The NEW very important election thread

[Von Smallhausen]

He wouldn't have stepped aside but he would have had no choice in a contest if Miliband received the required number of endorsements and I see no reason why he wouldn't have.

Gordon Brown is old school, out of touch, grumpy, disliked, stubborn as a donkey, as people friendly as Pol Pot and has the charisma of a dead sloth and perhaps this is why his party was turfed out at the last election.

 

[Slam62]

He wouldn't have stepped aside but he would have had no choice in a contest if Miliband received the required number of endorsements and I see no reason why he wouldn't have.

Gordon Brown is old school, out of touch, grumpy, disliked, stubborn as a donkey, as people friendly as Pol Pot and has the charisma of a dead sloth and perhaps this is why his party was turfed out at the last election.

turfed out by a dodgy coalition... that just managed to scrape together a deal.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

turfed out by a dodgy coalition... that just managed to scrape together a deal.

Dodgy ?

With the absolute priority of tackling a horrendous defecit, I have rather more faith in a LibCon coalition than a Labour government where profligate spending and borrowing seem to be on the assumption that money grows on trees.

 

[Dolph]

turfed out by a dodgy coalition... that just managed to scrape together a deal.

What was the alternative?

The coalition makes perfect sense, more so than a Lab/Lib coalition would due to the agreements on freedom that both the Tories under Cameron and the Liberals have, and the Labour party strongly opposes.

If the other path had been taken (re-running the election), Labour would have been utterly destroyed, and we'd have a conservative majority government, which is less preferable to me than the coalition that came forth.

 

[Metatron]

Does David Miliband remind anyone else of:

?

 

[scorza]

Tax avoidance isn't cheating, and simplfying the tax structure is one of the aims of the coalition which will reduce the number of inspectors required.

Fine, then why should a non-dom, someone who isn't domiciled in the UK care so much about British politics to make major donations to obtain influence over a UK political party (Ashcroft is on record as describing these donations as an "investment")? At least the vast majority of union members are domiciled in the UK and pay the taxes that they owe, more than Lord Ashcroft pays to the UK treasury probably.

 

[Dolph]

Fine, then why should a non-dom, someone who isn't domiciled in the UK care so much about British politics to make major donations to obtain influence over a UK political party (Ashcroft is on record as describing these donations as an "investment")? At least the vast majority of union members are domiciled in the UK and pay the taxes that they owe, more than Lord Ashcroft pays to the UK treasury probably.

Because he wants to? Being a non-dom doesn't necessarily mean you don't live in the UK, only that the bulk of your economic and business affairs aren't UK based, and therefore only UK income is taxable.

Why were the unions given millions of taxpayer's money from the 'union modernisation fund' established by Labour, and why were the biggest beneficiaries of that fund the same unions that donated the most to the labour party?

 

[LabR@t]

Wouldn't worry with bit of luck they will all be dead and buried before the labour party gets a chance to screw the country up again, the next labour PM probably not even born yet.

 

[scorza]

Because he wants to? Being a non-dom doesn't necessarily mean you don't live in the UK, only that the bulk of your economic and business affairs aren't UK based, and therefore only UK income is taxable.

According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_dom#Residence_and_domicile

(He or she) are not a UK domicile if he or she was born outside of the UK and do not intend to remain permanently.

Why would someone care so much about a country they don't intend to remain permanently in so much as to sit in parliament for 10 years and donate millions to a UK political party?

But hey it's only illegal if you get caught right, and fewer tax inspectors means the chances of that are greatly diminished.

Why were the unions given millions of taxpayer's money from the 'union modernisation fund' established by Labour, and why were the biggest beneficiaries of that fund the same unions that donated the most to the labour party?

Because they wanted to? I presume if it's OK for Lord Ashcroft it's OK for everyone else too.

 

[Scania]

Ed Balls would cement Labour as an opposition party for years.

And for this reason alone, I hope he walks it!

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Whay does Lord Paul get swept under the carpet when it comes it non doms ?

 

[Dolph]

According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_dom#Residence_and_domicile

Why would someone care so much about a country they don't intend to remain permanently in so much as to sit in parliament for 10 years and donate millions to a UK political party?

Because they spend a lot of time here perhaps?

But hey it's only illegal if you get caught right, and fewer tax inspectors means the chances of that are greatly diminished.

Get caught doing what? Doing something Scorza doesn't approve of?

Because they wanted to? I presume if it's OK for Lord Ashcroft it's OK for everyone else too.

So it's ok for Labour to launder taxpayer's money to their paymasters? How is that comparable to Ashcroft following the same rules everyone else has access to?

 

[scorza]

Whay does Lord Paul get swept under the carpet when it comes it non doms ?

Makes no difference to me whether it's a Labour or Conservative supporting tax cheat. The sooner we abolish the practice of allowing non doms to have a say in British democracy the better imo.

 

[Slam62]

The fact that many idiots voted for them without paying attention to what they actually were and what the party leadership actually believed is not the party's fault, and certainly doesn't reduce their trust to rational people.

Yes but there is no reason for the libdems existence now, just vote tory. The libdems serve no purpose (except giving the tories power). Not that they served much purpose before.

You are joking, right? The only one who might actually be electable as PM is Milliband snr, but the unions have said they will cut off party funding if he doesn't do what they want, and the party is some £20m in debt already. The left leaning members of the party may appeal to the party faithful, but they won't appeal to the general public, indeed they never really have.

You are obviously of little experience, Michael Foot showed what unelectable is, if you look at Hague, IDS etc all of whom were comprehensibly rejected by the electorate, the libdems have made them important government ministers. Just because it satisfies your beliefs doesn't legitimise it.

The blame for that belongs to the party that got us into this situation, not the two that will get us out of it.

The system is the problem and the tories have done as much as anyone to perpetuate it.

And a great many people also realise this.

significantly more do not care

The problem is an ill-educated electorate and not enough restrictions on the ability to appease the mob...

the problem is self interest and short sightedness

 

[Robbo]

I HATE Ed Balls, god forbid him ever getting in power.

 

[Dolph]

Yes but there is no reason for the libdems existence now, just vote tory. The libdems serve no purpose (except giving the tories power). Not that they served much purpose before.

Yes, there is. The liberals currently have made the coalition more liberal and fair than a tory majority would have been (see rising tax allowances, increased capital gains tax, an increased focus on civil liberties and so on).

They enable the coalition to be less right wing than a tory majority would have to be due to not having the need to appease the more extreme right (economically and socially) of the party.

How is that not serving a purpose?

If Blair and Ashdown's plan for 1997 had come off (that was abandoned due to the labour landslide), the party would have served a similar purpose, to nullify the hard left (economically and socially) of the labour party.

Would that have also been pointless?

You are obviously of little experience, Michael Foot showed what unelectable is, if you look at Hague, IDS etc all of whom were comprehensibly rejected by the electorate, the libdems have made them important government ministers. Just because it satisfies your beliefs doesn't legitimise it.

Foot wrote the longest electoral suicide note in history, but remember that Kinnock couldn't even depose Major in 1992. It took Blair's reforms to make the labour party electable to most people. I welcome the shift back to the left if it occurs, it will keep them out of power for far longer.

As for IDS and Hague being rejected by the electorate, they haven't been, otherwise they wouldn't still be MPs. Their vision as leaders of the party may have been, but that is a different issue entirely.

the problem is self interest and short sightedness

I agree, which is why we need strong restrictions on the ability of the state to misuse power to appease those instincts.

 

[kmufc77]

Either David Miliband or Ed Balls would be my choice as the new Labour leader.

David Milliband will win by a huge majority i think

If either of these 2 get voted as the Labour leader i might start voting Labour again

 

[Slam62]

Yes, there is. The liberals currently have made the coalition more liberal and fair than a tory majority would have been (see rising tax allowances, increased capital gains tax, an increased focus on civil liberties and so on).

They enable the coalition to be less right wing than a tory majority would have to be due to not having the need to appease the more extreme right (economically and socially) of the party.

In what way are they less right wing than Thatcher?

If Blair and Ashdown's plan for 1997 had come off (that was abandoned due to the labour landslide), the party would have served a similar purpose, to nullify the hard left (economically and socially) of the labour party.

Would that have also been pointless?

Well obviously it was pointless, clearly showing the irrelevance of the libdems.

Foot wrote the longest electoral suicide note in history, but remember that Kinnock couldn't even depose Major in 1992. It took Blair's reforms to make the labour party electable to most people. I welcome the shift back to the left if it occurs, it will keep them out of power for far longer.

As for IDS and Hague being rejected by the electorate, they haven't been, otherwise they wouldn't still be MPs. Their vision as leaders of the party may have been, but that is a different issue entirely.

Gordon Brown hasn't been rejected by the electorate, he is still an MP.

I agree, which is why we need strong restrictions on the ability of the state to misuse power to appease those instincts.

Oh yes, who should have the power then? You?

Who decides what is miss use of power, who appoints them?

 

[Dolph]

In what way are they less right wing than Thatcher?

Economically or socially? Economically, they are pretty close, but then it's to be expected given they have a very similar mess to clear up to that which Thatcher was left.

Socially, the coalition is much more liberal than Thatcher's government was, and Thatcher was more liberal than New Labour.

Well obviously it was pointless, clearly showing the irrelevance of the libdems.

Only because the voting system is skewed (and labour proceeded to skew it further). What happened to labour's promises on electoral reform anyway? The coalition is the most representative government we have had for decades.

Gordon Brown hasn't been rejected by the electorate, he is still an MP.

True, but the labour party has been soundly rejected by the electorate, in their worst defeat since 1983. Only the gerrymandered voting system flattered their results, and even now they are trying to oppose coalition attempts to correct their skewing of the system.

Oh yes, who should have the power then? You?

Who decides what is miss use of power, who appoints them?

We should have a clear, written constitution placing strict limits on the government, and a supreme court capable of holding them to account.

 

[drunkenmaster]

If people remember the conservatives and forget that it was Labour (yet again) who caused the absolute mess we are in, I really do wonder about the intelligence of the electorate.

You don't already? I have almost no doubt that come the next election and Labours campaign of "look how much they've stopped handing out to you, vote us back in and its free McDonalds for lunch every weekday" rubbish and Conservatives do their usual very bad job of publically showing the stats that show what ridiculous spending Labour ran up in their time in charge and how if they come back in the country will end up completely bankrupt and we could well have Labour back in charge.

I have no trust in the average inteligence of the electorate to make the right decision, however, that does give the chance they might think conservatives on their own or Lib Dem's might do better than Labour.

But in general the average person will feel like they've been screwed in the next 4 years, and Labour will spend more money than they have, again, to tell everyone it wasn't their fault.

If Labour get back in before the deficit is under control I honestly fear for just how bad it could get in this country. 4 years of insane spending with no thought for debt/deficit and we could be in unfixable territory.

The only chance is Labour get someone half decent in charge, but I can't think of anyone who has a chance of leading them who'd also drastically change their general agenda.