NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to the "10 Reasons to Lib Dem" thread

The Conservative Party (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=involved.action.page)

My own reasons for voting for them:

1) Michael Howard is an experienced politician with experience in one of the top Secretary of State jobs. He also had other ministerial positions. That alone makes him better than Charles Kennedy or the Lib Dems who haven't had someone in government for a very long time indeed.

2) They will protect the constitutional status quo from attack by left wing radicals. The House of Lords and the office of Lord Chancellor are ancient traditions and no party should be allowed to defile them. New Labour was incredibly arrogant to assume they could demolish them the first time and I don't want them to get anohter 5 years in which to damage the excellent institutions of the British government and political system.

3) Immigration is too big a problem and needs a cap. The Tories have promised to do this while still allowing UN refugees therefore balancing necessary immigration with national security. To do so is not racist (as the opponents may claim) - it is simply guarding our borders from unwanted visitors, something which it is our right to do. The immigration system is also unfit for Britain which I is why I like the Tory plan to introduce a border police force so that illegal aslyum seekers can be dealt with in a professional manner. People like that ricin bomber wouldn't get into the country if that was put into place.

4) Europe needs to be held at arms length. The EU offers us many economic benefits (such as freedom of labour, freedom of trade etc) and defence benefits but it is totally unacceptable for the EU to encroach on our national sovereignty and to presume that their laws come before our own. I want legislation that I have to adhere to being made in the House of Commons not by the unelected EU Commission and the Brussells Burecracy. Britain will put British people first and foremost - the EU will sideline us behind the French and the Germans.

5) A sensible attitude towards decentralisation. The Tories promise to get rid of the meaningless, tax consuming and unelected regional assemblies and let councils do the job properly as they have done for a very long time.

6) They orginally supported the war in Iraq, an excellent position to take. Saddam had to be dealt with.

7) They are going to review the ridiculous Human Rights Act and with any luck repeal it.

You forgot how much they value britain's relationship with the USA.

so that would be 8.

1) Michael Howard is a slimy little bastard of a man, who has absolutely no qualities I would associate with strong leadership.

2) Ancient traditions do not necessarily mean correct or fair traditions.

3) Introduce a border police force? Using what money? They want to lower taxes, no?

4) Rubbish. We're either EU or we're USA. I'd rather be European.

5) I find it hilarious that you're so obviously uneducated as to the jobs and elections held by the regional assemblies.

6) Rubbish.

7) More rubbish.

You forgot how much they value britain's relationship with the USA.

so that would be 8.

Having seen the effects of the current close relationship that Prime Minister and President share, it is doubtful that any PM will want to risk the poltical damage that apparent subservience to the US will bring. So hopefully the Tories will advocate a Britain for Britain policy for a while.

Having seen the effects of the current close relationship that Prime Minister and President share, it is doubtful that any PM will want to risk the poltical damage that apparent subservience to the US will bring. So hopefully the Tories will advocate a Britain for Britain policy for a while.

It's a plank in the tory platform though. I am glad you are finally seeing the light.

1) Michael Howard is a slimy little bastard of a man, who has absolutely no qualities I would associate with strong leadership.

2) Ancient traditions do not necessarily mean correct or fair traditions.

3) Introduce a border police force? Using what money? They want to lower taxes, no?

4) Rubbish. We're either EU or we're USA. I'd rather be European.

5) I find it hilarious that you're so obviously uneducated as to the jobs and elections held by the regional assemblies.

6) Rubbish.

7) More rubbish.

1) Please argue your points with a little more than flamebait so I can respond properly. He couldn't be any more greasier than Tony Blair or incredibly ludicrous like Charles Kennedy.

2) Maybe but oldest traditions have proved themselves ready to stand the strain. Fairness can rarely ever stand the pressure which is why so many people ditch it as a political cause as soon as they get the chance. That especially applies to socialists.

3) Lower the wastage on middle management that is currently going on while still maintaing the actual amount that goes to ground level employees. Labour is the party of Red: Red Tape that is.

4) Or we can be Britain. Lots of countries manage to be themselves without affliations to major power blocks. We can too. By the way, the term 'rubbish' isn't a good argument - all it shows is that you are too ignorant to think up a decent response.

5) They are unelected and they do nothing. They are a waste of money, time and effort. Councils on the other hand are elected and can managed local governance very efficiently has they have for many years.

6) Freeing countries from murderous dictators who gass thousands of their own subjects is rubbish is it? Thank God you weren't around at the beginning of the Second World War or we would never have gone to save Poland from the grip f another murderous dictator.

7) As you cant be bothered to devise an argument, I cant be bothered to reply to that. Go away and learn something.

1) Please argue your points with a little more than flamebait so I can respond properly. He couldn't be any more greasier than Tony Blair or incredibly ludicrous like Charles Kennedy.

2) Maybe but oldest traditions have proved themselves ready to stand the strain. Fairness can rarely ever stand the pressure which is why so many people ditch it as a political cause as soon as they get the chance. That especially applies to socialists.

3) Lower the wastage on middle management that is currently going on while still maintaing the actual amount that goes to ground level employees. Labour is the party of Red: Red Tape that is.

4) Or we can be Britain. Lots of countries manage to be themselves without affliations to major power blocks. We can too. By the way, the term 'rubbish' isn't a good argument - all it shows is that you are too ignorant to think up a decent response.

5) They are unelected and they do nothing. They are a waste of money, time and effort. Councils on the other hand are elected and can managed local governance very efficiently has they have for many years.

6) Freeing countries from murderous dictators who gass thousands of their own subjects is rubbish is it? Thank God you weren't around at the beginning of the Second World War or we would never have gone to save Poland from the grip f another murderous dictator.

7) As you cant be bothered to devise an argument, I cant be bothered to reply to that. Go away and learn something.

hear hear!

Very well.

1) Michael Howard is the man behind Section 28 and the Poll Tax. He is perhaps the most socially restrictive mainstream politician up for election. If he had his way, the Conservative Party would merge with the BNP. He is inconsistent in his views, changing from supporting the Iraq war to now playing on the dislike of Tony Blair's decision to go to war in order to earn some cheapshot votes. He is unable to answer a straight question, and his manifesto is hopelessly uncosted. He cannot afford his promises.

2) Removing the House of Lords is generally something I do not agree with.

3) Immigration quotas. Let's screw up the workface due to the exponential emmigration of Brits to other countries with better job prospects and higher wages. Low paid jobs simply aren't being filled by Brits anymore. We need cheap labour, and without a shitload of immigration we're going to fail economically. Also, Scotland's population is decreasing each year. We require a boost in the form of immigration to prevent us dying out.

4) Those nations which are not either EU or USA are quite simply insignificant. I'm sure you, in all your patriotic right-wing glory, wouldn't like that.

5) I don't know where you get your info from, but the Scottish Parliement, which I assume you are including as an assembly, is fully democratic, and Scottish MSPs are elected.

6) "Originally?" They changed their position quickly to win votes. What makes you think any of their promises are long term if they change so fast?

7) The Human Rights Act has flaws, yes, but all other major parties intend on reviewing it too.

And, some other reasons NOT to vote tory:

They want to charge people for certain operations on the NHS. If they had their way, it'd be scrapped.
Tax cuts for the rich. How unfair. I'm not Socialist, and I can really not see the benefit of this.
Playing on religion as American parties would - "back to basics", hah! The Tories are by far the most hypocritical party out there. Banning abortion?

Very well.

1) Michael Howard is the man behind Section 28 and the Poll Tax. He is perhaps the most socially restrictive mainstream politician up for election. If he had his way, the Conservative Party would merge with the BNP. He is inconsistent in his views, changing from supporting the Iraq war to now playing on the dislike of Tony Blair's decision to go to war in order to earn some cheapshot votes. He is unable to answer a straight question, and his manifesto is hopelessly uncosted. He cannot afford his promises.

2) Removing the House of Lords is generally something I do not agree with.

3) Immigration quotas. Let's screw up the workface due to the exponential emmigration of Brits to other countries with better job prospects and higher wages. Low paid jobs simply aren't being filled by Brits anymore. We need cheap labour, and without a shitload of immigration we're going to fail economically. Also, Scotland's population is decreasing each year. We require a boost in the form of immigration to prevent us dying out.

4) Those nations which are not either EU or USA are quite simply insignificant. I'm sure you, in all your patriotic right-wing glory, wouldn't like that.

5) I don't know where you get your info from, but the Scottish Parliement, which I assume you are including as an assembly, is fully democratic, and Scottish MSPs are elected.

6) "Originally?" They changed their position quickly to win votes. What makes you think any of their promises are long term if they change so fast?

7) The Human Rights Act has flaws, yes, but all other major parties intend on reviewing it too.

And, some other reasons NOT to vote tory:

They want to charge people for certain operations on the NHS. If they had their way, it'd be scrapped.
Tax cuts for the rich. How unfair. I'm not Socialist, and I can really not see the benefit of this.
Playing on religion as American parties would - "back to basics", hah! The Tories are by far the most hypocritical party out there. Banning abortion?

1) Just because we are right wing does not mean we are racist facists like the BNP. Perhaps if that is your assumption, I should assume all socialists are in fact closet Stalinists who wish to unleash waves of Terror and mass murder the peasantry?

2) Then we are in partial agreement here at least.

3) No ones (except the BNP) talking about banning immigration - merely restricting it in order to make security easier and too reduce the market becoming flooded with foreign workers.

4) Ever heard of China or the USSR? Or the fact that Britain is the fourth most poweful country in the world?

5) I am talking about regional assemblies such as the South West one.

6) They later opposed the war because of the way Labour has used its dody dossiers to dupe Parliament and the public into supporting a war. Had Blair stated his objective was the removal of a tyrant then no doubt people would still now support him. However he lied about WMDs and so the Tories had to withdraw their support.

7) The Tories are the only one who will abolish it as it deserves

They do not want to charge anyone for NHS operations- they are however offering some patients the chance to go private by paying half of the fees therefore giving people a choice. With Labour, its the below par NHS all the way.

Tax cuts for the rich? Does £500 cut from council tax for OAPs sound like tax cut for the rich? No.

4) Ever heard of China or the USSR? Or the fact that Britain is the fourth most poweful country in the world?


Now, as a UK citizen - for longer than you have been - that is just silly.

6) They later opposed the war because of the way Labour has used its dody dossiers to dupe Parliament and the public into supporting a war. Had Blair stated his objective was the removal of a tyrant then no doubt people would still now support him. However he lied about WMDs and so the Tories had to withdraw their support.

I wouldn't say he lied. It's just that the evidence presented to him was misleading, as was the evidence presented to George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac etc. They all believed the intelligence to be accurate. The problem with Blair is that after he believed the initial evidence, which seemed to be good, he decided to toss in everything but the kitchen sink, and piled on every bit of intelligence he could find.

Ah, and what is the Conservative Party's stance on the US?

I think the name "New British Glory" says it all, if you don't mind an ignorant Yank giving you his two pence. Seriously, nationalism is sooo last century.

I wouldn't mind the tories as much if they spent less time telling us what the other parties "will do" and more time telling us what their plans are in a straight factual way rather than making totally unnecessary comparisons. But then......I suppose all parties do that.

To be perfectly honest, there is absolutely no way I can believe that the tories can cut taxes and deliver on all of their spending increases without severely raising national debt. Although there is a lot of waste on bureaucracy, I doubt they can cut enough of it. Plus politicians from all parties have a habit of not living up to their policies (example from present government being a promise they made in 1997 and only delivered on this year)

1) Michael Howard is an experienced politician with experience in one of the top Secretary of State jobs. He also had other ministerial positions. That alone makes him better than Charles Kennedy or the Lib Dems who haven't had someone in government for a very long time indeed.

agreed - thats why i am torn between Labour and the Lib Dems. i know Labour can pull through with keeping a stable economy, whereas, while i can't see any major holes in the Lib Dem's economic plans, i'm not too sure about them.

2) They will protect the constitutional status quo from attack by left wing radicals. The House of Lords and the office of Lord Chancellor are ancient traditions and no party should be allowed to defile them. New Labour was incredibly arrogant to assume they could demolish them the first time and I don't want them to get anohter 5 years in which to damage the excellent institutions of the British government and political system.

Fundamentally disagree. i really, really don't care about tradition. frankly, i think it stands in the way of progress. "Yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions" - Dave Mustaine ;)
i think its time to modernise. while the current system may not have any major flaws, i do believe there are modern (and potentially efficient) systems available. time to update.

3) Immigration is too big a problem and needs a cap. The Tories have promised to do this while still allowing UN refugees therefore balancing necessary immigration with national security. To do so is not racist (as the opponents may claim) - it is simply guarding our borders from unwanted visitors, something which it is our right to do. The immigration system is also unfit for Britain which I is why I like the Tory plan to introduce a border police force so that illegal aslyum seekers can be dealt with in a professional manner. People like that ricin bomber wouldn't get into the country if that was put into place.
how can you say "immigration is a problem"? where's the evidence?
a Mori poll from Feburary (i think it was) asked the public what they thought was the percent of all the world's immigrants who came to the UK during last year. the average answer was 26%. the real figure is a little over 3%.
i think this is a non-issue which has been picked up on by the Tories (and some other parties, especially the one causing all the headlines, the BNP - though i am not suggesting collusion) to grab votes, to stir up a negative emotional response.

4) Europe needs to be held at arms length. The EU offers us many economic benefits (such as freedom of labour, freedom of trade etc) and defence benefits but it is totally unacceptable for the EU to encroach on our national sovereignty and to presume that their laws come before our own. I want legislation that I have to adhere to being made in the House of Commons not by the unelected EU Commission and the Brussells Burecracy. Britain will put British people first and foremost - the EU will sideline us behind the French and the Germans.
fundamentally disagree there again dude. Europe does not need to be "held at arms length", it needs to be embraced wholeheartedly, through further economic and, yes, political integration. for me, a Federal Europe would be a pretty sweet idea.
and you left out the directly elected European Parliament in your post. since the Amsterdam treaty in 2000 and Agenda 2000 the EU has been moving to shift power away from the EC, and to the (yup, directly elected) EP.


5) A sensible attitude towards decentralisation. The Tories promise to get rid of the meaningless, tax consuming and unelected regional assemblies and let councils do the job properly as they have done for a very long time.
this is an issue i don't know much about. while, in principle, i'm in favour of (some) nationalisation, i'm also in favour of some decentralisation of local government - the many different local bodies need to be merged for a start.


6) They orginally supported the war in Iraq, an excellent position to take. Saddam had to be dealt with.
hmmm... ok, i'm (for want of a better word) pleased with the outcome of the Iraq war (in the long term this will be better for Iraqies) i, being somewhat a pacifist, am not sure if the loss of life was worth it.

7) They are going to review the ridiculous Human Rights Act and with any luck repeal it.
ridiculous? a Human Rights act sounds like a good idea to me, in principle.



argue back at your leisure :)

1) Michael Howard is a slimy little bastard of a man, who has absolutely no qualities I would associate with strong leadership.

2) Ancient traditions do not necessarily mean correct or fair traditions.

3) Introduce a border police force? Using what money? They want to lower taxes, no?

4) Rubbish. We're either EU or we're USA. I'd rather be European.

5) I find it hilarious that you're so obviously uneducated as to the jobs and elections held by the regional assemblies.

6) Rubbish.

7) More rubbish.

I have had a ******* enough of you go ********** your ********* Tony Blair and then ****** him. and tell him it was from me.

and we all know flaming is bad don't we children.

1) Michael Howard is an experienced politician with experience in one of the top Secretary of State jobs. He also had other ministerial positions. That alone makes him better than Charles Kennedy or the Lib Dems who haven't had someone in government for a very long time indeed.

Not a valid reason if you happen to disagree with his policy proposals and agree with those of his opponents.


2) They will protect the constitutional status quo from attack by left wing radicals.

As someone whom you would probably call a left-wing radical, I see that as a very good reason not to vote Tory. ;) More seriously, Britain needs more social justice, and, with the Tories, will only get less of it.


4) Europe needs to be held at arms length. The EU offers us many economic benefits (such as freedom of labour, freedom of trade etc) and defence benefits but it is totally unacceptable for the EU to encroach on our national sovereignty and to presume that their laws come before our own.


STOP right there. When you join the EU, you accept the fact that EU law supersedes national law. If you can't agree to that, then don't ask for economic benefits.


6) They orginally supported the war in Iraq, an excellent position to take. Saddam had to be dealt with.


Another good reason not to vote Tory. And I think you'll find that an overwhelming majority of British citizens opposed the invasion of Iraq.


7) They are going to review the ridiculous Human Rights Act and with any luck repeal it.

And replace it with what? You need a Human Rights Act. Yes, you'll still have the European one, which you cannot repeal, but I'd be interested to hear why you want the Act repealing.

Michael Howard

1) Michael Howard is an experienced politician with experience in one of the top Secretary of State jobs. He also had other ministerial positions. That alone makes him better than Charles Kennedy or the Lib Dems who haven't had someone in government for a very long time indeed.

During his time as "one of the top [Secretaries] of State he allowed prisons to become overcrowded, resulting in prisoners escaping and rioting in 1995. There was pressure on him to resign, until he shifted the blame to Derek Lewis. This is your "experienced" politician.

House of Lords

2) They will protect the constitutional status quo from attack by left wing radicals. The House of Lords and the office of Lord Chancellor are ancient traditions and no party should be allowed to defile them. New Labour was incredibly arrogant to assume they could demolish them the first time and I don't want them to get anohter 5 years in which to damage the excellent institutions of the British government and political system.

I think you'll find your party voted for the New Labour abolition of all by 92 of the hereditary peers and is now pushing for a fully elected chamber along with the Liberal Democrats. New Labour is the only major party who doesn't want this, preferring an appointed chamber for obvious reasons. Simply because something is "ancient" does not mean it should still have power, especially if it is unelected, unaccountable and elitist. By this theory we shouldn't be having an election, the Queen would still run the country and we would be getting ready for King Charles III to rule. The House of Lords is traditionally conservative and still doimined by the Tory party, so why should it unfairly blocked more Labour bills than Conservative bills? Especially when those bills were in the manifesto voted for by the British public (Fox Hunted, House of Lords reform - yes Labour has a mandate there).

Maybe but oldest traditions have proved themselves ready to stand the strain. Fairness can rarely ever stand the pressure which is why so many people ditch it as a political cause as soon as they get the chance. That especially applies to socialists.

The House of Lords is not fair. It historically always blocked more bills that a Labour government attempted to pass than a Conservative government. Hardly a fair check on government. It blocked (as I mentioned above) bills which were part of the government's mandate, meaning the British people actually voted on it and said 'yes' - yet the House of Lords blocks the will of the British people.

Immigration

3) Immigration is too big a problem and needs a cap. The Tories have promised to do this while still allowing UN refugees therefore balancing necessary immigration with national security. To do so is not racist (as the opponents may claim) - it is simply guarding our borders from unwanted visitors, something which it is our right to do. The immigration system is also unfit for Britain which I is why I like the Tory plan to introduce a border police force so that illegal aslyum seekers can be dealt with in a professional manner. People like that ricin bomber wouldn't get into the country if that was put into place.

How will this border police force be paid for? Don't lump asylum in with immigration, asylum seekers are escaping from tyranny (the sort of tyrnanny you support the abloition of in Iraq), and deserve somewhere to live. Neevrmind the UK takes less than its fair share of asylum seekers anyway. Why do you assume all terrorists are immigrants and all immigrants are terrorists? Next you'll claim Id cards will also help. Don't be fooled by the right wing tabloids into beliving there will be a "flood" of immigrants. Ironically your own leader is a second generation immigrant, so under your policies he probably wouldn't be living here.

No ones (except the BNP) talking about banning immigration - merely restricting it in order to make security easier and too reduce the market becoming flooded with foreign workers.

Interestingly it is only the non-white immigrants which are targetted, those from the Dominions are allowed in without a problem. Also the economy needs this foriegn labour, there is a shortage in manual workers both skilled and unskilled (hence why it costs so much for a plumber).

Europe

4) Europe needs to be held at arms length. The EU offers us many economic benefits (such as freedom of labour, freedom of trade etc) and defence benefits but it is totally unacceptable for the EU to encroach on our national sovereignty and to presume that their laws come before our own. I want legislation that I have to adhere to being made in the House of Commons not by the unelected EU Commission and the Brussells Burecracy. Britain will put British people first and foremost - the EU will sideline us behind the French and the Germans.

Britain can opt of of any EU law it wishes, as part of its own national veto, so the EU cannot encroach without the governments OK. So the legislation is passed through the elected Commons (so now you want democracy and laws passed by an elected body, when you argue for the House of Lords which is unelected and able to block legislation). In the modern world there is either the Us or the EU to allign with, and Britain will have more influence in the EU. If you wonder why France and Germany dominate in the EU perhaps it is because the UK does little within it and focuses on the US, siding with the other camp.

Ever heard of China or the USSR? Or the fact that Britain is the fourth most poweful country in the world?

The USSR collapsed. China is bigger than Britain, bigger than Europe. Big countries can be lone superpowers, hence the US. Britain is only the fourth most powerful becuase of its ties with the EU and the US, without them it wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful. Espceially when tis economy collapses due to a shortage of manual workers.

Or we can be Britain. Lots of countries manage to be themselves without affliations to major power blocks. We can too. By the way, the term 'rubbish' isn't a good argument - all it shows is that you are too ignorant to think up a decent response.

Britain is a tiny island with delusions of Imperial granduer. Without being affiliated to a power bloc, we would have absolutely no influence. So the US would go into wars, the EU would stand up against them and Britain would be ignored as it's world status declined more rapidly than ever. In world politics bigger is always better.

Decentralisation

5) A sensible attitude towards decentralisation. The Tories promise to get rid of the meaningless, tax consuming and unelected regional assemblies and let councils do the job properly as they have done for a very long time.

Which "unelected" regional assmeblies do you mean? I can think of one "meaningless, tax consuming and unelected" national assmebly, but no regional ones. Unless you think the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assmebly are unelected...

They are unelected and they do nothing. They are a waste of money, time and effort. Councils on the other hand are elected and can managed local governance very efficiently has they have for many years.

So here you would rather see an elected body make decisions, not an unelected? Make your mind up.

I am talking about regional assemblies such as the South West one.

The South West Regional Assembly is a partnership of councillors from all local authorities in the region

Last I checked councillors were elected.

Iraq

6) They orginally supported the war in Iraq, an excellent position to take. Saddam had to be dealt with.

So why did your party shift to an anti-war stance?

Freeing countries from murderous dictators who gass [sic] thousands of their own subjects is rubbish is it? Thank God you weren't around at the beginning of the Second World War or we would never have gone to save Poland from the grip f [sic] another murderous dictator.

Please don't play the WW2 card, its almost as low as the race card. There are many differences. Our "special" ally never put Hitler in place, only to go to war when he stopped doing as he was told. We also never left him for ten years, only to attack again when we wanted his raw resources (explain teh timing). We also never lied to the British people about why we went to war with Hitler. Saddam isn't the only "murderous" dictator in the world, yet he was chosen for an attack. What about Zimbabwe? Sudan? Congo? North Korea? Oh right, these countries don't have an abundance of oil...

They later opposed the war because of the way Labour has used its dody dossiers to dupe Parliament and the public into supporting a war. Had Blair stated his objective was the removal of a tyrant then no doubt people would still now support him. However he lied about WMDs and so the Tories had to withdraw their support.

That's precisely why every other party which is anti-war is so, so the Tory party is not unique there. Its just the other parties were always skeptical, and saw through the propaganda. The Tories jumped on the bandwagon, depserate to win votes.

Human Rights Act

7) They are going to review the ridiculous Human Rights Act and with any luck repeal it.

You are proud that repealling human rights is a good election point? Human rights are what seperates us from the likes of Saddam Hussein, so repealing human rights should not be something to be proud of.

NHS

They do not want to charge anyone for NHS operations- they are however offering some patients the chance to go private by paying half of the fees therefore giving people a choice. With Labour, its the below par NHS all the way.

People seldom have a choice when it come to healthcare. If you have a heart attack do they ask you if you want to go the hopstial five minutes away, or an hour away? Paying half the private fees will create a two tier system where only the rich can afford to live, while the NHS is underfunded (with government money going into private hospitals). Profit should not factor in healthcare.

Tax cuts/Spending plans

These don't add up.
£12bn cut in "waste". £8bn spent to "cut government borrowing". £4bn in tax cuts. This is alright so far, as we can see:
£8bn + £4bn = £12bn

But then we also have increased spending:
£1.4bn on police
£1.2bn on transport
£2.7bn on defense
£6.3bn on education
£18.6bn on health
£18.6bn + £6.3bn + £2.7bn + £1.2bn + £1.4bn = £30.2 bn

That's an extra £30.6bn spent by 2008. They have promised to stick to Labour's spending plans in 2005. Then in 2006 they are spending the £12bn on tax cuts and reduced borrowing, so assuming the tax cuts are permenant, that's £8bn a year, from 2007. That's only £16bn, £14bn short. Even if their tax cuts are only for one year, its still only £24bn, £6bn short. Where will the money come from?

The House of Lords is not fair. It historically always blocked more bills that a Labour government attempted to pass than a Conservative government. Hardly a fair check on government. It blocked (as I mentioned above) bills which were part of the government's mandate, meaning the British people actually voted on it and said 'yes' - yet the House of Lords blocks the will of the British people.

While I personally disagree with the idea of the aristocracy possessing some outlet of power, I must say that the above statement is a vast oversimplification.

You are talking here about mandate theory, correct?
The fact that the Labour party is the elected government with a majority of seats in parliament and therefore possesses the mandate to implement its party election manifesto.

I would dispute that the Labour party has the mandate of the people simply because the electoral 'first past the post' system is unrepresentative. In 2001, Labour mustered 41% of those who voted to their side while at the same time managed to win over 60% of the seats in parliament, not really representative now is it? In addition, that 41% is not out of the country as a whole but merely out of an electoral turnout below 50%, Labour scored approximately just over 20% of the country.

I would hardly call that representative of the people.

Reasons to vote Torry.

1. Brain tumor. Well it's not so much a reason as an excuse.

2. Blair's a complete burk. Once again not so much a reason as an excuse.

3. You really hate and fear anything across the English Channel.

4. Euros make you break out in a cold sweat.

5. Must Stop Devloution!

In this election, of the three major parties, we have the choice between a vampire (Howard), a zealot (Blair) and someone with no experience of government (Kennedy).

Still, it seems a little better than the American election where the choice was between a moron and a zombie...

I wonder why our political systems are the envy of the oppressed?

While I personally disagree with the idea of the aristocracy possessing some outlet of power, I must say that the above statement is a vast oversimplification.

You are talking here about mandate theory, correct?
The fact that the Labour party is the elected government with a majority of seats in parliament and therefore possesses the mandate to implement its party election manifesto.

I would dispute that the Labour party has the mandate of the people simply because the electoral 'first past the post' system is unrepresentative. In 2001, Labour mustered 41% of those who voted to their side while at the same time managed to win over 60% of the seats in parliament, not really representative now is it? In addition, that 41% is not out of the country as a whole but merely out of an electoral turnout below 50%, Labour scored approximately just over 20% of the country.

I would hardly call that representative of the people.

I don't disagree that the current system in unfair, but it is still more representative of the will of the people than the House of Lords. In additon I was using Thatcherite arguements against the Conservatives, since that is all they seem to understand (she repeatedly claimed a mandate during her time in office). When the nation was asked, the nation chose Labour (in a manner of speaking, nevermind that many of them who could vote didn't), and I would rather trust the pseduo-elected body to decide of legislature than a house whose membershi is deciding by who your father is. I would call the majority government more representative of the people than the House of Lords! Thus Labour can a pseudo-mandate, since it won the election.

As an aside I would much prefer a PR national system and an elected House of Lords, using Party List system and positive discrimination (becuase it is so unequal right now), but that's another arguement.

In this election, of the three major parties, we have the choice between a vampire (Howard), a zealot (Blair) and someone with no experience of government (Kennedy).

Still, it seems a little better than the American election where the choice was between a moron and a zombie...

I wonder why our political systems are the envy of the oppressed?

It's not even that. It's Blair (and Brown soon after), or Howard. Voting Lib Dem in a Labour marginal will help Mr Howard into power. I would rather see a Labour government than a Conservative government.

Britains political system is behind most of the world, I suppose that's the misfortune of being one of the first democracies in a country afraid of change...

I don't disagree that the current system in unfair, but it is still more representative of the will of the people than the House of Lords. In additon I was using Thatcherite arguements against the Conservatives, since that is all they seem to understand (she repeatedly claimed a mandate during her time in office). When the nation was asked, the nation chose Labour (in a manner of speaking, nevermind that many of them who could vote didn't), and I would rather trust the pseduo-elected body to decide of legislature than a house whose membershi is deciding by who your father is. I would call the majority government more representative of the people than the House of Lords! Thus Labour can a pseudo-mandate, since it won the election.

As an aside I would much prefer a PR national system and an elected House of Lords, using Party List system and positive discrimination (becuase it is so unequal right now), but that's another arguement.

You should realise that of the 693 members of the House of Lords, over 70 are in fact selected on the basis of hereditary lineage and they are composed predominantly of Conservative party members.

Most HoL members are Life Peers, they are selected on the basis of their service to society in the past, mostly as judges, lawyers and former politicians. (Which is why they are predominantly over 40 years old).

I believe that the second chamber of government should not be selected on the basis of hereditary, tradition or election. I believe personally it should be technocratic, the most intelligent people should safeguard our democracy by seeing the flaws that politicians too blinded by their desire to keep their job cannot. I believe the current selection via meritocratic means is a step in the right direction at least...

It's not even that. It's Blair (and Brown soon after), or Howard. Voting Lib Dem in a Labour marginal will help Mr Howard into power. I would rather see a Labour government than a Conservative government.

I seriously doubt that a Liberal vote in a Labour marginal will help Mr Howard into power. The Labour party has such a massive majority that it simply would not effect the required number of seats to bring the Conservatives into power. In fact, it is most likely to bring about a Labour government with a small majority which is far more desirable...

Britains political system is behind most of the world, I suppose that's the misfortune of being one of the first democracies in a country afraid of change...

I feel your pain.

You should realise that of the 693 members of the House of Lords, over 70 are in fact selected on the basis of hereditary lineage and they are composed predominantly of Conservative party members.

Actually there are 92 hereditary peers, not 70. The Conservative majority spreads across the entire chamber, plus the independents vote in the Tory way 2/3 of the time.

Most HoL members are Life Peers, they are selected on the basis of their service to society in the past, mostly as judges, lawyers and former politicians. (Which is why they are predominantly over 40 years old).

That's the theory. In practice Mr Blair chooses who goes into the HoL. This means he will choose those loyal to him, for obvious reasons. Thus you then have a Blairite bias in the house. They should be in there to provide experience (and Baroness Thatcher is, and Lord Callaghan was) but this is not always the case. I theory MPs should vote the way their constituency wants them to, but don't...

I believe that the second chamber of government should not be selected on the basis of hereditary, tradition or election. I believe personally it should be technocratic, the most intelligent people should safeguard our democracy by seeing the flaws that politicians too blinded by their desire to keep their job cannot. I believe the current selection via meritocratic means is a step in the right direction at least...

How would they be selected? An independent commision? Who would select the independent commision? Etc..These are the questions being asked in the debate over Second Chamber reform. If they are selected there is no accountablity. If they are elected there is no expertise. Lord Wakeman tried, and failed, to reach a compromise in 2001. Now it is looking like it will be partially elected, as that is what many leading MPs want (crucially including Brown). The current system is no meritocratic, it is cronycratic due to PM patronage.

I seriously doubt that a Liberal vote in a Labour marginal will help Mr Howard into power. The Labour party has such a massive majority that it simply would not effect the required number of seats to bring the Conservatives into power. In fact, it is most likely to bring about a Labour government with a small majority which is far more desirable...

Ahh, that's what everyone thinks. Until they wake up on May 6th to the new PM, Michael Howard. The polls show that Labour and the Tories are close. Lib Dem votes will detract from Labour. Lib Dems votes are best used where it is a Tory-Lib Dem seat, or in the "decapitation" marginals. Don't forget many Labour seats have slim majorities, so even a few votes lost to the Lib Dems and a few gained by the Tories will mean another Tory MP in the Commons. With the massive loss of support in Labour, the Tories will win seats anyway. It is better to ensure we don't get another Tory government then work on changing Labour from within (through the unions, rebel MPs etc.).

Ahh, that's what everyone thinks. Until they wake up on May 6th to the new PM, Michael Howard. The polls show that Labour and the Tories are close. Lib Dem votes will detract from Labour. Lib Dems votes are best used where it is a Tory-Lib Dem seat, or in the "decapitation" marginals. Don't forget many Labour seats have slim majorities, so even a few votes lost to the Lib Dems and a few gained by the Tories will mean another Tory MP in the Commons. With the massive loss of support in Labour, the Tories will win seats anyway. It is better to ensure we don't get another Tory government then work on changing Labour from within (through the unions, rebel MPs etc.).

You forget the FPTP system again. True, polls show the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, and it is quite possible the Conservatives will get more votes than Labour at the election.
Unfortunately, a Labour win is still inevitable since Labour constituencies tend to be poor, depopulated and numerous. It is no good for the Conservatives to poll loads of votes and yet have these votes situated in only a few constituencies....
The Conservatives suffer from vote concentration.

You forget the FPTP system again. True, polls show the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, and it is quite possible the Conservatives will get more votes than Labour at the election.
Unfortunately, a Labour win is still inevitable since Labour constituencies tend to be poor, depopulated and numerous. It is no good for the Conservatives to poll loads of votes and yet have these votes situated in only a few constituencies....
The Conservatives suffer from vote concentration.

It is precisely becuase of FPTP that a Tory win is so possible. In those marginals the Tories could get more votes than Labour, becuase of the Lib Dem aspect. This is especially true if turnout is low. (e.g. In Dorset South it is only a 153 Labour majority, that's only 154 lost votes which will add another Tory MP and bring Howard closer to power). If we were in a PR system I would have no problem with people voting Lib Dem, becuase the polls show Labour is ahead and this would be reflected. But the FPTP system means we have this extra element of considering constituencies, and generally Lib Dem votes will aid the Tories more than they hurt Labour.

work on changing Labour from within (through the unions, rebel MPs etc.).

Fortunately that's already started to an extent with the removal of David Blunkett a while back.

Thanks for reminding me that I'd rather be skinned alive and roll around in salt than vote Tory.

4) Ever heard of China or the USSR? Or the fact that Britain is the fourth most poweful country in the world?

Wake-up call: The USSR hasn't existed for 14 years. Britain is a blip on the international screen and can quite easily be ignored by the other powers if they see fit. India, China, the USA, Brazil and Japan can easily eclipse Britain in power. The empire is dead. Britain is no longer a world power and never will be again unless it joins up with the EU.