The 'org Election Special Thread

[the_lone_wolf]

So...

It's upon us, tomorrow we get to have our quincennial say in what band of gob****es ignore us for the next five years

Who are you voting for any why?

Is anyone brave enough to call the result?

I'm going with a Tory minority government, swiftly followed by some back handed deals between Lab and Lib to keep the "toffs" out of power

Place Bets NOW!!!

[BigBaddad]

I'm going for handing all power to Europe or the Yanks.....oh hang on, we already have.

[the_lone_wolf]

Always nice to see a UKIP voter in the wild...

;)

[Biker Biggles]

Tory majority of 20--30 seats.
And a double dip economy wise.

[davepreston]

tory win, tory /lib dem goverment cos of hung parliment
ive got a fiver on it
ps voting lib dem

[Bluepete]

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2010/cameron-common-people-p1.php

Pete ;)

[Specialone]

Good vid Pete, but where has the producer of that film been ??
He thinks that the present government has done a good job ??
The facts are if the tories win, they will be taking over the reigns of a country in a worse state than when they were last in power, labour took over a country and economy in a relatively good state.

[the_lone_wolf]

Good vid Pete, but where has the producer of that film been ??The same place where Labour know their credibility is through the floor and the only way they might stay in power is if they can call the Tory party a bunch of snobs and toffs, scaremongering people into voting elsewhere

[TazDaz]

France will take control of the mainland and turn it into a prison....


...to be honest I'm not convinced by any of the parties manifestos. None of them seem to tick all the boxes for me, and I'm actually tempted to abstain from voting rather than simply choose the least 'bad'.

[Luckypants]

If you don't vote, don't moan when the country is not run how you want it to be. Not voting is a complete cop out!

No one party is going to tick all your boxes, so you have to compromise and go with those with whom you have most in common. Be positive about it, vote for the person who you think will be a good MP for you, taking into considerations their party's policies. It is not a case of least bad, but of the best of the candidates.

[Warthog]

I am voting Lib Dems as I think there needs to be electoral reform and neither of the two big parties are going to do it without being forced. I predict a minority Tory government however.

[TazDaz]

If you don't vote, don't moan when the country is not run how you want it to be. Not voting is a complete cop out!


I love this can of worms.

Your whole statement is laughable.

Please do tell how me voting for a candidate who's party will not run things to my liking will give me the right to complain? Surely I have voted for them therefore I shouldn't complain because I effectively put them into power?

[mister c]

I hate politics, cant stand polititians, they are only in it for what they can get, but have to vote I suppose.
Think I will vote Lib Dems because I dont like Cameron (smarmy git) & I think that Brown is a Bigot that inhales wierdly lol.

[Warthog]

Please do tell how me voting for a candidate who's party will not run things to my liking will give me the right to complain? Surely I have voted for them therefore I shouldn't complain because I effectively put them into power?

No, if you vote for a different party to the one who wins! i.e. if the party who gets elected runs things badly, if you didn't vote to stop them then you can't complain. He doesn't mean if you vote in the current party to have a right to complain to them.

[Bluefish]

I'm voteing for, none of the above lol, is being a smarmy git a pre- requisite for the job?

[the_lone_wolf]

I'm voteing for, none of the above lol, is being a smarmy git a pre- requisite for the job?

It doesn't have to be, but unfortunately it seems this time round, yes

[Noble Ox]

Cameron's a Villa fan. Scored my vote for that reason alone...

[ThEGr33k]

If you arnt going to vote at least go and just spoil your voting ballet. It gets counted and in a sense you have had your say...

Good vid Pete, but where has the producer of that film been ??
He thinks that the present government has done a good job ??
The facts are if the tories win, they will be taking over the reigns of a country in a worse state than when they were last in power, labour took over a country and economy in a relatively good state.


Indeed. Labour pretended to be increasing the economy by allowing silly personal lending (people spending beyond their means looks good for the economy apparently) allow silly lending by the banks, spend money we didnt have to give people public jobs that we dont need, increasing benefits for the people who dont deserve them, giving more power to the EU, taxing fuel to the extreme...

Labour has crippled this country and its only really come to the fore because of the banking crisis sadly.

[Bri w]

I think there is nothing wrong with not voting if its because no party gets anywhere near waht you want.

Can't be bothered is a different thing IMO.

I'm voting LibDem but a little concerned that Nick Clegg wouldn't say who'd he would side with in a Coalition Govt - concerned a vote for LibDem would be a backhanded vote for more years of Labour waste.

[Luckypants]

I love this can of worms.

Your whole statement is laughable.

Please do tell how me voting for a candidate who's party will not run things to my liking will give me the right to complain? Surely I have voted for them therefore I shouldn't complain because I effectively put them into power?

Seeing as you only selectively quote me, perhaps my whole statement is not laughable?

Not voting at all, means (to me at least) that you can't complain about how the country is being run - because you did not take your chance to have a say in who should be running the country.

Now if you vote for someone and they do not keep their election promises then complain all you like. If you vote for someone and their policies turn out to be a pile of poo then really you have no grounds for complaint, you got what you voted for. You can still grumble about the fact that it's rubbish if you want :D. If you vote for someone but they do not get in, then you can complain long and loud about cockups from the one who did get in.

Not voting is allowing the status quo to continue and will perpetuate government by those who have the support of only a minority of people in the country. It means you cba to make a decision on who to support. As I previously stated, no one party will meet the expectations of the usual voter. Apparently my views are 50% LD and 25% UKIP plus a smattering of other parties - go square that given LD and UKIP views on immigration and EU membership. So in a genuine contest I'll be voting for the party whose policies most closely match my own agenda and that is the Lib-Dems.

So although the 'don't vote, don't complain' is a nice glib phrase, for me it underlines the more serious message that we need to vote if we want to have a say in how the country is run.

[Ed]

If in doubt, vote Conservative:D

[Bri w]

If in doubt, vote Conservative:D

TOFF:tongue:

[TazDaz]

Seeing as you only selectively quote me, perhaps my whole statement is not laughable?

Not voting at all, means (to me at least) that you can't complain about how the country is being run - because you did not take your chance to have a say in who should be running the country.

Now if you vote for someone and they do not keep their election promises then complain all you like. If you vote for someone and their policies turn out to be a pile of poo then really you have no grounds for complaint, you got what you voted for. You can still grumble about the fact that it's rubbish if you want :D. If you vote for someone but they do not get in, then you can complain long and loud about cockups from the one who did get in.

Not voting is allowing the status quo to continue and will perpetuate government by those who have the support of only a minority of people in the country. It means you cba to make a decision on who to support. As I previously stated, no one party will meet the expectations of the usual voter. Apparently my views are 50% LD and 25% UKIP plus a smattering of other parties - go square that given LD and UKIP views on immigration and EU membership. So in a genuine contest I'll be voting for the party whose policies most closely match my own agenda and that is the Lib-Dems.

So although the 'don't vote, don't complain' is a nice glib phrase, for me it underlines the more serious message that we need to vote if we want to have a say in how the country is run.

Well you certainly have a good point now you've fleshed it out. I probably just jumped the gun a bit as this topic has come up a few times over the past couple of weeks down the pub, and when asked I've simply said I still don't have a party I like enough to vote them in - to which I get responses basically saying that if I don't vote, I can't discuss politics at any level (effectively: shut up :mad:).

My general argument is by abstaining I believe I have the same right to complain than if I voted for someone else, but only if I don't like any of the candidates for my area. I'd much rather abstain than vote unjustifiably just for the sake of it which could possibly put someone into power when I deep down didn't really want them to be in that position - if this makes any sense at all.

I'm just disapointed that there isn't a "none of the above" box, but I guess marking your card works for that.

I think I genuinely don't believe any of the manifestos which is making it hard for me to choose. For example the Lib Dems claim that under their government we won't have to pay income tax on the first £10k of earnings...yet the country is in a serious amount of debt. How does this help things, and will it actually happen? I doubt it.

[AndyBrad]

im thinking that we need someone whos going to resolve all our financial issues while bringing the country forward. so im voting bnp.......







:)

[the_lone_wolf]

im thinking that we need someone whos going to resolve all our financial issues while bringing the country forward. so im voting bnp.......

The problem with the BNP is that most of the candidates look like they've only recently been released from prison


I know, I know, not all of them...


Some of them really have only just been released from prison...

;)

[ranathari]

This is an excellent article that you should read if you're thinking of voting Conservative. Despite Cameron's shiny new exterior, most of the party is still full of horribly bigoted people who want to screw the poor and vulnerable over.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-welcome-to-cameron-land-1962318.html

[Warthog]

For example the Lib Dems claim that under their government we won't have to pay income tax on the first £10k of earnings...yet the country is in a serious amount of debt. How does this help things, and will it actually happen? I doubt it.

I hope they do do this. The massive problem in this lazy society that Labour created is that it is more lucrative to be on benefits than to work at a low-paid job. Removing the tax on the first £10K earnt would encourage many more people to work rather than lounge around on benefits, it would reduce the cost to the government of paying out benefits, it would reduce crime and the cost to the Police force for people not in work resorting to crime, working increases overall happiness and gives people a sense of worth, it would just be better in so many ways for our society as a whole. How the lib dems intend to pay for this is set out in their manifesto, and is written by Vince Cable who has a PhD in Economics who really should know what he is on about!

[Owenski]

To me labour always used to mean they stood up for the working man.
However more accuratly what happend was this was just some schpeil they spewed in order to make the minors and labourers vote Labour. The perspective towards the blue collor toffs in the conservative party was that they were the ones who caused the pits to close etc and this provided Labour with the propaganda they needed to swing voters in thier favour.
(i only learned all this recently so sorry to anyone whos reading it thinking "well der!!"

Anyway, following on from them winning through, Labour have bled the state dry by chucking money at those who cant afford to repay it. They've allowed for spending where its not essential and in turn reduced the ways that money is getting replenished. So its made worse the situation they were suposed to be fixing to begin with.
Under labour the poor get wealthier, true! but under labour the state became Bankrupt and that fecked us all.
Want my honest opinion, you vote labour and your a fool. You're showing you support the way things are currerntly run. Im not suggesting the other parties will do a better job or will be able to fix the mess we're in but to show your support to the ones who've sunk what was the greatest ship on the planet would be a display of your lack of British pride.

OMG LOL IM UKIP!
Im not but reading that back it sounds very Killroy!

[the_lone_wolf]

To me labour always used to mean they stood up for the working man.
However more accuratly what happend was this was just some schpeil they spewed in order to make the minors and labourers vote Labour.

Minors aren't allowed to vote...

;)

[Bri w]

I think I genuinely don't believe any of the manifestos which is making it hard for me to choose. For example the Lib Dems claim that under their government we won't have to pay income tax on the first £10k of earnings...yet the country is in a serious amount of debt. How does this help things, and will it actually happen? I doubt it.

LibDem's are going to raise taxes on the top x% of earners, in effect balancing the books that way.

There's nowt wrong with abstaining, and I can't see why you can't join in a debate. Your opinion is as valid as the next man or woman. Apathy, i.e. not bothering to vote is something else.

And I also agree with tactical voting (I would seeing as thats what I'm doing). Where I live Labour have a 10k majority over LibDem and 18k majority over the Cons. I don't want Labour but feel that in a rabid red area a vote for the blues would be wasted. The local Labour candidate is not popular and there is a good possibility of LibDems winning - everyone I've spoken to has said LibDem.

[Owenski]

Minors aren't allowed to vote...

;)

lol, genius! but you know what I meant.

BNP would have their 5yr olds vote if they could spell "X"

[Noble Ox]

One thing I find very amusing is the fact that the Conservatives initial slogan was: Vote for change!

The advert worked; loads of people started voting for Lib-dem, instead of Labour.

[Owenski]

something else to add, maybe to jog a few memories but a local labour mp is this nutter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lWABGwFJn0

If I'm honest its not suprising considering the population withing the constituancy he represents, even less suprising that the next constituancy over is one of the few BNP holds.

[Triv650]

I think a lot of people will make up their minds in the polling booth in this election. Should be a close one and I'm hoping for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition but expecting a hung parliament.

[Owenski]

i spose most people will be thinking, vote labour or get a job... hmmm toughy.

[tigersaw]

Take 10 minutes to complete http://www.votematch.org.uk/2010/
I was surprised which party I was most aligned with

[the_lone_wolf]

Take 10 minutes to complete http://www.votematch.org.uk/2010/
I was surprised which party I was most aligned with

Me too, but when I looked at their policies they mostly made sense

If their political raison d'etre wasn't so fruit loops I might even have voted for them...

[G]

Is anyone brave enough to call the result?

I'm going with a Tory minority government, swiftly followed by some back handed deals between Lab and Lib to keep the "toffs" out of power

Place Bets NOW!!!

I sadly think the same, complete joke if that is the case.

[the_lone_wolf]

For even greater laughs, set the vote share to one third for each of the big three and see how many seats each party wins:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

Hmm, fiddling the constituency boundaries much?

:rolleyes:

[ranathari]

Which is why we need to ditch FPTP and get PR.

No government in the last few decades has had more than a third of the vote yet somehow that gives them the right to decide policy affecting the entire country. If you believe in democracy, you have to support PR.

Ironically we almost had PR in 1917 but it got dumped after the Lords and the Commons couldn't decide between AV and STV. Imagine how different things could have been - we would never have had a Tory government if PR went through back then.

[G]

Seeing as you only selectively quote me, perhaps my whole statement is not laughable?

Not voting at all, means (to me at least) that you can't complain about how the country is being run - because you did not take your chance to have a say in who should be running the country.

Now if you vote for someone and they do not keep their election promises then complain all you like. If you vote for someone and their policies turn out to be a pile of poo then really you have no grounds for complaint, you got what you voted for. You can still grumble about the fact that it's rubbish if you want :D. If you vote for someone but they do not get in, then you can complain long and loud about cockups from the one who did get in.

Not voting is allowing the status quo to continue and will perpetuate government by those who have the support of only a minority of people in the country. It means you cba to make a decision on who to support. As I previously stated, no one party will meet the expectations of the usual voter. Apparently my views are 50% LD and 25% UKIP plus a smattering of other parties - go square that given LD and UKIP views on immigration and EU membership. So in a genuine contest I'll be voting for the party whose policies most closely match my own agenda and that is the Lib-Dems.

So although the 'don't vote, don't complain' is a nice glib phrase, for me it underlines the more serious message that we need to vote if we want to have a say in how the country is run.

It was probably your statements in the past that have made me actually be bothered to vote tomorrow morning for the first time in my life.

I'll be there, at the local primary school at 7am.

[Luckypants]

It was probably your statements in the past that have made me actually be bothered to vote tomorrow morning for the first time in my life.

I'll be there, at the local primary school at 7am.

If that's the case, I'm flattered. Good for you voting, feels good and will make a difference.

[Sid Squid]

This is an excellent article that you should read if you're thinking of voting Conservative. Despite Cameron's shiny new exterior, most of the party is still full of horribly bigoted people who want to screw the poor and vulnerable over.
Yawn... Zzzzzz...

Oh my! The Eeeevil tories want to drown my puppy!

Wake up.

The poor and vulnerable no longer require screwing - 13 years of self interested, self serving, vote buying, authoritarian 'socialism' has made a damn fine job of that already.

[Biker Biggles]

Time to let the self serving vote buying authoritarian tories back in to carry on the traditions of all our leaders then?

[ranathari]

Yawn... Zzzzzz...

Oh my! The Eeeevil tories want to drown my puppy!

Wake up.

The poor and vulnerable no longer require screwing - 13 years of self interested, self serving, vote buying, authoritarian 'socialism' has made a damn fine job of that already.

Sure, you go and vote for a party that will happily let the rich get richer by actively cutting the legs out from under the most vulnerable members of society. I'll retain my humanity by not being a bigoted old sod who buys into a ridiculously distorted and sad view of the world.

If you honestly think New Labour is socialism then you're a fool. New Labour and the last 13 years has been little more than a taster of what the Tories want - New Labour bears as much resemblance to socialism as America does. Likewise, the Tories are just as much "vote-buyers" as New Labour with policies that will only benefit the absolute richest (raising the inheritance tax threshold, cutting National Insurance, selling off the public sector).

Off-topic but we discussed the National Insurance increase in the last thread and I didn't get a chance to reply because there were too many new posts when I returned. You might be interested to know that there was a natural experiment on NI contributions in Finland when they scrapped employer NI contributions completely in the North of the country to encourage new jobs. Turned out that it created the equivalent of 1/10th of a job per company because they were just pocketing the extra money as increased profit rather than reinvesting it into the business. This was consistent across small businesses as well as large ones.

[MCN_LiamM]

I would have been voting Lib Dem most probably, but spending my time in two places 100 miles apart circumstances meant I missed the registering deadline for both.

[the_lone_wolf]

Sure, you go and vote for a party that will happily let the rich get richer by actively cutting the legs out from under the most vulnerable members of society.

Like this poor family:

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=151110

:smt089

;)

[ranathari]

Like this poor family:

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=151110

:smt089

;)

Benefit fraud costs the UK about £25 million a year. Tax evasion, which the Tories have adamantly refused to crack down on (unsurprisingly, given their biggest donor lives in Belize) costs the UK an estimated £2 billion a year. I'm not too worried about benefit fraud happening if we crack down on businesses and individuals who **** the UK over by withholding money. The Lib Dems are committed to that, New Labour and the Tories aren't.

I'm not such a heartless ******* that I will screw over many more people just to target a small minority who manage to abuse the welfare state. If you honestly think that people like the ones in that article are the majority then you're deluded. If a tiny minority of people manage to cheat a system that helps far more innocent people then that's a price worth paying.

[the_lone_wolf]

Benefit fraud...

How is that fraud?

Under Brown's socialist government they're entitled to what they're getting


Unemployment is costing the country £61 billion a year, perhaps we should be encouraging people back to work rather than buying them off with free laptops and state handouts

[Jamesy D]

Well, at the moment I'm too young to vote, and this is a trite irksome, because I'd like to have grounds to moan when a government I don't like screws up.

Quite honestly at the moment we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. Labour are complacent and authoritarian, bigging the ethos of big government.

Conservatives admittedly, are supporting the top earners of the county. But quite honestly they'd be denying themselves if they tried to go bleeding-hearts liberals. They are Tories, and being Tories are what they do best.

If I had the vote, it'd go squarely to David Cameron. I personally believe that his party (not nessecerily HIM, remember we elect the party not the leader) is what this country needs. But that's according to my priorities, which, at the moment, is my educational and employment future.

I'd sorta like there to still be an Army for me to join in six years, and one that has an actual role.

[ranathari]

How is that fraud?

Under Brown's socialist government they're entitled to what they're getting


Unemployment is costing the country £61 billion a year, perhaps we should be encouraging people back to work rather than buying them off with free laptops and state handouts

Jesus Christ, neither Brown nor Blair were socialists. Don't turn into a stupid American who lob the term around without understanding what it actually means, a la the Teabaggers.

There's plenty of evidence from the economists and social scientists that a reduction in state handouts does not change unemployment rates. It's actually the converse - when you reduce benefits you reduce employment because people who would otherwise be able to remain in employment by using benefits to pay for childcare or transport will no longer be able to do so.

[the_lone_wolf]

Jesus Christ, neither Brown nor Blair were socialists. Don't turn into a stupid American who lob the term around without understanding what it actually means, a la the Teabaggers.

LMAO, you really haven't paid much attention to any of my posts on this forum when it comes to political affiliation have you?

As for "plenty of evidence" - let's see it, present your case with facts instead of rhetoric and I'm more inclined to believe you

[yorkie_chris]

Jesus Christ, neither Brown nor Blair were socialists. Don't turn into a stupid American who lob the term around without understanding what it actually means, a la the Teabaggers.

There's plenty of evidence from the economists and social scientists that a reduction in state handouts does not change unemployment rates. It's actually the converse - when you reduce benefits you reduce employment because people who would otherwise be able to remain in employment by using benefits to pay for childcare or transport will no longer be able to do so.

I hear the term "afford to work".
For f**** sake when people can be better off not working then there's something seriously wrong.

Benefits for the unemployed should be sufficiently poor to make shelf-stacking an attractive prospect, with the taxes on low wages reduced to make it a viable one too.

I finish uni soon and I wouldn't have the fookin lip to refer to myself as "entitled" to bugger all.

[the_lone_wolf]

I hear the term "afford to work".
For f*cks sake when people can be better off not working then there's something seriously wrong.

Benefits for the unemployed should be sufficiently poor to make shelf-stacking an attractive prospect, with the taxes on low wages reduced to make it a viable one too.

I finish uni soon and I wouldn't have the fookin lip to refer to myself as "entitled" to bugger all.

You see, deep down I was far too much of a pansy waving liberal to say it myself...

;)

[Sid Squid]

I'll retain my humanity by not being a bigoted old sod who buys into a ridiculously distorted and sad view of the world.
Oh the irony! Why is it the left can't argue their position with civility?
I could say very unpleasant things about your level of political understanding, (with justification), but I won't because I don't want to become the kind of person who has an irrational hatred of those who disagree. I like democracy and I'd like someone who can present me with a good, rational reason to vote Labour - I'll be waiting a while I rather think, even those who say that they'll vote Labour have given no reason why they will, only scaremongering as to what other parties might do.
If you honestly think New Labour is socialism then you're a fool.
Umm... Fool? What? Oh I see - that's me is it? Hmmmm... Perhaps you best take a look at what I actually wrote, before starting your poorly thought out rant. (NB. I may have previously - just possibly you understand - suggested that our present government wasn't really very err.. socialist, perhaps.)

Tell you what I'll make it easy for you, it's not hard to find, here it is:'socialism'See those punctuation marks, around the word socialism, right there in that line, one before the 's' and one after the 'm', no? Take a minute or ten to work out what that might mean.

Reconsidered yet?

No? Oh well, why let what I actually wrote get in the way of a good rant?

But anyway, while we're on the subject, the Labour Party campaigned the elections in '97 and subsequently as socialists, now I know this isn't true, (and never was), but the fact is that's what they campaigned as; red banners, red roses, union backing and all the other accompaniments of the socialist Labour Party. That was the first lie they sold and nothing improved after that.

I'll make it easy so you know where I stand:

Don't.

Vote.

Labour.

That's a certain vote for more of the same, the same fantasy economics, the same authoritarian dismissal of disagreement, the same madness in the expansion of the state, the same arrogant trampling of civil liberties in the name of security, the same ludicrous adding more and more laws.

More of the same, see?

A number of the Labour Party's upper management used to be hard left - what happened, and when, that made them hate dissent so much? Perhaps it was when their precious ideology was found not to work? The populous must bend to their ideas of what is right, the ideology must not be questioned under any circumstances - it is sacrosanct, and anything and everything can and must be done to make the ideology roll on.

I'm not personally a supporter of Cameron as PM*, but there's one thing I am quite certain of and that is the economic circumstance we are in, two of the parties have stuck their fingers in their ears and firmly said that our empty pockets will continue to pay for the ludicrous level of public expenditure we currently support. Only one has given us the slightest nod that they might do something sensible.

I'll leave you with this**:

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef0120a790a439970b-pi

* Oh dear, did I upset your assumptions?
** Not that you're listening - I'm too far 'off message'.

[ranathari]

I'm going to repost this here thanks to a friend on another forum who took the time to find the numbers and highlight why so many people are wrong about unemployment benefits.

-----

You know all these hundreds of thousands of people who you think exist and you believe are claiming JSA with no intention of work? They don't ****ing exist.

Those claiming JSA for more than 12 months rose to 201,015 in November 2009, up from 103,930 in December 2008. Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8427237.stm)

So after the drop in the economy the number of long term unemployed (on JSA for over 12 months) doubled. It was around 100,000 before the economy collapsed. In a country of just over 62,000,000 there were only 100,000 people who had been on JSA for over a year. In an economic system where they will always be unemployment 100,000 were claiming JSA for over a year.

Longterm unemployment across Europe

So let's compare our longterm unemployed figure with the rest of Europe:

http://i40.tinypic.com/52kpy9.png
Source: Poverty.org.uk (http://www.poverty.org.uk/e06/index.shtml)

Oh, we're actually dong pretty well? 1.3% maybe? The other powerhouses in Europe (France and Germany) both have figures which was double ours. Oh and wow, those Scandinavian countries which have very strong welfare systems actually have lower figures than us. What is this madness?


So where are people claiming from? Where are the job seekers?

http://i41.tinypic.com/731f21.jpg

Oh so other than parts of London it's actually centered around the ex-industrial heartlands. We've got the mines up in the North, the mining areas in the South Wales valleys, a few small areas centered around former docklands and then there is Birmingham which has lost a lot of its industries such as the manufacturing of cars.

Before you start ranting about lazy people you need to know that these areas still haven't recovered from the decline of their industries. The economies are often still in transition.

So let's consider long term unemployed here. Many of the long term unemployed in these areas simply struggle to find jobs because there aren't many. However, many of the long term unemployed are also those who worked in factories, in mines and so on and they simply couldn't find employment again because of their skillset. And before you start ranting about them being lazy remember that many of these people actually went on strike to keep their jobs.

So do me a favour. Stop believing what you read in The Daily Mail. Look at these figures and graphs and realise that it isn't as big an issue as you make out. You're spouting some horrible rhetoric which the Conservatives will use to justify their horrible policies on JSA. It will harm the vast majority of people who use JSA to help find them a job, it will **** the deprived areas which are still trying to develop and our society will be far worse off.

LMAO, you really haven't paid much attention to any of my posts on this forum when it comes to political affiliation have you?

As for "plenty of evidence" - let's see it, present your case with facts instead of rhetoric and I'm more inclined to believe you

Sorry, I don't spend enough time here to memorise the political leanings of every single poster.

The key plank in the evidence for not cutting benefits comes from the Scandinavian countries, which have much higher unemployment and welfare benefits than we do. Despite that they have a shorter median duration of unemployment and a lower unemployment rate than us. Likewise when Clinton increase the minimum wage and reintroduced welfare benefits that Reagan scrapped, the unemployment rate dropped at a greater rate than it had previously.

However, it's an equilibrium - if you increase unemployment benefits excessively, then you increase unemployment because you reduce the need to work, which you're quite right about. However, that would only apply if the UK paid an excessive amount of unemployment benefit, which it currently doesn't - as the post I C/Ped above shows, we have a very small number of people on long term unemployment benefit so it's not a problem that actually exists in the UK!

[ranathari]

No, that's fair enough - I don't want people voting Labour either. I didn't spot the inverted quotes around socialism in your original post so I deserve stick for that.

However to say that Labour campaigned on a platform of socialism in 1997 is a little disingenuous - the abolition of Clause 4 in 1995 was the moment when Labour officially abandoned socialism. Although the rose and the red historically symbolise socialism, 1995 changed their meaning and I doubt many informed people would have associated Blair's New Labour with socialism in 1997.

I still disagree with your assertion that scaling back the public sector is the way forward but I'm a strong believer in Keynesian economics. I think I'll just apologise for conflating your libertarian beliefs with conservatism and let sleeping dogs lie!

[the_lone_wolf]

The key plank in the evidence for not cutting benefits comes from the Scandinavian countries, which have much higher unemployment and welfare benefits than we do. Despite that they have a shorter median duration of unemployment and a lower unemployment rate than us.

Correlation does not imply causation, no matter how badly you want it to...

[ranathari]

Correlation does not imply causation, no matter how badly you want it to...

Which is why you use statistical analysis to demonstrate that the correlation isn't due to chance. If you have access to the journal then this is a good starting point - http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200788?seq=1

[the_lone_wolf]

Which is why you use statistical analysis to demonstrate that the correlation isn't due to chance. If you have access to the journal then this is a good starting point - http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200788?seq=1I never said it was due to chance...

[Luckypants]

Stuff about long term unemployed and JSA

Sorry don't buy that. To compare folk on JSA to those on unemployment benefits elsewhere is wrong. Governments who have been in power a long time like to massage the figures to make them look good, the previous Conservative government did it and this one does it. People are moved off JSA at the drop of a hat, onto long term sickness benefits, disability allowances, income support and a whole host of other benefits. Many people simply don't qualify for JSA, like those made redundant with a half decent pay out or school leavers. This makes JSA a useless tool for measuring unemployment. Making comparisons across countries is difficult because the counting systems are not the same.

There may only be around 200,000 people on JSA according to your source, but even Labour admit to there being in excess of 2.5 million unemployed. This reference (http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm)(from just a quick Google) states that 'The claimant count for key out-of-work benefits was 1.54 million in March' - significantly different from your JSA only statistics. The same refence gives total unemployment at 2.5 million, so there is another million people not on 'key out-of-work benefits' but not working.

The key is to get people off benefit (of whatever name) and into work, thus going from being a leech to a contributor. How to do that is one of the hardest things for any incoming government, but it has to include cutting benefit for the work-shy IMO.

[yorkie_chris]

You know all these hundreds of thousands of people who you think exist and you believe are claiming JSA with no intention of work? They don't ****ing exist.

Ok there's the people on JSA. Not too many of them, well done Gordy.

Then the ones on disability for no reason.
Then the ones on bullsh*t training courses to nowhere because that gets the figures down.
Then all the other people on various "allowances".

The figures about JSA are massaged to within an inch of their lives, because there are so many ways to be unemployed without being 'unemployed.'

[Biker Biggles]

I dont buy these statistics either,but I also dont buy the blame Gordon Brown for everything nonsense either.The present government is just the latest incarnation of a ruling political class who have failed this country for decades,tory and labour.Whatever you think of Brown and his chums,dont fall into the trap of thinking Cameron will be any better.Look at Greece today.They have been forced to address the same issues that have been happening here sinse the 1960s and the results will ultimately be the same here too.

[yorkie_chris]

Didn't the last tory lot leave GB PLC debt free and with a bit of cash in the bank?

Where has labour left us?

[Biker Biggles]

No

[yorkie_chris]

National debt, gold reserves?

Never mind one word, tell me facts.

[seedy100]

I find myself in the unhappy position of there being no chance of my constituency electing an MP from the party that I would like to see in government.

The dilema is:-
vote with my heart and efectivley waste the vote.
or
vote for someone that I dont really want as an MP.

My solution to this conundrum is not to vote for anyone!
Instead I will vote against the party that I least want to win!

Following that logic at 7am I will be voteing LibDem - my god have mercy on my soul!

[Bri w]

Ok there's the people on JSA. Not too many of them, well done Gordy.

Then the ones on disability for no reason.
Then the ones on bullsh*t training courses to nowhere because that gets the figures down.
Then all the other people on various "allowances".

The figures about JSA are massaged to within an inch of their lives, because there are so many ways to be unemployed without being 'unemployed.'

YC, you missed all the over 55's who are excluded from the figures becuase of 1 thing, their ?@#+ age.

Sorry, I very nearly put in lots of swearing.

I've had the pleasure of 3 periods of Labour rule and every single 1 of them has finished in an unmitigated disaster of a totally ?.';?.m~# economy. I remember 3 day working weeks, and hours of no electricity. I remember a mortgage rate of 15%, and pay rises of almost 40% in 1 year to try and keep pace with inflation. Labour spend on social reform at the expense of those who work, and those who generate wealth.

UK Plc is a business however unpalatable that might be. And businesses go under if not managed properly. Throw money at social reform without a thought to making the populace work for it and @#:./,/' borrow to do it on a dimishing income....Wow, thats clever!

I'm an ordinary working man, started out as a semi-skilled tech, then an engineer and now as a mgr. All the periods of stability for the country, of decent levels of taxation, of solid sustainable growth have not been under Labour.

Which ever way you want to tart it up with pretty ribbons and fancy labels this Labour Govt has done nothing different to any other one I've experienced. And if you think the Conservatives only look after the wealthy..... since when has the man in the street funded businesses, made them grow and provided jobs for others. There has to be someone who creates the climate for businesses to florish. The Conservatives, by aiding businesses create a climate for ALL to benefit with a growth in jobs, a growth in tax revenue.

Labour might create social justice, or their version of it, but it doesn't put food on the table and holidays abroad when its cost you your job to get it.

Oh but what about inheritance tax? The guy has already paid income tax on what he's earned and you want to tax his estate after he's died! Its a 'sick' tax, robbing the dead - and no my estate won't come anywhere near that level but that doesn't stop me thinking its 'sick'.

And relax, breathe 2,3,4.

[MR UKI (1)]

I will be voting Lib Dems, won't make any difference in my constituency however.

How many MPs do you think my constituency has had since World War 2?

I'll tell you, a total of 2! Both Conservative. Current one (until tomorrow anyhow) was the MP who claimed for mortgage payments on a mortgage he didn't even have because it was paid off #-o.

[tigersaw]

Agree with Seedy, its a tricky one.
The torys have stood a local candidate who's list of achievements are underwhelming, who's promises are dull and uninspiring.
The current lib dem is a thorougly decent chap, keeps his nose clean and has written to me personally in the past when I've requested his position on a matter.
So do I vote for the candidate, or the party?
Like everyone else, I MUST vote this time round, but there ought to be a box marked NOT LABOUR, so my vote is automatically cast towards whoever can slings them out the hardest.

[Biker Biggles]

YC, you missed all the over 55's who are excluded from the figures becuase of 1 thing, their ?@#+ age.

Sorry, I very nearly put in lots of swearing.

I've had the pleasure of 3 periods of Labour rule and every single 1 of them has finished in an unmitigated disaster of a totally ?.';?.m~# economy. I remember 3 day working weeks, and hours of no electricity. I remember a mortgage rate of 15%, and pay rises of almost 40% in 1 year to try and keep pace with inflation. Labour spend on social reform at the expense of those who work, and those who generate wealth.

UK Plc is a business however unpalatable that might be. And businesses go under if not managed properly. Throw money at social reform without a thought to making the populace work for it and @#:./,/' borrow to do it on a dimishing income....Wow, thats clever!

I'm an ordinary working man, started out as a semi-skilled tech, then an engineer and now as a mgr. All the periods of stability for the country, of decent levels of taxation, of solid sustainable growth have not been under Labour.

Which ever way you want to tart it up with pretty ribbons and fancy labels this Labour Govt has done nothing different to any other one I've experienced. And if you think the Conservatives only look after the wealthy..... since when has the man in the street funded businesses, made them grow and provided jobs for others. There has to be someone who creates the climate for businesses to florish. The Conservatives, by aiding businesses create a climate for ALL to benefit with a growth in jobs, a growth in tax revenue.

Labour might create social justice, or their version of it, but it doesn't put food on the table and holidays abroad when its cost you your job to get it.

Oh but what about inheritance tax? The guy has already paid income tax on what he's earned and you want to tax his estate after he's died! Its a 'sick' tax, robbing the dead - and no my estate won't come anywhere near that level but that doesn't stop me thinking its 'sick'.

And relax, breathe 2,3,4.
I too remember the three day working week,but I also remember who the Prime Minister was.Ted Heath,a Tory.I remember the interest rate going up to 15% too,and I seem to recall the Chancellor was Norman Lamont,another Tory.Were we both living in the same country,or do we all tend to reinvent history to suit our own beliefs and prejudices?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my post of several pages ago---;)
They are both as bad as each other,and they just love it when we argue amongst ourselves about which is worse.Meanwhile they just get on with keeping their snouts in the trough at our expense.

[Biker Biggles]

Didn't the last tory lot leave GB PLC debt free and with a bit of cash in the bank?

Where has labour left us?

Check out GB plc balance of trade figures and you will struggle to find it in credit in the last fourty years.Government borrowing (PSBR)ebbs and flows with the economic cycle,but we are always borrowing lots of money.Truth is governments of both party have simply grabbed what they can and blown it for as long as I can remember.

[Bri w]

I too remember the three day working week,but I also remember who the Prime Minister was.Ted Heath,a Tory.I remember the interest rate going up to 15% too,and I seem to recall the Chancellor was Norman Lamont,another Tory.Were we both living in the same country,or do we all tend to reinvent history to suit our own beliefs and prejudices?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my post of several pages ago---;)
They are both as bad as each other,and they just love it when we argue amongst ourselves about which is worse.Meanwhile they just get on with keeping their snouts in the trough at our expense.

Old age and rattling marbles BB. I've googled it and you are right.

The 3 day week was brought about by the miner's strike, for which Maggie got her revenge 10 years later.

15% mortgage rate was in '79, I remember that only too well - got married then and bought a house. Although I'm not sure which side of the election it was. The peak in inflation was a few years earlier, 27% and was under Labour.

[Biker Biggles]

Just goes to show what an ab0rt1on both partys have made of governing this country over our lifetimes.Ive got no time for either of them.Self serving parasites.

[454697819]

I will never understand how the politics in this country work or don't however today i will vote to ensure at least this time next year when we have all been taxed to **** and the economy is still struggling i can say, at least I had my say...

[Viney]

Im voting for the little guy. parties aside, i cant stand the 3 people who are standing for election. When they talk, i turn off. I feelt hat people that do what they are doing need personalities. They are all drips. IMHO, there are Better people to represent thier particular party. For instance, i feel that William Hauge is a great public speaker (Based on that alone and not who he represents) and so is Simon Hughes (Libdem). People that are interesting when they speak, and have a fantastic delivery technique. Lets face it it never down to that one person as prime minister, its the entire cabinet that do the work, just theya re the face/voice of that particualr party. Even Nick Griffin is interesting in the way he speaks and comes across (maybe not his politics, just his style)

If i was in the city of london vote, then the Pirate would get my vote thats for sure.

[Quedos]

All done and dusted!! and i didn't spoil my paper. For once I actually knew who to vote for1

[Jabba]

I was first in the queue (of one!) outside our Polling Station when the doors were opened at 7:00am. Was on way to work so it made sense to vote then rather than later.

I voted for the candidate that represents the party I want to win. Also happens to be against the sitting MP, but that wasn't the deciding factor. It was not a "tactical vote" as such but amounts to the same thing :lol:

Get out and vote, peeps :thumbsup:

[Luckypants]

Just been down and voted. It's a pleasant thing to do in a little country village, had a chat with the postie on the way, chatted with the officials who are neighbours, dog got a little walk :D

[dizzyblonde]

I won't be voting for Conservative or Labour thats for sure. Will be popping down later.

[keithd]

The polling station i use is opposite a chip shop. seems a pleasant evening stroll, stick an X in the box walk back with a bag of chips is in order. smashing.

still tossing (fnaar) up between the blues and the yellows......

[adw]

I have the misfortune of having Kerry Mcarthy as my MP. She's the one that tweeted some the of postal results when she shouldn't have and made the news for it. She is also the only one to not have either knocked the door or posted any kind of leaflet through my door telling me about herself or labours policies. She has a massive lead over con and libs but i intend to vote liberal or con because they both deserve a chance. it's 50/50 right now. It's a shame because i quite like alistair darling but no one else there. Labour must go out.

[BigBaddad]

X - voted.

[Daimo]

From memory..

Conservatives sold all our companies (Maggie), a few thousand lost their jobs, but the UK became debt free. This made people angry, conservatives voted out.

Then Labour came in, and put us back in HUGE amounts of debt. Gave freebies to the non workers, ruined our healthcare, gave out free money to dossers, and eventually we're in this attitude of society where everyone expects everything for nothing. Totally labours fault.

So say Conservatives get back in power, what have they got to do? Clear all of Labours debts again, p1ss lots of people off, and will get voted out again next election defore they've had a chance to do anything.

Who-ever comes in has to sort out the **** that muppet Blair and Brown have created, so whoever wins is going to end up looking bad.

Anything to get labour out though please!!!!!!

[Jabba]

From memory..

Conservatives sold all our companies


The Conservatives didn't sell the Post Office/Royal Mail. Labour is looking to do that.

I couldn't have voted Labour because of the lies about Iraq and that sexed-up "dodgy dossier" which caused one poor, honourable chap to take his own life. A plague on all their houses for that.

[Sosha]

Which leaves me with a dilema... to vote for Fiona Mc whatever her name is, Labour, who seems to turn up and vote on just about everything, rebelled over the vote to not disclose expenses, at least solicited the opinion of her contituents over a third runway at heathrow, but voted for the war every time....

Or Give the lib dem teacher a go... (not that he' in any danger of getting it)

[keithd]

Anything to get labour out though please!!!!!!

Hear hear/ here here

unfortunately i think due to the emergence of Cleggy boy who has some spark about him, some good policies (yes some not so good too) and has thrust himself as a credible candidate many conservative voters will be putting an X next to his parties candidate. yes of course many labour voters will do likewise but i think it'll be conservatives who suffer most, and a hung parliament is the most probable outcome...

[ThEGr33k]

Oh dear, Looks like I literally do live in a "labour strong hold" 80% labour vote apparently. Im surrounded by idiots ha ha.

[keithd]

Oh dear, Looks like I literally do live in a "labour strong hold" 80% labour vote apparently. Im surrounded by idiots ha ha.

and you fit in so well, sir....

smileygrinnyiconthingy

[Viney]

Just remember that the Libdems are very pro Euro and we'll be in it by the end of the year if they have thier way, and Greece isnt a good example right now.

[keithd]

Just remember that the Libdems are very pro Euro and we'll be in it by the end of the year if they have thier way, and Greece isnt a good example right now.

for every bad example you can be given a good example. would that not be put to referendum i.e not nailed on?

[ravingdavis]

I love this can of worms.

Your whole statement is laughable.

Please do tell how me voting for a candidate who's party will not run things to my liking will give me the right to complain? Surely I have voted for them therefore I shouldn't complain because I effectively put them into power?

Instead of not voting how about making a rejected vote, has the same effect but at least you are having some political say. Rejected ballots are called with the votes too, so people/politicians know how many people feel let down by the options. If more people did this rather than just not bothering to get themselves to a polling station then the message you that actually want to give would be much clearer.

[adw]

I don't see the point in spoiling your vote. The fact is there has to be a goverment so you should vote for whoever is the best to govern. I accept the whole none of the above argument but it ultimately means your vote meant nothing.

I'm voting conservative, the comment about pro-euro and lib dem swayed me! :)

[dizzyblonde]

yeah but only a fool would keep pushing towards Europe right now. Greece is only the tip of the Iceberg on this matter, theres a whole string of countries going down the same route.

[ravingdavis]

I don't see the point in spoiling your vote. The fact is there has to be a goverment so you should vote for whoever is the best to govern. I accept the whole none of the above argument but it ultimately means your vote meant nothing.

It does not mean nothing at all. Like I said the number of rejected votes is called, that is a statement in itself. That means a hell of a lot more than just not voting at all. If all the people that are not voting because of lack of choice created a rejected vote then the statement given would be much stronger and would likely be worth considering.

Rejected votes are not new, they are something that has been used to display voters dismay for over a century, it just seems to be an option that has been forgotten about. Perhaps since there seem to be a large number of people who do not like any of the options it is a good time to bring it back into fashion.

I have just been to the polling station and cast my vote too :)

[the_lone_wolf]

X - Done and dusted

Sat down last night and read the manifestos of the three main parties, tallied up the issues that I feel most strongly about and voted based on their agreement with my opinions

A bit clinical, and we'll see how much of their manifesto translates to reality, but hey, such is life...

[beabert]

Its because people are voting the same old parties that there not much choice. Ill be voting for a smaller party, in the hope that one day there will be more major contenders.

[Ed]

Its because people are voting the same old parties that there not much choice. Ill be voting for a smaller party, in the hope that one day there will be more major contenders.


FFS why can't people see through this claptrap about 'old parties' when believing that the Lib Dems are something new.

Wasn't Lloyd George a Liberal?

And wasn't it the Liberal party that introduced the Reform Act back in 1832?

They are NOT a new party!!! They are far, far older than Labour, and I think older than the Conservative party

[gettin2dizzy]

Result is normally pretty certain b 1am isn't it? I'll be up watching :)

[the_lone_wolf]

Result is normally pretty certain b 1am isn't it? I'll be up watching :)

There's so many close run seats I think it'll be a while before they're certain

Probably watch until I get bored then grab the result on Radio 4 tomorrow morning