Are we going to have an Election discussion?

Rasher

There was a very good programme on the TV last week which really hit the spot.

The last time you had a choice was in the eighties. You had Thacherism or old Labour and a wasted vote on the Libs who sang anything to anyman.

Old labour became unelectable and the argument wasn't that Maggie won, more that Neil Kinnock lost.

Peter Mandelson what ever you think of him was a superb tactition, he proved that even John Smith was a vote loser and Labour needed to out Tory the Tories if they were to stand any chance of re election.

Tony Blair / Mandelson really turned the party around and we all know what happened in 1997.

The good news is that most of us, and more importantly the youngsters, regard old Labour as a joke. The bad news is that there is now little between the two parties on any major policy. It is more a question of the difference between Blair and Howard and Blair is seen as less of an asshole than Howard, so Blair will win. Both parties are moving to the right on most issues.

The Libs are still a joke, just what the hell do they stand for......answer, that depends on where you are and at what time on what day.

The result is that this is a dreary and almost irrelevant election.

The same path will be taken no matter who wins.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

I can't remember a time when I have been so disappointed with all of them.

You mustn't have been paying attention before then.

Party politics are an impossible balancing act. I can't see how anyone can be pleased with everything any party says - even those at the top of their respective parties.

All you can do is choose a party who, in balance, has views nearest your own. Or, as most people will do, choose the party who will make you feel better off after the election.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Rasher

The same path will be taken no matter who wins.

Regards

Mick

This I don't believe. If the Tories get in taxes will be cut as will public services; whatever they say now. Hunting will be reinstated, minimum wage abolished, private pensions and health forced upon us.

If Labour get in taxes will be raised and public services will be slowly improved (maybe faster now that they are getting on top of 20 years of neglect.)Whatever they say now.

If the Lib Dems get in I'll eat my cat. And the country will wobble as they try to make their policies work.

There is a clear difference.It only looks like there isn't because all maain parties can't tell the truth or we'd never vote for them. The only parties that do are the unelectable ones.

We get what we deserve.

Regards

Stephen

Personal political views aside I definitely sense little enthusiasm for any of the choices. It almost seems that people will be 'happy' to elect the 'least bad' rather than a feeling of excitement and change. The message for all the parties must surely be to step up their act.

The (presumed) labour new government will have an odd start though, hardly going to have a 'honeymoon' and one suspects it will be under public pressure from the outset. I can only imagine that a switch of leader will be needed sooner rather than later.

The future for Howard is surely bleak unless he takes a big bite out of the labour majority. He appears to have created a sense of unity so lacking before but just appears to be unappealing to the electorate (personally and ideologically). I also agree with Mick that little would change if they won, their tax/spend policies are actually very similar to labour despite attempts to portray them otherwise. Shifts towards the private sector in health are more a matter of degree than principle between Lab/Con.

As for the Lib Dems, despite a different style and more distnctive agenda than the big two the truth is that a 'big breakthrough' just does not seem possible. can they ever bridge the 'credibility gap'?

What a drab election. I used to get excited by this stuff, and see new government as a time of opportunity.

My prediction: lab 100 majority, Lib dems sl gain only. Cons gains but inconsistent.

Gordon Brown PM within 2 years.

Bruce

Chaps

I have just seen the latest newsflash on the election. The latest poll (I think it was Mori)showed that Blair is pulling ahead with 40%, Howard with 23% and Kennedy with 21%.

It appears that the Brown/Blair partnership is going down well and Howard is becoming less popular by the day. This is compounded by the fact that Howard appears to be running a one man show.

As for Kennedy, he is either drinking or sleeping.

Regards

Mick

Well if that's the case it just goes to show how much Blair needs Brown to shore up his support.

The size of Blair's majority is, sadly, the only doubt about the election result, it would seem

Cheers,

Jon

The main disaster if you can call it that is that Michael Howard seems to be representing nearly 90% of the Tories election campaign. He is becoming a huge turn off so the Tories are going to get thrashed yet again.

I suppose we should now discuss who will replace him after the election.

This really is a dull dull affair.

Regards

Mick

Mick - I think you summed it up beautifully.
Stephen - "All you can do is choose a party who, in balance, has views nearest your own. Or, as most people will do, choose the party who will make you feel better off after the election."
I always used to think that there was an opportunity to make things right for those less fortunate than myself, but I can't think where that is currently. It obviously isn't with the Lib Dems, even though they are the only party towards the left.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Mick - I think you summed it up beautifully.
Stephen - "All you can do is choose a party who, in balance, has views nearest your own. Or, as most people will do, choose the party who will make you feel better off after the election."
I always used to think that there was an opportunity to make things right for those less fortunate than myself,

I agree. However, if you ignore the 'unpopular' Labour policies(! ), I think that increased national insurance, railway improvements, tax breaks for the lower paid, minimum wage, child support, investment in education are a start.

With Brown we may even get some movement on pensions which is sorely needed.

Don't get me wrong; Blair has definitly made some (big) mistakes; but does anyone think the country is in a worse position, especially for the low paid, than it was in the mid '80s to '90s? When has any potential government been 'perfect'?

Regards

Stephen

Stephen

Yes the country is in a better state today than it has ever been and most of us have never had it so good.

Blair was lucky in the sense that he inherited an economy that was moving fast in the right direction especially with rapidly lowering interest rates, inflation and oil prices.

To my mind, Brown has only made two major mistakes, grabbing tax out of the pension industry and selling off our gold reserves.

He has given the Bank of England responsibilty for inflation which is good and the injection of cash into the NHS is also good, if it gets spent on the front line where it is needed.

Overall he has managed the economy well and I say that as a Thatcherite.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The main disaster if you can call it that is that Michael Howard seems to be representing nearly 90% of the Tories election campaign. He is becoming a huge turn off so the Tories are going to get thrashed yet again.

It'd be even worse for the Conservatives if Oliver Letwin had more air time. I can't think of a more repulsive, slimy git there is in UK politics presently.

Steve

Some Discussion ?

"I love an election - I'm having one right now" - Tom Baker, Little Britain

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

I suppose we should now discuss who will replace him after the election.

No doubt in my mind – it should be Dr Liam Fox.

Nice bloke, seems trustworthy, not a ‘Tory toff’, no/few links to the old (hated) Tories, talks straight and isn’t smug – the acceptable face of the right if you like, just as Blair became the acceptable face of socialism. He also knows (from experience) more than most politicians about that key voter concern – the NHS. Was very impressed with him on Question Time recently – he point scored without looking conceited about it.

The only other potential candidate is David Davis but I think many might view him as too right wing.

I also think the Tories need to remember what they stand for – small government that doesn’t interfere, lets the electorate keep more of their own income and allows the public sector to get on with doing their job with little meddling from Whitehall.

At the moment they are promising to keep up Labours massive investment in public services and no-one believes them because this isn’t what the they represent, certainly not traditionally. They need to be more honest and say, yes were are going to reduce the amount invested but we’ll also cut out all the crap in the middle (all those non-front line, highly paid jobs in the Guardian situations vacant) and let the people working in those services (i.e. the experts) decide how best to spend that money.

There seems so much they could do to win votes rather than bleating on about immigration. What about pledging to reverse this ridiculous aim of getting practically every school leaver to university? What use will a degree be in the future if everyone has one? In fact, if the percentage of school leavers doing a degree returned to more reasonable levels wouldn’t this remove the need of tuition fees? They could then bring back good old apprenticeships at craft and technician level – surely these would be more suitable for a lot of school leavers (and for the country) than another batch of worthless degrees in buggerallology.

I’d better stop now before I get on to bringing back National Service

Matt.

Try GBjab.com for a L-D take on Blair's problems.

I don't know enough about Dr Liam Fox to comment but I agree with just about everything else Matt has said regarding desirable Conservative party strategy.

I'd like to see a more radical platform, including a 'flat-tax' rate and I wouldn't object to any proposals to leave the EU - no prospect of small government there.

Regarding education, my Conservative party would go further than Matt's. What's the point in forcing kids to stay at school until 16 years old? If they want to leave, let them leave at 15, otherwise they just disrupt the classes for those who want to be there and cost the tax payers money. You can't teach them if they don't want to learn and, as Matt says, apprenticeships are far preferable.

Regards
Steve M

Flat tax rates are the ambition of the "haves", and severely disadvantage the "have-nots". I had hoped that we were moving towards a more compassionate society, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe not.

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:
Flat tax rates are the ambition of the "haves", and severely disadvantage the "have-nots". I had hoped that we were moving towards a more compassionate society, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe not.

Isn't a flat rate the Veritas policy? Or UKIP?

Why not go the whole way and vote BNP? They have a 'No Tax' policy. And you're allowed to pack a gun. If you're black, you can be an 'associate member'



Tax is good. The more you earn the more you pay. The more you earn, the more you help those more disadvantaged than yourself. Perfect.

I agree with (well read) Ken.

Regards

Stephen

Ken

The "haves" are the people who get off their asses, do some work and generate wealth for themselves, the UK and the world economy.

The "have nots" are a total pain in the ass and I begrudge spending my taxes on them. Single mother, OAP's, unemployed etc, all are useless tax soakers.

The simple maxim should be.....if you don't work, you don't eat and if you don't eat, you die.

There is no excuse for anyone in this country to be a "have not" other than those with a medical condition. They deserve help but the rest need to learn to help themselves.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:
Flat tax rates are the ambition of the "haves", and severely disadvantage the "have-nots". I had hoped that we were moving towards a more compassionate society, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe not.

Absolute nonsense.

Flat tax rates increase the overall tax revenue raised, decrease the cost of raising it and lead to higher growth.

Flat tax rates therefore benefit all except accountants and tax collectors.

Regards
Steve M

Flat taxes also encourage people to work harder because they retain a higher percentage of their earnings for themselves.

Regards

Mick

Welcome back Mick. You were having a bit of a "pinko" day up until now, and I was in agreement with you for a while there.

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:
Flat tax rates are the ambition of the "haves", and severely disadvantage the "have-nots". I had hoped that we were moving towards a more compassionate society, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe not.

Remember that you can still have a tax allowance with a flat rate scheme. Ideally tax wouldn’t bite at all until say £10K has been earned i.e. the first £10K of everyone’s earnings would be tax free, with the remainder taxed at a flat rate.

At the moment you have this ridiculous system whereby someone earning £10K pays tax and then claims income support i.e. that tax is then paid back to them – what’s the bloody point in taking it off them in the first place only to return it? How much does this cost to administer on top of the hassle, confusion and even embarrassment to the claimant? In fact the Treasury probably love the fact that a percentage of low earners probably don’t even know that they can claim income support or how to do it.

The only downside is that freelancers like me would pay less tax on a relatively low salary (with the rest in dividends) – but that seems a small price to pay for simplifying what is a horrendously complex, expensive and inefficient taxation system.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Flat taxes also encourage people to work harder because they retain a higher percentage of their earnings for themselves.

Regards

Mick

So do the £Billions of Squid in Tax relief the likes of Marks & Spencer, Tesco, BP, etc, etc, get from the likes of you folk for their mega losses outside of the UK in your fair system, try it with a German firm losing dosh in UK for instance with Taxpayers like myself over here, I don't think so somehow, it'd be as contraversial as trying to introduce Church Tax (as they have here) in UK, I think a Poll Tax-like Civil War could well break out, innit ?

Fritz Von Though in comparison Govt spending here is exceptionally transparent, & dinnee forget half of the US never voted for Dubya, as didn't 55%+ of Brits for Blair over the last 8 years or so !!!

The 'HAVES' are doing very well at the moment and to suggest that they should have even more (flat-rate tax) is just right-wing nonsense.

I will vote Labour this election, as I have always done. I think they stand for a fairer more equitable society, where the weakest at least have a reasonable chance and don't have to beg or go into the poorhouse.

I vehemently disagreed with the Iraq invasion and felt (and still feel) totally let down by the New Labour administration. I also don't like their enthusiastic take-up of Thatcherite free-market dogma, but despite all this I am still ging to vote for them. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate. Do we really want a return to the grab-it-while-you-can greedy '80s?

Question. Has the legacy of Mrs Thatcher made the Tory's unelectable - discuss.

Andy