Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Mr Jack]

I notice that Alex Salmond has been whingeing because he is not going to be in woth the other leaders for forthcoming TV debates.

Is he really such a pivotal figure in UK politics ?

I would be interested to hear peoples opinions on him, especially from our Scottish friends on here.

In Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament, yeah, he probably is. But the SNP hold just 7 seats in Westminister - less than the DUP - making them very much a minority party; even among Scottish MPs they hold less than half as many seats in Scotland as the Lib Dems.

He has no sensible claim to a seat in the leadership debates.

 

[Rotty]

We have a new Labour candidate in my constituency as Geoff Hoon if off to make a few bob

not sure what but there is something about her which may win my vote

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Wall Street Journal

Gordon Brown Helped Cause the Crisis
British voters have figured it out. Will Labour Party leaders?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html

I don't think the public HAVE figured it out, because most of them are stupid.

 

[britboy4321]

Wall Street Journal



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html

I don't think the public HAVE figured it out, because most of them are stupid.

Most of them can remember the tories and arn't going with 'They've magically changed now and have 'secret policies that are really good but we can't tell you what they are, just vote for the big secret and please forget about last-time's 15% inflation, 15% interest, highest unemployment ever, and a nutter in charge'.. !

That's why the libdems are doing so well - much to Cameron's chargrin his constant U-turning and 'I'm not telling you what we're going to actually do but we'll magically save money' is just a little laughable to most over the age of 30 so even those that hate Labour can't bring themselves to go for 'bloke with secret awesomeness policies don't ask just vote'... Which is why it'll be a hung parliament, which is why Labour will deal with the libdems, which is why come June 2010 you'll never hear about 'Cameron' again as he quietly sneaks into the background as so many before him have ..

 

[scorza]

Wall Street Journal



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html

I don't think the public HAVE figured it out, because most of them are stupid.

The only thickies are the ones who think we'd be in a significantly better situation to where we are now if we'd had a Conservative government for the last decade.

 

[Mr Jack]

The only thickies are the ones who think we'd be in a significantly better situation to where we are now if we'd had a Conservative government for the last decade.

It's hard to know, tbh. I think the bubble would have been bigger and the damage to the economy worse. They might even have let the banks die. On the other hand, I doubt they'd have been so reckless with letting public spending grow into a vast structural defecit in the good years.

 

[britboy4321]

It's hard to know, tbh. I think the bubble would have been bigger and the damage to the economy worse. They might even have let the banks die. On the other hand, I doubt they'd have been so reckless with letting public spending grow into a vast structural defecit in the good years.

They'd certainly have prided themselves on the same kind of lack of bank regulation that Brown is currently being tortured over.

'Leave it to the market' is kind of a corner-stone of the right-wing.

Indeed they may have left the banks to die and let it 'sort itself out'. The last time that was attempted was back in 1930 in the US. Have a read, quite interesting what happened next ..

 

[britboy4321]

Here is the David Cameron speech:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8604833.stm

Not much real policy there, just seems to be describing the conservative idea as a whole.

Cameron doesn't do actual 'policy'. It's becoming a bit of a running joke - he won't actually say what he's going to do if in power!

He's very good at slating Labour though. Should that be enough to get your vote?

 

[meghatronic]

Every vote for Labour is a crime against this country, in my opinion. And I feel similar disdain towards the Lib Dems.

 

[scorza]

It's hard to know, tbh. I think the bubble would have been bigger and the damage to the economy worse. They might even have let the banks die. On the other hand, I doubt they'd have been so reckless with letting public spending grow into a vast structural defecit in the good years.

Brown kept the debt to 40% of GDP during the good years, it's doubtful that the Conservatives would have been much different - 30% maybe, but not enough to make a significant difference. There would have been a very real danger than the Conservatives would have chosen to drastically cut public spending in 2008, which could actually have made the deficit much worse today. I find it hard to believe that things today would be better at all under the Conservatives, it's pretty much accepted that the recession would have been longer and more severe under them.

The only thing that would have made any real difference would have been better regulation of the financial services industry, but I didn't hear much from the Conservatives about that during the last decade or so - quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

This is wild speculation, and voting for the 'devil you better know' is plain stupid.

On the other hand, I doubt they'd have been so reckless with letting public spending grow into a vast structural defecit in the good years.

Exactly, so we'd be in a better position to deal with the crisis.

The only thickies are the ones who think we'd be in a significantly better situation to where we are now if we'd had a Conservative government for the last decade.

No, the thickies are people who think Gordon Brown didn't help cause the crisis, or that he didn't hugely weaken our position to deal with it.

The chances are we would have been in a better position to deal with it if another party (Lib Dem OR Conservative) were in power - they are anti-big state, wouldn't have borrowed excessively to fuel billions of waste and plunder, or had to sell off gold to fuel said binge. They would have most likely worked down the deficit over the good times, like almost all our counterparts did.

They'd certainly have prided themselves on lack of bank regulation that Brown is being tortured over.

They'd have prided themselves in not introducing a tri-party system which meant no one knew what they job was, resources and expertise were spread thinly and no one could get a proper look in.

'Leave it to the market' is kind of a corner-stone of the right-wing.

Indeed, hence why it is a Labour policy.

Indeed they may have left the banks to die and let it 'sort itself out'. The last time that was attempted was back in 1930 in the US.

Like Labour did with Lehmans? Barclays were more than willing and more than fit enough to take over Lehamans without collapse, but weren't allowed to consult the major shareholders for an extraordinary approval on the weekend. Lehman's collapse specifically caused the biggest tidal wave of the crisis.

 

[britboy4321]

Every vote for Labour is a crime against this country, in my opinion. And I feel similar disdain towards the Lib Dems.

Voting for someone who refuses to say what he'll do if he achieves power really should be a crime :/ and I'm kind of serious!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Brown kept the debt to 40% of GDP during the good years, it's doubtful that the Conservatives would have been much different

What is this weasel word "kept"? Why not read from something other than the Labour website?

GDP increased so borrowing, "kept" at a % of GDP increased - hugely so. Why did we need to borrow during one of the biggest tax receipt booms of our time? Why did we need to dispose of wealth and assets during this tax receipt boom? He was spending too much, beyond the country's means, all because the doofus thought he had ended 'boom and bust'.

If we had these assets and had worked down our deficit (like almost all our other counterparts did), we'd be in a better position now. Fact.

- 30% maybe, but not enough to make a significant difference.

You're plucking figures out of your ass. Stick to facts and stop being imaginary.

The only thing that would have made any real difference would have been better regulation of the financial services industry, but I didn't hear much from the Conservatives about that during the last decade or so - quite the opposite in fact.

Except for the constant opposition to the tri-party regulatory system?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Voting for someone who refuses to say what he'll do if he achieves power really should be a crime :/ and I'm kind of serious!

Like Tony Blair in 1997?

Also, I laugh at the fact you think Labour will do what they say they will do. Where is the precedent for that?

 

[Tefal]

I'm so glad you're here Rob, you're an exceptionally good meter for what the purely populist voter is feeling at any given moment. You also let us know whether a particular campaign slogan is working.

Funny coming from the man constantly touting popularist punishments and taxes on everyone who earns more than him.

 

[scorza]

Like Labour did with Lehmans? Barclays were more than willing and more than fit enough to take over Lehamans without collapse, but weren't allowed to consult the major shareholders for an extraordinary approval on the weekend. Lehman's collapse specifically caused the biggest tidal wave of the crisis.

LOL Barclays should be thanking their lucky stars that they were unable to buy Lehmans. They barely escaped from having to be bailed out by the UK government, instead they sent the begging bowl to the middle-east who don't really care about obscene, undeserved bonuses. I wonder if Bob Diamond would still be getting his £60m bonus if Barclays had have bought Lehmans?

 

[Gackt]

I still intend to spoil my ballot.

 

[meghatronic]

I still intend to spoil my ballot.

Go you!

That should be a crime.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

LOL Barclays should be thanking their lucky stars that they were unable to buy Lehmans.

Barclays are doing very well right now, and did hugely well out of the Lehmans assets they were able to pick up (they've already turned them into actual balance sheet positive assets).

 

[Gackt]

Go you!

That should be a crime.

Thankfully, it is not.

Edit: My non-vote is counted, and it is a way for me to say "I don't support any of the choices." or a general political protest. I don't see how me either not voting at all, or being forced to vote for someone is in any way justifiable.