Election 2005

not all conservatives are margret thatcher just as labour is a completely different beast to that of what it used to be. the problems with the mines could not happen again as union power is not what it was then. if margret hadnt challenged the growing union power then the next government would have had to. and also if mr scargil had been willing to compromise and had not coerced his own members into joining the strike (eg in nottingham) then the results would have been much better and action would not have been taken. also as said before, the average man pays more tax now than they would if poll tax was still in place its just new labour doesnt have the honesty to label it as one tax rise so instead they do 66 little ones which can be hidden easily.

a running theme is not BSing people in this thread, yet Thatcher never BSed, she had conviction, thats what made her loved and hated, and that is why politicians do not seem to dare to have it anymore.
 
Wouldn't it be great if polititians were honest!

"Sorry, we don't have enough money to give you more Policemen AND more hospital beds, which one would you prefer?"
 
Im going with lib Dem but only because of the absence of the "none of the above" box. I dont agree with their policy on education but I dont mind being taxed more wnen I get a job if it means I get police coming to help me a bit faster and a speed up in hospital treatment.

Labour lied about the war and possibly pensions are going to mess up, this is bad, also the spin is just ridiculous.

The Conservative philosiphy kinda opposes my own and in addition I saw a political broadcast my Michale Howard where he stated that he was very concerned about MRSA, his words being something like "I should know how much of an important matter this is. My mother in law was killed by MRSA". And whos faults that Michael? It was you that privatised hospital cleaning!
Oh and the budget hole of 15 billion is just silly.

The Lib Dems dont have a chance of winning so they put forward realistic policies (well more so than the other parties) but Im sure when they get a better chance of winning theyn will start to tell voters what they want to hear to get more votes.
 
conservatives contracted out hospital cleaning, yes, but labour have been in power for 8 years and done nothing to change it!!!!! people, including labour, continue to blame the last tory administration for labours failure. it rages me.

i wouldnt object to paying taxes if the government was capable of spending money properly (well actually i would probably), but it has been shown time and time again that in high tax societies waste is common.

think about it we pay income tax on our salary, NI out of our salary, stamp duty if we want to buy a house. then we go to buy food or drink, oops more tax (VAT at 17.5%), man after all this tax i need a drink and a smoke- wait more tax! and thats just the obvious ones- 66 under this government- business gets taxed even more! increasing taxes doesn not improve services, reform and independence from the state does, oh and competition aswell.
 
I don't think anyone likes to see their hard earned cash disappearing off to the Inland Revenue. No debate there. The thing is that I simply don't believe the Tories when they say they'll cut taxes, or that if they do manage it, the amount they can cut it by will make any difference to my standard of living.
 
No I can't but that has always bothered me as well. The message seems to be you can have responsibility and duty but not fun, independence or power.
 
im sure you cant serve on the front line until you are 18, though if this is not true please correct me. i would also argue that 16 is too young to make an informed decision on child birth as there is no way the financial situation can be ready.

i dont agree with making voting compulsory either as to make an informed decision you need a good understanding of the iner workings of government, the civil service, the economy, big and small business, education- te list goes on and on.
 
As far as I'm concerned, whilst trust in Tony Blair is low, Gordon Brown has the highest credibility of any MP in the commons and as he's likely to take over from Blair in the next couple of years, my ballot will be marked Labour.
 
iamraisen, I agree with you that for what we pay we dont see that much return but I dont think that the conservatives will be any better at spending it than labour.

I guess I dont place as much value on money as a lot of people do though so maybe Im just being a damn hippy
 
I which case, Blair is the last person to have representing you. Blair promised not to raise taxes, but has since done so 66 times!!!. He may talk the talk, but nothing in the last 8 years makes me think his talk will every become a reality.

Micheal Howard IS confronting the problems that Tony Blair isn't. One of the big problems in this country is immigration, the people want this controlled, and Micheal Howard is trying to do somthing about it - i think his plans are good, and probably will work. Whereas with Labour - how could controlling out boarders mean giving power to an unelected goverment.

I'm not saying Howard is the most hosest person in the world but compred with Blair he is far more.

The main diffrence between them is that while both have aims to improve crime, education, health, transport etc, one of the parties has failed its aim two times

I think Micheal Howard is being and would be more truthful that Tony Blair - after all, here is a guy who thinks that providing a figure about the ammount of illigal immigrants in this country is "pointless"

Labour have wasted so much of your money. Takex have gotten higher - yet the services its suppost to be paying for have gotten worse. Where's the money going. What about those pointless EU meetings where the goverment wasted thousends and housends of pounds.
 
just had a thought reading the views on taxation. Income tax annoys us all, but a centralised fund is required.

What makes us mad is that we get told we earn x-amount and our pay-slip tells us we only get (x-y)amount. Surely this is a perceptual problem not an actual problem, which could be solved really simply.

Our salaries/wages are quoted to us a the the net rate, not the gross. We get the same money, but we don't feel like we've been robbed. A personal income of £20,000 requires a governmental income of, say, £4000. We still get 20k, the company pays £4k per employee per annum. The maths is the same, the actual money changing hands is the same, BUT our perception of the process is greatly improved.

i'm on roll now;

next we scrap the budget and instead have a balance statement.

instead of second-guessing what we are going to do in the next five years, we add up what has gone in the last five years. A simple suofftopicry can be broadcast, with more detailed information available on line. Then we find the waste and cut it out

*xenmaster prepares for the hoards of redundant people calling for his blood and prepares his response*

sorry folks you made bad life choices, you're lazy and you are stupid. What do you enjoy doing? how do you feel you can contribute meaningfully? Good, we'll help and support you re-train and you can do something productive with your time instead of sending emails to your mates and looking at porn 'cos you have too much free time at work! (hehehe how many of you are reading this at work with a spreadsheet ready on the toolbar just in-case the boss walks behind you?)

next we change the structure of govt.

first, we cripple the civil service in whitehall as they are the root of much of the problem. We do this by making individual's fully acountable and ensure they act out the instructions of the govt. instead of manipulating it.

second, we have two class's of MP's, proffessional and lay-people. Lay-people form the majority of the back-benches, while professionals in their fields take the cabinet posts. A number of 'lay' seats in cabinet are also provided.

To be eligable for a proffesional seat, you must be reccomended by peers in your profession and you must have a proven track-record of competance.

This way we get engineers in charge of transport, acountants and business experts in charge of the economy, healthcare professionals in charge of the NHS etc etc.

Their policies are then presented to the 'lay' politicians and bills get passed based on feasbility and common sense. namely the lay house is convinced by reasoned discusion and presentation of facts.

*and then xenmaster comes back from utopia and nips to the shop for some milk, The Sun grins at him from the news-stand, 'Perhaps I should forget these foolish notions of a well thought out democratic system and check out what posh-spice is wearing this season, after all thats far more important....*

it's easy to sit back and moan about the problems, but then again, is it that hard to use the same energy finding solutions?
 
I agree, I wasn't going to vote for Blair

I live in the Bournemouth East constituency and here the two main parties are Labour and Lib Dems. The way I see it, if I don't want to vote Labour I can either vote LD with the intention of getting an LD MP into parliament even though there are a number of LD policies I don't agree with, or I can vote for another smaller party / independent that perhaps more closely represents my views but stands no chance of winning the seat.
 
In response to xenmaster's post. At the same time we should reform the upper house by sacking all the lords and replacing them with people based on the following criteria:

1. There must be an equal number of men and women;
2. All must be over 50 to ensure they have adequate 'life experience';
3. All must be able to show that they have worked either for charities, in the legal system or maybe the medical profession too. Basically something that displays some kind of atruistic motive.
 
I'm voting lib dem in the election (my first ). This is mainly because it is a race between lib dem and conservative (who are in power at the minute) in our area. if labour were in the equation too my choice would be far more difficult.

origionaly posted by xenmaster
"This way we get engineers in charge of transport, acountants and business experts in charge of the economy, healthcare professionals in charge of the NHS etc etc."

heh, that is a good idea, both my parents are in the education proffesion and hate politicans in charge of education who have been out of the system for decades but still think they know best!

Ian
 
I worry there may be too many people like you, who just "by default" vote the same way they always have. A reason why, despite New Labours massive shift to the right, many people continue voting Labour because they always have - even though it ain't the same beast they're voting for.


Good suggestions ...

Under (3) I think a certain number of representatives from religious groups too ... though not in the same form that bishops are currently represented in the lords.

I think also you would have to think carefully about the exact method of election of the upper house to ensure that it wasn't mainly the power hungry who got there.
 
So...
- Is having limitations on immigrants ridiculous? (worked well in Australia )
- Is having peoples applications assessed overseas ridiculous?
- Is allowing people into this country only when their application have been approved ridiculous, insted of them living here for years while it's processed, and quite often evading the goverment.
- Is making people who can actually help our country first choice. It unbeleivable the ammount of people who come here then live off of benefits.



Well anyone IMO can be more truthful than Blair. Do YOU actually beleive
Tony Blair/Labour tell the truth? I dont


MSRA kills 1,000+ people every year, if that isn't a problem i dont know what is. People are having to borrow money to go private to get there treatment that they have already paid for.
Crime has gotten lower, but only slightly, but voilent crime is rising. Michael Howard had an excellent record in this department. And people that should be going to jail are only getting a slapped wrist, many re-offending, while those law obiding people get put away for the slightest things.

The fact is Labour havn't met the targets that they have set TWICE! Any improvements that are happening should have started happening in there first term!


THAT surely says it all :rolleyes - Our goverment dont even know how many illigal iofftopicgrants there in the country. I read about people who have lived here for 5-10 years while there application is being assessed. Why dont they kick out people who arrive in the back of vans at Dover. Why dont they kick out people who have had there applications rejected!


Yes, we do have a good economy - but Labour waste and useless spending is costing taxpayers £81 billion annually... Read this article for more. This is how the Conservatives will be abe to lower taxes, and improve services. Labour on the other hand want to take even more takes
 
I dont read the telegraph and if you want a balanced debate you shouldn't be quoting from a right wing broadsheet. I've seen their spending plans and I dont believe for a second they will work. The future I see with a conservative government involves further privatisation...no thanks
 
Back
Top