Author Topic: The UK Elections.....  (Read 2820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 01010

  • 26
Quote
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.
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 
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.
#Bal kote, darasumm knte,
  Jorso'ran kando a tome,
  Sa kyr'am Nau tracyn kad, Vode an#

 - Traditional Mandalorian war chant

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
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)

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.

 

Offline Fergus

  • 28
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?
Generic signature quote blabber

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
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.....

  

Offline Roanoke

  • 210
Quote
Originally posted by Black Wolf


That's supposedly what Bush did, and we all know how that turned out.


worked for Kennedy.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Yeah, but he didn't exactly get a happily ever after out of it ;)

 
Quote
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.

Quote
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)

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

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
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.
just another newbie without any modding, FREDding or real programming experience

you haven't learned masochism until you've tried to read a Microsoft help file.  -- Goober5000
I've got 2 drug-addict syblings and one alcoholic whore. And I'm a ****ing sociopath --an0n
You cannot defeat Windows through strength alone. Only patience, a lot of good luck, and a sledgehammer will do the job. --StratComm

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2005, 01:07:13 pm by 181 »

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2005, 01:53:42 pm by 644 »

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
[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.
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
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.
just another newbie without any modding, FREDding or real programming experience

you haven't learned masochism until you've tried to read a Microsoft help file.  -- Goober5000
I've got 2 drug-addict syblings and one alcoholic whore. And I'm a ****ing sociopath --an0n
You cannot defeat Windows through strength alone. Only patience, a lot of good luck, and a sledgehammer will do the job. --StratComm

 

Offline Clave

  • Myrmidon
    Get Firefox!
  • 23
    • Home of the Random Graphic
'There ain't no black in the Union Jack'
altgame - a site about something: http://www.altgame.net/
Mr Sparkle!  I disrespect dirt!  Join me or die!  Could you do any less?

 

Offline Roanoke

  • 210
I wanna know why SMPs maitain their English law veto capability but England based MPs have no say in the Scottish Parliment.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
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.

 

Offline Clave

  • Myrmidon
    Get Firefox!
  • 23
    • Home of the Random Graphic
Splitting the Union?

Who wants that? and why?
altgame - a site about something: http://www.altgame.net/
Mr Sparkle!  I disrespect dirt!  Join me or die!  Could you do any less?

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
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.