despite the moans of people, most people are much better off than 12 years ago. Income, value of house (even including current slump), better health care and better schools. More nursery places, better maternity and paternity right.
I could go on, but this is quite long enough.
So RC, with respect, many of your points are subjectively shades of grey, not black and white.
Thank you for your interesting perspective!
Please except this amendment!
Our constitution means we vote for the party,not the Prime Minister. We have been governed in living memory by John Major and James Callaghan, off the top of my head, who were Prime Minister mid-term. Gordon did not call an election because he chose not to, as is permitted. Gordon has done nothing wrong under the rules. If people don’t like the rules, we should legislate for fixed term Parliaments
I am sorry for the poor grammar in places. I am looking after two children, one aged one and one aged two and a half while typing!
Garry K – interested by your detailed responses. I have to admit I don’t agree with the responses, but I guess this proves the point on different perspectives of what I thought were black and white issues.
Eric – the points you raise have been aired a number of times by Brown, particularly in the Commons when he avoids challenging questions. If these points are so clearly outstanding achievements of Labour, why does Labour languish in the polls as it does? Presumably, vast swathes of the population are just not convinced?
RC
‘Eric – the points you raise have been aired a number of times by Brown, particularly in the Commons when he avoids challenging questions. If these points are so clearly outstanding achievements of Labour, why does Labour languish in the polls as it does? Presumably, vast swathes of the population are just not convinced?’
I have observed politics from the age of about 14 up to now (I’m 37), plus read extensively on periods before my time.
Quite simply, all Governments grow tired, people get fed up of the same faces, and it is summed up in “Time for a Change”
All parties have their day in the sun, then “Time for a change ” gets them all in the end. Labour will be defeated for sure next year, then the Tories will get a few terms. Labour will renew and come back in about 10-15 years time!
Such is politics. The great achievements of Attlee’s Government did not stop them losing after one term. Churchill lost to Attlee, despite being a war hero.
The Electorate is fickle and often illogical. That what you get with humans!
“I desperately hope that the Conservatives will win next year, not just because I think that they’ll be best for Britain but also to show left-wing doubters that the Conservatives can move on and modernize too”.
Charles Stuart
And I equally desperately hope they won’t. And that’s from someone who was a Conservative member for over 20 years but is old enough to remember the mess they made last time.
And sure they’ve modernised; they now have younger Eton-educated, extremely wealthy people at the helm instead of older ones. Cameron has never done a decent day’s work in his life and doesn’t know what it’s like to struggle. He ought to get some life experience and come back in 10 years time.
If Ken Clarke was in charge, they’d be credible; he isn’t, so they’re not.
Labour has lost it over Iraq and the economy and has to go.
We need a hung parliament so PR can be forced through and we might get some smaller parties with good ideas (Greens, Lib Dems) to have some influence. Because (as most informed scientists know) we HAVE to tackle global warming and our own energy crisis fast and these 2 parties understand that as the absolute priority.
Get your head out of your arse, Wells. “Partisian rants and oneupmanship” are the stuff of democracy. If we were all very nice and agreed with each other, what would be the point of sites like yours?
If you’re not a partisian in politics then you know nothing about it, therefore you’re opinion is worthless. I agree that a site should have focus and that here that means polling methodologies. Instead of criticising people for being partisian you should instead welcome their diversity but criticise them when they go off topic. This is a subtle diffierence, I know, but an important one.
Too many people these days seem to have forgotten that robust, masculine debate is our foil for violence and the reason we live in peace.
Tony – very interesting post from you. The thing is, though, it’s unrealistic to expect BOTH Labour & the Tories to lose. Although the dominance of the two major parties has declined precipitously in some elections, especially European ones, In Britain, we still face a clear, if to many invidious, choice between a Labour government, a Conservative government, or a non-majority government led by either of these parties. Ultimately I believe voters have to choose between these options; although there will be any number of options on many people’s ballot papers, no-one can seriously believe that another party can form a government. As a Socialist, although the Labour Government of today does not generally accord with my socialist principles, I will continue to support the Party as the only serious option for bringing about the social change I desire, a fundamental shift in the balance of power towards working people & their families. To me, voting Green, Lib Dem or any other apparently progressive party is a cop-out, as is hoping against hope for some vague sort of hung Parliament in which no-one really has a clear advantage.
Anthony:
My post on another thread is awaiting moderation. That doesn’t always happen.
I’m not sure why. Perhaps it is just too long.
I’ll try and park it here.
Here it is.
OldNat
You and I are going to get banned for repetition.
It’s a pity that the data is dodgy for this issue is the one more than any other that I really want to see good E&W v Scottish data for.
I got really excited by the headline, because I thought I might see a difference between the two NHS systems that would have the highest relevance for gleaning information about the SNP’s prospects.
There are two SNP ministers who are making an impact. One of these is the Rural Affairs minister whose work I, like most of the Scottish population, know little about because the press ignore him.
What he does happens to be important for the constituencies which the SNP holds or have hopes or winning.
Most Glasgow or Edinburgh voters do not know who Richard Lochhead is or what he does. Few have even the slightest interest in fishing quotas, raptors or pig welfare. I’m not very sure what a raptor is.
The other SNP minister who is delivering votes to the SNP by the bucketload in Nicola Sturgeon.
I spent 17 years as the Treasurer of one of the smallest health boards. No health minister in either system has made a more positive impact on staff.
The NHS is a huge employer. Its staff are in every constituency. Many of them have careers which have only marginal opportunities for employment in another industry. All of them have friends and family to whom they complain about work problems.
Any fool can manage the NHS because there is so much committment to the plainly obvious aims of the organisation and to professional standards and the respect of colleagues, that good people will overcome bad systems, even at some cost to themselves.
It’s more sermon on the mount than jobsworth. People care, and not just people in white coats, wages clerks too.
It’s common on these pages to classify people as “parents” “home owners” “public sector employees” and to imagine that they will vote according to these classifications according to whether the government of the day has effective policies which benefit these groups. All of us are capable of being classified in many ways, but one’s employment is a big part of one’s life.
It isn’t simply a matter of pay or benefits or job security.
Many people are turned off politics. That is less likely if your employer is controlled by doctrinaire politicians with flavour-of-the-month instant managerial solutions, reorganisations and “reform” every three or four years, and if you are at the coalface and see that these things don’t work and waste money which would be better spent in other ways.
It wasn’t always so, but nobody now at work will remember the Butskillite consensus of sensible pragmatic management by the likes of the widely admired Enoch Powell.
Imagine then how you would feel when, after decades of being messed about you get a health minister who says:
“Its wrong. We’re not doing it.” [Privatised cleaning]
It’s the way she says it too. You just know that she means it. It isn’t the Westminster formula “We have no plans to .. .. [slaughter the firstborn or whatever]. That too often means the plan isn’t ready or agreed – yet.
If I was in charge of the SNP’s election campaigns I would think it worth paying for a reliable poll that shows what these polls might have done.
If ever there was a need for separate Scottish Data, this is it.
To Tony Fisher
If we have a hung parliament, surely the most likely coalition is Lib Dem/Conservative? If Labour would wish form a coalition Government with the Lib Dems, surely the Lib Dems would not want to be seen propping up an old, tired minority Government. The only feasible coalition is a Conservative/Lib Dem one. Nick Clegg’s conference speech surely rules that out too!
Is the price Nick Clegg would ask to be paid to support a DC led government be a vote on PR?
Can any Lib Dem supporters out there post a response to these questions?
As one who is leaning more and more to the Lib Dems, I believe if Cameron committed to a vote on PR and agreed to drop some of their more idiotic policies, Clegg would agree to a coalition if a hung parliament happens. Conference speeches are mainly posturing and can soon be forgotten when pragmatism dictates! A coalition with Labour is unthinkable.
I also suspect that we will see numerous Labour defections, mainly to the Lib Dems but possibly also to the Conservatives after Labour loses the election and the party turns on itself.
‘SCARY BISCUITS
Get your head out of your arse, Wells. “Partisian rants and oneupmanship” are the stuff of democracy. If we were all very nice and agreed with each other, what would be the point of sites like yours?
If you’re not a partisian in politics then you know nothing about it, therefore you’re opinion is worthless.’
Some of us have mature view on life and actually follow our own thoughts; not what a party tells us. My view is simple-a partisan rant shows lack of ability to think for oneself. No party is perfect. If you can not see anything wrong with your own party then you need to really examine your own lack of logic. One may follow a party, but one may disagree with at least some of its policies. a a partisan following shows an inability to think for one self.
Are you also saying that all swinging voters are fools? They would argue they evaluate the issues most carefully…
As well ’scary biscuit’ you have missed the point of this site. It is meant to be about analysis of polls and their implications. It was never meant to be a pointless shouting site; there are other places for that. To complain about this site because it is not doing what you want it to be shows a lack of understanding…
“To me, voting Green, Lib Dem or any other apparently progressive party is a cop-out”
Barnaby Marder
So we are only allowed 2 choices, are we – Labour or Conservative? Your argument is the best argument for PR I’ve ever heard, as it reduces choice so drastically.
Voting should be on which party is right, not on which ones can win.
Jack:
‘a partisan rant shows lack of ability to think for oneself. No party is perfect. If you can not see anything wrong with your own party then you need to really examine your own lack of logic.’
Absolutely absolutely absolutely. Good stuff!
To take a step on from that, one of my main problems with Proportional Representation is that it embeds partisanship, in the sense that MPs under that system are slaves to their whips, not servants to their constituents. Personally, I have never voted for a party, only for a candidate (I’ve voted in 2 different constituencies so far, and not for the same party in each). To me, PR accentuates party leadership, following the party line, and exactly the sort of tribalism that I asked JimJam about yesterday.
What really saddens me is the indirect (and direct) way ALL political parties are beginning to use the race card. I know immigration is a sensitive issue, but why can’t we all have a mature grown debate over it – rather than “let’s have another go at johnny foreigner”. The largely right-wing press also don’t help by highlighting everything negative about these “foreigners” while saying little about the positive impact immigration has had on this country.
I know David Cameron wants to make his party more inclusive, there is still a significant part of the party that is quasi-rascist and quasi-homophobic. While the Labour party is far from perfect in this regard, it is light years ahead of the Tories when it comes to inclusive progressive politics.
Some info coming through on new Scottish polls.
S3 for the Herald tomorrow has the Nats with a big lead for Holyrood 40-32 constituency and 37-29 list but Lab with a big lead for Westminster 39-25.
Great news for the Nats after a poll last week suggested things could be tighter at Holyrood. Labour will be pleased with the Westminster showing but it looks a bit unreal.
The Angus Reid Scottish sample (conducted after S3) suggests 32-27 for Westminster which feels more right.
Nats would go up to 54 on Holyrood seat analysis.
Muzza
“ALL political parties are beginning to use the race card”
I don’t know about your part of the world, but at least in Scotland the SNP doesn’t.
@ Muzza:-
“why can’t we all have a mature grown debate over it ”
Everyone except you & the BNP seems to be doing so .
Alan Johnson’s recent remarks & the revelations about Labour’s undeclared policy have been most revealing.
Immigration -that is to say the rate of immigration & resultant population rise-is a topic of concern in opinion polls.
All parties-except the BNP-are finding it quite possible to discuss in a rational way, without resorting to the totally unrelated issue of race . We have Trevor Phillips to thank for that in large part.
Your approach to this subject is a throwback to the bad old days. Indeed it was attitudes like yours which stifled rational debate on the topic & allowed BNP to march into the vacuum created.
I posted this today on the Sunderland Central website, having looked at this blog I am suprised that no one else feels this subject has been worthy of comment ?
“On a slightly diferent note to Sunderland Central, I have to be quite honest and say I was appalled at The Independant deciding today to lead its first 7 pages with a declaration to pull out of Afghanistan.Today of all days.
We can debate if we should be there for days on end but out of respect to all those that have died there and the North East I understand has a higher percentage of serving personnel than most areas I find the timing opportunistic but disrespectful.My wife who works in in a Sunderland Academy School has taught and seen a number of youngsters move on into the forces only to see them come home with honours and be buried. The Independant clearly isnt my paper but I think their decision to make their editorial stance today was an affront to all those who have served”.
@ Colin
Please don’t patronise me.
Immigration has been largely good for this country. Period. London is a fantastic city (arguably the best in the World) thanks to its diversity. Yes, there are issues that need tackling and am happy to debate them in a mature way.
Of course, immigration should be unrelated to race, but invariably the two get linked thanks to our right-wing press and politicians on the right of the political spectrum.
And yes in case you are wondering, I am from an ethnic minority so shoot me down!
Well, I thought Simon Cowell was an arrogant cockeral after his remark about not insulting ‘our’ PM. He obviously does not follow the polls and has no idea about politics.
Like Brown he thinks he can get away with treating the public like idiots by saving the talentless twins and sending home a pop star. I shall not be watching this programme anymore.
Muzza
“Of course, immigration should be unrelated to race, but invariably the two get linked thanks to our right-wing press and politicians on the right of the political spectrum.”
Could it be that the two are linked because generally speaking immigrants are not English, Scottish or Welsh?
Just in case you were wondering, race is not to do with colour of skin. Poles, Rumanians etc are not British either.
i think we all need to grow up somewhat, we all have our problems with the policy of this party or that party, but we can all put our point across in a calm manor with out shouting four bell of ball’s out of each other, im no fan of everybody proping up there favored party but can still see the point in it. in any case all parties have there faults weather it be UKIP, tories or labour for that matter and so long as your point is put in a reasoned way i can not see why it should be moderated or deleted, so can we all calm down and grow up please.
“…in this thread… you are welcome to indulge yourselves in tiresome and pointless partisan rants and one-upmanship.”
Wrong place for me then (although I have to say these threads have a way of becoming very civilised when everyone settles down)
There’s a new Scotland poll–such a rarity!
*looks around anxiously*
Nothing. Nothing. Eek!
Scotland Herald didn’t even even bother to mention the poor LD while they were bashing the SNP for doubling their support from the last GE and polling 40% voting intentions in Holyrood. Apparently that means they’re being “shunned”. *rolls eyes*
I have the feeling that means that the LD are in for a good kicking in Scotland but I’d like to see the numbers–and the questions. =)
By the way, Scotland had its own justice system before devolution and has always had its own justice system. The Scottish justice system was not dismantled by the Act of Union. And Labour didn’t “give” the Scots devolution. It was by popular ballot which, I will admit, is an odd concept.
Democracy, you know.
46.Lab 39% (n/c), SNP 25% (+7), Con 18% (+2), LD 12% (-11) gives (Baxter):
Lab 42 seats (+2)
LD 7 seats (-4)
SNP 7 seats (+1)
Con 3 seats (+2)
(Speaker (Martin) 0 seats (-1))
4 seats changing hands would be Lib Dem losses:
- Argyll & Bute CON gain
- Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk CON gain
- Inverness, Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey LAB gain
- Dunbartonshire East Lab gain
… and 1 SNP gain from Lab:
- Ochil & South Perthshire
… plus 1 by-election revert:
- Dunfermline & West Fife LAB re-gain
NEW SCOTTISH POLL link:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/salmond-poll-blow-as-voters-shun-snp-1.931344
Anthony, can you explain the absolutely VAST discrepancy between Westminster and Holyrood voting intention? I can’t!
(see also this morning’s thread at politicalbetting.com)
@ MUZZA
“Immigration has been largely good for this country”
That is an opinion-but not neccessarily a fact.
A House of Lords Committee concluded that per capita GDP was unaltered as a result of immigration.
The effect on the provision of things like housing & healthcare , is manifest.
“And yes in case you are wondering, I am from an ethnic minority so shoot me down!”
I wasn’t wondering-the ethicity of people who post here has never been of interest to me-indeed you are the first person I can recall here who has declared their ethnicity in support of their argument.
I would still disagree with you if you could trace your roots back to Alfred the Great.
@Colin
And of course, if Muzza COULD trace his ancestry back to Alfred the Great, he’d still be the descendant of immigrants!
I have always been largely anti-immigration, and always my motivation has been to try and limit the total population of the UK, rather than to “preserve” its ethnic mix. I am very aware that there are lots of people who come to the same position from a totally different direction. I think it is perfectly possible (and I have come across it from time to time) for a British resident from an ethnic minority to be firmly against continued immigration. Just because someone isn’t “indigenous” doesn’t mean that they are happy to see their local park/playing field/farmland buried under more housing for an increasing population.
As a policeman doing house-to-house enquiries in inner London, I was often struck by the contrast between the workshy, drug addled, ignorant “British” residents in some flats and the cheerful, coherent, well balanced immigrants who were their neighbours. The problem is though that although immigrants allow us to “get the job done” in low paid industries, the fact that they do so with such commitment and effectiveness deflects us from the real problem which is how did we allow hundreds of thousands of UK households to decline to the point where “work” is a dirty word.
(By the way, whilst we’re wearing our hearts on our sleeves, I am the son of an immigrant, albeit a white one).
The full details of the herald poll aren’t available but if you put the Lab and SNP figures in to Webster sandwicks Scotland votes calculator for Holyrood you get this result for Holyrood.
Lab 43 (-3), SNP 54 (+7), LibDem 14 (-2), Tory 15 (-2), Grn 2 (-) Ind 1 (-)
That is a very good result mid term for the SNP.
I have little problem with the idea that we might have slipped back at Westminster, but I don’t see it as a massive blow and its a bit much for the Herald to portray it as such three days before the Glasgow Poll.
Oddly Labour don’t seem to have made a formal committment that i have seen to Building the Glasgow airport rail link even though they have made a major campaign issue of the SNP minority government cancelling it.
I’ll make a rash prediction that they will condemn its cancellation roundly between now and friday but won’t vote to reinstate it come the Budget in March…..
Peter.
Stephen W comment (the first one on this thread) is not an expression of an opinion, it is just plain rude. It discredits this blog that it was not moderated out.
PETER ET AL
I’m not usually a press conspiracy type but the Herald “shun SNP” headline is one of the worst examples of flagrant bias in the less than glorious annals of the increasingly pathetic Scottish press.
In fact, a glance at the TNS Systems Three website would show that the LAST Scottish Parliament voting intention poll was in June not May as the paper states and the SNP consituency vote has gone UP from 39 to 40 over that period! Hardly a statistically significant movement but rather explodes their “honeymoon over” analysis.
THE SNP ARE THEREFORE THE FIRST PARTY IN HISTORY TO BE “SHUNNED” BY THEIR VOTE GOING UP AND WINNING A PROJECTED 54 SEATS COMPARED TO THE PRESENT 47!
If this were the Daily Mail we would all shrug our shoulders – but the once half decent Herald! -
HOW PATHETIC
PETER
Full Scottish Parliament TNS S3 figures are
Q1) snp 40 lab 32 tory 13 lib 11
Q2) snp 37 lab 29 tory 12 lib 12
you may wish to calculate and send to the poltical editor of the Herald.
@ NEILA:-
“The problem is though that although immigrants allow us to “get the job done” in low paid industries, the fact that they do so with such commitment and effectiveness deflects us from the real problem which is how did we allow hundreds of thousands of UK households to decline to the point where “work” is a dirty word.”
Absolutely agree Neil.
I would like to think I may have a great deal in common with the 40% or so of people, disillusioned with labour, who now seem to have firmly made up their minds that David Cameron will be the next PM.
Reading the posts on this great site, it’s amazing how the same political period affected people differently & how we all have a different perspective of right & wrong, success & failure.
It’s not unreasonable to see Maggie’s years as a general triumph (albeit qualified in some areas) – killing of rubbish industries that never contributed anything to the tax take (previously gobbling up vast subsidies instead), destroying these hotbeds of left-wing fanaticism and replacing them with fantastic, profitable companies like Nissan, Honda, Toyota and a host of electronic companies, (including new start ups like ours – now 25 years old – no thanks to labour), all making profits, providing great quality jobs and paying over plenty of tax. Many thought the Community Charge (brilliant piece of Labour PR calling it the Poll Tax) was basically very fair. Others hated it. Labour just saw it as a political opprtunity.
On a personal note I got better service from the NHS then than I do now (like an instant x-ray of a dislocated shoulder in A & E – on a Saturday and just a few weeks wait for a knee op) and at least I got to go free to the dentist from time to time.
Some took advantage of the opportunities on offer under the Tories and benefitted. Other people looked inwards and suffered.
Under Labour everyone seems to have suffered – or they are certainly about to whoever gets elected next.
Left wingers and the politically correct hail the minimum wage as a triumph but it helped to destroy our country’s electronics manufacturing industry and many others. Our company has survived in business very much despite labour not because of them and we have been obliged to export nearly 100 jobs to mainland China.
Stuff that now comes more than half way round the world that used to be made here in the UK. They didn’t want us to make things here any more and they made sure we couldn’t. Don’t give me a hard time about all that climate change crxx. I didn’t do it. They did.
When other aspects of life under Labour are taken into account like the increase in prices of all descriptions especially tax & the cost of government, who’s really better off? Couple all the future economic pain with the encroachment of the State into every single aspect of our lives and it’s no-one that I know of, that’s for sure.
How anyone posting here can try & claim it’s not Labour’s fault we’re in this mess ….they’ve been in government for 12 years for Heaven’s sake….!
High wage, high price economies don’t seem to work out in the long term. They create bubbles of apparent prosperity then the reality of finding out you actually have to be worth what you earn in the real world comes back to bite you up the xxx.
Labour used to have some respectable folk in power – politicians like Clare Short,Tony Benn, Robin Cook. Honourable people – just hard not to fundamentally disagree with their ideas.
Today I am at a complete loss to understand how anyone can even contemplate voting labour right now and yet from the polls a 25% hard core of voters seem determined to condemn our country to complete oblivion.
My wife burst into tears when Labour were first elected and said “they’ll ruin us”. I was more sanguine and was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Imagine my despair at knowing she was right all along and I was so terribly, terribly wrong. Never again.
Mister David
“One of my main problems with Proportional Representation is that it embeds partisanship, in the sense that MPs under that system are slaves to their whips, not servants to their constituents.”
I used to think so and was for STV and argued this point with Donald Dewar many times when we were at school. Now that I see how the Scottish Parliament is working, I find that I was wrong, but you need to take the whole package.
Moley – very funny piece of satire – i rumbled you when you when you got to the minimum wage.
What’s scary is that a lot of people miss your satire and actually believe it is true!
RC
One reason why peoply should not never vote Labour again: weak arguments like yours.
Devolution in the referendum was supported by a huge majority (and still is). You are in favour of referenda? Democracy?
Megrahi was not a political issue, but a legal one, and rightly so.
Moley, I think you are right about how one’s personal experience affects one perspective on a peiod of Government.
The ‘81 recession which dispropotionatley affected Scotland, Wales and the North entrenched many people as deeply anti-conservative.
Also, despite Camerons make over many people view the Tories as deeply iliberal ,containing many homophobes and rascists within their ranks.
There is a great piece in Bridget Jones Diary when at a dinner party they are all discussing the Economy etc and she says being Labour is about Nelson Mandela, Gays and Stuff
JR, I say labour enabled devolution you are right it was scots themselves who introduced it.
@ Moley
“Under Labour everyone seems to have suffered “[=
I am not sure how you can qualify this statement. You seem to base it on your own personal opinion. If i do this then i can argue that teh following people are better off under Labour (using my own personal experience):
- Anyone using the NHS
- Anyone in school, or sending their kids too school
- Pensioners
- Families with pre-school age children
- Fathers wanting paternity pay
- LGBT community
- The homeless/vulnerably housed
- Women & Ethnic minorities in teh workplace.
It takes a particular kind of arrogance to presume that just because you haven’t been positively affected by the last 12 years that no one is better off under Labour.
Personally I don’t hate Tories (that much) and they have got better than they ere before. And I wish that Labour would focus more time on some of the issues that I care about i.e housing & homelessness, and public transport (privatisation was been a disaster, a Tory disaster) but all in all the Tories haven’t given me one reason to support them , and Labour have given me plenty (Gordon Brown not being one!)
Well this is what a tongue in cheek open thread is all about I guess …what fun!!
@ John TT
” Moley – very funny piece of satire – i rumbled you when you got to the minimum wage.
What’s scary is that a lot of people miss your satire and actually believe it is true!”
John ..Tell that to the people who don’t work for our firm any more, like a former colleague who used to use the cash from a low paid part time job to supplement her hubby’s wages to go on holiday once a year and hasn’t had one since. The NMW served to push all our costs up and as a result, prices. The result in our manufacturing firm? No more orders…”simples”.
When the economic bubble was at its bubbliest the NMW was inflation busting but worked for many, many people. Thus, with apparent good reason everyone decided they could do without low wage jobs. I happen to think they have their place and, via the benefits and tax system, can act as a useful and legal subsidy for manufacturing that would otherwise be done elsewhere in the world.
@ JACK CORNISH
The great achievements of Labour
“- Anyone using the NHS”
tell that to my son who has the same eye problem as Gordon Brown but has to have it followed in France since they want to wait ’til his retina detatches here in the UK. Anything to get him off the list and meet the targets. After all he’s not one of the elite.
“- Anyone in school, or sending their kids too school”
Tell that to everyone who can’t get their child into a decent school and are so desperate they feel obliged to deceive the system and become criminalised.
“- Pensioners”
Tell that to the pensioners who can’t afford to live and have been protesting about unending and unaffordable rises in their council tax, water bills and electricity.
“- Families with pre-school age children”
Tell that to my sister who is a pre school head and is tearing her hair out at the massive budget cuts they are trying to impose
“- Fathers wanting paternity pay”
An admirable objective but another nail in the coffin of small UK manufacturing & hardly a priority under the current circumstances.
“- LGBT community”
True. This is a lifestyle choice for a growing minority and a necessity for some. It would be nice to give the same freedom & recognition to people who live & work in the countryside instead of taking it away.
“- The homeless/vulnerably housed”
Thought they were going to “eliminate poverty” – they didn’t do it did they? They’ve had 12 years.
“- Women & Ethnic minorities in the workplace”
Except it’s far from a simple equation since we would have significantly less disparity if there had been any semblance of control over immigration.
You imply a person is arrogant for speaking of their own experiences and applying them to a point of view. Well of course it must be very arrogant to presume that the experience and opinions of one individual or those of the 40% or so of others who will vote to get rid of these people would matter for one single second in the eyes of our political masters.
Is arrogance not the speciality of political leaders & their supporters who continually fail to take responsibility for failure and harp on endlessly about the few things they actually got right?
Oh …and as for public transportation – yes it was pretty screwed up for decades and the Conservative privatisation failed to make it any better but it did raise some dosh for us taxpayers that got mysteriously blown away since 1997. After 12 years of Labour it’s now fantastic … naturally! (I’m being sarcastic by the way)!
@ Moley,
My point was that you cannot just say that you can’t understand why people would vote for Labour and i was giving some examples of people who might. I can completely understand why some people hate labour, i understand why some people vote Tory or Lib Dem or SNP. That is the difference i was (clumsily) trying to point out. I can understand that if you don’t like the EU, and place this as a high priority on your list then you will vote for the Tories or maybe UKIP. To be honest I couldn’t care less about the EU, so it’s not something that effects my decision!
“Oh …and as for public transportation – yes it was pretty screwed up for decades and the Conservative privatisation failed to make it any better but it did raise some dosh for us taxpayers that got mysteriously blown away since 1997. After 12 years of Labour it’s now fantastic … naturally! (I’m being sarcastic by the way)!”
My point was to demonstrate that i don’t think Labour has done anything on this. I don’t think it has got worse particularly, but it sure hasn’t got better. I do like teh fact that Labour gave the power over transport to the London major & Transport for London. Something that could be used in other cities perhaps?
Labour have done some good things, they have done some bad things, they have done nothing on some issues. The Tories will probably be teh same. Its just I trust Labour to have more things in the good things column, and less in the bad things column compared to the Tories. The Lib Dems as ever are irrelevant.
Nothing much changes
@ Jack Cornish:-
“- Pensioners”
What planet are you on?????????????
Don’t come round here & say that-you’ll get luynched.
I feel the urge to add a peice of pointless information about my family (that makes things intresting for me atleast). My eldest sister (28 years old) is a tory my next sister (24) is liberal democrat and im labour (22)
P Mean
‘My eldest sister (28 years old) is a tory my next sister (24) is liberal democrat and im labour (22)’
I kind of feel sorry for you all!
You don’t have to ‘become’ a party in order to engage with politics. Feel free to vote Labour, or whoever, but they are just a party, and not remotely worth labelling yourself or anyone else with. Life is best when we are as un-tribal as possible, and we are free to relate to one another as human beings, rather than the embodiment of some category.
I keep reading the BNP are nasty with vile policies, no one seems to say what these vile policies are though, just what is vile about them, i’ve read them on the BNP site and they are common sense.
“There’s rather too many partisan comments cropping up in the comments threads, so I can I remind people to follow the comments policy please… except in this thread, where you are welcome to indulge yourselves in tiresome and pointless partisan rants and oneupmanship.”
Oh woe is you!
I mean, really!
How naive you are.
Yeah, yeah – “hey I know, i’ll set up an online polling site where anyone can leave comments, and no-one will ever leave partisan comments.”
[rolls eyes]
If you want a dry academic exercise, then set up a proper forum with membership and control and moderation and qualified membership… I suspect you decided you want the hit count to climb up the blog polls to gain status… fine – just don’t bitch about the sideeffects of it!
The internet is *public space*… you are like a street performer, and all the people who post round here are the audience – get over it!
you’re in the *public arena* – you know you’re a major source of info – and you want to be… plus you’ve got your mugshot up on YouGov, career building.
So don’t have the cheek to take a swipe at the punters who’ve helped you up by visiting and contributing – as though there are an angelic bunch of disciples who toadyingly follow your instructions to the letter, and the rest a neandertha riff raff who are kicking down your sandcastle and “wooining evwyfing, mummy”.
EVERYONE who comes here makes partisan comments, and MOST do it in moderation and have rational discussions that are usually about 80% to do with the polls – that’s reasonable… obviously people who come here to visit are interested in politics and have feelings and views about things, it’s entirely unrealistic and disingenouous to demand that they don’t – we’re not a research group in a university statistics/poltiics department, we’re mix of people from all walks of life with varied experience and qualifications.
Frankly, I think you’re throwing your toys out of the pram.
If you want to do it properly to filter out the sh!theads, go for it (not these silly nuisance bolt ons that you’ve stuck on) – I might even help (as an engineer), but don’t bitch and moan at your own audience – that’s bad netiquette – very bad!
tsk…
Seal Pup
Now that’s what I call straight to the point no messing about. Well done.
I don’t come on here to make partisan comments but because the information I get is better than a horoscope, Nostradamus, eye of newt etc. for predicting the outcome of elections.
I also do my best to input information of that sort for the benefit of English readers who may wish to know more of the entirely different situation in Scotland and the need to interpret UK data with care so far as Scottish constituencies are concerned.
Beyond that I sometimes take the opportunity to rubbish partisan comments by others. That does not mean excepting the party which I currently expect to vote for in the next elections, and I have made it clear more than once that in my view their distinguishing policy is neither necessary not desirable, though I will vote it for it reluctantly.
As a Unitarian, I am opposed to faith systems of any sort, be they religious or political. I have never been a member of any political party.