The General Election - Who Are You Voting For?

[Flynny]

Thing you have to be careful about on that website is not attaching high significance to whatever's in the news and is being pushed by the parties at the minute.

I found it surprisingly difficult to filter out that and think how much certain things actually bothered me, rather than just things I knew were vaguely unfair/okay/wrong that I'd heard about a lot.

[FoxyPV]

You're effectively saying Mises took a position first and then wrote a theory based on this, which is a gross distortion. He didn't. He first studied conflicting economic theories and then came up with his position.

At the end of the 1980s, Russia was suffering food shortages, in the same way North Korea is today. If you consider this frivolous, then fair enough.

Some of the five year plans could be considered successful, but if you compare this to development and allocation of resources in the capitalist economies, then they were not as successful.

This is a political discussion on a football forum, you're right, but you have made statements in support of communism, so I will challenge them. I'm not a fan of communism and don't like the current nostalgia that seems to growing in the world for it as we forget what a useless political system it is.

Everyone has a perspective from which they write/think/speak and this therefore influences what they think will/ won't work. Mises may have studied a variety of different theories and came to the conclusion that a particular system didn't work because that suited his own economic beliefs.

Russia was still exporting more grain than it should throughout its entire time as the USSR as it sought to provide for its satellites and other socialist countries.

How do you measure success? Socialism/ Communism is not just economics it is a social policy so therefore seeks to help ALL of society not just those in business or in charge of industry.

I don't mind being challenged on my statements, actually far from it, but when asked to provide evidence and told not to dismiss someone's theory because it doesn't fit with my own - it just smacks of academic practice and I believe not pertinent for this forum. State Capitalism (USSR) may have its faults but Russia is in a far worse state now than it was as the USSR.

If you cut all the costly benefits then people would be forced to fukin work rather than sit on their fat arse with a beer watching dave all day collecting JSA.

Incidentally I hate Indian food and rap/r&b 'music' can floss its teeth with the sweaty hairs on my arse.

This reminds me of most the students I was at Uni with. Unemployment benefit is around £90 a fortnight so it's hardly fooking bankrupting the country.

[BoneDog]

Just a quick point on the so-called fall of the USSR. The Soviets are as strong as they ever were from what I've learned in the last few years.

Good link about it here from 2003 The Perestroika Deception

Chris Story has wrote alot of good stuff about this subject over the years. Think he was/is the editor of Soviet Analyst.

[Guest]

Thing you have to be careful about on that website is not attaching high significance to whatever's in the news and is being pushed by the parties at the minute.

I found it surprisingly difficult to filter out that and think how much certain things actually bothered me, rather than just things I knew were vaguely unfair/okay/wrong that I'd heard about a lot.

I didn't like the fact I couldn't qualify a statement. It's ok asking if I disagree that the pension age should be increased, but it doesn't tell me why, which is surely going to be significant to a party's policies?

[marbelladave]

What on earth has Russia / Soviet Union got to do with Communism that "seeks to help ALL of society not just those in business or in charge of industry."

The Soviet Union was a Marxist dictatorship that sought to achieve little beyond it's own continued existence and the continued hegemony of the ruling political class. Most "Communist" regimes in modern times have been of a similar style, heavily centralised, hopelessly corrupt and inefficient.

Using such models to argue for or against Communism is absurd in the extreme.

Now if you were to reference the effects that Communist inspired socialism has had on the French state and it's people, you might be on to something.

[FoxyPV]

What on earth has Russia / Soviet Union got to do with Communism that "seeks to help ALL of society not just those in business or in charge of industry."

The Soviet Union was a Marxist dictatorship that sought to achieve little beyond it's own continued existence and the continued hegemony of the ruling political class. Most "Communist" regimes in modern times have been of a similar style, heavily centralised, hopelessly corrupt and inefficient.

Using such models to argue for or against Communism is absurd in the extreme.

Now if you were to reference the effects that Communist inspired socialism has had on the French state and it's people, you might be on to something.

Completely agree with you but since I've posted that USSR etc were actually State Capitalist regimes and no one picked up on this I've had to revert back to basic terms such as communism.

However in comparison with the vast majority of liberal capitalist regimes it did at least look after the whole of society.

[marbelladave]

Completely agree with you but since I've posted that USSR etc were actually State Capitalist regimes and no one picked up on this I've had to revert back to basic terms such as communism.

However in comparison with the vast majority of liberal capitalist regimes it did at least look after the whole of society.

That is simply not true. It may have maintained a basic standard of living for the workers but at what cost?

Without "blatt" ordinary people had no possible avenues by which they could better themselves, there was no access to higher education, no way to improve their lives financially and no social mobility. The structure became ossified, ordinary people were angry and resentful and only tremendous repression by the state and heavily subsidised vodka kept them quiet.

[breadandcheese]

Everyone has a perspective from which they write/think/speak and this therefore influences what they think will/ won't work. Mises may have studied a variety of different theories and came to the conclusion that a particular system didn't work because that suited his own economic beliefs.

I think that's grossly unfair on any free thinking academic across the disciplines. Effectively you're saying everyone comes to study with a fixed position, which will never change. Consequently, any work that does not fit your own view can be dismissed along the lines of "Well he/she would say that."

Russia was still exporting more grain than it should throughout its entire time as the USSR as it sought to provide for its satellites and other socialist countries.

The Soviet Union at the time of its collapse was one of the biggest importers of grain in the world. This was one of the reasons for its downfall. The failure to increase productivity meant that they could not produce enough grain (amonst other things) to feed their population. They therefore had to import it, which was a huge problem as they needed foreign currency to import this grain. Their chief export was oil and metals. Crucially, these exports were not as finished industrial products as the industrial firms were woefully inefficient and could not compete.

Some figures to show he USSR was a big grain importer

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/soviet_union/soviet_union_economy.html

How do you measure success? Socialism/ Communism is not just economics it is a social policy so therefore seeks to help ALL of society not just those in business or in charge of industry.

I'm not sure how you can present communism as being more socially acceptable than capitalism. Capitalism, whilst being presented as a more brutal philosophy has brought about the biggest productivity gains in human history. It is these that, starting with the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, have allowed humankind to grow to a population of 6 billion, and enabled us to have things that many of us take for granted.

I don't mind being challenged on my statements, actually far from it, but when asked to provide evidence and told not to dismiss someone's theory because it doesn't fit with my own - it just smacks of academic practice and I believe not pertinent for this forum. State Capitalism (USSR) may have its faults but Russia is in a far worse state now than it was as the USSR.

You can't dismiss someone's theory without evidence in a public arena. Is Russia in a far worse state than it was as the USSR? That's highly debateable and is very difficult to answer at this stage as Russia is still undergoing a transitional stage in its development from communist to capitalist country. If you were to compare USSR in the 1960s to today's Russia, then there is a strong case to suggest you are right. If you were to compare USSR in the 1980s to today's Russia, the the argument would be the other way .

As I've said on a previous post, there seems to be a false nostalgia towards communism and I'm prepared to challenge it.

[Daggers]

From Twitter

@simonblackwell: Cameron says Tories are a party for 'hardworking, decent people', at a stroke alienating the huge 'lazy pervert' vote.

[Guest Bilo]

One point about the election was rammed home today at PMQs.

Gordon Brown is going to find it very tough at the televised debates among the leaders. He looked out of his depth on the subject of funding for the armed forces in particular, and I doubt the implication of blame towards the generals in Afghanistan will sit well with the electorate. Honest Dave took him to task worryingly well and I can see him tearing Brown a new one in the debates. Clegg performed creditably against both of them and it certainly looked as though Brown had little answer.

Cameron thrives in that arena and Nick Clegg will do better than most expect, helping the Lib Dems to a successful election campaign. Short of major improvements in his performance, it's going to be a long election campaign for Brown.

Anyway, my results on Votematch read as follows:

Liberal Democrats 63%

Green Party 54%

Conservatives 32%

[Nick]

One point about the election was rammed home today at PMQs.

Gordon Brown is going to find it very tough at the televised debates among the leaders. He looked out of his depth on the subject of funding for the armed forces in particular, and I doubt the implication of blame towards the generals in Afghanistan will sit well with the electorate. Honest Dave took him to task worryingly well and I can see him tearing Brown a new one in the debates. Clegg performed creditably against both of them and it certainly looked as though Brown had little answer.

Cameron thrives in that arena and Nick Clegg will do better than most expect, helping the Lib Dems to a successful election campaign. Short of major improvements in his performance, it's going to be a long election campaign for Brown.

Anyway, my results on Votematch read as follows:

Liberal Democrats 63%

Green Party 54%

Conservatives 32%

Which led me to vote match also......

I came out with Liberal and Green too - at least 15% in front of Conservative and Labour individually and Liberal 2% in front of Green. Shame you can only compare three parties - I came out with sub 40% for both Labour and Conservatives.

If only the Liberals had some actual policies beyond ideas and what they 'could' do.......

[marbelladave]

Which led me to vote match also......

I came out with Liberal and Green too - at least 15% in front of Conservative and Labour individually and Liberal 2% in front of Green. Shame you can only compare three parties - I came out with sub 40% for both Labour and Conservatives.

If only the Liberals had some actual policies beyond ideas and what they 'could' do.......

Interesting exercise but ultimately pointless.

People do not vote on policy but on personality and class. Those few who do take notice of policies invariably, as the Americans would say, vote with their pocket book.

[Samilktray]

I came out with Conservative and Green on that test thing.

Im not gonna lie though, I didnt have a clue what I was answering.

[Nick]

Interesting exercise but ultimately pointless.

People do not vote on policy but on personality and class. Those few who do take notice of policies invariably, as the Americans would say, vote with their pocket book.

There is a lot of indecision out there. Take a look at this thread alone. I think it was an interesting exercise also but not a pointless one. I would suggest that individuals' votes are influenced less by personality and class and more by the newspapers they read in the week of the vote. I think labour will have a Tory Scandal up their sleeve to release on May 1st....... The election was called so quickly, I smell a rat!

I came out with Conservative and Green on that test thing.

Im not gonna lie though, I didnt have a clue what I was answering.

lovin the honesty, Sam.

[Daggers]

People do not vote on policy but on personality and class.

I think most who vote do so on the basis of who their media outlet of choice is currently waging a war against: Brown could save orphans from a blazing building and the Murdoch press would point out that he had done so due to real-term cuts in Fire service funding under Labour.

That said, I'm betting record numbers (like me) simply don't bother.

[FoxyPV]

I think that's grossly unfair on any free thinking academic across the disciplines. Effectively you're saying everyone comes to study with a fixed position, which will never change. Consequently, any work that does not fit your own view can be dismissed along the lines of "Well he/she would say that."

The Soviet Union at the time of its collapse was one of the biggest importers of grain in the world. This was one of the reasons for its downfall. The failure to increase productivity meant that they could not produce enough grain (amonst other things) to feed their population. They therefore had to import it, which was a huge problem as they needed foreign currency to import this grain. Their chief export was oil and metals. Crucially, these exports were not as finished industrial products as the industrial firms were woefully inefficient and could not compete.

Some figures to show he USSR was a big grain importer

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/soviet_union/soviet_union_economy.html

I'm not sure how you can present communism as being more socially acceptable than capitalism. Capitalism, whilst being presented as a more brutal philosophy has brought about the biggest productivity gains in human history. It is these that, starting with the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, have allowed humankind to grow to a population of 6 billion, and enabled us to have things that many of us take for granted.

You can't dismiss someone's theory without evidence in a public arena. Is Russia in a far worse state than it was as the USSR? That's highly debateable and is very difficult to answer at this stage as Russia is still undergoing a transitional stage in its development from communist to capitalist country. If you were to compare USSR in the 1960s to today's Russia, then there is a strong case to suggest you are right. If you were to compare USSR in the 1980s to today's Russia, the the argument would be the other way .

As I've said on a previous post, there seems to be a false nostalgia towards communism and I'm prepared to challenge it.

No I'm not trying to say that, what I'm trying to say is that you have your own beliefs on how things could/should be run/ occur and this influences your thinking on almost everything you, how you react etc, so I can study a variety of different political theories and take good and bad points from each one but because I have left leaning principles I will invariably favour those political theories that reflect my own. This is what I am saying the Mises has done. He may have noted good things about socialism aas an economic standpoint but ultimatley thought it would failed because of his belief in the consumer led market.

; world's second-largest grain producer after the US; - that is from your own link. It was inefficiently managed and although they imported grain the vast majority of it was from inside in the Eastern Bloc which is what is meant to happen (although this had a detrimental effect on these countries) (Imports did come in from the US towards the end too)

Only in the first world and then again only if you are wealthy enough. Capitalism has grown and expanded but at what cost - the rapacious consumption of everything on the planet by the first world and the emerging world. Vast inequalities inside countries nevermind Continents and across the world. Capitalism and the advanced consumerism that it has spawned is slowly killing the planet. Socialist countries are renown for their environmental damage so this may have occured anyway.

I would argue that Russia is worse now than in the 1980s as gangs have taken the place of the state police in controlling the populous, rampant capitalism which as we are seeing is just great for everyone, and vast unemployment and homelessness (these may have occured under socialist rule but they are not even a fraction of the levels currently seen)

There is not a nostalgia for communism/ socialism but finally people are seeing how fooking awful advanced capitalism is for everyone except the very few and because no one knows anything else they look to and exalt socialism in an unknowing way.

Can we please end this as it is really not worth the effort? We are not going to convince each other of our own viewpoint so please agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Well, they don't waste much time; our polling cards have arrived.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Well, they don't waste much time; our polling cards have arrived.

What does everyone feel about the National Insurance tax proposal?

A few months ago we where told bold, widespread and deep decisions would have to be made - and that means tax. As a rise is inevitable, do you agree with Labour/Lib Dems or the Conservatives?

Here's my very anti Tory opinion ;-)

Feel free to disagree!

[FoxyPV]

It's hard to vote Tory when they plan to profit for any cuts made to the NHS- http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/07/general-election-tories-peter-gershon-nhs

or when their own mates don't believe them - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/08/conservatives-questions-city-tax-plans

[Daggers]

Labour twat sacked for his tweets - even though Labour were standing behind him this morning.

Now, what was it Ultra called Singh and davieG?

[Jon the Hat]

It's hard to vote Tory when they plan to profit for any cuts made to the NHS- http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/07/general-election-tories-peter-gershon-nhs

or when their own mates don't believe them - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/08/conservatives-questions-city-tax-plans

Grasping at straws?

Why would you not want an expert on healthcare provision to advise on the NHS? You will find that if you want someone outside of the NHS this is called the private sector.

The second article doesn't actually say they don't think it is achievable, just that they haven;t got enough detail yet to be confident. People like this live on information, and dislike uncertaintly. Amazingly though, when you are in opposition, the Treasury in fact donlt work for you, so you have to do the sums yourself. This means - suprising I know - that you don't generally have a fully costed budget of hundreds of pages worked out. This would be why the Tories have promised a budget within 50 days of taking power.

[davieG]

Grasping at straws?

Why would you not want an expert on healthcare provision to advise on the NHS? You will find that if you want someone outside of the NHS this is called the private sector.

The second article doesn't actually say they don't think it is achievable, just that they haven;t got enough detail yet to be confident. People like this live on information, and dislike uncertaintly. Amazingly though, when you are in opposition, the Treasury in fact donlt work for you, so you have to do the sums yourself. This means - suprising I know - that you don't generally have a fully costed budget of hundreds of pages worked out. This would be why the Tories have promised a budget within 50 days of taking power.

So how can they say with such certainty that there is an additional saving of £12bn to be had? The same question would apply to any opposition party.

Perhaps an argument for a more open add accessible government.

[FoxyPV]

Grasping at straws?

Why would you not want an expert on healthcare provision to advise on the NHS? You will find that if you want someone outside of the NHS this is called the private sector.

A healthcare professional who works for one of the leading private healthcare providers?! This sounds an awful lot like you make these cuts and I'll make up the difference - help for the boys, methinks.

There have been enough leaks from the Treasury when it suits them so they could easily furnish Osbourne etc with some detail.

This policy seems symtomatic of all Tory policies - a bit vague on actual detail.

Either way we are going to get fucked when govenment resumes after the election. There are some Tory policies I think could be sensible but they make me completely uneasy as a party.

[Benji]

A couple of things are annoying me at the minute. First, I'll probably vote blue in the end but they're getting on my nerves with this "vote us because u don't want to vote labour" attitude. It's all about what we don't want and never why we should vote conservatives. I imagine it will put a lot of people off voting this may, I would sympathise with anyone that sticks to their principles and refuses to vote a party because they don't want the other major party. A flyer came through our door today and there was more about how Gordon Brown is bad than what Cameron can actually bring.

Second, it's annoying how the public sector is being treated so differently to the private sector. It's about time the government became accountable for the public finances. The private sector has been flooded with redundancies, voluntary and compulsory, and office closures to cope with the recession. Yet the average person is now being asked to contribute more from their income to keep spending as high if not higher. Cuts need to be made, it's not nice, but no private business could ever just spend their way out like this.

Just reading a couple of posts about JSA, there's no question a social security system is needed, but I think there should be some sort of conditional offer to them. For example, I'd raise the JSA amount by £10-15 a week but if a person is fit and able (IE not on disability allowance), they should be doing community work, however unqualified or ""degrading""". My job at the minute involves a hell of a lot of driving, the roads are absolutely covered in litter, if people are receiving a "survival income" in my opinion they should be doing something for it. If there was some sort of benefit to the community from JSA support, people might be more accepting. Let's face it, how many people on JSA honestly spend 40 hours a week full-time searching for a job?

[Joe.]

I feel as though I should have some kind of interest in politics with this being the first time I can legally vote and all that.

I did the Vote Match test and came out something unexpected (and quite significantly too), I'm not sure whether that's worrying or not. Looking through my views comparisons at the end and they seem reasonable enough, but we all know that putting those into place is another thing entirely.

I've stopped looking now, it's all very confusing. Bastard politicians.