Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on April 26, 2005, 01:13:13 pm
-
Well, as many of you know, the General Election for the UK is on May 5th, here is a brief summary of the current campaign techniques :-
Labour - Conservatives will do this, Conservatives will do that nyada nyada nyada....
Conservative - Labour are doing this, Labour are doing that, nyada nyada nyada...
Lib Dem - For the main part, don't seem to have realised theres an election coming, but at least are promoting their own policies instead of slagging off everyone elses, which at least doesn't suggest distraction techniques.
It's like choosing between Bill, Ben or Weed, and quite frankly, Weed sounds appealing about now.... :nervous:
-
Weeeeeeeed....
Yes, I think the Liberals win my vote compared to the rest of the wasters.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, as many of you know, the General Election for the UK is on May 5th, here is a brief summary of the current campaign techniques :-
Labour - Conservatives will do this, Conservatives will do that nyada nyada nyada....
Conservative - Labour are doing this, Labour are doing that, nyada nyada nyada...
Lib Dem - For the main part, don't seem to have realised theres an election coming, but at least are promoting their own policies instead of slagging off everyone elses, which at least doesn't suggest distraction techniques.
It's like choosing between Bill, Ben or Weed, and quite frankly, Weed sounds appealing about now.... :nervous:
Exactly my thoughts, really.....IMO the Lib Dems are the only ones actually trying to punt their own policies rather than rely upon a strategy of choosing the exact opposite of the opposing parties policies and justifying it by criticising the other parties policy.... Labour are fear-raising with terrorism, Id cards, Tories are fear raising over gypsies and immigrants.... the thought of those 2 parties - who are now getting closer and closer on the political spectrum anyways - being the prime contenders apalls me.
On one hand, there's Labour who IMO have done a piss poor job over their term in government (introduced tuition fees, spin, Iraq war arse-kissing, increasing authoritarianism).
On the other, there's the Tories. Beyond my dislike of their more xenophobic policies (including not applying the human rights act to gypsies in particular, and also the attempts to subconsciously link asylum seekers/immigrants with crime via that policemans stabbing in an anti-terror op), there's the side issue that - barring a miraculous recovery - if elected they will have less than 10% of the Scottish and Welsh vote. Which, in turn, would mean my country (and Wales) will not only likely be minoritised in the House of Commons, but also that it could become a simple scapegoat for raising funds for (for example) solving English problems (there's already apparently a tacit strategy by the Tories to cut the money to the Scottish devolved parliament and use it to make English-support boosting funding pledges). I realise that's not an issue north of the border, but tis a big worry for me.
Anyways, there was a cartoon in the paper a while back that went pretty much as follows;
Labour; "We'll raise spending without raising taxes"
Voter; "That's impossible"
Conservatives; "We'll raise spending and cut taxes"
Voter; "That's impossible"
Lib dems; "We'll raise taxes to increase spending"
Voter; "Raise taxes? What were the other 2 saying again?"
-
Well the LibDems claim they're only raising taxes for people earning over 100,000 a year.
I don't earn 100,000 a year.
The Lib Dems oddly enough are the most left wing of the big three. I'm voting Lib Dem.
Basically that simple.
-
Why is it odd? I thought it was quite apparent.
From what I'm seeing based here, the LibDems will get and ever-increasing part of the "youngish and educated" crowd, which bodes well for the future. Best of luck to them.
Seriously, a decade of Blair is bad enough, but another 5 years (it is 5 over there, right?) sounds like sheer hell.
-
Most people assume the only way to finance public spending si to increase taxes. Lowering taxes (in Theory) stimulates the economy.
Wether this actually works in reality is debateable.
-
Exactly, in fact, the funny part is that Blair is asking for his character to stop being questioned by other parties accusing him of lying over the Iraq war.
He DID lie over the Iraq war, he can throw tantrums all he likes, but he can't just say it's not very nice to point it out, he's the leader of a country which is, whether it likes it or not, a sizeable player in the scheme of things! He sent our soldiers to fight and die, and lied to do so, if he doesn't like the repurcussions later, tough.
-
He's been giving the usual
"Let's move on/draw a line under" soundbytes again
-
Anything but a Conservative vote or Health concern vote is wasted around here and I don't particularly want to vote for either. I think I might go for the Monster Raving Loony Party. I like a lot of their policies.
-
I still think you should be able to sue the Government for Breach of Contract if they don't keep to their election pledges.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
He's been giving the usual
"Let's move on/draw a line under" soundbytes again
"This isn't a referendum on the Iraq war"
Isn't that our bloody choice?!
The Tories of course, can't raise the Iraq war issue too much because they ran headfirst into supporting it; all they can do is blame Blair for lying about it, but at the same time they're wading into the strategy of just insulting the other guy, which in turn makes it look like they're trying to divert scrutiny from their own policies.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"This isn't a referendum on the Iraq war"
Isn't that our bloody choice?!
The Tories of course, can't raise the Iraq war issue too much because they ran headfirst into supporting it; all they can do is blame Blair for lying about it, but at the same time they're wading into the strategy of just insulting the other guy, which in turn makes it look like they're trying to divert scrutiny from their own policies.
Still refusing to disclose the evidence that convinced him the war was just too, I see.
Scrap the ill-judged immigration thing and I may have voted Conservative. As it stands I hardly care who wins.
-
Well, maybe if he'd had a referendum on the Iraq War before it started, he could say that, but he didn't, so I'm all for having one now.
-
Lets face it, whoever wins this one, we all lose.
I just hope that there is enough outcry about I.D cards to stop them, I know I'm going to do my part for what it's worth.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I still think you should be able to sue the Government for Breach of Contract if they don't keep to their election pledges.
Litigation is for girly-men. As is so often the case in life, 50.cal gas powered bolt-action sniper rifles are the real solution.
-
For all the Lib Dem talk of promoting their own policies, they have said nothing of the economy apart from taxing people more and are concentrating on a multitude of political niches like top up fees and council tax. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I dread to think of what could happen if a party without a definitive economic policy get in to power.
I suggest any individual who values consumer choice and lower taxes put their mark next to the Tory candidate. They aren't making a fuss of it at the moment because the other parties have blatantly LIED about the spending plans not adding up, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called ambitious but definitely possible.
-
woo! elections on Cinco De Mayo! :D
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Most people assume the only way to finance public spending si to increase taxes. Lowering taxes (in Theory) stimulates the economy.
Wether this actually works in reality is debateable.
That's supposedly what Bush did, and we all know how that turned out.
-
Well, it's like the new idea from Labour...
'Let's give Crime victims Legal Aid and Lawyers as well!'
Sounds good on the outside, till you think that it (a)makes Criminal Law into a case of Litigation and (b) would be a damn site smarter to make sure there are fewer victims in the first place.
Instead of actually fixing stuff, they just keep sticking plasters over it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I still think you should be able to sue the Government for Breach of Contract if they don't keep to their election pledges.
Sue them for fraud. If they lie in order to get themselves a job then you can prove that they committed fraud for monetary value.
Besides there isn't a jury in the land who wouldn't leap at the chance to stick one to the prime minister :D
Originally posted by Rictor
Why is it odd? I thought it was quite apparent.
From what I'm seeing based here, the LibDems will get and ever-increasing part of the "youngish and educated" crowd, which bodes well for the future. Best of luck to them.
Seriously, a decade of Blair is bad enough, but another 5 years (it is 5 over there, right?) sounds like sheer hell.
I say oddly enough because the Lib Dems are supposed to be a centerist party while Labour are supposed to be the left wing ones.
As for Blair's next term if he wins Britain has a weird policy where you're Prime Minister for as long as you want as long as it's under five years and over I think two. After that you can call an election whenever you want.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I suggest any individual who values consumer choice and lower taxes put their mark next to the Tory candidate. They aren't making a fuss of it at the moment because the other parties have blatantly LIED about the spending plans not adding up, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called ambitious but definitely possible.
You seriously want people to vote for a Thatcherite just for lower taxes? There's way more to an election than just your wallet.
-
The election simplified:
Blair: Liar.
Howard: Bacterium
Kennedy: ... ... ... hmm...
On a serious note, though, I simply don't trust Howard enough to vote for him. All he's done is bandwagon and snipe since day one.
I don't trust Blair either, but at least he occasionally sticks to a decision.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
For all the Lib Dem talk of promoting their own policies, they have said nothing of the economy apart from taxing people more and are concentrating on a multitude of political niches like top up fees and council tax. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I dread to think of what could happen if a party without a definitive economic policy get in to power.
I suggest any individual who values consumer choice and lower taxes put their mark next to the Tory candidate. They aren't making a fuss of it at the moment because the other parties have blatantly LIED about the spending plans not adding up, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called ambitious but definitely possible.
The IFS did also highlight as a highly risky policy, though, because it's based on the assumption of being able to cut an additional £13bn of costs.
However, if you're a graduate or student, the poorer you are, the worse you'll be hit by Conservative university plans; http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/he_funding.pdf & http://www.ifs.org.uk/press.php?publication_id=3157&selectyr=2004
Analysis of all 3 parties spending (Guardian article with info from IFS) (http://money.guardian.co.uk/tax/story/0,1456,1466255,00.html)
IFS assessment letter to Telegraph on tory plans; http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/telegraph1304.pdf
Incidentally, I'm currently most likely to vote for either the SNP or Lib Dems at the moment; I consider the Labour / Conservative choice as a bit like the choice between amputating and arm or a leg. The Tories, in particular, I've come to dispise as racist and scapegoating minorities. And Labour.... ID cards & the rush to war put me off them instantly.
-
Also, if you think about it, as soon as you put a 'super-tax' on the rich they either a) Leave the country or b) Hire a good accountant. So in all reality that kind of tax won't do much.
On a less specific point, I don't like how none of the parties have any real ideological differences, if you look at all thier policies there is little that the average voter would disagree with. Where is the division? The real debate? Arguing about a few million or even billion difference means nothing in an economy of our size(we are after all, not that bad off globaly). Of course it really makes little or no difference what we think...unless you're a floating voter.
Are YOU a floating voter?
-
I think the main ideological differences aren't economic. The Tories and Labour are both seemingly inhabiting a small spectrum on the right wing now, though.....
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
That's supposedly what Bush did, and we all know how that turned out.
worked for Kennedy.
-
Yeah, but he didn't exactly get a happily ever after out of it ;)
-
Originally posted by 01010 You seriously want people to vote for a Thatcherite just for lower taxes? There's way more to an election than just your wallet.
Personally I don't use any public services that support my existence apart from local rail, which draws the majority of its funding from private companies rather than state subsidy. So yeah, my wallet's more of an important issue. And look at Britain before and after Thatcherism if you want to determine my rationale in supporting it.
Originally posted by aldo_14
The IFS did also highlight as a highly risky policy, though, because it's based on the assumption of being able to cut an additional £13bn of costs.
However, if you're a graduate or student, the poorer you are, the worse you'll be hit by Conservative university plans; http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/he_funding.pdf & http://www.ifs.org.uk/press.php?publication_id=3157&selectyr=2004
Analysis of all 3 parties spending (Guardian article with info from IFS) (http://money.guardian.co.uk/tax/story/0,1456,1466255,00.html)
IFS assessment letter to Telegraph on tory plans; http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/telegraph1304.pdf
Incidentally, I'm currently most likely to vote for either the SNP or Lib Dems at the moment; I consider the Labour / Conservative choice as a bit like the choice between amputating and arm or a leg. The Tories, in particular, I've come to dispise as racist and scapegoating minorities. And Labour.... ID cards & the rush to war put me off them instantly.
In what ways have the Tories been racist? There's nothing racist with reducing immigration and being more selective based on the potential economic value of immigrants. FYI I'd also suggest the reverse, that native dole layabouts get deported from the country, but that'd be impossible politically. :D
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
In what ways have the Tories been racist? There's nothing racist with reducing immigration and being more selective based on the potential economic value of immigrants. FYI I'd also suggest the reverse, that native dole layabouts get deported from the country, but that'd be impossible politically. :D
Because it's not based on any facts and is targeting a specific group for the apparent purpose of milking prejudice; specifically gypsies ,who IIRC the Tories would remove their Human Rights Act protection from.
And so many of the facts about the actual amount of refugees are simply ignored; We only take about 2% of the worlds refugees, for one thing. Immigrant 'labour' has been estimated to generate £2.5bn for the UK economy. Asylum seekers - the supposed drain on the economy - are not even allowed to work, and receive 30% less benefit than the lowest UK resident rate. After the '300,000 benefit seekers from eastern europe' pullaver during EU expansion, only 132,000 actually came here. Of that - admittedly substantial - number, exactly 123 are on benefit.
Less than two (at the very most; less than one by certain more conservative estimates) percent of the UKs population - including illegals - are actually immigrants. The University of Swansea estimated the UK needs to increase immigration by a fifth to prevent an age demographic crisis as the population ages faster than it reproduces. Scotland, in particular, is already in need of new migrants because of the declining population & growing elderly demographic. The chairman of the CBI has also attacked the Tory plans to limit immigration as hurting British industry;
[q]Sir Digby said every 1% increase in immigration brought a 1.5% increase in national wealth and that 97% of immigrants found work straight away.
"If it was not for immigrant labour, especially in leisure, in tourism, in agriculture, in construction, then frankly many of our businesses would not have the workers we need," he added. [/q]
(incidentally, the number of asylum applications have plummeted since 2002)
The Tories arguements over immigration have included linking immigrants with disease, claiming not reducing immigration will lead to race riots (implying immigrants cause violence), and also linking immigration to the murder of a policeman (connecting migrants to violent crime). On top of that they plan withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees.
I consider all that to be borderline (if not worse) racism & xenophobia, pandering to mass prejudice and tabloid media.
Oh, and Labour aren't much better; advocating some form of 'British' test, when it's highly unlikely you could even describe what is being tested - or even advocating only letting in 'desirable' immigrants (doctors, etc).
-
The stuff you called for the Tories sounds like what I'd expect from the UKIP.....
Over here, we have more or less the same problem, with Liberals (VVD) (oddly enough like the Tories on your side of the pond), and Christian Democrats (CDA,Same diff, IMHO) running the show, and Democrats (I think comparable to Lib Dem) as a sideshow act in the current government. The oposition is Labor(PvdA), Green, Small christian party's, and the LPF(List Pim Fortuyn, if you remember the tall bald gay guy who got shot a couple of years ago. Think UKIP) as a fringe party.
The last government was LPF/VVD/CDA and started with less immigrants and stuff, the current government wants a return to 'family values' (The christian party), and less immigrants (the lot of em). Tests for Dutch-ness are being developed, and most locals would fail them. Asylum seekers are being sent home even to dangerous area's, and some more of that ****. I bloody well hope the UK is spared most of it.
And oh yeah, we got compulsory ID cards now too. Not biometrics, but that's on for the passports sooner or later. Bloody expensive, too.
-
I don't know how xenophobic UKIP are, in all honesty; I know Veritas are pretty bad; their leader was sacked for a racist column in a newspaper (I think he called Muslims 'arm-severing terrorists' or something), and they've called for the removal of 'multi-culturalism' in the UK.
EDIT; http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Uj4iI51RSdoJ:www.corbett-euro.demon.co.uk/assets/docs/briefing/ukip.pdf+ukip+bnp&hl=en&client=firefox-a; NB: this is a wee bit old.
The worst party is unquestionably the BNP, who are simply racist / neo-Nazis. They advocate the 'voluntary' returning of non-white citizens to their country of origin (presumably that includes deporting descendants of immigrants).
Interestinly, IIRC the Scottish National Party (SNP) is one seeking to encourage immigration (to Scotland)... I always feel obliged to mention that the SNP is no relation to the BNP.
-
Except that they're one and the same!! Aldo, I never had you pegged for a rascist, but seriously...supporting the BNP and their kilt-wearing brethern is just wrong. So, so wrong.
-
[q] UKIP consistently refuses to condemn terrorism[/q]
The minute I saw that the warning bells ran: someone is using Bush-style attacks on UKIP.
-
LOL Actually, the SNP came to the fore when Maggie was using Scotland as her own personal toilet, and the Scottish were, quite rightly, rather pissed off. If generated a lot of bad blood between England and Scotland that still hasn't passed in the most radical on both sides.
The SNP is actually left wing, just strong on maintaining Scotland as 1/4 of the British Isles, which it is, and not as some sort of Labrat for policies.
-
Sorry, I mixed up the BNP and the UKIP, my bad.
-
'There ain't no black in the Union Jack'
-
I wanna know why SMPs maitain their English law veto capability but England based MPs have no say in the Scottish Parliment.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
I wanna know why SMPs maitain their English law veto capability but England based MPs have no say in the Scottish Parliment.
Because, firstly, some English laws do have a carry-through effect upon Scotland. The University top-up fee bill is a key one. Secondly, there's a side issue/factor in that Scottish MP numbers in the Commons have been cut anyways for this election; so Scotland has less of an overall say in national policy as well as English only legislation.
Also, there have been IIRc attempts to have pseudo-devolved regional assemblies to tackle exactly this issue, which have not been succesfull in gathering popular support in referendums.
The 'West Lothian question' is still a thorny one, though; it's worth noting that the SNP already doesn't vote on solely English issues. Labour don't abstain, probably because it gives them a vast advantage over the Tories in terms of numbers (AFAIK there's only a single Conservative MP in Scotland, and likely to be even less after this election).
In reality there's no real solution; requiring Scottish MPs to abstain would never be endorsed by any sane government (unless said government had a majority with no Scottish MPs atall) as it would wish to preserve said majority, and attempts to 'federalise' with an English-only devolved assembly appear to be unpopular. The only actual solution would be to dissolve the union, but there's no political will from the Westminister powerbrokers for that.
Worth noting it's not a 'veto' policy, though, just an ability to vote. And that the power of the devolved parliaments / assemblies is still limited.
-
Splitting the Union?
Who wants that? and why?
-
Originally posted by Clave
Splitting the Union?
Who wants that? and why?
Scottish Nationalists in particular; the SSP and SNP are both for it. Plaid Cymru in Wales also want it, I think.
The reason why is pretty simple; national identity. I think many people in Scotland, Wales feel more Scottish / Welsh than British; and the (natural) hegemony of England in terms of national decision making (and furthermore; i.e. in terms of public funding from the likes of the Lottery comission) makes people feel that they'd get a fairer / better deal as an independent country.
Bear in mind that in terms of national decisions; going to war, main tax policy (the Scottish Parliament has the power to raise or lower tax by 3p but not change the basic structure or policy, for example), immigration, foreign relations, etc are all effectively dictated by English MPs (who are the majority in national terms) thus primarily beholden to English interests.
-
Well, I'll agree it is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I think splitting the Union would be the worst possible way of fixing it, for every country involved.
-
I think the English should just annex Scotland and Wales have done with it. Damn Scottish Barbarians. :p
-
No, no, I need somewhere to go on holiday dammit!
-
Well, I gota letter from Unison this morning telling me a I am faced with a 'Stark Choice' between Labour and Conservative.
Seems like even the Unions have forgotten what Democracy is all about, and I'd hardly call the choice Stark ;)