Tory Madness
The Tories have gone "truth" crazy of late, first by continually banging on about Blair's lies about the Iraq war (but we won't mention how they wanted to go to war before Labour did), and now with libdempolicy.com: a site showing what lies in the small print of their policies. Personally I thought they had been pretty open, but let's see what the Tories can make of their policies.
- There should be no upper limit on the numbers of refugees accepted by EU countries
-
Oh My God.
First, I thought that Kennedy had been saying this for ages, but that isn't the real point. Of course there should be no upper limit: if suddenly there was an atrocity and people were on the run for their lives, we should say "sorry, but the inn is full"? The sheer balls of a party that mixes immigration and asylum into a single über-policy of basically stopping it all, whilst having a leader whose parents are immigrants, is frankly quite impressive. Obviously the spin guys are doing something right as I just can't understand why no-one (apart from the audience in Question Time last week that is) is pointing out that they are totally unrelated subjects.
- Liberal Democrats would 'introduce fair benefits for asylum seekers'
-
This is a terrible policy as asylum seekers are sub-human scum, obviously. Best to leave them in France until we know they haven't got AIDS.
I still don't know why asylum seekers cannot go and get a job, instead of having to try and live on some pathetic token state benefit.
- The Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, says he is 'absolutely convinced that prison is a complete and utter waste of time'
-
Sounds about right. Put a load of sane people in a small boring room for a few years and they probably won't be well-adjusted when they come out, doing the same to people who are not well-adjusted to start with is madness. Most people in prison need assistance which isn't provided by a magnolia wall.
- We will put your taxes up
-
Well, durrr. Is there anyone who didn't know that the Tories only real policy is to lower taxes? Personally I think the Lib Dem policy of a 50% income tax on income over £100,000 is a great idea and have thought so ever since I started nudging the current upper tax boundary, and realised that if my earnings doubled I wouldn't be paying a higher rate. The tax system needs a bloody good overhaul (along with the Council tax, being based on property prices from 1980), and this is a good start.
- They would 'work positively towards the conditions for British entry to the euro'
-
I'm glad at least one main party is actually mentioning the Euro this year, although to be honest if the other two started to talk about it the election propaganda would turn into even more of a farce than it already is.
Well I expect to get a few comments on this posting, so I'll leave it here with a small pointer towards Tactical Voter.
Posted by Phil Trickett at Wed Apr 27 22:24:26 2005:
Wow.
Maybe the Conservative Party should rename themselves the Xenophobic Party?
I fully think the Michael Howard is just clutching at anything he thinks sounds good. (To him.)
Why don't they just saddle up with the UKIP?
Reminds me, I wonder if I can vote, must contact the embassy....
If I can, the Lib Dems are getting my vote. The Euro is a good direction to follow for the UK.
Phil
Posted by Matt at Wed Apr 27 22:29:59 2005:
Maybe the Conservative Party should rename themselves the Xenophobic Party?
I fully think the Michael Howard is just clutching at anything he thinks sounds good. (To him.)
Why don't they just saddle up with the UKIP?
Reminds me, I wonder if I can vote, must contact the embassy....
If I can, the Lib Dems are getting my vote. The Euro is a good direction to follow for the UK.
Phil
Sounds like the Lib Dems are fairly sane to me. I shall vote for them - but I was going to anyway. Shame I live in a Conservative safe seat. Reform the voting system! Ours isn't as bad as the Americans', but it's still not great.
Posted by Jamie at Wed Apr 27 22:37:48 2005:
I for one am going to do all I can to get rid of that lying scumbag blair. I would rather vote for Howard even though I dont like him cause its the lesser of two evils. Plus I cant wait to see blairs face when he loses - that has to be the biggest reason to vote against him.
On your criticisms, its a well known fact that very little will change in the next parliament regardless of who gets in (who really cares if taxes go up or down by a teeny weeny amount?). There is very little clear blue water between the big two so it does come down to "does Blair deserve to be reelected?". Considering thats hes dishonourable and dishonest and if there was any decency in him he would have resigned long ago its now up to us the electorate to pass judgement on him and I look forward to doing so.
Asylum is largely a bogus issue cause we will probably end up with an EU agreement or off shore processing whoever is elected. As for the quotas they work as follows: if a person seeking asylum cant get in the first monthly quota they have to wait for the following month in an off shore processing centre and so on (IE its an off shore waiting list). Nobody is gonna be sent back to some hostile evil nation as a result of this.
The 50% tax rate is barmy. Estimated revenue will be about 0.5 billion extra and you think that will pay for very much? Of course it will scare off the mega rich who will no doubt bog off to some tax heaven like they did in the seventies under the ultra high tax evil labour party which will probably mean less tax revenue coming in not more.
The other reason for voting tory is that my neighbourhood is not far from some scumbag gypsies who terrorise the local population and increase crime and burglary. I have witnessed two separate assaults on innocent bystanders by these scumbags so I look forward to a future tory administration dealing with them. Yobs and crime have soared under this soft and pathetic government - im fed up seeing innocent victims suffering whilst those criminal bastards get off scott free - lock em up and throw the keys away its guaranteed to resolve the problem :)
Posted by Jamie at Wed Apr 27 22:39:39 2005:
On your criticisms, its a well known fact that very little will change in the next parliament regardless of who gets in (who really cares if taxes go up or down by a teeny weeny amount?). There is very little clear blue water between the big two so it does come down to "does Blair deserve to be reelected?". Considering thats hes dishonourable and dishonest and if there was any decency in him he would have resigned long ago its now up to us the electorate to pass judgement on him and I look forward to doing so.
Asylum is largely a bogus issue cause we will probably end up with an EU agreement or off shore processing whoever is elected. As for the quotas they work as follows: if a person seeking asylum cant get in the first monthly quota they have to wait for the following month in an off shore processing centre and so on (IE its an off shore waiting list). Nobody is gonna be sent back to some hostile evil nation as a result of this.
The 50% tax rate is barmy. Estimated revenue will be about 0.5 billion extra and you think that will pay for very much? Of course it will scare off the mega rich who will no doubt bog off to some tax heaven like they did in the seventies under the ultra high tax evil labour party which will probably mean less tax revenue coming in not more.
The other reason for voting tory is that my neighbourhood is not far from some scumbag gypsies who terrorise the local population and increase crime and burglary. I have witnessed two separate assaults on innocent bystanders by these scumbags so I look forward to a future tory administration dealing with them. Yobs and crime have soared under this soft and pathetic government - im fed up seeing innocent victims suffering whilst those criminal bastards get off scott free - lock em up and throw the keys away its guaranteed to resolve the problem :)
I for one am going to do all I can to get rid of that lying scumbag blair. I would rather vote for Howard even though I dont like him cause its the lesser of two evils. Plus I cant wait to see blairs face when he loses - that has to be the biggest reason to vote against him.
On your criticisms, its a well known fact that very little will change in the next parliament regardless of who gets in (who really cares if taxes go up or down by a teeny weeny amount?). There is very little clear blue water between the big two so it does come down to "does Blair deserve to be reelected?". Considering thats hes dishonourable and dishonest and if there was any decency in him he would have resigned long ago its now up to us the electorate to pass judgement on him and I look forward to doing so.
Asylum is largely a bogus issue cause we will probably end up with an EU agreement or off shore processing whoever is elected. As for the quotas they work as follows: if a person seeking asylum cant get in the first monthly quota they have to wait for the following month in an off shore processing centre and so on (IE its an off shore waiting list). Nobody is gonna be sent back to some hostile evil nation as a result of this.
The 50% tax rate is barmy. Estimated revenue will be about 0.5 billion extra and you think that will pay for very much? Of course it will scare off the mega rich who will no doubt bog off to some tax heaven like they did in the seventies under the ultra high tax evil labour party which will probably mean less tax revenue coming in not more.
The other reason for voting tory is that my neighbourhood is not far from some scumbag gypsies who terrorise the local population and increase crime and burglary. I have witnessed two separate assaults on innocent bystanders by these scumbags so I look forward to a future tory administration dealing with them. Yobs and crime have soared under this soft and pathetic government - im fed up seeing innocent victims suffering whilst those criminal bastards get off scott free - lock em up and throw the keys away its guaranteed to resolve the problem :)
Posted by Robert at Wed Apr 27 23:24:56 2005:
On your criticisms, its a well known fact that very little will change in the next parliament regardless of who gets in (who really cares if taxes go up or down by a teeny weeny amount?). There is very little clear blue water between the big two so it does come down to "does Blair deserve to be reelected?". Considering thats hes dishonourable and dishonest and if there was any decency in him he would have resigned long ago its now up to us the electorate to pass judgement on him and I look forward to doing so.
Asylum is largely a bogus issue cause we will probably end up with an EU agreement or off shore processing whoever is elected. As for the quotas they work as follows: if a person seeking asylum cant get in the first monthly quota they have to wait for the following month in an off shore processing centre and so on (IE its an off shore waiting list). Nobody is gonna be sent back to some hostile evil nation as a result of this.
The 50% tax rate is barmy. Estimated revenue will be about 0.5 billion extra and you think that will pay for very much? Of course it will scare off the mega rich who will no doubt bog off to some tax heaven like they did in the seventies under the ultra high tax evil labour party which will probably mean less tax revenue coming in not more.
The other reason for voting tory is that my neighbourhood is not far from some scumbag gypsies who terrorise the local population and increase crime and burglary. I have witnessed two separate assaults on innocent bystanders by these scumbags so I look forward to a future tory administration dealing with them. Yobs and crime have soared under this soft and pathetic government - im fed up seeing innocent victims suffering whilst those criminal bastards get off scott free - lock em up and throw the keys away its guaranteed to resolve the problem :)
Ross- very well argued.
Every time the election season comes round I am reminded of and thoroughly depressed by the stupidity and fickleness of the public.
Especially when some people actually respond to the sort of things the Tories are saying. I've always said that they do nothing but exploit peoples primal fears: scary foreigners who you don't know and are going to come and get you, your 'hard earned' money being taken away from you, and nasty bad men on the streets. Got to keep the tribe safe from the outsiders.
Every time Howard says something new, it is the stupidest, most obnoxious thing he's ever said. "The voters deserve to know the truth about the legality of the war". Yes, Mr. Howard, and what would have happened about the war if you were in charge?
As you can probably tell, Howard has been steadily winding me up over the past months.
Posted by Bastien Nocera at Thu Apr 28 00:31:13 2005:
Every time the election season comes round I am reminded of and thoroughly depressed by the stupidity and fickleness of the public.
Especially when some people actually respond to the sort of things the Tories are saying. I've always said that they do nothing but exploit peoples primal fears: scary foreigners who you don't know and are going to come and get you, your 'hard earned' money being taken away from you, and nasty bad men on the streets. Got to keep the tribe safe from the outsiders.
Every time Howard says something new, it is the stupidest, most obnoxious thing he's ever said. "The voters deserve to know the truth about the legality of the war". Yes, Mr. Howard, and what would have happened about the war if you were in charge?
As you can probably tell, Howard has been steadily winding me up over the past months.
As my Scottish friends would say: "Aye". Ross put the things better than I ever could (especially it being a laaaaate Wednesday evening), and the local LibDems are going to get my vote for the local elections. Being a foreigner, I'm certainly not allowed to vote for the future ruling PM. No, no, no, it would be just wrong as I can't read bleeding English, now, can I.
Posted by AdamW at Thu Apr 28 00:32:56 2005:
Jamie: "yobs and crime" have not "soared". Crime levels in the U.K. have been going down consistently for many, many years now. Read the figures (and not the headline spin) next time the annual crime statistics come out and you'll see. (This has been the case under the last three governments, Labour and Tory).
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 00:52:29 2005:
AdamW : they have in my area but maybe its unfair cause the local travellers/gypsies moved in recently.
Anyway I believe governements should be accountable and frankly labour is just as bad, offensive and obnoxious as the tories in many respects :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4217009.stm
Now sure FUD and propaganda have been used by both parties for a long time and I beleive none of them. I see the reality all around me and just like 18 years of Tory government caused a lot of damage so will it be if Blair is reelected. It sends the wrong message - democracy does not work if a governemnt can lie cheat and deceive and get away with it and it has cost many thousands of lives as a result.
The war would never have happened if the truth was told - there is no way Blair would have got a parliamentary majority to go to war if the recent revelations were known at the time. Maybe it might have been different under the tories who knows but blair and his crony infested echelon are such good liars and thats how he managed it (I just cant see the tories pulling it off even if they tried).
The only Tory I like is Kenneth Clarke (he opposed the war) and I am so disappointed the only alternative we have is that bastard Howard but Blair must pay for what he has done.
Posted by Alan Horkan at Thu Apr 28 01:28:20 2005:
Anyway I believe governements should be accountable and frankly labour is just as bad, offensive and obnoxious as the tories in many respects :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4217009.stm
Now sure FUD and propaganda have been used by both parties for a long time and I beleive none of them. I see the reality all around me and just like 18 years of Tory government caused a lot of damage so will it be if Blair is reelected. It sends the wrong message - democracy does not work if a governemnt can lie cheat and deceive and get away with it and it has cost many thousands of lives as a result.
The war would never have happened if the truth was told - there is no way Blair would have got a parliamentary majority to go to war if the recent revelations were known at the time. Maybe it might have been different under the tories who knows but blair and his crony infested echelon are such good liars and thats how he managed it (I just cant see the tories pulling it off even if they tried).
The only Tory I like is Kenneth Clarke (he opposed the war) and I am so disappointed the only alternative we have is that bastard Howard but Blair must pay for what he has done.
Channel 4 have produced some spoof adverts/party political broadcasts showing what the partys might say if they thought they could get away with it.
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=67
Posted by Ross at Thu Apr 28 08:34:05 2005:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=67
Ah Jamie, do you read the Daily Mail reader, as your comment reads like the front page. Crime soaring, gypsies terrorising the locals, next you'll be talking about seeing visions of Diana and that tap water causes cancer.
Crime statistics is an interesting study, but as my wife's Psychology BSc disertation was about them I know a bit. The Tories use statistics from the Police force, which measures recorded crime. This is heavily influenced by recent measures to encourage reporting of domestic violence, inner-city "gangland" crime, etc. Labour however use the British Crime Survey figures, which is produced by asking people across the country how they have been affected by crime. Thus, in a system where (say) gun crime has gone down by 33% but people actually reporting it goes up by 50%, the Police say gun crime is exactly the same whereas the BCS say it has dropped. This is what is happening now, people are reporting more offenses to the authorities, but in general crime is falling. The exception I believe is gun crime, which is increasing in the inner cities.
Why do people seem to think that travellers are immune to the law? If you witness a traveller beat up someone in the street with no provocation, then tell the police like you would with anyone else. However the fact that everywhere they go they get called "scumbags" before they even turn up isn't helping the situation.
"Maybe" the war would have been different under Howard? I seem to recall the Tories telling Labour that we should go to war now, very early in the proceedings. If Howard were in power we'd have gone in even faster, no doubt about it.
Oh and Alan, thanks for the link. I saw the Tory advert but sadly missed the others.
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 09:46:19 2005:
Crime statistics is an interesting study, but as my wife's Psychology BSc disertation was about them I know a bit. The Tories use statistics from the Police force, which measures recorded crime. This is heavily influenced by recent measures to encourage reporting of domestic violence, inner-city "gangland" crime, etc. Labour however use the British Crime Survey figures, which is produced by asking people across the country how they have been affected by crime. Thus, in a system where (say) gun crime has gone down by 33% but people actually reporting it goes up by 50%, the Police say gun crime is exactly the same whereas the BCS say it has dropped. This is what is happening now, people are reporting more offenses to the authorities, but in general crime is falling. The exception I believe is gun crime, which is increasing in the inner cities.
Why do people seem to think that travellers are immune to the law? If you witness a traveller beat up someone in the street with no provocation, then tell the police like you would with anyone else. However the fact that everywhere they go they get called "scumbags" before they even turn up isn't helping the situation.
"Maybe" the war would have been different under Howard? I seem to recall the Tories telling Labour that we should go to war now, very early in the proceedings. If Howard were in power we'd have gone in even faster, no doubt about it.
Oh and Alan, thanks for the link. I saw the Tory advert but sadly missed the others.
Ross: I dont read any newspapers. Gypsies (or should I say the teenage ones and I certainly dont mean all gypsies here) are terrorising the locals in my neighbourhood for only yesterday a 17 year old gypsie beat up another teenager and stole his bike from a park around the corner from me. Thanks to political correctness theres bugger all anybody can do about this - if you retaliate you get punished and the neighbours wont involve the police because 1) they are useless and beauracratic 2) neighbours fear retaliation. The law is an ass with regards to juvenile crime and even if caught they get nothing but a telling off - they are effectively immune to the law and its so unfair!
I want to live in a fair society were special groups (like gypsies) are not given special treatment at the expense of everybody else. Im fed up with the unfairness in the system especially with regard to economic migrants who both work illegally and claim the dole (80% of all immigrants claiming asylum are bogus so we are being taken advantage of). A fair society means having a good balance in these areas and it means that criminals pay the price for their crimes. Sadly we need more prisons, more detterents, more fairness all round. Labour has failed in many of these areas so why shouldn't someone else be given a chance? Or perhaps you think Labour should be in power regardless of how incompetent or evil it becomes?
As some one who voted out the tories in 1997 cause they were sleazy scumbags and utterly useless in running our country at the time I am really pissed off at Labour and especially Blair who is every bit just as bad as them. Blair is a criminal in my books and he must pay.
Posted by Ross at Thu Apr 28 10:10:21 2005:
I want to live in a fair society were special groups (like gypsies) are not given special treatment at the expense of everybody else. Im fed up with the unfairness in the system especially with regard to economic migrants who both work illegally and claim the dole (80% of all immigrants claiming asylum are bogus so we are being taken advantage of). A fair society means having a good balance in these areas and it means that criminals pay the price for their crimes. Sadly we need more prisons, more detterents, more fairness all round. Labour has failed in many of these areas so why shouldn't someone else be given a chance? Or perhaps you think Labour should be in power regardless of how incompetent or evil it becomes?
As some one who voted out the tories in 1997 cause they were sleazy scumbags and utterly useless in running our country at the time I am really pissed off at Labour and especially Blair who is every bit just as bad as them. Blair is a criminal in my books and he must pay.
Jamie, [sigh]. Maybe you should read a decent newspaper to get the un-spun version of the news. I recommend reading the Independent or watching Channel 4 news.
Any teacher would just sigh at your comments about the travellers, these 17 year olds are effectively the school bullies and you are all the shy fat kid. If someone beats someone else up, get the police involved. If the police don't do anything, moan at them. This is a problem with your police force, not the government.
Economic migrants (IIRC) cannot claim dole unless they've been working here for a year, which of course does lead to a nice catch-22. And if an asylum claim is bogus, they'll have to leave and can't get any benefits. Next you'll be claiming there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in England!
We don't need more prisons, as they do nothing to help the problem. By the same argument the M25 should be 20 lanes wide, which also won't solve the problem of traffic congestion on it.
I must say the Tories have done very well making Labour the "evil enemy" in many people's eyes. Our economy is in a great shape, we are not actually being overrun with AIDS-infected terrorist bogus asylum seekers, and we would have gone to war if the Tories were in power.
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 10:54:28 2005:
Any teacher would just sigh at your comments about the travellers, these 17 year olds are effectively the school bullies and you are all the shy fat kid. If someone beats someone else up, get the police involved. If the police don't do anything, moan at them. This is a problem with your police force, not the government.
Economic migrants (IIRC) cannot claim dole unless they've been working here for a year, which of course does lead to a nice catch-22. And if an asylum claim is bogus, they'll have to leave and can't get any benefits. Next you'll be claiming there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in England!
We don't need more prisons, as they do nothing to help the problem. By the same argument the M25 should be 20 lanes wide, which also won't solve the problem of traffic congestion on it.
I must say the Tories have done very well making Labour the "evil enemy" in many people's eyes. Our economy is in a great shape, we are not actually being overrun with AIDS-infected terrorist bogus asylum seekers, and we would have gone to war if the Tories were in power.
Ross (sigh) : my judgement is not based on the tories advertisements or some biased commentator (the only news I watch is the BBC and they are not biased towards the tories) - they are based on the reality I see all around me. You surely cannot tell me we live in a fair society under the present government?
As I have said I see a lot of injustice and the police are pretty powerless to deal with juvenile crime and unless we adopt the malaysian cane tactics in dealing with them this injustice will continue. (Im not saying I have faith in the tories ability to do something here but at least they are trying...)
The tories IMO would not have been capable of making the case for war as they pale in comparison to Labour's spin machine. They might well have gone in anyway but somehow I get the feeling it would all have been different with their inability to justify it they may well have decided to save their own political skin instead. It was Blair's arrogance and his own belief in being able to spin away the public opposition that gave him the confidence to do what he did so I have some doubts about whether other parties would have done the same.
If Labour is not evil then how come Dr Kelly is dead? Was he a victim of their spin and did he pay the price for Blair's crimes? Had the governemnt not lied would he still be alive today? (the answers should be obvious!)
Just like most other criminals it seems Blair has escaped justice and got away again and now you want to reward him with a third term - the tories are the lessor of two evils so they shall get my vote this time. (if you think the country will be worse off as a result please state why as I am pretty sure the economy and investment in the NHS will continue under them if they keep their promises).
Posted by Darren Winsper at Thu Apr 28 11:32:13 2005:
As I have said I see a lot of injustice and the police are pretty powerless to deal with juvenile crime and unless we adopt the malaysian cane tactics in dealing with them this injustice will continue. (Im not saying I have faith in the tories ability to do something here but at least they are trying...)
The tories IMO would not have been capable of making the case for war as they pale in comparison to Labour's spin machine. They might well have gone in anyway but somehow I get the feeling it would all have been different with their inability to justify it they may well have decided to save their own political skin instead. It was Blair's arrogance and his own belief in being able to spin away the public opposition that gave him the confidence to do what he did so I have some doubts about whether other parties would have done the same.
If Labour is not evil then how come Dr Kelly is dead? Was he a victim of their spin and did he pay the price for Blair's crimes? Had the governemnt not lied would he still be alive today? (the answers should be obvious!)
Just like most other criminals it seems Blair has escaped justice and got away again and now you want to reward him with a third term - the tories are the lessor of two evils so they shall get my vote this time. (if you think the country will be worse off as a result please state why as I am pretty sure the economy and investment in the NHS will continue under them if they keep their promises).
Jamie, how do you actually know the Tories are the lesser of two evils? I love the way people seem to flip between "vote Tory out by voting Labour" and "vote Labour out by voting Tory." Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows! Mr. Howard would kick his own parents out given half a chance. Hell, even his rise to leader of the party is mired in suspicion and back-stabbing. Wow, I'd love a guy like that running my country.
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 11:52:25 2005:
Darren, IMO Howard is a bastard and I dont particularly like him and its true there are no guarantees that Howard will make my life better or deal with the juvenile crime problem that blights my otherwise pleasant village. However Howard does not have an army of cronies or the spin machine to create the monstrous dishonest government we have had under Blair. Nor do I think he is stupid enough to attempt to deceive the british public so blatantly like Blair has done. I also cant see him as Bush's poodle either and considering he has frosty relations with Bush he just has to be better than Blair in that respect.
Posted by Darren Winsper at Thu Apr 28 12:07:12 2005:
Considering that the Tories don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to honesty, your entire argument is "Howard's not Blair, so he might be better, despite the fact that we already know he's a complete bastard." If that's the best you can do, might I suggest that you should consider finding somebody besides Labour or the Conservatives to vote for? I know it's an amazingly new concept for some people, but just hopping between two bads isn't going to encourage the parties to clean up their acts.
Seriously, besides the war, what other arguments do you have. I don't want to belittle the war, but you have to consider the whole range of issues here. After all, it's not like Labour have done a horrible job with the country. Look around the rest of Europe, for example, and be glad we're not in the recession they're in.
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 12:19:50 2005:
Seriously, besides the war, what other arguments do you have. I don't want to belittle the war, but you have to consider the whole range of issues here. After all, it's not like Labour have done a horrible job with the country. Look around the rest of Europe, for example, and be glad we're not in the recession they're in.
The big difference though is that Blair lies so well and his spin machine is well oiled for this purpose.
The reality is that only Howard or Blair can be PM come may 6th - a vote for the liberal democrats is wasted as is my preferred party the Greens (for its software patents policy mostly).
Its true Labour has not made a mess of things but I do think its asylum and law and order policies are suspect. I would be surprised if Labour did not deal with the asylum issue if they win but the fact that they have sat on their knees for the past eight years is disconcerting. On the whole though they are both centre parties and so there aint gonna be a big difference whoever is elected so it does come down to personalities in my book and lets face facts Blair is a war criminal and Howard is not (yet!). Blair is a lying bastard and I want to wipe that arrogant smug grin off his face (as a man utd supporter, I want the same to happen to Jose Mourinho cause hes a lying cheating bastard too and I wanna see his face when they lose to Liverpool :))
Posted by Darren Winsper at Thu Apr 28 12:41:51 2005:
The reality is that only Howard or Blair can be PM come may 6th - a vote for the liberal democrats is wasted as is my preferred party the Greens (for its software patents policy mostly).
Its true Labour has not made a mess of things but I do think its asylum and law and order policies are suspect. I would be surprised if Labour did not deal with the asylum issue if they win but the fact that they have sat on their knees for the past eight years is disconcerting. On the whole though they are both centre parties and so there aint gonna be a big difference whoever is elected so it does come down to personalities in my book and lets face facts Blair is a war criminal and Howard is not (yet!). Blair is a lying bastard and I want to wipe that arrogant smug grin off his face (as a man utd supporter, I want the same to happen to Jose Mourinho cause hes a lying cheating bastard too and I wanna see his face when they lose to Liverpool :))
"The reality is that only Howard or Blair can be PM come may 6th - a vote for the liberal democrats is wasted as is my preferred party the Greens (for its software patents policy mostly)."
OK, you've hit a pet peeve of mine, so it's rant time:
Why are you such a short-sighted fool?! If everyone thought that way, no other party would ever get a look-in. Vote for what you believe in, or STFU when bad guys do bad things. Sure, there'll be some short-term pain, but sometimes you have to take it like a man for the sake of the future.
Posted by Ross at Thu Apr 28 13:02:13 2005:
OK, you've hit a pet peeve of mine, so it's rant time:
Why are you such a short-sighted fool?! If everyone thought that way, no other party would ever get a look-in. Vote for what you believe in, or STFU when bad guys do bad things. Sure, there'll be some short-term pain, but sometimes you have to take it like a man for the sake of the future.
The reality is that only Howard or Blair can be PM come may 6th - a vote for the liberal democrats is wasted as is my preferred party the Greens (for its software patents policy mostly).
This doesn't make any sense. You want to vote for the Greens, but as you don't want to lodge a vote of support, you'll vote for the Tories? I can't think of a single policy they share or single point of view they agree on. Logically if you wanted to vote Green but didn't you'd go for LibDem and then Labour, but not Tory: they are practically opposite (although to be honest current Labour are not that far away).
Unless you are in a marginal seat, why not vote Green is that is what you believe in. Personally I'm voting to try and keep the Tories out, and contacting my local MPs about the SWPAT issue.
Oh, and I think the "vote Green for no SWPAT" mainly applied to the MEP election, as that is where the debate is held. Obviously voting for them here helps, but it is the MEPs who have the power in this issue.
Posted by Glenn Pierce at Thu Apr 28 13:34:13 2005:
This doesn't make any sense. You want to vote for the Greens, but as you don't want to lodge a vote of support, you'll vote for the Tories? I can't think of a single policy they share or single point of view they agree on. Logically if you wanted to vote Green but didn't you'd go for LibDem and then Labour, but not Tory: they are practically opposite (although to be honest current Labour are not that far away).
Unless you are in a marginal seat, why not vote Green is that is what you believe in. Personally I'm voting to try and keep the Tories out, and contacting my local MPs about the SWPAT issue.
Oh, and I think the "vote Green for no SWPAT" mainly applied to the MEP election, as that is where the debate is held. Obviously voting for them here helps, but it is the MEPs who have the power in this issue.
"Vote for what you believe in". This is exactly right. I just don't see how people can justify voting tactically and promoting sites like Tactical Voter. If a party can't win by people voting positively for them they donât deserve to. Yes there maybe a disappointing vote for some people but that is just a consequence of a first past the post system. The vote is to elect a national government. However, it should still reflect some local issues. Swapping votes seems to show utter disrespect to the election. Why do people complain about a negative campaigning when they themselves are treating the election so negatively? If someone votes solely on the basis of complete hatred of a pollitical party, in this case one that hasn't been in a eight years I would say they are too emotionally evolved and perhaps they should rethink the reasons of why they vote the way they do.
Posted by Glenn Pierce at Thu Apr 28 13:37:22 2005:
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 13:43:53 2005:
It does make sense. Im not in favour of voting green for environmental reasons (I voted green in MEP election btw) and it was only because of software patents which was more important to me than anything else and I would like to reward them. But being in a tory/labour marginal I have little choice.
Its hypocritical when one encourages tactical voting to criticise me for voting tactically to oust Blair.
Posted by Ross at Thu Apr 28 13:51:14 2005:
Its hypocritical when one encourages tactical voting to criticise me for voting tactically to oust Blair.
I'm pragmatic: I'll vote LibDem where they have a chance, even a slim one. However if it were impossible for LibDem to win I vote Labour.
In this election I hope everyone who votes Tory actually wants Tory, and not just a change from Tony. He has stated this this is his last election and Brown as PM isn't that far behind. Voting Tory if want Labour but not Blair is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Posted by jamie at Thu Apr 28 14:00:05 2005:
In this election I hope everyone who votes Tory actually wants Tory, and not just a change from Tony. He has stated this this is his last election and Brown as PM isn't that far behind. Voting Tory if want Labour but not Blair is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Ross : whats the difference, have 5 years of Howard then vote for Brown/Labour or reward Blair and have 3-5 years of that smiley motherf****er then Brown.
In fact best case for you is to have Labour reelected with a very small majority such that Blair is crippled in power and forced to resign in 6-12 months time. So dont let your hatred of the tories allow Blair to stay on well past his welcome.
Posted by Sean O'Dubhghaill at Thu Apr 28 14:22:33 2005:
In fact best case for you is to have Labour reelected with a very small majority such that Blair is crippled in power and forced to resign in 6-12 months time. So dont let your hatred of the tories allow Blair to stay on well past his welcome.
Nice post ross. Darren that round & round comment is very true.
Jamie,
"Howard does not have an army of cronies or the spin machine to create the monstrous dishonest government we have had under Blair."
I recommend you do some reading on the way modern politcal parties operate. All three main parties run excellent PR machines and their whips mean that the vast majority of MPs in a party will vote and act in the way the party wants. The fact that you think that the tories to not have the ability to spin that labour does I think shows the effectiveness of the tory spin machine.
"I also cant see him as Bush's poodle either"
I'm afraid that the personallities of individual british or american leaders seem to have little effect on the role of britian as americas little lieutenant. Both the tories and labour have behaved similary towards america since the second world war.
If you want either of the above to change you are going to have to vote for someone other than labour or tory.
I also recommend using the site: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ to keep an eye on your mp. I find it useful.
oh and ross, soundjuicer is a cool app, thanks.
Posted by Darren Winsper at Thu Apr 28 14:26:43 2005:
Jamie,
"Howard does not have an army of cronies or the spin machine to create the monstrous dishonest government we have had under Blair."
I recommend you do some reading on the way modern politcal parties operate. All three main parties run excellent PR machines and their whips mean that the vast majority of MPs in a party will vote and act in the way the party wants. The fact that you think that the tories to not have the ability to spin that labour does I think shows the effectiveness of the tory spin machine.
"I also cant see him as Bush's poodle either"
I'm afraid that the personallities of individual british or american leaders seem to have little effect on the role of britian as americas little lieutenant. Both the tories and labour have behaved similary towards america since the second world war.
If you want either of the above to change you are going to have to vote for someone other than labour or tory.
I also recommend using the site: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ to keep an eye on your mp. I find it useful.
oh and ross, soundjuicer is a cool app, thanks.
whats the difference, have 5 years of Howard then vote for Brown/Labour or reward Blair and have 3-5 years of that smiley motherf****er then Brown.
Perhaps he thinks that Howard may actually do a worse job than Blair. Let's face it, you've got no real evidence that Howard would do any better than Blair. I mean, really, "Howard's not as good at lying, so he's probably better than Blair?!"
Posted by Ross at Thu Apr 28 14:53:47 2005:
Perhaps he thinks that Howard may actually do a worse job than Blair. Let's face it, you've got no real evidence that Howard would do any better than Blair. I mean, really, "Howard's not as good at lying, so he's probably better than Blair?!"
Yes, what Darren said. I may not agree with all of the Labour policies (specifically the terrorism and asylum laws), but I don't agree with any of the Tory policies. Thus as I live in a marginal seat, Labour get the vote.
Better the devil you know. And in this case it's more true than usual, thanks to Howard's something-of-the-night nature.
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 14:58:54 2005:
Better the devil you know. And in this case it's more true than usual, thanks to Howard's something-of-the-night nature.
Darren, thats a judgement people have to make. Personally I will give Howard the benefit of the doubt cause I have no doubt what Blair is like and I cant recall in living memory any PM that has behaved as disgracefully as blair.
Be careful what you wish for if you plan on voting Labour or tactically voting against the tories. If blair gets a thumping landslide dont be surprised if Blair serves his full term and then hands the reins to one of his cronies (eh Peter Mandleson?).
If you want Brown you have to cut Labour's majority (and preferably remove the Blairite MPs who wont vote for Brown in the leadership election in the process)
To Sean, I know what you mean but I was referring to the relative scale IE Howard will not be as close as BLair to Bush, Tory spin machine wont be as powerful, Tories wont have as many sympathetic civil servants as cronies etc - the current scale of the Labour spin machine and cronyism is unprecedented.
Posted by Darren Winsper at Thu Apr 28 15:12:10 2005:
Be careful what you wish for if you plan on voting Labour or tactically voting against the tories. If blair gets a thumping landslide dont be surprised if Blair serves his full term and then hands the reins to one of his cronies (eh Peter Mandleson?).
If you want Brown you have to cut Labour's majority (and preferably remove the Blairite MPs who wont vote for Brown in the leadership election in the process)
To Sean, I know what you mean but I was referring to the relative scale IE Howard will not be as close as BLair to Bush, Tory spin machine wont be as powerful, Tories wont have as many sympathetic civil servants as cronies etc - the current scale of the Labour spin machine and cronyism is unprecedented.
Darren, thats a judgement people have to make. Personally I will give Howard the benefit of the doubt cause I have no doubt what Blair is like and I cant recall in living memory any PM that has behaved as disgracefully as blair.
You're making a worrying mistake of treating the leader as if he's the whole party. Tell me, would it be OK if Howard was only, say, half as bad as Blair but the rest of the Tories sent the country down the drain?
Posted by Glenn Pierce at Thu Apr 28 15:31:37 2005:
You're making a worrying mistake of treating the leader as if he's the whole party. Tell me, would it be OK if Howard was only, say, half as bad as Blair but the rest of the Tories sent the country down the drain?
Jamie said: But being in a tory/labour marginal I have little choice.
Ross said: If impossible for LibDem to win I vote Labour.
I donât understand why this should change your vote. People throughout history have campaigned and protested things they believed passionately about. Not just given up because the task seems impossible. If more people kept the vote to LibDem maybe they could build on that result over time or a least become the challenging party, you want to get people used to voting the way they always have.
This is the only reason I can imagine why people who used to vote for old Labour still do. The current Labour party is in complete contrast to old Labour, they are just as right wing as the conservatives perhaps more so on some issues. How can an old Labour or LibDem supporter vote for the current Labour party and not conservative, it makes no sense when they share so much in common.
The LibDems will always be considered the third party as long as people throw their beliefs away to vote tactical for a party who is not remotely similar.
The fewer votes they get the less confidence people will have in future elections and so people not voting LibDem will be a hard habit to break.
Maybe people who vote Labour think Brown will get in short which is probably right. However, he may not change the party direction and him getting power soon may not be such a good thing, by that time Labour would have been in power for 12 or so years. The sad thing is people get bored of a party, history shows no party remains in power that long especially Labour parties). He may have left it too late.
Maybe I am not pragmatic enough though :)
Posted by Jamie at Thu Apr 28 15:51:59 2005:
Ross said: If impossible for LibDem to win I vote Labour.
I donât understand why this should change your vote. People throughout history have campaigned and protested things they believed passionately about. Not just given up because the task seems impossible. If more people kept the vote to LibDem maybe they could build on that result over time or a least become the challenging party, you want to get people used to voting the way they always have.
This is the only reason I can imagine why people who used to vote for old Labour still do. The current Labour party is in complete contrast to old Labour, they are just as right wing as the conservatives perhaps more so on some issues. How can an old Labour or LibDem supporter vote for the current Labour party and not conservative, it makes no sense when they share so much in common.
The LibDems will always be considered the third party as long as people throw their beliefs away to vote tactical for a party who is not remotely similar.
The fewer votes they get the less confidence people will have in future elections and so people not voting LibDem will be a hard habit to break.
Maybe people who vote Labour think Brown will get in short which is probably right. However, he may not change the party direction and him getting power soon may not be such a good thing, by that time Labour would have been in power for 12 or so years. The sad thing is people get bored of a party, history shows no party remains in power that long especially Labour parties). He may have left it too late.
Maybe I am not pragmatic enough though :)
Glenn, the problem is none of the parties represent what I want. EG I want opposition to corporate domination from the Greens (IE no software patents, limits on DRM and stronger anti monopoly laws etc), I want tough policies on law, order and assylum from the tories, I want a strong economy from tory/labour, I want to see money spent efficiently and waste reduced and OSS adopted in government. No single party will give me all that and the only things I agree with the lib dems is their opposition to the war and the scrapping of tuition fees (their other stuff is barmy IMO). Given all that its hard to pick a party (I mentioned greens before cause software patents mean much more to me than the others) so I dont feel I'm letting anybody down by voting tactically especially as I feel its my right to pass judgement on the incumbent.
Posted by Glenn at Thu Apr 28 16:45:08 2005:
I agree with you there Jaime as you believe in policies across parties you can pick which policy is the most important for you. I donât consider this a betrayal of your beliefs, and I wasn't singling anyone out. I guess its people that are firmly in one political camp who then stop voting the way they believe to keep another party out that annoys me. Itâs even worst when the party they vote for has such different views to their natural party. In this case so much so that they are very similar to the party that caused the voter to vote tactically. It is just completely illogical to me.
Posted by Daniel at Thu Apr 28 18:03:18 2005:
Jamie wrote: "Howard does not have an army of cronies or the spin machine"
Does the name Saatchi ring a bell?
Posted by Paul Mison at Fri Apr 29 00:27:52 2005:
Does the name Saatchi ring a bell?
I thought there were council tax valuations before its introduction in 1992, but I wasn't paying the tax at the time and I could well be wrong.
Of course, the Tories now seem to have a policy that property taxes shouldn't reflect the actual value of the property (given they oppose the current round of English valuations). Maybe they'll just come clean and admit they want, oh, I don't know, a flat charge per person to cover charges in the community. I'm sure it'd go down well. Especially if they did a trial run on five million guinea pigs who had failed to vote for them for ten years...
Of course, the Tories now seem to have a policy that property taxes shouldn't reflect the actual value of the property (given they oppose the current round of English valuations). Maybe they'll just come clean and admit they want, oh, I don't know, a flat charge per person to cover charges in the community. I'm sure it'd go down well. Especially if they did a trial run on five million guinea pigs who had failed to vote for them for ten years...
