NationStates Jolt Archive

The British General Election 2005 is expected to be held in May of this year. However, in early November 2004, widespread news reports claimed that a snap poll could be held as early as February. According to The Scotsman, Labour Party officials "insisted that May remained the most likely time for the poll."

In mid-November 2004, The Guardian claimed that May 5th was the most likely date, with the convenient abbreviation 5.5.5. However in mid-December, another Guardian article reported that "The coming general election could be held as late as June 16 and not, as most MPs in all parties have been expecting, on May 5, senior ministers are privately warning colleagues."

The article mentioned three possible reasons why Tony Blair might choose June 16. The later date could

"allow Mr Blair to test the electoral water (always risky) in council elections in May".
"let the chancellor's budget largesse percolate well into pay packets".
"dilute the student vote in key marginals such as Cardiff Central where Labour's Jon Owen Jones has 20,000 truculent student voters, most of whom scatter to other places in June".


Who will you be voting for?

I was hoping for blair to go for a 5 year term so i could vote but im going to miss out this time. If i could i guess i would vote labour. Lib dems are pretty appalling in terms of weakness, belgium would be able to boss us around. Tories are going into meltdown so labour is the best alternative and to be honest aside from the iraq war they have done pretty well. I honestly belive that the best option would be to make me dictator for life.

I voted Conservative in the 2001 General Election and Liberal Democrat in 3 Council Elections since. I will be sticking with the Liberal Democrats from now on. :)

I have always viewed New Labour with great distaste.

Everyone should vote for Sinn Fein.

Lib Dem... the lesser of well theyre not evil theyre pretty bland... im not sitting through another term of abour or conservatives, ill move to the USA... NO GOD DAMN IT I CANT DO THAT EITHER.

Everyone should vote for Sinn Fein

But they refuse to take seats in Parliament because they have to swear allegience to the Monarch :-)

I'm voting Conservative personally; I've been brought up in a Conservative environment and I've voted for them before. Although Howard isn't the most...influential person, he doesn't pussy-foot around when answering questons like Blair does.

Also, Howard is actually in the country most of the time. Blair is yet again enjoying a 'freebie' holiday in Egypt - when is that man ever in Westminster??

The Tories are money mad, who look after the rich.

Labour have screwed the NHS and made England the U.S.`s lapdog

Lib Dems...err enough said.

So its the Socialist Party for me again.

But they refuse to take seats in Parliament because they have to swear allegience to the Monarch :-)

I'm voting Conservative personally; I've been brought up in a Conservative environment and I've voted for them before. Although Howard isn't the most...influential person, he doesn't pussy-foot around when answering questons like Blair does.

Also, Howard is actually in the country most of the time. Blair is yet again enjoying a 'freebie' holiday in Egypt - when is that man ever in Westminster??
Ah well, Scottish Nationalist Party then. Wouldn't it be fun if they became the largests party? Free haggis and around the clock bag pipe music.

DUP

I know that my area will elect a Lib Dem so I'm voting for the Greens in the hope the they'll get some proportional representation bonus.

Lib Dems.

And I'm a student :D

I'll be voting for the Lib Dems to hope they get into opposition (they won't win).

I'm also hoping that when Labour win (again! :headbang: ), they have a slim majority (ideally >80) so Blair needs Brown's support. That will mean Brown has more chance of taking over as PM in a couple of years.

Hopefully Brown will then pursure a course taking Labour left of the Tories, rather than Blair current trajectory straight into Tory homeland.

The Tories will then be relegated to thrid place! Yipee! :cool:

I honestly have no idea who I'll be voting for. I have no support for Blair or New Labour, the Liberal Democrats seem divided between two different brands of liberalism, I disagree whole-heartedly with most Tory policies... there just isn't an effective left-wing political party to choose.

Since the area I live in is a Labour constituency with Tories in second place, I'll probably vote Conservative and hope the Labour MP is unseated -- the closer we get to a hung parliament, the more power the Lib Dems will get. ;)

Not voting, the parties standing are all as useless as each other.

In my humble opinion this country needs a good ole dictatorship someone to unite everyone against. (Some would argue thats what we have now).

I'm a student btw.

:)

In my humble opinion this country needs a good ole dictatorship someone to unite everyone against. (Some would argue thats what we have now).

I completely agree... and would like to suggest now that I'd make an excellent fascistic dictator. If I come to power, I could give new life to the student political movements.. well, in the few brief weeks before they're brutally suppressed and slaughtered to a man. ;)

Conservative- just to be a bastard.

Go Lib Dems. I don't want B.Liar and Howard is stuck in a post-thaturite period.

I completely agree... and would like to suggest now that I'd make an excellent fascistic dictator. If I come to power, I could give new life to the student political movements.. well, in the few brief weeks before they're brutally suppressed and slaughtered to a man. ;)

Your not going to get into power like that. :P

I'm as yet undecided, but Labour or Lib Dem.

I won't be in the country, and I'm not sure I can be bothered to sort a proxy vote or something, seeing as I don't really know who to vote for and more importantly my ward is one of the safest labour seats in the UK. Anyway, I don't think I could ever vote against my MP (Diane Abbott - she rocks). :D

Although Howard isn't the most...influential person, he doesn't pussy-foot around when answering questons like Blair does.

You wot?!? :eek: Have you never seen the Paxman Interview?!?!

I disagree with tory policies. That's why I made this nation.

I know that my area will elect a Lib Dem so I'm voting for the Greens in the hope the they'll get some proportional representation bonus.

Wait, does PR even apply in a General Election? I get so confused what with having to vote around four times what with the Scottish Parliment 'n' all - also I'm registered twice; pretty sneaky eh :D

You wot?!? :eek: Have you never seen the Paxman Interview?!?!

If YOU were being questioned by Jeremy Paxman...wouldn't you tremble with fear?

I know I would!

I'll be voting Lib Dems.

I don't expect them to win, but I hope there will be a hung parliament, that way Tony's grip on power will be losened and the really unpopular stuff (like foundation hospitals, top-up fees) won't get through. At the same time Chales won't be PM. The guy is lovable, you know you'd enjoy a pint down the pub with him, but can you see him running the country?

The Lib Dems would be a positive influence if they were involved in government, but they would need time to get into it, so I' rather they were in a coalition first (they have proven very effective in Scotland, all the good plicies are Liberal ones, the crap ones are Labour.)

I don't know much about Brit political parties, aside from obvious ones like Conservative and Liberal Democrat. What is the United Kingdom Independence Party's platform? Name sounds interesting.

I don't know much about Brit political parties, aside from obvious ones like Conservative and Liberal Democrat. What is the United Kingdom Independence Party's platform? Name sounds interesting.
Basically.

"We are a load of washed up xenophobes who miss our time in the sun" (esp. true in the case of RKS and JC*)

They are kinda like the middle way between the BNP and the Euroskeptic Tories. And about twice as hypocritical.




*Incidentally, Joan Collins explained that she was against the Euro because it increased the cost of living in France, where she lives :headbang:

I don't know much about Brit political parties, aside from obvious ones like Conservative and Liberal Democrat. What is the United Kingdom Independence Party's platform? Name sounds interesting.

UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - is a group that advocates a complete economic withdrawl from the EU. Whilst they don't hold any seats in the British Parliament...they do have several Members of the European Parliament.

They are gathering support, but are much too radical to become a mainstream party at this time.

If YOU were being questioned by Jeremy Paxman...wouldn't you tremble with fear?

I know I would!

I mean the interview he did in 96 when he refused to answer a direct question 14 (FOURTEEN!!!) times. If that's not pussyfooting around when answering questions, WHAT IS?

Wait, does PR even apply in a General Election? I get so confused what with having to vote around four times what with the Scottish Parliment 'n' all - also I'm registered twice; pretty sneaky eh :D

Nope, it's all firt past the post in the general elections, meaning only the big parties win seats. :mad: Kinda makes voting for minor parties pointless. Very democratic.

Can't bring myself to vote Labour.
Would vote Tory if they weren't so anti-EU.
So it looks like Lib Dems.

What we Brits really lack is a strong Libertarian capitalist party. The tories are into the idea of low taxes and small government, but their policies on social freedom are traditionally rather restrictive and backward.

What we Brits really lack is a strong Libertarian capitalist party. The tories are into the idea of low taxes and small government, but their policies on social freedom are traditionally rather restrictive and backward.
The closest we have is a faction within the Lib Dems

Even though tony b has made some pretty stupid choices over the last term in charge i still think that he has been a good prime minister for this country. Out of everyone he is probarbly the best man for the job. Labour have done a lot of good, creating the minimum wage and so forth :)

The closest we have is a faction within the Lib Dems

But the Lib Dems are socialists, just to a lesser extent than labour. They still want to tax us heavy and have a massive government.

But the Lib Dems are socialists, just to a lesser extent than labour. They still want to tax us heavy and have a massive government.

The Lid Dem's aren't really socialist, they are just the most left wing of the current parties (read: central). Labour however are no longer at all socialist, they are almost meging with the Tories. The only exception is that their welfare policies are slightly more left than the Tories, but only slightly.

I will be voting for the Scottish Socialist Party when I am old enough in two years. The people of Scotland and Britain are fed up with the corrupt far right warmongering policies of New Labour. Other parties I support which stand in UK elections are the Communist Party of Britain, Respect, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

The Lid Dem's aren't really socialist, they are just the most left wing of the current parties (read: central). Labour however are no longer at all socialist, they are almost meging with the Tories. The only exception is that their welfare policies are slightly more left than the Tories, but only slightly.

Labour's attitude to taxation is very socialist. They're robbing us blind. The Tories would reduce taxation by handing to the private sector a lot of what is handled by the government under Labour.

I will be voting for the Scottish Socialist Party when I am old enough in two years. The people of Scotland and Britain are fed up with the corrupt far right warmongering policies of New Labour. Other parties I support which stand in UK elections are the Communist Party of Britain, Respect, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

You say "the people of Britain" as if it's unanimous. Actually, many "people of Britain" are fed up with wasteful socialists pissing away the vast amounts of tax they pump out of us.

The Labour Party have shafted workers just as much as the Tories ever did. They're both nefarious, mendacious scum.

It doesn't matter who you vote for they're all after power and what power brings. Some politicians dress their language in nationalistic values others in socialist prinicples - they all f**k you over eventually.

Labour's attitude to taxation is very socialist. They're robbing us blind. The Tories would reduce taxation by handing to the private sector a lot of what is handled by the government under Labour.

Robbing us blind? They haven't increased ncome tax, we're still on a conservative tax rate. Unless you want to claim those "stealth taxes" are robbing you blind, which they hardly are. A very socialist tax rate would be progressive, topping out at about 85% as Labour were going to do in 1979.

Privatisation is just stupid - it increases costs and decreases wages. So you may pay less tax, but you also get paid less and your goods cost more. Plus the Tories still haven't come out with their plans for tax cuts. Remeber their previous idea for £8bn cuts? They proved totally infeasible. The Tories attitudes to PFI are almost the same as Labour's anyway.

Privatisation is just stupid - it increases costs and decreases wages. So you may pay less tax, but you also get paid less and your goods cost more.

Actually, the competition which is created in the private sector produces lower prices and better quality than a government monopoly.

Actually, the competition which is created in the private sector produces lower prices and better quality than a government monopoly.

Maybe prices go down when there is competiton, but there isn't always competiton.

Higher quality however isn't created by competiton. Private companies will cut costs i.e. wages and standards, to produce cheaper goods or make more profit.

Plus nationalised goods don't have a profit margin.

Actually, the competition which is created in the private sector produces lower prices and better quality than a government monopoly.


Where's your proof?

Public transport here in Bristol is an absolute disgrace. It's inefficient and expensive. Unfortunately the old profit motive gets in the way of reduced costs in the private sector.

But the Lib Dems are socialists, just to a lesser extent than labour. They still want to tax us heavy and have a massive government.
Which is why I said a faction within the Lib Dems rather then the Lib Dems

You say "the people of Britain" as if it's unanimous. Actually, many "people of Britain" are fed up with wasteful socialists pissing away the vast amounts of tax they pump out of us.

The vast majority of the British people as has been shown in opinion polls opposed the war, support the renationalisation of the railways and oppose PFI projects. The people are fed up with their taxes being wasted on illegal imperialist wars and unnecessary defence spending when it could be going to hospitals, schools and welfare for the disadvantaged.

Higher quality however isn't created by competiton. Private companies will cut costs i.e. wages and standards, to produce cheaper goods or make more profit.


But if a service or good is crap, nobody will buy it. Companies have an incentive to provide decent service, because if they fail to, their competitors will gain customers.

The vast majority of the British people as has been shown in opinion polls opposed the war, support the renationalisation of the railways and oppose PFI projects. The people are fed up with their taxes being wasted on illegal imperialist wars and unnecessary defence spending when it could be going to hospitals, schools and welfare for the disadvantaged.

Let's see you quote some actual sources.

Anyway, whether tax is spent on wasteful wars or wasteful welfare, it is still wasted.

But if a service or good is crap, nobody will buy it. Companies have an incentive to provide decent service, because if they fail to, their competitors will gain customers.

In the case of privatised industries there are often no competitors, hence the crap railways. People still use them though - because they have to. Companies will cut costs any way they can, so although something may look good if they make it it'll still be cheap inside.

Also what do you think these companies will do if everything is privatised? They will move to South-east Asia and abuse the Export Proccessing Zones. Thus there wil be job cuts in Britain (you seem like the kidna guy that will appeal to rather than any sort of altruistic arguement). Once again the workers will get shafted.

I'll be voting Tory, small government and low taxes all the way. The sooner we get out of the socialist empire that is the EU the better.

Let me take issue with some points made:

Robbing us blind? They haven't increased ncome tax, we're still on a conservative tax rate. Unless you want to claim those "stealth taxes" are robbing you blind, which they hardly are.

We're not really on a conservative tax rate, Brown has failed to adjust for fiscal drag (adjusting tax bands in line with inflation) so more people are paying more tax. They've increased National Insurance (which is based on income so that's technically an income tax), fuel duty has sky rocketed and that's just to name a few tax increases - theres another 60 more out there.

The people are fed up with their taxes being wasted on illegal imperialist wars and unnecessary defence spending when it could be going to hospitals, schools and welfare for the disadvantaged.

I'm fed up with my taxes being wasted on hospitals, schools and welfare for the disadvantaged. Labour has consistently pumped money into these things with no effect. The Tories are the only party which realises that if you are going to pump money in then you have to change the structure of these things to make them effective. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.

Maybe prices go down when there is competiton, but there isn't always competiton.

Higher quality however isn't created by competiton. Private companies will cut costs i.e. wages and standards, to produce cheaper goods or make more profit.

Plus nationalised goods don't have a profit margin.

Privatisation does work it's an economic fact. That's why Labour dropped clause four, that's why virtually every developed country in the world tries to implement market based reforms - which includes privatisation. The only people who support nationalising industries are people who still wish the "glory" days of the 1970s would return when we had a 4 day week, daily strikes, rubbish piling up in the streets and Britain was the "sick man of europe". If you look at us now we have one of the strongest economies in europe (though we rely on the state far too much) and it's all down to the successful policies of the tories in the 80s and 90s.

I'm fed up with my taxes being wasted on hospitals, schools and welfare for the disadvantaged. Labour has consistently pumped money into these things with no effect. The Tories are the only party which realises that if you are going to pump money in then you have to change the structure of these things to make them effective. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.

What will the Tories do? PFI makes things more expensive and not even Thatcher dared privatise the NHS. Blair is managing that through the back door though.

Privatisation does work it's an economic fact.

Work for who?

That's why Labour dropped clause four, that's why virtually every developed country in the world tries to implement market based reforms - which includes privatisation. The only people who support nationalising industries are people who still wish the "glory" days of the 1970s would return when we had a 4 day week, daily strikes, rubbish piling up in the streets and Britain was the "sick man of europe". If you look at us now we have one of the strongest economies in europe (though we rely on the state far too much) and it's all down to the successful policies of the tories in the 80s and 90s.

Dropping Clause IV was the beginning if Labour selling out the the coprerations to seize power. Once there they act just like the previous government.
People support nationalising industries see it is the best way, why else is our raliway system crap? Years of Tory underinvestment. The "successful" policies of the 80s essentially consisted of unemployment, strikes and unhappiness. Unless you were in the Institute of Directors of course.
"Virtually every" country adopts "market based reforms" because they are forced to. Look at the thrid world, the WTO forces them to open up their markets and let "free trade" rape them. It's just that we've been sucked in by propaganda showing that privatisation works when it just results in lower wages and abuse of workers. The problem is we only heard from those who benefit - the rich with access to the media.

Dropping Clause IV was the beginning if Labour selling out the the coprerations to seize power. Once there they act just like the previous government.

What was the point of maintaining out-dated dogma and rhetoric when it was clearly keeping our party out of power? What is the point of having fine ideological principles if you never have the opportunity to implement them?

The Tories would never have introduced the minimum wage; invested so much in our public services; worked so hard to wipe out unemployment; recruited so many teachers, doctors, policemen.

This Labour government has managed to show that you CAN have a strong committment to social justice whilst at the time maintaining economic growth. That is what New Labour's variation on traditional Labour socialism is - accepting that looking after the economy is needed if the funding for the ambitious social programmes and public investment is needed. There's no point in trying to redistribute the wealth if there isn't any.

Where's your proof?

Public transport here in Bristol is an absolute disgrace. It's inefficient and expensive. Unfortunately the old profit motive gets in the way of reduced costs in the private sector.

Rail up here by Liverpool is some of the best in the country. However, I beleive that's due to the huge influx of funds to the new "European city of culture". Down where I go to university in swansea, trains are expensive and ALWAYS late. I have yet to get a train that is delayed by less then 20 minutes in the south west of wales. East Anglia, on the whole has a relatively competent if extremely expensive train network. Trains are regular and usually on time, they do however cost around a fiver to travel between 3 villages.

I myself will probably be voting tory, as I did in the last election. Not that I really trust them, they're almost as ineffectual as the Lib Dems. I do however like their stance on Europe - No. I guess we'll see how things go in the run-up, I might even be tempted to vote UKIP when the time comes, I'll have to see.

As for the Labour Government, we have had worse in terms of domestic policy, but I cannot abide being lied to by our primeminister without so much as an apology. I beleive that Leg-Ends is correct in saying that this government has attempted to fix problems in nationalised industries such as the NHS by throwing money at it. This has led to millions being wasted on proor project management, and a generally top heavy industry (despite promises to try and eliminate this). The introduction of top up fees, effectively creating an american style pricing system for universities apall me. As far as I am concerned, the fact that students bright enough to enter university without having to worry about tuition fees was one of the things that made this country great. Not only did they consign such a thing to the past, but now they have ensured that students will have to pay even more in the future (once again, despite promises to the contrary in the last elections manifesto).

As far as I am concerned, Tony Blair is an autocrat who leads this country any way he likes, and lies to us when we disagree with him.

More than anything this election, I want only one thing - a government without tony blair and the labour party in power.

Labour however are no longer at all socialist, they are almost meging with the Tories. The only exception is that their welfare policies are slightly more left than the Tories, but only slightly.

This is such complete....Oh it makes me so angry hearing stuff like this!

Privatisation does work it's an economic fact. That's why Labour dropped clause four, that's why virtually every developed country in the world tries to implement market based reforms - which includes privatisation. The only people who support nationalising industries are people who still wish the "glory" days of the 1970s would return when we had a 4 day week, daily strikes, rubbish piling up in the streets and Britain was the "sick man of europe". If you look at us now we have one of the strongest economies in europe (though we rely on the state far too much) and it's all down to the successful policies of the tories in the 80s and 90s.
Privatisation works...for whom?
OK, lets go through some privatised industries shall we?
The Railways: Well, what can be said that hasn't been said since privatisation began in 1994? Not alot. The industry is awful. Trains run later than they used to run under BR. Ticket prices are on the rise. More public money is being spent than in the last 25+ years. Works really well doesn't it.

The Water Board: Higher than average price rises. No competition. Unreliable service (especially in the South-West).

BT: For a time, BT was a success, granted, but as time has gone on they have suffered massive under investment (will find the sources again and will post) and has only relatively recently been given any real competition, though it still has the monopoly in the use of its lines, meaning that unless you are a cable customer you have to pay BT a rental charge if you want to have a landline phone, which is rather important for internet access.

New Labour, though many see it as "selling out" has done a lot of good for this country whilst its been in power. After 18 years of under investment from successive Conservative Governments the NHS, education, transport, etc is finally being given money. It took 18 years for the Tory's to ruin the Country, plus the poor decisions of previous administrations, it'll take a damn sight longer to repair it.

I'll be voting for the Lib Dems to hope they get into opposition (they won't win).

I'm also hoping that when Labour win (again! :headbang: ), they have a slim majority (ideally >80) so Blair needs Brown's support. That will mean Brown has more chance of taking over as PM in a couple of years.

Hopefully Brown will then pursure a course taking Labour left of the Tories, rather than Blair current trajectory straight into Tory homeland.

The Tories will then be relegated to thrid place! Yipee! :cool:

Ditto :D

New Labour, though many see it as "selling out" has done a lot of good for this country whilst its been in power. After 18 years of under investment from successive Conservative Governments the NHS, education, transport, etc is finally being given money. It took 18 years for the Tory's to ruin the Country, plus the poor decisions of previous administrations, it'll take a damn sight longer to repair it.

Someone else who understands!

We can never create Utopia, but finally we have a government that cares about our public services and is willing to put record amounts of money into them. Labour needs a 3rd term in government to carry on with this investment and to make sure the Tories are never, ever, allowed to do their best to run them down again.

So...to repeate the Party propaganda...careful about going to bed with Charles Kennedy, you might wake up with Michael Howard! Voting Lib Dem is NOT going to produce a more Left-wing Labour government.

Privatisation works...for whom?
OK, lets go through some privatised industries shall we?
The Railways: Well, what can be said that hasn't been said since privatisation began in 1994? Not alot. The industry is awful. Trains run later than they used to run under BR. Ticket prices are on the rise. More public money is being spent than in the last 25+ years. Works really well doesn't it.

The Water Board: Higher than average price rises. No competition. Unreliable service (especially in the South-West).

BT: For a time, BT was a success, granted, but as time has gone on they have suffered massive under investment (will find the sources again and will post) and has only relatively recently been given any real competition, though it still has the monopoly in the use of its lines, meaning that unless you are a cable customer you have to pay BT a rental charge if you want to have a landline phone, which is rather important for internet access.

New Labour, though many see it as "selling out" has done a lot of good for this country whilst its been in power. After 18 years of under investment from successive Conservative Governments the NHS, education, transport, etc is finally being given money. It took 18 years for the Tory's to ruin the Country, plus the poor decisions of previous administrations, it'll take a damn sight longer to repair it.

To an extent I agree with what you are saying. The basic needs of a person should be catered for by the state, such as water and communication, so tat they can't be exploited.

Though in other areas, like rail, privatisation is essential to provide competition and thus a decent service. The only reason why it hasn't worked and they're still crap is because they weren't fully privatised and Private-Public partnerships are a waste of money.

I shall be voting Conservative this year, but only whish they would exchange the party leader for some new, younger blood.

So...to repeate the Party propaganda...careful about going to bed with Charles Kennedy, you might wake up with Michael Howard! Voting Lib Dem is NOT going to produce a more Left-wing Labour government.
Party propaganda...Does that mean you are part of the Party :D

Though in other areas, like rail, privatisation is essential to provide competition and thus a decent service. The only reason why it hasn't worked and they're still crap is because they weren't fully privatised and Private-Public partnerships are a waste of money.

The rail industry was privatised as a fully private endeavour. The only public ownership involved is Network Rail, which was taken out of private hands (RailTrack) but due to contractural obligations still has to use private contractors. You might be getting confused with the London Underground, which they were trying to turn into a Public-Private partnership, something I do agree wouldn't work properly.

What was the point of maintaining out-dated dogma and rhetoric when it was clearly keeping our party out of power? What is the point of having fine ideological principles if you never have the opportunity to implement them?

So why have any principles at all? Why not just sell out, gain power, and do nothing? New Labour are so similar to the Tories they offer no choice at election time, so in letting go of their "fine ideological principles" they have undermined one of the main roels of political parties - providing choice.

The Tories would never have introduced the minimum wage; invested so much in our public services; worked so hard to wipe out unemployment; recruited so many teachers, doctors, policemen.

That's why I said Labour is left of the Tories when it comes to welfare. However they compromised with the CBI on the minimum wage, set it relatively lowly (particuarly if you are under 21, under 18 or under 16 - it gets progresively worse). 'Investment' in public servies is now taking the form of PFI, which costs more and provides inferior services. I doubt that those teachers are happy about the SATs (continued by Labour), league tables or Performance Related Pay. er how the doctors feel about increased 'red tape', league tables and foundation hospitals.

This Labour government has managed to show that you CAN have a strong committment to social justice whilst at the time maintaining economic growth. That is what New Labour's variation on traditional Labour socialism is - accepting that looking after the economy is needed if the funding for the ambitious social programmes and public investment is needed. There's no point in trying to redistribute the wealth if there isn't any.

Old Labour would look after the economy, but wouldn't rely on private finance. New Labour's commitment to social justice is not that strong, look at asylum seekers - are they getting social justice? And those foreign nationals locked up in Belmarsh indefinatly under the Emergency Terrorism Act? Even the traditonally conservative courts agree that this is a contravention of Human Rights - not very socialist. They have also shown themselves to pander to right wing tabloids as they seek the sway the middle ground of voters.

We can never create Utopia, but finally we have a government that cares about our public services and is willing to put record amounts of money into them. Labour needs a 3rd term in government to carry on with this investment and to make sure the Tories are never, ever, allowed to do their best to run them down again.

New Labour cares about our public services? Is that why they privatised the London Underground and Air Traffic Control? Why they continue with PFI? Why they haven't renationalised industries privatised by the Tories? They have continued many Tory policies, so if the Tories get in they will do much the same. New Labour is simply the better of two evils.

The rail industry was privatised as a fully private endeavour. The only public ownership involved is Network Rail, which was taken out of private hands (RailTrack) but due to contractural obligations still has to use private contractors. You might be getting confused with the London Underground, which they were trying to turn into a Public-Private partnership, something I do agree wouldn't work properly.

You are right, sorry.

You are right, sorry.
S'alrite :p

the Tories are dieing on their feet
the Lib Dems would be my choice if they wernt so weak
Labor cant call themselves Labor they are as much right-ring as tories

ill be going for BNP :rolleyes:

Blaming the state of the railways on privatisation and the tory governments of the 80s and 90s isn't telling the whole story. The problem with the railways is that they were nationalised in the first place. Up to the 1940s Britain had one of the best rail systems in the world with true competition. Companies would compete to build lines between cities so they wouldn't actually hahve to share rails like the current situation. The governement came along nationalised it and then admittedly made a poor job of privatising it. It took sucessive governments 50 years to destroy the railways, we can't expect them to rebuild it in 10 years.

Nice reply Proletariat Francais, there's nothing more offensive than incorrigible Labour Party acolytes. They support Labour like they support a football team.

The Minimun wage is a scandalous joke that does nothing more than socially legitimize the payment of appaling wages.

New Deal is nothing more than an attempt to obscure employment figures.

The only difference between Labour and the Tories is that the Tories are slightly more honest when they say they will shaft you. The Labour Party just pretend they're helping you when in reality they're selling you down the river.

Grow up Labour Party supporters and see your party for what it really is.

Blaming the state of the railways on privatisation and the tory governments of the 80s and 90s isn't telling the whole story. The problem with the railways is that they were nationalised in the first place. Up to the 1940s Britain had one of the best rail systems in the world with true competition. Companies would compete to build lines between cities so they wouldn't actually hahve to share rails like the current situation. The governement came along nationalised it and then admittedly made a poor job of privatising it. It took sucessive governments 50 years to destroy the railways, we can't expect them to rebuild it in 10 years.
The BIG FOUR, in direct competition? You're having a laugh aren't you?
OK, lets go then...GWR only crossed the same area as Southern in the South-West of England (mostly Cornwall). Many of these services provided routes to differing towns.
LNER and LMS ran on the East and West coasts respectively (though the LMS also ran services through, strangly, the midlands, St Pancras etc). They only ran to the same cities in parts of Scotland (most notably Edinburgh) and London. These companies competed on speed and comfort, not routes.
The railways were destroyed during the Second World War, and when the government of the day purchased and formed British Railways, they spent more than the value of the routes and dilapidated (sp?) rolling stock.
The introduction of new rolling stock onto the railways was the largest investment that the railways had seen for almost the entire life of the Big Four companies, but unlike the average improvements introduced previously they were network wide rather than only for the top link express services.
The East and West coast routes continued to compete with each other even under British Rail, and often fought against each other to gain the limited investment that was being put in after the end of the Modernisation scheme (finished roughly 1973-75 with the ending of electrification of WCML to Glasgow). Introduction and improvements to the railways went downhill afterwards, with the biggest loss to the railways being the cancellation of the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) project in 1985 by the Thatcher Govenment.
Any improvements to the railway network after 1979 had to be competed with against the increasingly powerful road lobby, reducing investment in the already underfunded railways further.

Nice reply Proletariat Francais, there's nothing more offensive than incorrigible Labour Party acolytes. They support Labour like they support a football team.

The Minimun wage is a scandalous joke that does nothing more than socially legitimize the payment of appaling wages.

New Deal is nothing more than an attempt to obscure employment figures.

The only difference between Labour and the Tories is that the Tories are slightly more honest when they say they will shaft you. The Labour Party just pretend they're helping you when in reality they're selling you down the river.

Grow up Labour Party supporters and see your party for what it really is.
Socially legitimise appalling wages? So you would rather that there be no minimum wage and that businesses be allowed to pay any rates they want? Sorry, but I'd rather know that I will recieve at least £x for my endeavours.
Oh yea, and the Tory's more honest? You live somewhere else?

Socially legitimise appalling wages? So you would rather that there be no minimum wage and that businesses be allowed to pay any rates they want? Sorry, but I'd rather know that I will recieve at least £x for my endeavours.
Oh yea, and the Tory's more honest? You live somewhere else?

I'd rather Labour repealled Thatcherite anti-TU legislation, thus allowing workers to demand better wages. Not going to happen is it? The CBIs bed is too damn comfortable for Blair.

I'd rather Labour repealled Thatcherite anti-TU legislation, thus allowing workers to demand better wages. Not going to happen is it? The CBIs bed is too damn comfortable for Blair.
Waste of time really though isn't it as the TU's have been virtually destroyed. Only 26.6% of employed people in the UK (in 2003) were part of a trade union. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:rPLZ5Nq4UtkJ:www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/tum2003.pdf+percentage+of+UK+trade+union+membership&hl=en

Waste of time really though isn't it as the TU's have been virtually destroyed. Only 26.6% of employed people in the UK (in 2003) were part of a trade union. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:rPLZ5Nq4UtkJ:www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/tum2003.pdf+percentage+of+UK+trade+union+membership&hl=en

This is only due to the ruthless legislation. If it were repealled perhaps membership would grow and the TUs would strengthen. Why else haven't the laws been repealled? Is Labour scared of the Unions? (ooh the vicious irony).

This is only due to the ruthless legislation. If it were repealled perhaps membership would grow and the TUs would strengthen. Why else haven't the laws been repealled? Is Labour scared of the Unions? (ooh the vicious irony).
Not really. The Tory's?

Not really. The Tory's?

I don't quite follow you, but I don't think Labour are scared of the Tories. They don't really present a threat, as New Labour is really just the Tories but younger.

I'm no Brit, but I hope Blair wins. If Robert Mugabe hates him, he can't be all that bad! :D

I'd rather Labour repealled Thatcherite anti-TU legislation, thus allowing workers to demand better wages. Not going to happen is it? The CBIs bed is too damn comfortable for Blair.

Workers rights have been extended: increased maternity leave, holiday with pay, legislation against discrimination at the workplace, higher wages for public sector workers...Why do you choose to ignore all this? Does your hatred of Tony Blair blind you to Labour's achievements?

And if you want to debate Thatcherite anti-TU legislation fine, but it's a different story. Is the closed shop really something we want to bring back? That appeals to the modern workforce? Don't forget the majority of trade union members voted for Thatcher in the 80s.

I don't quite follow you, but I don't think Labour are scared of the Tories. They don't really present a threat, as New Labour is really just the Tories but younger.
Sorry, badly worded. Labour isn't afraid of the unions, they are often involved at conference in decision making within the Party. The question was whether the Tory's were scared of them (your earlier posts gave me the impression that you were leaning toward the Conservatives. I apologise if that is not the case).
Also, New Labour isn't really that close to Conservative Policy, old or new.

I don't quite follow you, but I don't think Labour are scared of the Tories. They don't really present a threat, as New Labour is really just the Tories but younger.

Let me give you a Marxist tool of analysis: The Labour party still represents the industrial and organised working-class of this country. Whether the leadership is reflecting their exact wants and needs is of course debatable, but that makes no difference to the actual class structure of British politics.

Sorry, badly worded. Labour isn't afraid of the unions, they are often involved at conference in decision making within the Party.

I've been to Labour conference. The trade unions are integral.

I've been to Labour conference. The trade unions are integral.
Agreed. So, are you a member of the Party? ;)

Originally Posted by Proletariat-Francais
I'd rather Labour repealled Thatcherite anti-TU legislation, thus allowing workers to demand better wages. Not going to happen is it? The CBIs bed is too damn comfortable for Blair.

I'll be voting Conservative at the next election - I believe in small government and a low tax environment to stimulate economic growth and tough action on the causes of crime. Labour has in my opinion done a good job with the ASBO legislation however I feel that it is not being used to full effect to tackle the problem of a yob culture.

I guess in terms of the minimum wage and the issue of anti EU legislation Labour politicians would argue that they did take action in this respect when they signed us up to the social chapter of Maastricht.

A vote for UKIP I feel is little more than a protest vote - to have a refferendum on the EU to take place they would need a majority in parliament. The only scenareo for that to happen would require the a Tory government to do it if they were to change their policy.

The labour government is a strange beast - whilst we see Blair moving to the right to become the worst sort of politician possible. Many people decry his greatest sin as having basicly a Tory - I'd say his greatest crime been to become bland. I believe Brown has been the man who has provided any susbstantial reason to vote labour - seeing the labour party move back to the left would be good for actually stimulating political debate and perhaps allow the Tories to really raise their game - I feel people would then percieve that they have a genuine choice as to how they want the country to be run.

Agreed. So, are you a member of the Party? ;)

Mayyyyyybe.

I've been to Labour conference. The trade unions are integral.

Is that why they can only pass three manifesto resolutions? Why those resolutions can be held of indefinetly under Clause V, as happened with the move to abolish the House of Lords. If the trade unions were so intergral then Labour would not be pursuing it's current policy. UNISON have come out against PFI for example.

Let me give you a Marxist tool of analysis: The Labour party still represents the industrial and organised working-class of this country. Whether the leadership is reflecting their exact wants and needs is of course debatable, but that makes no difference to the actual class structure of British politics.

The Labour party have disregarded class. They no longer represent the working class, they represent the swing vote. The swing vote which is vital for them to win seats and stay in power true, but they are pandering to it. If they represent the working class why are industries being privatised? Blair has been business will see him good, and he's working more with the CBI than the TUC.
The working class are not organised either, hence the low union membership. They see divisions as national rather than class. The industrial working class is also in decline, Britain does little in primary and secondary industry relatively speaking. The class structure of British politics is not that simple becuase of this, and parties are no longer divided along class lines. Parties fight for the middle class and take the class they "represent" for granted. Most working class people won't think Labour represent them, they will more likely think that they should lower taxes or that it doesn't matter.

Sorry, badly worded. Labour isn't afraid of the unions, they are often involved at conference in decision making within the Party. The question was whether the Tory's were scared of them (your earlier posts gave me the impression that you were leaning toward the Conservatives. I apologise if that is not the case).
Also, New Labour isn't really that close to Conservative Policy, old or new.

To be honest I don't side with New Labour or the Tories, I am much too left wing for either of them. :D
The Tories have mainly disregarded the Unions as Labour voters I think, they are fighting for the vital swing vote. Though the way the right wing tabloid press is headed the working classs might be voting Tory soon!
However New Labour is ridiculously close to the Tories. New Labour have almost an identical defense policy to the Tories, neither party will raise direct income tax, both oppose re-nationalisation, both are committed to PFI, both support education internal markets, both wish to appear "tough" on crime. Admittedly the Tories want to reduce taxes/"waste", will cut spending in public services, possibly privatise the Post Office and oppose Labour's welfare polciies (hence my arguement that Labour is left of the Tories when it comes to welfare). Labour are also keener on regulation than the Tories. The two are still very similar. New Labour is closer to the Tories than it is to Old Labour.

If the trade unions were so intergral then Labour would not be pursuing it's current policy. UNISON have come out against PFI for example.

There's a difference between the unions being integral to the Labour party and the Labour government doing everything and anything the TU leaders tell it to do. Yes, Unison aren't happy with PFIs and have made it clear they want to change the policy but at the same time they also realise the huge benefits a Labour government has brought to their workers. Labour is still the ONLY party through which radical change can be brought about, and (most) unions realise its better to campaign for reform from within the party than by joining some lunatic 'Leftist' fringe group.

The Labour party have disregarded class. They no longer represent the working class, they represent the swing vote. The swing vote which is vital for them to win seats and stay in power true, but they are pandering to it. If they represent the working class why are industries being privatised? Blair has been business will see him good, and he's working more with the CBI than the TUC.
The working class are not organised either, hence the low union membership. They see divisions as national rather than class. The industrial working class is also in decline, Britain does little in primary and secondary industry relatively speaking. The class structure of British politics is not that simple becuase of this, and parties are no longer divided along class lines. Parties fight for the middle class and take the class they "represent" for granted. Most working class people won't think Labour represent them, they will more likely think that they should lower taxes or that it doesn't matter.

Tony Blair's vision of Labour is inclusionist, rather than exclusionist. He thinks Labour's core values of equality, social justice, and spreading opportunity are shared by the majority of Britons and so should be made to appeal to them. Again, if the middle class is either going to vote Tory or Labour I know who I'd prefer to be in power.

As for declining industry: of course. That is modern advanced capitalism adapting and so the Labour party has to adapt too. Why where the Tories in power for 18 years? Because the Labour leadership refused to adapt to reflect the realities of modern Britain. Trade union membership has plummeted - so relying on the unions as your only source of core support is obviously electoral suicide.

There's a difference between the unions being integral to the Labour party and the Labour government doing everything and anything the TU leaders tell it to do. Yes, Unison aren't happy with PFIs and have made it clear they want to change the policy but at the same time they also realise the huge benefits a Labour government has brought to their workers. Labour is still the ONLY party through which radical change can be brought about, and (most) unions realise its better to campaign for reform from within the party than by joining some lunatic 'Leftist' fringe group.

Radical change will not be brought about by this Labour government, they are too concerned with the moderate swing voters. True Labour is the only party where the TUC has token influence, but it is merely token. Blair even said he would give them "no favours", despite the fact that the unions are meant to be intergral to to the party! The unions don't always go through Labour, they have little power there - that power is limited by Clause V. For example the FBU strikes, NASUWT boycott of SATs. Labour is brinign in legislation which is opposing the unions, evidently the unions are not listened to. Blair has been too keen to distance himself from the unions, for fear of being associated with the Winder of Discontent and the strikes of the 80s. What are these "lunatic 'Leftist' fringe group[s]" you speak of? The Lib Dems? Becuase the unions are considering switching their allegiance to them I hear - I'm sure the Lib Dems would listen to the TUC more than New Labour.

To be honest I don't side with New Labour or the Tories, I am much too left wing for either of them. :D


Hmm, I doubt that. I know Marxists and other assorted far-Leftists in the Labour party because they realise it is still the only organisation that offers them a realistic opportunity to bring about their socialist vision.

Better to fight for change from within that just sit on the sidelines and whinge. :)

Anyway, it's been nice chatting. I've got to get up early in the morning to do some campaigning out on the streets. Taa taa

Hmm, I doubt that. I know Marxists and other assorted far-Leftists in the Labour party because they realise it is still the only organisation that offers them a realistic opportunity to bring about their socialist vision.

I'm not a Marxist at all, I'm a socialist and quite against abolition of private property - I wasn't trying to be the stereotypical student leftwinger rebelling against the system as socialism can be achieved through the system. Just not through New Labour.

Better to fight for change from within that just sit on the sidelines and whinge. :)

Better not to sell out to get power, or once there you will not do anything. :)

Anyway, it's been nice chatting. I've got to get up early in the morning to do some campaigning out on the streets. Taa taa

For New Labour? Way to go. :D Goodnight.

im voting lib dems, they seem to be to be the ONLY choice, unless youre voting for one of the smaller parties, like the green party. i can see charles kennedy as prime minister, because he sounds like someone i can trust, rather than bliar and howards electioneering. but im a student so im biased.

labour for me have done an amazing job on domestic issues, apart from the odd thing (immigration (there should be far MORE), top up fees, ID cards, anti terror laws), but above all they have increased the quality of live in this country, which i am thankful for. BUT, they cannot be allowed to get away with the war on terror. this was a callous lie by bliar, who i always think is hiding something, whatever hes talking about. i hate to think what the REAL motives for this war in iraq and the 'climate of fear' are.

i would NEVER vote tory, as when i was born in 1987, my mum and dad where made redundant soon afterwards, under a tory government. plus i could never vote for any right wing party as they are on the same side of the political spectrum as fascists.

im voting lib dems, they seem to be to be the ONLY choice, unless youre voting for one of the smaller parties, like the green party. i can see charles kennedy as prime minister, because he sounds like someone i can trust, rather than bliar and howards electioneering. but im a student so im biased.

labour for me have done an amazing job on domestic issues, apart from the odd thing (immigration (there should be far MORE), top up fees, ID cards, anti terror laws), but above all they have increased the quality of live in this country, which i am thankful for. BUT, they cannot be allowed to get away with the war on terror. this was a callous lie by bliar, who i always think is hiding something, whatever hes talking about. i hate to think what the REAL motives for this war in iraq and the 'climate of fear' are.

i would NEVER vote tory, as when i was born in 1987, my mum and dad where made redundant soon afterwards, under a tory government. plus i could never vote for any right wing party as they are on the same side of the political spectrum as fascists.

Well, we sort of agree. But still kudos to you, we're the same age. :D I just pray the elections kept to the May date since by then I'll be of voing age. :p

I'll never vote Tory because of Thatcher/Major etc. Hehe, Margaret Thatcher milk-snatcher is one of my history teachers favourite phrases. Plus it was because of reductions in the railways that my grandfather had to take early retirement so as to keep the younger workers in job. But the works were still closed down, sending the town into a recession that it is only just pulling itself out of. Furthermore, the current Tory policies could never work in reality. Howard wants to cut taxes and increase spending....o.O That doesn't work. If you want to increase spending you have to increase taxes. Furthermore, in one of their things countering Labour was an oxymoron...can't remember what it was at this moment in time and it was printed in, of all places, the Torygraph. Moreover I don't trust their policies towards education.

As for Blair he did actually apologise to the British public for misleading them over the Iraq war, however the national press only covered it very briefly. :mad: While the Lib dems... I have thought about voting for them but I'd need to know more about their current policies, until that happens it's Labour for me.

Labour's attitude to taxation is very socialist. They're robbing us blind. The Tories would reduce taxation by handing to the private sector a lot of what is handled by the government under Labour.

I agree: I would rather see more money coming into my pocket that into the government's for a change. Especially when cuts could come from making smaller central government, less paperwork/bureaucracy and less 'central' control and give teachers/doctors/etc. a chance to do what they do best. I think it would be much more efficient. Research shows that giving the individual counties more autonomy can vastly increase the efficiency of local governments.

I agree: I would rather see more money coming into my pocket that into the government's for a change. Especially when cuts could come from making smaller central government, less paperwork/bureaucracy and less 'central' control and give teachers/doctors/etc. a chance to do what they do best. I think it would be much more efficient. Research shows that giving the individual counties more autonomy can vastly increase the efficiency of local governments.

I don't disagree with the point about taking power away from central government, but your logic contradicts itself. You say you want lower taxes, but for local government to get more power and responsibilities means that they'd have to employ far more people. To pay for them, taxes would have to go UP. Not that I think that's a bad thing - we're the lowest taxed country in Europe, which is why our public services are so much shittier.

By the way, the recent growth in central Government was achieved by, oho, the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, who, when she wasn't bullying Trade Unions or homosexuals, was eagerly crushing tiers of local Government.

I am not a citizen of the U.K. but I do support the Scottish National Party and I hope that they will do well in the next election.

I agree: I would rather see more money coming into my pocket that into the government's for a change. Especially when cuts could come from making smaller central government, less paperwork/bureaucracy and less 'central' control and give teachers/doctors/etc. a chance to do what they do best. I think it would be much more efficient. Research shows that giving the individual counties more autonomy can vastly increase the efficiency of local governments.

Please, every government says they are going to cut "waste" in the system but never do. It's just a way to skirt around the tax-spend issue. The British public seem to want an oxymornic system of low taxes and high public spending. :confused:

I don't disagree with the point about taking power away from central government, but your logic contradicts itself. You say you want lower taxes, but for local government to get more power and responsibilities means that they'd have to employ far more people. To pay for them, taxes would have to go UP (not that I think that's a bad thing, we're the lowest taxed country in Europe, which is why are public services are so much shittier).

Maybe, although certain local governments, (not all, of course) are already over-staffed and could accomodate some extra responsibility from the government. Greater autonomy would mean less paperwork and less central-government orienteered targets and so on. I think that local governments can do many of the jobs the central government are aspiring to achieve now at a lower cost. At the moment I would only vote conservative because for me, personally, I see very few of the benefits provided by the extra taxation of New Labour, and especially of Liberal Democrats. I would rather have lower taxes and have access to a private healthcare scheme that I could depend on than high taxes and an NHS which is overstretched to say the least. I think this option would be available to more people with a part-subsidised private healthcare operating in line with the NHS: it would have the positive side-effect of reducing pressure on the NHS for waiting lists and so on.

The alternative to this would be, as you say, much higher taxation. I don't really like taxes much though, I'd rather spend the money on what I like/need for myself instead of feeling that the government is 'providing' me with everything that I 'need' from healthcare, to education, to welfare, or to anything really. I also feel that many of the systems employed today are stretched and bloated, with unnecessary expenditure. Which is why if taxes get too high I think I'll probably migrate abroad to another EU country with lower taxes, (they do exist!), which would allow me to work in the UK and enjoy the autonomy of being able to spend more of my own money on what I want. That sounds better to me!

And to Proletariat-Francais, I am more interested in the lower taxes than the higher public spending. But knowing what some of the public money goes into, I would rather see it go elsewhere.

Ok guys so you have covered current and past problems, what about the future? Which party is going to step up and tackle the issue of Old Age Pensions?
We can't support it, the 50's baby boom has tailed off. The birth rate has dropped. The ideal of having the children pay for the parents is good, but what happens when their aren't enough children? The system must be changed so that people pay for their pension as they go.
Who is going to committ political suicied and make the changes? Because it will be suicide. They will have to either stop giving out state pensions or they will have to make one generation pay for their parents and themselves, not likely to win many votes.

So ask yourselves which party is going to make those tough calls which will make them very unpopular with "the people". which party leaders are prepared to sacrifice their jobs to solve the problems.

Infrastrcture in this country is a mess. It wasn't designed for the usage that is happening today. The motorways were built in the 60's for 60's traffic which is a fraction of todays. The railways are a mess, they weren't designed for today, cities have grown and new ones have been built. There is no empire anymore, the money isn't there we can't just build another one. To solve these problems will require a great sacrifce from the people of Britian (Oh and for the users who don't know what Britian is: it includes England, Walse AND Scotland).


Trade Unions murdered by Thatcher an interesting debate here. Do you think Thatcher treated the Unions harshly? I don't, sorry. Having been in a position of power myself I know how difficult it is to get things done and what you really don't need is a massive organisation forcing you to change your policies and plans. The government cannot CANNOT be overruled by an outside body by the threat of withdrawn labour, Thatcher did what she thought she had to. I think she was right.

Liberals couldn't run the country if they got into power, it scares me that people think they are the answer.
I shall be voting Cons or Lab. not decided yet still don't trust the Cons and I positively detest Mr G. Brown.

Ok guys so you have covered current and past problems, what about the future? Which party is going to step up and tackle the issue of Old Age Pensions?
We can't support it, the 50's baby boom has tailed off. The birth rate has dropped. The ideal of having the children pay for the parents is good, but what happens when their aren't enough children? The system must be changed so that people pay for their pension as they go.
Who is going to committ political suicied and make the changes? Because it will be suicide. They will have to either stop giving out state pensions or they will have to make one generation pay for their parents and themselves, not likely to win many votes.

So ask yourselves which party is going to make those tough calls which will make them very unpopular with "the people". which party leaders are prepared to sacrifice their jobs to solve the problems.

Taxes will have to be raised. The Lib Dems see this actually, as they have in their manifesto a 50% tax band for earners of over £100,000 and will provide state care for the elderly also. I'm beginning to sound like a Lib Dem member... :eek: Labour won't do anything, they are too populist on many issues and Blair is too concerned with PR.

Infrastrcture in this country is a mess. It wasn't designed for the usage that is happening today. The motorways were built in the 60's for 60's traffic which is a fraction of todays. The railways are a mess, they weren't designed for today, cities have grown and new ones have been built. There is no empire anymore, the money isn't there we can't just build another one. To solve these problems will require a great sacrifce from the people of Britian (Oh and for the users who don't know what Britian is: it includes England, Walse AND Scotland).

Don't you remeber the massive road building in the 90s under Major? He had the choice of either buolding up the railways or the roads, and the Road Hauliers Association helped him choose the roads (remeber the M40, Newbury Bypass...). Now we see that didn't really work. Many of these problems were brought about by Conservative underfunding. New cities have been "built", though you can't just go out one day and decide to build a new city. An Empire would not solve these problems, one of the reasons we got rid of it was that it was costing too much after the First World War. The only "sacrifice" needed is from business, whose control must be curbed. That and perhaps a small "sacrifice" in the pay packet, though most tax will be aimed at business and the very rich who can afford it.


Trade Unions murdered by Thatcher an interesting debate here. Do you think Thatcher treated the Unions harshly? I don't, sorry. Having been in a position of power myself I know how difficult it is to get things done and what you really don't need is a massive organisation forcing you to change your policies and plans. The government cannot CANNOT be overruled by an outside body by the threat of withdrawn labour, Thatcher did what she thought she had to. I think she was right.

She was right? In what way? Denying people benefits? Causing unemployement to increase to three million? Sequestrating the funds of Union members? Attempting the privatise the NHS? Letting business get very rich while others faced poverty? That "outside body" represented the working class of the country, and "withdrawn labour" is a last resort of an organistation representing those effected by Thatcher's plans. Is that not a basic tenent of democracy, for people to hold a government accountable? If you wish for leaders meerely to "get things done" withour interference, why not establish a dictatorship?

Liberals couldn't run the country if they got into power, it scares me that people think they are the answer.
I shall be voting Cons or Lab. not decided yet still don't trust the Cons and I positively detest Mr G. Brown.

Why couldn't the Liberal Democrats run the country? I'd trust them with it over the Conservatives. Why does it scare you that "people think they are the answer"? (I don't, but they are the best we have). If you're lucky Brown won't get to be PM - you might get a nice Blairite. What is wrong with Brown anyway? he is a fine chancellor and his dedication to helping the Third World is one of the most admirable thingsa to come out of this government.

Ok guys so you have covered current and past problems, what about the future? Which party is going to step up and tackle the issue of Old Age Pensions?
We can't support it, the 50's baby boom has tailed off. The birth rate has dropped. The ideal of having the children pay for the parents is good, but what happens when their aren't enough children? The system must be changed so that people pay for their pension as they go.
Who is going to committ political suicied and make the changes? Because it will be suicide. They will have to either stop giving out state pensions or they will have to make one generation pay for their parents and themselves, not likely to win many votes.

The birth rate isn't so much of an issue - relaxed immigration policies can revitalise the economy in that respect. One day people will have to accept that they'll have to work for longer before receiving the state pension. Probably our generation. And some government in the near future will have to increase the pension age by about 10 years....

Taxes will have to be raised. The Lib Dems see this actually, as they have in their manifesto a 50% tax band for earners of over £100,000 and will provide state care for the elderly also. I'm beginning to sound like a Lib Dem member... :eek: Labour won't do anything, they are too populist on many issues and Blair is too concerned with PR.

That would have to filter down to the lower levels some how, as a person earning 95'000 could get more money than one earning 100'000 as the income tax does not take account of slight difference in their pay. That would not be fair.

Don't you remeber the massive road building in the 90s under Major? He had the choice of either buolding up the railways or the roads, and the Road Hauliers Association helped him choose the roads (remeber the M40, Newbury Bypass...). Now we see that didn't really work. Many of these problems were brought about by Conservative underfunding. New cities have been "built", though you can't just go out one day and decide to build a new city. An Empire would not solve these problems, one of the reasons we got rid of it was that it was costing too much after the First World War. The only "sacrifice" needed is from business, whose control must be curbed. That and perhaps a small "sacrifice" in the pay packet, though most tax will be aimed at business and the very rich who can afford it.

I'm doing this as part of my degree. It has been admitted by supposed experts in the field of traffic managment that they cannot predict road usage. It is changing to rapidly. Thankfully over the last few years it seems to be leveling off. I agree with your point about underfunding it was a real cock-up there is a load of stuff in Engineering Ethics about it. I would like to think that perhaps all the parties have learnt from the mistakes of the past and won't underfund again.
Really! Tax big business would you? So you don't think they would turn around and say "Ok fine we are moving to Germany or France"

She was right? In what way? Denying people benefits? Causing unemployement to increase to three million? Sequestrating the funds of Union members? Attempting the privatise the NHS? Letting business get very rich while others faced poverty? That "outside body" represented the working class of the country, and "withdrawn labour" is a last resort of an organistation representing those effected by Thatcher's plans. Is that not a basic tenent of democracy, for people to hold a government accountable? If you wish for leaders meerely to "get things done" withour interference, why not establish a dictatorship?.

Well now this is an interesting point, establish a dicatorship. So what do you think would have happened in the end if Thatcher hadn't broken the trade unions? We would all be happy working in coal mines still? I seriously doubt it. I agree that someone should speak for the rights of the common man, but do you really think that going on strike would have been the last resort. Thatcher had to break them otherwise all that was needed was a power-hungry Union leader and they would have been trying to hold the government to ransom. I surrender to your points at the end of her time though. She went to far. End of.
But just to point out one thing. Which leader today is willing to commit political suicide and do those things she did? Those kind of actions are bound to cause alot of friction. However I believe she acted in the best interests of the country.

Why couldn't the Liberal Democrats run the country? I'd trust them with it over the Conservatives. Why does it scare you that "people think they are the answer"? (I don't, but they are the best we have). If you're lucky Brown won't get to be PM - you might get a nice Blairite. What is wrong with Brown anyway? he is a fine chancellor and his dedication to helping the Third World is one of the most admirable thingsa to come out of this government.

Indeed he is a fine chancellor, but there is something about him that just repels me. However I am happy for him to continue where he is, I may not like him, but a respect someone who knows what they are doing. Just so you know; I don't like Blair that much either.

That would have to filter down to the lower levels some how, as a person earning 95'000 could get more money than one earning 100'000 as the income tax does not take account of slight difference in their pay. That would not be fair.

Ideally there would be progressive taxation up to that point, though I don't know what exactly the Lib Dems are planning. They are always a little hazy on details...

I'm doing this as part of my degree. It has been admitted by supposed experts in the field of traffic managment that they cannot predict road usage. It is changing to rapidly. Thankfully over the last few years it seems to be leveling off. I agree with your point about underfunding it was a real cock-up there is a load of stuff in Engineering Ethics about it. I would like to think that perhaps all the parties have learnt from the mistakes of the past and won't underfund again.
Really! Tax big business would you? So you don't think they would turn around and say "Ok fine we are moving to Germany or France"

Not if there was a decent method of taxing business. As it is the government is held to ransom which transnational corperations get cheap labour in Export Processing Zones. This is where the UN could do good, but forcing corperations to pay some sort of taxation in their home countries or imposing blanket business tax in all states. However I wouldn't tax big business, I would nationalise them.

Well now this is an interesting point, establish a dicatorship. So what do you think would have happened in the end if Thatcher hadn't broken the trade unions? We would all be happy working in coal mines still? I seriously doubt it. I agree that someone should speak for the rights of the common man, but do you really think that going on strike would have been the last resort. Thatcher had to break them otherwise all that was needed was a power-hungry Union leader and they would have been trying to hold the government to ransom. I surrender to your points at the end of her time though. She went to far. End of.
But just to point out one thing. Which leader today is willing to commit political suicide and do those things she did? Those kind of actions are bound to cause alot of friction. However I believe she acted in the best interests of the country.

Admittedly the Unions were getting too big for their boots in the early 80s, they brought down the Labour government in 1979. However this does not mean what Thatcher did was right. She antagonised the situation and left a great many people worse off. How exactly was she acting in the best interests of the country?

Indeed he is a fine chancellor, but there is something about him that just repels me. However I am happy for him to continue where he is, I may not like him, but a respect someone who knows what they are doing. Just so you know; I don't like Blair that much either.

Nor do I. :D

However I wouldn't tax big business, I would nationalise them.
You are not a small government supporter then :rolleyes:

Admittedly the Unions were getting too big for their boots in the early 80s, they brought down the Labour government in 1979. However this does not mean what Thatcher did was right. She antagonised the situation and left a great many people worse off. How exactly was she acting in the best interests of the country?
Perhaps it was not the right thing to do, but something had to be done. So it wasn't right, but may I say it was necessary.

Perhaps it was not the right thing to do, but something had to be done. So it wasn't right, but may I say it was necessary.

It was neccesary from a Thatcherite perspective. Something did have to be done, but perhaps the situation could have been resolved without the sacrifices Thatcher made on behalf of the working class. I'm not entirely sure what, maybe by restructuring the unions so they are less hierarchical and curbing the power of the leaders. Getting rid of the block vote and Labour conference was a start.

It was neccesary from a Thatcherite perspective. Something did have to be done, but perhaps the situation could have been resolved without the sacrifices Thatcher made on behalf of the working class. I'm not entirely sure what, maybe by restructuring the unions so they are less hierarchical and curbing the power of the leaders. Getting rid of the block vote and Labour conference was a start.
Would the unions have let Thatcher do it though? Could she have made the changes?

Would the unions have let Thatcher do it though? Could she have made the changes?

Thatcher? No way.
Labour? Perhaps, were it more united. The old problem of left-wing solidarity plagued it.

Well, we sort of agree. But still kudos to you, we're the same age. :D I just pray the elections kept to the May date since by then I'll be of voing age. :p

I'll never vote Tory because of Thatcher/Major etc. Hehe, Margaret Thatcher milk-snatcher is one of my history teachers favourite phrases. Plus it was because of reductions in the railways that my grandfather had to take early retirement so as to keep the younger workers in job. But the works were still closed down, sending the town into a recession that it is only just pulling itself out of. Furthermore, the current Tory policies could never work in reality. Howard wants to cut taxes and increase spending....o.O That doesn't work. If you want to increase spending you have to increase taxes. Furthermore, in one of their things countering Labour was an oxymoron...can't remember what it was at this moment in time and it was printed in, of all places, the Torygraph. Moreover I don't trust their policies towards education.

As for Blair he did actually apologise to the British public for misleading them over the Iraq war, however the national press only covered it very briefly. :mad: While the Lib dems... I have thought about voting for them but I'd need to know more about their current policies, until that happens it's Labour for me.


well at least we both cant stand the torys, and labour would get my vote if the lib dems and greens were all killed of in a horrific 'battle bus' crash. but luckily that wont happen.

It really disgusts me to see the conservatives in second place in this poll. They are evil people, people who should be brought out in front of the public and shot.

It really disgusts me to see the conservatives in second place in this poll. They are evil people, people who should be brought out in front of the public and shot.

And you call the conservatives evil? This sounds suspicously like a dictatorship style strategy.

I actually can not answer the poll as there is no appropriate option for ex-pats who are still British citizens, are old enough to vote, but no longer live in the UK and therefor, quite fairly, can not vote.

When I lived there I voted conservative, as the least bad of a bad bunch. Major was at least fairly harmless, (as well as gormless).

Major was about as harmless as Thatcher. He just put on a stupid face.

I shall vote, were I old enough, for a socialist party. New Labour are privatising the NHS and the schools and are even rumoured to cut tax (!!!???), and besides, the Daily Mail likes Gordon Brown's morality...if that isn't enough of a reason to not vote Labour I don't know what is.

The conservatives have no real agenda because Labour has gone further right. They will lose the next two elections just because they're old, bland, boring, rich and out of touch.

The Lib Dems, as the most leftwing party out of the lot, will get more votes but not enough to defeat Labour or affect the Labour/Tory balance. They're all talk and have no balls. They are my favourite out of the three, though. I just don't want to see Labour pushing forward this PFI bollocks.

I want to vote in a party that will raise taxes, be as uncooperative with Bush as possible, and re-confirm the welfare state, to mention but a few. RESPECT perhaps?

Personally, I don't intend to vote. In fact, my name isn't on the electoral register. Two bonuses to this - I can't vote even if you forced me to, and I can't get called up for jury duty. Woohoo!
If I were registered, and you forced me to vote, I'd go for either an Independent, Green or Monster Raving Loony (yep, we have one locally) Party candidate (probably the latter). That or spoil my ballot.

I actually can not answer the poll as there is no appropriate option for ex-pats who are still British citizens, are old enough to vote, but no longer live in the UK and therefor, quite fairly, can not vote.


Yeah you can. You can register by postal ballot. You just need to make sure you let your constituency officials know you'll be sending in an absentee ballot. That's what I'll be doing.

Oh, and I'm going to vote Lib Dem, since I loathe Blair and Howard has, in one of the few accurate statements Anne Widdecombe ever made, "something of the night about him." I still dislike much of the Lib Dems' policies but I dislike them less than any other party.

Vote Insanity - You know it makes sense!

http://www.omrlp.com/

Who will you be voting for?I find it difficult to decide. I feel something for Lib Dems (a major party in nearby parts and council elections) and would probably vote for them if just voting for a party, but I rather like my MP (ex-cabinet Labour who honourably stood down recently, which might give some clues as to my location) and so might be voting for him as an indivudal...

And you call the conservatives evil? This sounds suspicously like a dictatorship style strategy.

I actually can not answer the poll as there is no appropriate option for ex-pats who are still British citizens, are old enough to vote, but no longer live in the UK and therefor, quite fairly, can not vote.

When I lived there I voted conservative, as the least bad of a bad bunch. Major was at least fairly harmless, (as well as gormless).

They ruined Britain. They ruined peoples lives. Took away peoples homes. They were continually changing things so that they would have more chance of getting in.
They let people buy their council houses because people who owned their own house were more likely to vote tory. They tried to change voting boundaries so that they included more posh estates.
For rich people it was good, they don't need to rely on the nhs and state run schools. And when the interest rates went up it was alright for them, there earning more money. But then hard working people like my parents couldn't manage to pay their mortgage under the crazy rates and they had our house reposessed.

I think those are good enough reasons to shoot them all.

They ruined Britain. They ruined peoples lives. Took away peoples homes. They were continually changing things so that they would have more chance of getting in.
They let people buy their council houses because people who owned their own house were more likely to vote tory. They tried to change voting boundaries so that they included more posh estates.
For rich people it was good, they don't need to rely on the nhs and state run schools. And when the interest rates went up it was alright for them, there earning more money. But then hard working people like my parents couldn't manage to pay their mortgage under the crazy rates and they had our house reposessed.

I think those are good enough reasons to shoot them all.
the tories used the economy to thier political benefit: engineering two distinct recessions, and their subsequent boom thereafter to make voters feel that things were looking up under their rule.
they created a economic and social subclass through continued underfunding of public services - especially education and health. these problems are still around today, yet the tories hypocritically blame Labour for them. The GINI index of income inequality rose alarmingly during the years of tory rule. Thatcher blew up the Falkans conflict into a war to gain politically - to unite the country under a needless and underserving 'common enemy' - she used people's lives to further her political reign and power.
The engineered recession of 1992 spiralled out of their control and thousands of people lost their jobs, their businesses, their homes. Tax cuts helped only the rich, not the poor (hence the GINI index and the increased rich-poor divide). Their policy of 'trickle down' economics was a joke.
Thank god Labour seperated the government and the economy (to a fair extent) by giving the Bank Of England control of interest rates through the Monetary Policy Commitee. It should not be possible for the tories to repeat their reign of terror between 1979 and 1997, at least not all the economic aspects.

Despite this, why would we hand our contry over to these evil people again?