Politics in Newbury; which way to vote at the forthcoming election Options

[GMR]

Well, what will they be, or has Mr F taken a leaf out of Cleggies book? Just go for a coalition and grab a bit of personal glory. That's what it looks like, nought wrong with that, but look what happened to the LibDems

Like the Lib-Dems, in the coalition, they will influence government. In the case of the Lib-Dems they had more of an influence than they had a right to have.

I wouldn't say that Cleggie got a bit of personal glory. By going into coalition they stopped the Tories moving to the right. They had influence in other areas as well, so I wouldn't call that personal glory. I am no fan of the Lib-Dems, but to dismiss them are totally irrelevant in the coalition as just personal glory as silly.

[Simon Kirby]

I think structural change, rather than just a paint job. Arguably, UKIP are just the Tebbit tendency of the Tory party, so all we'll really get is Thatcherisim undiluted. Fine, but no one has explained what happens next.

I'd disagree here. Thatcher, as a woman of her time, was a reactionary social conservative, but she was also a radical small-state free-market liberal and laissez-faire capitalist - a liberal in fact. I fear that UKIP are the very antithesis - self-serving authoritarian regulation-heavy blue-collar Tesco Taliban, very much the politics of the 70's from which Thatcher saved the nation.

[GMR]

I'd disagree here. Thatcher, as a woman of her time, was a reactionary social conservative, but she was also a radical small-state free-market liberal and laissez-faire capitalist - a liberal in fact. I fear that UKIP are the very antithesis - self-serving authoritarian regulation-heavy blue-collar Tesco Taliban, very much the politics of the 70's from which Thatcher saved the nation.

Thatcher was a woman of her time, but that doesn't mean that Farage isn't a man of his time. Remember that Farage is starting of from a new Party, while Thatcher grew out of over hundreds of years of tradition.

As for "authoritarian"; is that more press propaganda?

[HeatherW]

I'd disagree here. Thatcher, as a woman of her time, was a reactionary social conservative, but she was also a radical small-state free-market liberal and laissez-faire capitalist - a liberal in fact. I fear that UKIP are the very antithesis - self-serving authoritarian regulation-heavy blue-collar Tesco Taliban, very much the politics of the 70's from which Thatcher saved the nation.

I think you are being fanciful here. I read your post as a hatred of UKIP, rather than saying anything intelligent. I think I go more with what GMR says. But only time will tell who is right. What I do know is that if UKIP don't learn and adapt then they will disappear. But doesn't that apply to all parties?

[Simon Kirby]

Thatcher was a woman of her time, but that doesn't mean that Farage isn't a man of his time. Remember that Farage is starting of from a new Party, while Thatcher grew out of over hundreds of years of tradition.

There's nothing new about Farage's populist intolerance. Yes, he attacks political humbug, and he strikes a cord with me in that regard, but UKIP politics is entirely negative, it's all about what (and mainly who) people don't like - it's the political wing of the Daily Mail. Farage may indeed be a man of his time, and I despair of that nihilistic, spiteful zeitgeist, because there is nothing better on offer in England. I actually believed - believe - in the Big Society, that engaged empowered community of individuals getting to know each other and taking collective and personal responsibility for themselves, and I despair that a popular dissatisfaction with the arrogance of politics has not found people seeking a humbler politics but instead has given voice to a braying ass of a man.

As for "authoritarian"; is that more press propaganda?

No, it was the obvious one.

[Spider]

I'd disagree here. Thatcher, as a woman of her time, was a reactionary social conservative, but she was also a radical small-state free-market liberal and laissez-faire capitalist - a liberal in fact. I fear that UKIP are the very antithesis - self-serving authoritarian regulation-heavy blue-collar Tesco Taliban, very much the politics of the 70's from which Thatcher saved the nation.

It is true that Farage has said he is an admirer of Thatcher, but I've also heard him criticise her as well. I think all good men/ philosophers and politicians take the best from the best out there. Weren't Blair and Brown admirers of Thatcher? She was a very powerful force in British politics that left a powerful legacy for us all. Whether we agree or not. I don't think, therefore, it is wrong for Farage or any politicians to look towards her when implementing policies.

[GMR]

There's nothing new about Farage's populist intolerance. Yes, he attacks political humbug, and he strikes a cord with me in that regard, but UKIP politics is entirely negative, it's all about what (and mainly who) people don't like - it's the political wing of the Daily Mail. Farage may indeed be a man of his time, and I despair of that nihilistic, spiteful zeitgeist, because there is nothing better on offer in England.

I think you could said that about any politician. Farage is the underdog and I think he is doing well and fighting well. Like all politics there is an element of bluster and bull****.

As for "negative": Where? What you might see as negative, another will see as positive.

I actually believed - believe - in the Big Society, that engaged empowered community of individuals getting to know each other and taking collective and personal responsibility for themselves, and I despair that a popular dissatisfaction with the arrogance of politics has not found people seeking a humbler politics but instead has given voice to a braying ass of a man.

The governments "Big society" was a con and in reality didn't work.

No, it was the obvious one.

I disagree, however, whether true or not there is only one way we will find out. But that applies to all leaders.

[Andy Capp]

Does any one really think that there is a great politics waiting to burst out and all we needed to do is vote for the right party and PM and all will be well? What if after putting the country's data through a huge whatisthebestpolitcsforthiscountry.exe we were to discover that we are now somewhere close? Does any one party truly offer a clear advantage to what we have now? We have the politics we have now because we have the voter and electorate we have now. Our politicians mirror the people of this country. Given all opportunities most people would be like a Tory wet (centre right), that I'm certain.

It is not the politics that need to change, it is country's electorate.

Anyone that thinks (sadly) that this country would be better run than by those currently in power need their head examined. UKIP, Labour, Greens, seriously?

[Simon Kirby]

It is true that Farage has said he is an admirer of Thatcher, but I've also heard him criticise her as well. I think all good men/ philosophers and politicians take the best from the best out there. Weren't Blair and Brown admirers of Thatcher? She was a very powerful force in British politics that left a powerful legacy for us all. Whether we agree or not. I don't think, therefore, it is wrong for Farage or any politicians to look towards her when implementing policies.

The Black Death was also a very powerful force in British politics that also left a powerful legacy but that doesn't make bubonic plague a sound national policy, and neither are the puss-filled bubos of UKIP political thought.

[GMR]

Does any one really think that there is a great politics waiting to burst out and all we needed to do is vote for the right party and PM and all will be well? What if after putting the countries data through a huge whatisthwebestpolitcsforthiscountry.exe we were to doscover that we are now somewhere close? Does any one party truly offer a clear advantage to what we have now? We have the politics we have now because we have the voter and electorate we have now. Our politicians mirror the people of this country. Given all opportunities most people would be like a Tory wet ()centre right), that I'm certain. It is not the politics that need to change, it is country's electorate. Anyone that thinks (sadly) that this country would be better run than by those currently in power need their head examined. UKIP, Labour, Greens, seriously?

Of course not, however, the same applies to what we've got in power. Something is better than nothing, and we might get pleasantly surprised. Not trying something is even worse in my book.

Question; are you saying that we should keep the status quo as nothing new will never burst out? Isn't trying something better than doing nothing?

[Andy Capp]

Of course not, however, the same applies to what we've got in power. Something is better than nothing, and we might get pleasantly surprised. Not trying something is even worse in my book.

Question; are you saying that we should keep the status quo as nothing new will never burst out? Isn't trying something better than doing nothing?

No.

Change something only when one can see a clear benefit and the risks are understood. Don't change something just because it is new, or different, that is stupid.

A coalition at this point in time, with the country as it is, sadly, is the best option when one considers the alternatives, in my view.

[GMR]

No. Change something only when one can see a clear benefit and the risks are understood. Don't change something just because it is new, or different, that is stupid.

But that is the point. You can't always see a clear benefit, and when you think you can see it, it doesn't always work out that way. Whatever way you throw the dice it is still a gamble.

A coalition at this point in time, with the country as it is, sadly, is the best option when one considers the alternatives, in my view.

Yes, but isn't that what we've been saying? A coalition with who though? And couldn't that coalition be with UKIP/ Conservatives or SNP and Labour? Or some other concoction?

[Simon Kirby]

The governments "Big society" was a con and in reality didn't work.

I may be naïve, but I believe that Cameron got the Big Society and that he genuinely meant it to be a grass-roots social revolution - and I mean revolution too as it's pretty much how people used to behave before the nanny state robbed us of our self-reliance, matrix-style.

But you're right, it bombed. Pretty much no one understood it, and those who did on the Big State local government gravy-train had the most to lose so they made double-sure it failed.

[Andy Capp]

But that is the point. You can't always see a clear benefit, and when you think you can see it, it doesn't always work out that way. Whatever way you throw the dice it is still a gamble.

A throw of a dice is always a 1 in 6 chance, but that isn't the sort of gambling were are talking about her. This is a gamble with entities that haven't got empirical evidence to support their policies.

Yes, but isn't that what we've been saying? A coalition with who though? And couldn't that coalition be with UKIP/ Conservatives or SNP and Labour? Or some other concoction?

No. I'm saying the present coalition is the best option with all that is currently available.

[HeatherW]

I may be naïve, but I believe that Cameron got the Big Society and that he genuinely meant it to be a grass-roots social revolution - and I mean revolution too as it's pretty much how people used to behave before the nanny state robbed us of our self-reliance, matrix-style.

But you're right, it bombed. Pretty much no one understood it, and those who did on the Big State local government gravy-train had the most to lose so they made double-sure it failed.

It is one of those things that in theory a great idea and sound bit, but nothing further. Cameron should have thought before engaging hims mouth. But at least it helped him into power.

[Claude]

As 'young voter' I'm a little disengaged, but also confused.

What am I voting for in a General Election?

I'm clearly not voting in an X-Factor competition, for the most popular candidate and the person I want to reside at #10, I'm voting for the party. I get that, although many don't.

Each party has national policies which I may or may not agree with, such as how to address immigration, fiscal policies, education, health etc, really high-level stuff, macro-policies if you will.

Am I voting for the party which has the most policies/pledges that I agree with? If so, how do I get my local concerns addressed?

Or am I voting for the local candidate who most closely matches my views on key issues in the Newbury locale? S/he will after all be representing me in Parliament. But what if that person is a candidate of a party I disagree with from a national policies level?

What's the point of voting for an independent candidate? They may be the very closest match to my local concerns but what about income tax cuts and increasing spending on public transport - they're going to be able to offer nothing to that end.

Is it just a balancing act? Weighing up local issues, national issues and while I may agree with 60% of their stance as an individual & party, it's the highest of all the options. Is that how you decide?

Can anyone help me understand how I should decide who to vote for, then I can try and make the best decision for my personal circumstances & beliefs, but until then I'm stumbling around in the dark.

If nobody can answer my questions perhaps there are other resources people can point me towards which will help?

[Simon Kirby]

It is one of those things that in theory a great idea and sound bit, but nothing further. Cameron should have thought before engaging hims mouth. But at least it helped him into power.

You think Big Society was a vote-winner? Alrighty...

[Andy Capp]

Can anyone help me understand how I should decide who to vote for, then I can try and make the best decision for my personal circumstances & beliefs, but until then I'm stumbling around in the dark.

If nobody can answer my questions perhaps there are other resources people can point me towards which will help?

They haven't released their manifestos yet, so the question is premature.

[GMR]

A throw of a dice is always a 1 in 6 chance, but that isn't the sort of gambling were are talking about her. This is a gamble with entities that haven't got empirical evidence to support their policies.

Such as? Remember; all parties are saying the same about each other.

No. I'm saying the present coalition is the best option with all that is currently available.

Would you have said the same before 2010? I think a Tory led coalition with, say, UKIP (providing they have the seats) could have done pretty much the same (with a plebiscite on Europe thrown in). But to be fair we just don't know until one tries it.

[GMR]

They haven't released their manifestos yet, so the question is premature.

Exactly; doesn't that then answer some of your question to me about UKIP then?