Who are you voting for in the next election?

[Soup]

After being a taxpayer for over 20 years and self emoloyed for 10,I've come to the conclusion that its all bullshit.Gonna look after myself and not put my faith into a group of total bellends any more.There all the same it'll never change.Good times then bad is how it works.

[Guest]

After being a taxpayer for over 20 years and self emoloyed for 10,I've come to the conclusion that its all bullshit.Gonna look after myself and not put my faith into a group of total bellends any more.There all the same it'll never change.Good times then bad is how it works.

 

more - good times for some then bad times for some. That's why your vote is important.

[MooseBreath]

Yes, growth at any cost is quite a risk take, but there's a difference between increasing spending or continuing it as it is, and adjusting where the spending goes: Re-direct the money into subsidies in businesses, into enterprise schemes and you can get the money circulating well again. This is the issue the right wing have - they fail to see the world in more than black and white.

Spending had become excessive and needed to be cut back.

The rest of your post I agree with. It's funny because recognising that growth is good for all and that business is the engine of growth, and therefore setting up your economic policy to the advantage of business sounds very much like tory economic philosophy to me. Infact being too pro-business is one of the main criticisms they get from the left.

There is room for legitimate criticism of the tories. For me, investment in large infrastructure projects is one of the most powerful economic tools a government has, and the tories could have pushed harder to get things like HS2 and various energy generating projects (nuclear power stations, tidal barrages, fracking) going. But they are at least in the pipeline and the tories will see them through.

[The Doctor]

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

 

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

 

Absolute bull.

 

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

 

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

 

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

 

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

 

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for  "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.  

 

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

 

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

 

Firstly I'm not a labourite, they're far too far to the right for me to even consider voting them, but you miss the point: Labour can't be blamed for the global financial crisis, for precisely that reason: it was a global collapse - whoever was in charge; tories, labour, the miser party - it still would have happened. Better to look at what was under their control: and while the world economy wasn't falling apart like poorly assembled IKEA furniture, they got us to our strongest economy in post-war times.

[Webbo]

Firstly I'm not a labourite, they're far too far to the right for me to even consider voting them, but you miss the point: Labour can't be blamed for the global financial crisis, for precisely that reason: it was a global collapse - whoever was in charge; tories, labour, the miser party - it still would have happened. Better to look at what was under their control: and while the world economy wasn't falling apart like poorly assembled IKEA furniture, they got us to our strongest economy in post-war times.

So the recessions that happened under the Tories weren't their fault either?

[Guest Col city fan]

This thread epitomises the problem with politics. Argument and counter argument, to and fro, stats, counter stats etc etc.

Politicians will have such a way of making white black and black white that the point gets lost. The actual meaning to the issue at hand or the point being made gets lost somewhere in the etha, such that you forget what is was you meant in the first place.

For me, this is the main reason for voter apathy. The boundaries are so blurred and the parties essentially so aligned that you can't differentiate any more. Add to that the fact that many people actually know sod all about politics (or don't care) and you have a recipe for disaster.

I remember my 'nana' (now sadly deceased) who, when I asked her why she voted for Blair in 1997, replied 'because he's good looking'. Literally, the old gal knew nothing of Labour's manifesto of the time, she just 'liked his smile'.

I literally have no idea who to vote for next time. But I bet Labour get back in. The Tories, making tough decisions, will have become politically unpopular and most people, I think, ultimately vote for what they think will benefit themselves, personally.

[Rincewind]

You ould be right. By next year more things will come to the public attention that have been little known. But that is for another time and another place.

[The Doctor]

So the recessions that happened under the Tories weren't their fault either?

 

If they were global then the tories had pretty much no power to stop them, so no - they weren't the tories fault.

[Guest MattP]

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

Absolute bull.

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

Fantastic post, take a bow.

[Guest MattP]

You ould be right. By next year more things will come to the public attention that have been little known. But that is for another time and another place.

The mainstream media is wrong, I read it on a random blog.

[Soup]

more - good times for some then bad times for some. That's why your vote is important.

But when there all total cocks who do I vote for.Nope just gonna look after number 1,and if I F up then I've only got myself to blame.

[Guest]

But when there all total cocks who do I vote for.Nope just gonna look after number 1,and if I F up then I've only got myself to blame.

 

This maybe one of the few times when the smallest cock is the best.

[Rincewind]

They all fire blanks.

[DennisNedry]

Firstly I'm not a labourite, they're far too far to the right for me to even consider voting them, but you miss the point: Labour can't be blamed for the global financial crisis, for precisely that reason: it was a global collapse - whoever was in charge; tories, labour, the miser party - it still would have happened. Better to look at what was under their control: and while the world economy wasn't falling apart like poorly assembled IKEA furniture, they got us to our strongest economy in post-war times.

 

But it was very artificial given how unsustainable it was. 

[Webbo]

But it was very artificial given how unsustainable it was. 

Agreed it was artificial. It was based on increasing public spending ,mainly through borrowed money, and increased population. We actually lost more manufacturing jobs under Labour than Mrs T.

[adam1]

Vote for the person who will represent your constituency the best. You might want to vote conservative because you don't like Clegg or Milliband. Should you still vote conservative when your conservative candidate is a useless pratt? What if the Labour Candidate is better for your local area?

 

The above argument is even stronger at county/district/parish level. I can never understand how people just vote down party lines without looking at the individual candidate.

 

 

 

 

[adam1]

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

 

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

 

Absolute bull.

 

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

 

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

 

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

 

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

 

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for  "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.  

 

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

 

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

 

Whilst Labour were in charge they were heavily criticised by the Conservative Party for having too much regulation. They wanted less regulation. We would have been in a far worse situation if the Conservatives were in charge.

[Webbo]

To those who say that the present system doesn't work, is your life really that bad? In this country we have free education upto A levels, free health care, housing for those that need it, a still pretty generous welfare system, freedom of speech and protection under the rule of law. What exactly is it that we lack in this country compare to others?

 

I accept that life isn't perfect but it never has been and never will be either.

Whilst Labour were in charge they were heavily criticised by the Conservative Party for having too much regulation. They wanted less regulation. We would have been in a far worse situation if the Conservatives were in charge.

Worse how exactly?

[lavrentis]

Firstly I'm not a labourite, they're far too far to the right for me to even consider voting them

 

Alright Mao chill out

[MooseBreath]

To those who say that the present system doesn't work, is your life really that bad? In this country we have free education upto A levels, free health care, housing for those that need it, a still pretty generous welfare system, freedom of speech and protection under the rule of law. What exactly is it that we lack in this country compare to others?

I accept that life isn't perfect but it never has been and never will be either.

Exactly what I was trying to get at earlier when I asked what people actually have against the current government. Only one reasonable reaponse and that was "Gove", and I'm not even convinced by that. He seems to have made enemies with teachers but any suggestion that they might get a bit less money will do that.

There seems to be an assumption that the right party will be able to immediately transform people's lives forthe better. No government will ever be able to do that. The best they can do is help to provide an environment with plentiful opportunity for people to make their own lives as good as they can be. And if you can't see any opportunity in this country at present then you're either blind or wilfully looking for an excuse to be a failure.

[Dr The Singh]

Exactly what I was trying to get at earlier when I asked what people actually have against the current government. Only one reasonable reaponse and that was "Gove", and I'm not even convinced by that. He seems to have made enemies with teachers but any suggestion that they might get a bit less money will do that.

There seems to be an assumption that the right party will be able to immediately transform people's lives forthe better. No government will ever be able to do that. The best they can do is help to provide an environment with plentiful opportunity for people to make their own lives as good as they can be. And if you can't see any opportunity in this country at present then you're either blind or wilfully looking for an excuse to be a failure.

I've written my reasons, and i believe they are perfectly valid!!

[adam1]

Worse how exactly?

 

Less regulation then what we had would have meant that we would be in the same situation. However whilst I can't quantify on figures, if a lack of regulation equates to 1 piece of dog crap, an even lower amount of regulation would constitute a steaming shit heap?

[Father Ted]

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

 

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

 

Absolute bull.

 

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

 

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

 

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

 

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

 

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for  "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.  

 

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

 

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

Excellent post.   

[Rincewind]

Still think there isn't much to choose between them. It all changed when Blair arrived.

[Guest]

Exactly what I was trying to get at earlier when I asked what people actually have against the current government. Only one reasonable reaponse and that was "Gove", and I'm not even convinced by that. He seems to have made enemies with teachers but any suggestion that they might get a bit less money will do that.

There seems to be an assumption that the right party will be able to immediately transform people's lives forthe better. No government will ever be able to do that. The best they can do is help to provide an environment with plentiful opportunity for people to make their own lives as good as they can be. And if you can't see any opportunity in this country at present then you're either blind or wilfully looking for an excuse to be a failure.

 

This point stands whether you're talking about labour or Conservatives or even Liberals.