Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Politics in Newbury; which way to vote at the forthcoming election
Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 05:26 PM
Do people from West Berkshire have a wide range of choices when voting in Newbury? It is believed that the Tories will win Newbury (again) at the next election. The Lib-Dems shot their goose at the last election and are not very popular at the moment. UKIP are new and need to grow, while the Greens offer crazy politics. Labour has not chance in Newbury, more so while they've got a left-wing led union controlled leader. Independents are just a gamble. Should we follow like sheep and just vote for the party that is going to win in this area?
This is something that concerns me. In the past I've voted Lib-Dems, but this time I am not sure which way to vote. I am tinkering with UKIP in the hope of shaking things up.
Posted by: Cognosco Mar 3 2015, 06:08 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 3 2015, 05:26 PM) 
Do people from West Berkshire have a wide range of choices when voting in Newbury? It is believed that the Tories will win Newbury (again) at the next election. The Lib-Dems shot their goose at the last election and are not very popular at the moment. UKIP are new and need to grow, while the Greens offer crazy politics. Labour has not chance in Newbury, more so while they've got a left-wing led union controlled leader. Independents are just a gamble. Should we follow like sheep and just vote for the party that is going to win in this area?
This is something that concerns me. In the past I've voted Lib-Dems, but this time I am not sure which way to vote. I am tinkering with UKIP in the hope of shaking things up.
This is something that concerns me. In the past I've voted Lib-Dems, but this time I am not sure which way to vote. I am tinkering with UKIP in the hope of shaking things up.
Same with me I'm afraid there is no party that I can say I would be happy with.
Just have to vote for the lesser of the evils, not vote or spoiled vote me thinks!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2015, 07:04 PM
I believe in Liberal Democrat values: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."
My difficulty locally is finding someone to vote for who also believes in these things.
I'll be voting for my friend David Yates, and in the local elections I'll be voting for the apolitical independents where national politics has little meaning and what I really want is someone who will decide the issues on their merits according to their conscience and who isn't afraid to canvas opinion and be swayed by a good argument.
If anyone's interested in getting party politics out of local government we're holding a public meeting on the 10th at the Upper Crust (upstairs at the Empire Cafe), starts 1900, with a speaker from the independent Frome Town Council who successfully achieved what we're looking to do in Newbury (see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-a-democratic-revolution-in-the-somerset-town-of-frome-could-teach-our-political-class-8312163.html). It's more about encouraging ordinary free-thinking people to stand for election than drumming up votes, so if you've been thinking that you ought to do something about the state of politics in West Berkshire then you're not alone and we can help each other.
Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 3 2015, 07:04 PM)
I believe in Liberal Democrat values: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."
My difficulty locally is finding someone to vote for who also believes in these things.
I'll be voting for my friend David Yates, and in the local elections I'll be voting for the apolitical independents where national politics has little meaning and what I really want is someone who will decide the issues on their merits according to their conscience and who isn't afraid to canvas opinion and be swayed by a good argument.
If anyone's interested in getting party politics out of local government we're holding a public meeting on the 10th at the Upper Crust (upstairs at the Empire Cafe), starts 1900, with a speaker from the independent Frome Town Council who successfully achieved what we're looking to do in Newbury (see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-a-democratic-revolution-in-the-somerset-town-of-frome-could-teach-our-political-class-8312163.html). It's more about encouraging ordinary free-thinking people to stand for election than drumming up votes, so if you've been thinking that you ought to do something about the state of politics in West Berkshire then you're not alone and we can help each other.
My difficulty locally is finding someone to vote for who also believes in these things.
I'll be voting for my friend David Yates, and in the local elections I'll be voting for the apolitical independents where national politics has little meaning and what I really want is someone who will decide the issues on their merits according to their conscience and who isn't afraid to canvas opinion and be swayed by a good argument.
If anyone's interested in getting party politics out of local government we're holding a public meeting on the 10th at the Upper Crust (upstairs at the Empire Cafe), starts 1900, with a speaker from the independent Frome Town Council who successfully achieved what we're looking to do in Newbury (see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-a-democratic-revolution-in-the-somerset-town-of-frome-could-teach-our-political-class-8312163.html). It's more about encouraging ordinary free-thinking people to stand for election than drumming up votes, so if you've been thinking that you ought to do something about the state of politics in West Berkshire then you're not alone and we can help each other.
As once a member of the Lib-Dems and its values I can honestly say that since going into coalition they've dropped those values and gone for what is best for their status and power potential. That is why I am leaning towards UKIP. They are a fresh party that will shake up the other parties and make everybody think. Either that or the status quo.
Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 07:15 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 3 2015, 06:08 PM)
Same with me I'm afraid there is no party that I can say I would be happy with.
Just have to vote for the lesser of the evils, not vote or spoiled vote me thinks!
Just have to vote for the lesser of the evils, not vote or spoiled vote me thinks!
Voting for somebody like UKIP is better than a spoiled vote, me things. Anything that tells the main establishments that we've had enough of their bull****.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 3 2015, 07:25 PM
I've voted all my life Tory, but this time I just don't know. Labour are too far left and up their own backside, and of course we mustn't forget what they left us. Greens are just that, Green and naive. Lib-Dems are a joke and liars. Which leaves UKIP. They may be novices and get a bad press, but there thinking seems old Tory.
Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 07:41 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Mar 3 2015, 07:25 PM)
I've voted all my life Tory, but this time I just don't know. Labour are too far left and up their own backside, and of course we mustn't forget what they left us. Greens are just that, Green and naive. Lib-Dems are a joke and liars. Which leaves UKIP. They may be novices and get a bad press, but there thinking seems old Tory.
What we once believed in (as in party) is now being questioned. I am questioning the party I've voted for years.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2015, 07:48 PM
I think UKIP's credence is on par with the Greens. The best UKIP could do is make the two main parties sweat it at the next election.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2015, 10:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2015, 07:48 PM)
I think UKIP's credence is on par with the Greens. The best UKIP could do is make the two main parties sweat it at the next election.
You may well be right, but that would be no bad thing. However, it's still same old , same old. UKIP has really taken the LibDem place as the party of protest, but it's possibly too late. I have a feeling that people, particularly the young, are just sick to death of ping pong politics, 'my dad is bigger than your dad'. So the local non aligned independents do seem a viable option. If Dave Yates does stand this time , I might not spoil my ballot paper!
Posted by: Claude Mar 5 2015, 01:58 PM
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?
Posted by: The Hatter Mar 5 2015, 02:12 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 5 2015, 01:58 PM)
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?
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?
I can totally sympathise with you. Round here there are only two parties that ever get considered and they are both the same, it's like having an argument to sort out if it's better to do your shopping in Sainsburys or Tesco. You can vote for an independent, which would be like shopping in your local shop - it would make no real difference. They don't want to know what we think, so I'm not going to tell them
Posted by: motormad Mar 5 2015, 03:15 PM
'Young' 
I'm not voting at all.
If I WERE to Vote, I'd vote UKIP.
Not because I'm a racist prick but because I'm so fed up with the same old crap from the existing parties, and I believe we would be better out of the EU where we are not governed by their stupid rules. I think UKIP offer something new...something a little fresh. And I don't like David Cameron whatsoever.
Then again, I would vote for whatever political party made the M25 and the M4 and the M1 an Autobahn. 
At the end of the day, you can guarantee that 90% of what they "pledge", they will not do, the 10% that they DO actually manage to piece together will not be exactly what they said it would.
Posted by: Strafin Mar 5 2015, 05:56 PM
I considered registering to vote, and would vote UKIP, I think they would at least shake things up a bit. But I probably won't.
Posted by: GMR Mar 5 2015, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 5 2015, 05:56 PM)
I considered registering to vote, and would vote UKIP, I think they would at least shake things up a bit. But I probably won't.
Why not? Voting for somebody like UKIP would shake things up and it better than not voting.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 5 2015, 08:59 PM
Err why? What would UKIP do here apart from suck out a slice of the Tory vote and so let in the LibDem. That would mean you'd get light blue rather than dark blue. Right now, I'm with Strafin, but willing to listen.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 04:35 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2015, 07:48 PM)
I think UKIP's credence is on par with the Greens. The best UKIP could do is make the two main parties sweat it at the next election.
I wouldn't say that, I think they are ahead of them.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 04:41 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 5 2015, 08:59 PM)
Err why? What would UKIP do here apart from suck out a slice of the Tory vote and so let in the LibDem. That would mean you'd get light blue rather than dark blue. Right now, I'm with Strafin, but willing to listen.
UKIP have already done a lot standing on the side lines. Brought immigration to the forefront. Questioned the EU (where everybody else would rather turn a blind eye). If they get seats - and they will get some - it will make the other parties look deep within themselves. Not to vote for them is basically saying nothing will or should change.
The question is; do you want the status quo or a possible change. The status quo is between the Tories or Labour playing Bing-bong ball backwards and forwards.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2015, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 04:41 PM)
UKIP have already done a lot standing on the side lines. Brought immigration to the forefront. Questioned the EU (where everybody else would rather turn a blind eye). If they get seats - and they will get some - it will make the other parties look deep within themselves. Not to vote for them is basically saying nothing will or should change.
The question is; do you want the status quo or a possible change. The status quo is between the Tories or Labour playing Bing-bong ball backwards and forwards.
The question is; do you want the status quo or a possible change. The status quo is between the Tories or Labour playing Bing-bong ball backwards and forwards.
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 6 2015, 05:19 PM)
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.
And who said it was going to be just a paint job? What do you think will happen next? If they got enough seats they could possibly go into coalition or influence the government.
I also don't think they will be Thatcherism undiluted.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2015, 05:27 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 05:22 PM)
And who said it was going to be just a paint job? What do you think will happen next? If they got enough seats they could possibly go into coalition or influence the government.
I also don't think they will be Thatcherism undiluted.
I also don't think they will be Thatcherism undiluted.
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
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 6 2015, 05:27 PM)
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.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 06:38 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 6 2015, 05:19 PM)
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 06:38 PM)
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?
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 6 2015, 07:35 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 06:38 PM)
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?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 07:51 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 07:14 PM)
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.
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 07:14 PM)
As for "authoritarian"; is that more press propaganda?
No, it was the obvious one.
Posted by: Spider Mar 6 2015, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 06:38 PM)
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:00 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 07:51 PM)
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:03 PM
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?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 08:07 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 6 2015, 07:55 PM)
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:08 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:03 PM)
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?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:08 PM)
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?
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:15 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:10 PM)
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.
QUOTE
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?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 08:16 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:00 PM)
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:15 PM)
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.
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:15 PM)
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.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 6 2015, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 08:16 PM)
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.
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.
Posted by: Claude Mar 6 2015, 08:25 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 5 2015, 01:58 PM)
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?
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?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Mar 6 2015, 08:19 PM)
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...
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 6 2015, 08:25 PM)
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?
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:19 PM)
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:26 PM)
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?
Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 08:26 PM)
You think Big Society was a vote-winner? Alrighty...
In theory a lot of these ideas are good ideas. But when it comes to putting it into practice then it is another matter.
Posted by: Claude Mar 6 2015, 08:33 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:26 PM)
They haven't released their manifestos yet, so the question is premature.
That's not the point at all. I do not know what a vote in the General Election is for. That's what I need help to understand.
Posted by: Spider Mar 6 2015, 08:34 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:31 PM)
In theory a lot of these ideas are good ideas. But when it comes to putting it into practice then it is another matter.
That was why I was disappointed with the Lib-Dems. They were all mouth before the election, but once in power they were all different.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:28 PM)
Such as? Remember; all parties are saying the same about each other.
I don't understand your point, sorry.
QUOTE (GMR @ Mar 6 2015, 08:28 PM)
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.
Yes. Just like the country needed Thatcher to pull the unions into check, this country needed the coalition in the 10s to regain economic credibility. However, just because I think the coalition is the best option now, isn't say I am a fan and think it should continue as such, it is just that there is a lack of a credible alternative.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 6 2015, 08:33 PM)
That's not the point at all. I do not know what a vote in the General Election is for. That's what I need help to understand.
It is the point, because without a manifesto, you don't know what you are voting for! e.g. If you happened to be under 40 and looking for a starter home, you would do little better than hope a Tory government is returned.
You have two types of election. Local and general. In a general election you vote for someone to go to parliament and vote for polices that affect the country at large. In local elections, you get to vote for who decides when you get your bin emptied and where local houses get built, i.e. local issues (but with limited power).
This year we will be voting for someone to go to London and debate and consult on national issues.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 6 2015, 08:25 PM)
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
That's an easy one. If it's a concern for your personal circumstances that drives you then Conservative is a safe vote, but if you're driven by your beliefs then Labour might be more you. There are other choices, and there is also some cross-over, but the essential choice is a moral one - whether or not to be selfish really. You typically have more choice on the self-serving end of the spectrum.
However, like AC said, it really doesn't much matter who you vote for - blaming our politicians for the arrogance of British politics is simply out-sourcing our moral responsibility, and why not, the nanny state already collects our bins, cares for our elderly, fights our wars, grows our food, arrests our crims, tends to our sick - so it's attractive to assume that the immorality of our public servants is also not our responsibility. Except it is - we get the democracy we deserve.
Oddly enough a selfless outlook is typically the most rewarding - like the parable of the long handled spoons.
Posted by: Claude Mar 6 2015, 08:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 08:45 PM)
You have two types of election. Local and general. In a general election you vote for someone to go to parliament and vote for polices that affect the country at large. In local elections, you get to vote for who decides when you get your bin emptied and where local houses get built.
This year we will be voting for someone to go to London and debate and consult on national issues.
This year we will be voting for someone to go to London and debate and consult on national issues.
What's the point of an independent candidate? Is their dream just to get to Westminster so they can be counted, when in fact they'd deliver very little for constituents other than a voice?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 6 2015, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Mar 6 2015, 08:54 PM)
What's the point of an independent candidate? Is their dream just to get to Westminster so they can be counted, when in fact they'd deliver very little for constituents other than a voice?
Other than a voice? You underestimate the power of a voice. As an MP you have standing, a platform from which to speak, and you can use the platform to challenge power and authority in a way than the ordinary schmo can't. Of course it helps if you have something to say other than "vote for me", and typically career politicians don't believe in anything but their career, but independents sometimes do.
And then sometimes don't...
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 6 2015, 08:51 PM)
That's an easy one. If it's a concern for your personal circumstances that drives you then Conservative is a safe vote, but if you're driven by your beliefs then Labour might be more you. There are other choices, and there is also some cross-over, but the essential choice is a moral one - whether or not to be selfish really. You typically have more choice on the self-serving end of the spectrum.
Then there's tactical voting. It would take an incredible event for Labour to win in Newbury, so if labour was your bag, you would better off voting Lib Dem, or UKIP if the suggestion that the Lib Dems are toast is true. When the Lib Dems won here the last time, we got a Labour government.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 7 2015, 10:10 PM
The thing with Farage is he tells the truth. People don't like the truth. Especially bleeding heart Liberals. The same people who feel sorry for the
3 wee "girls" who bless them felt it necessary to go to Syria. It was all our fault of course. They were groomed. They disliked Britain.
We did not make them feel welcome. They were brainwashed.
Then again when they got to Syria and they didn't have sanitary towels and they were passed about like bits of meat between ISIS fighters they
will most likely want to come home. Lets hope a US missile saves the UK a few quid before.
I may sound crass. But hey - I'm only saying what other like minded people are saying.
As for the election - FARAGE all the way. F**K all the other parties.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 8 2015, 12:27 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 6 2015, 09:09 PM)
Then there's tactical voting. It would take an incredible event for Labour to win in Newbury, so if labour was your bag, you would better off voting Lib Dem, or UKIP if the suggestion that the Lib Dems are toast is true. When the Lib Dems won here the last time, we got a Labour government.
Tactical voting explains the Lib-Dem's past success in this constituency - and might, just might, see them upset the Tories again - but only if large numbers of former Tory voters turn to UKIP and the Lib-Dem vote holds up (without a viable alternative left of centre candidate it's not entirely impossible).
But my money's on another 5 years of Benyon.
Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 08:55 AM
Farage tells the truth just like Clegg did in the last election. Vote for him and there wouldn't be any University Tuition Fees. That would have helped my sister when she went to Uni. He gets in and guess what, no change. This time, not a word is said about that until Labour say they'll reduce them if they get in. What do the LibDems do? Just rubbish what Labour say. You can't trust any of them they are all just out for themselves they only have principles when it suits them. There is no point at all in voting because whatever they say, they'll just do what they want so why bother?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2015, 10:03 AM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Mar 8 2015, 08:55 AM)
Farage tells the truth just like Clegg did in the last election. Vote for him and there wouldn't be any University Tuition Fees. That would have helped my sister when she went to Uni. He gets in and guess what, no change. This time, not a word is said about that until Labour say they'll reduce them if they get in. What do the LibDems do? Just rubbish what Labour say. You can't trust any of them they are all just out for themselves they only have principles when it suits them. There is no point at all in voting because whatever they say, they'll just do what they want so why bother?
Nick Clegg didn't win an election, he was therefore not entitled to enact his manifesto, but what they helped do is make Uni accessible for the least wealthiest. You only pay if you get a reasonably well paid job.
Posted by: user23 Mar 8 2015, 12:29 PM
I don't buy this Farage speaks the truth stuff.
Do we really believe http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-07/nigel-farage-blames-open-door-immigration-for-running-late-to-ukip-meeting/?
If immigrants are taking too many UK jobs, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610639/Nigel-Farage-job-German-wife-taking.html?
Why's he been saying we need a cap on migration, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-migration-cap-axed-just-5280422?
If the EU are so bad, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/ukip-eu-taxpayers-cash-new-political-party?
Can anyone thinking of voting UKIP answer these questions for me?
Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 12:39 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Mar 8 2015, 08:55 AM)
Farage tells the truth just like Clegg did in the last election. Vote for him and there wouldn't be any University Tuition Fees. That would have helped my sister when she went to Uni. He gets in and guess what, no change. This time, not a word is said about that until Labour say they'll reduce them if they get in. What do the LibDems do? Just rubbish what Labour say. You can't trust any of them they are all just out for themselves they only have principles when it suits them. There is no point at all in voting because whatever they say, they'll just do what they want so why bother?
Getting young people to university and technical colleges was something the government of the day encouraged as it brought the unemployment figures down big time. I don't think that they envisaged the take up though when gradually it became some sort of status symbol amongst middle class and latterly, every other parent who could clack on about their offspring going to uni. New universities sprang up all over the place offering nonsense degrees in media studies, psychology, geography etc. These didn't have any long term benefit either to the new BA or the country. Ergo, suddenly the government need to find a face saving way of cutting back on the numbers, hence parents and students having to fork out the cash to support this trend.
Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 05:36 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 8 2015, 10:03 AM)
Nick Clegg didn't win an election, he was therefore not entitled to enact his manifesto, but what they helped do is make Uni accessible for the least wealthiest. You only pay if you get a reasonably well paid job.
Why wasn't he honest in the first place then? Why wasnt it just left in the manifesto? The LibDems didn't help make universities accessible at all all they did was tell an untruth to get the student vote. That's just as bad as mis selling which they have been slagging of the banks for doing. And as for what you think is a reasonably paid job, really?
Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 05:40 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 8 2015, 12:39 PM)
Getting young people to university and technical colleges was something the government of the day encouraged as it brought the unemployment figures down big time. I don't think that they envisaged the take up though when gradually it became some sort of status symbol amongst middle class and latterly, every other parent who could clack on about their offspring going to uni. New universities sprang up all over the place offering nonsense degrees in media studies, psychology, geography etc. These didn't have any long term benefit either to the new BA or the country. Ergo, suddenly the government need to find a face saving way of cutting back on the numbers, hence parents and students having to fork out the cash to support this trend.
We were supposed to be a high tech economy and that means training. Would you rather we become just a sweat shop? Who is going to pay your pension on the money they earn in McDonalds or Starbucks?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2015, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Mar 8 2015, 05:40 PM)
We were supposed to be a high tech economy and that means training. Would you rather we become just a sweat shop? Who is going to pay your pension on the money they earn in McDonalds or Starbucks?
Few jobs need a degree-level education, and few people have the academic ability to benefit from a degree course. It worked effectively in the 70's when you got your education paid for if you were bright enough to benefit from it, and everyone else with any nous did an HNC paid for by the employer.
Posted by: motormad Mar 8 2015, 06:07 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 8 2015, 06:05 PM)
Few jobs need a degree-level education, and few people have the academic ability to benefit from a degree course. It worked effectively in the 70's when you got your education paid for if you were bright enough to benefit from it, and everyone else with any nous did an HNC paid for by the employer.
Generally experience over qualifications in my opinion.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2015, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (motormad @ Mar 8 2015, 06:07 PM)
Generally experience over qualifications in my opinion.
Precisely so. As a wise man once said, a graduate can tell you the square root of a jar of pickles, but they can't get the lid off.
Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Mar 8 2015, 05:40 PM)
We were supposed to be a high tech economy and that means training. Would you rather we become just a sweat shop? Who is going to pay your pension on the money they earn in McDonalds or Starbucks?
It would be great if all the university turn outs did get jobs which had value and were good for the economy but as a lot of them never have the opportunity to use their new found knowledge in the workplace, not the best result.
QUOTE (motormad @ Mar 8 2015, 06:07 PM)
Generally experience over qualifications in my opinion.
To a certain level of expertise, that may apply but one has to accept that a university degree in the appropriate skill level will get the cream of the jobs. I accept that experience in a job counts but an employer in the skills sector will want people who have ability to progress with an appropriate degree under their belt.
I know that this sounds like it negates my earlier assertion but I am talking here about skill degrees, Engineering, Computer science, Electronics, architecture etc.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2015, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 8 2015, 06:47 PM)
It would be great if all the university turn outs did get jobs which had value and were good for the economy but as a lot of them never have the opportunity to use their new found knowledge in the workplace, not the best result.
To a certain level of expertise, that may apply but one has to accept that a university degree in the appropriate skill level will get the cream of the jobs. I accept that experience in a job counts but an employer in the skills sector will want people who have ability to progress with an appropriate degree under their belt.
I know that this sounds like it negates my earlier assertion but I am talking here about skill degrees, Engineering, Computer science, Electronics, architecture etc.
To a certain level of expertise, that may apply but one has to accept that a university degree in the appropriate skill level will get the cream of the jobs. I accept that experience in a job counts but an employer in the skills sector will want people who have ability to progress with an appropriate degree under their belt.
I know that this sounds like it negates my earlier assertion but I am talking here about skill degrees, Engineering, Computer science, Electronics, architecture etc.
Yes, science and engineering, along with medicine, law, and plenty of jobs in the humanities need degree-level qualifications, but there are plenty of technical jobs that don't, and a couple of years into a job it's very much more about the individual and their experience than it is about their degree.
Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 8 2015, 06:41 PM)
Precisely so. As a wise man once said, a graduate can tell you the square root of a jar of pickles, but they can't get the lid off.
Which wise man was that. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.....
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2015, 07:17 PM
Edited for the sake of decorum.
Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 09:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 8 2015, 07:17 PM)
Sadly the the electorate are as thick as you; what chance has this country got with someone like you being eligible to vote.
The country is a mess because grumpy old geezers like you screwed it up. I might be thick but I'm not gullible.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 8 2015, 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 8 2015, 06:47 PM)
It would be great if all the university turn outs did get jobs which had value and were good for the economy but as a lot of them never have the opportunity to use their new found knowledge in the workplace, not the best result.
To a certain level of expertise, that may apply but one has to accept that a university degree in the appropriate skill level will get the cream of the jobs. I accept that experience in a job counts but an employer in the skills sector will want people who have ability to progress with an appropriate degree under their belt.
I know that this sounds like it negates my earlier assertion but I am talking here about skill degrees,[b] Engineering, Computer science, Electronics, architecture etc.[/b]
To a certain level of expertise, that may apply but one has to accept that a university degree in the appropriate skill level will get the cream of the jobs. I accept that experience in a job counts but an employer in the skills sector will want people who have ability to progress with an appropriate degree under their belt.
I know that this sounds like it negates my earlier assertion but I am talking here about skill degrees,[b] Engineering, Computer science, Electronics, architecture etc.[/b]
I suppose that's exactly the reason why we don't need so many universities or domestic students. With the foreign take over of our industry and infrastructure we don't actually need these skills any more. So perhaps the plastic universities turning out graduates in beauty therapy or golf course management are right - at least these 'skills' are useful in today's UK job market. The real issue is labelling all further education institutions universities. That makes it like claiming the Co-op and John Lewis are the same on the basis that they are both cooperatives.
Posted by: Biker1 Mar 9 2015, 07:46 AM
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ some interesting reading from Britain's "fastest growing party" 
Might help you in some decision making Spider??
Posted by: On the edge Mar 9 2015, 09:35 AM
One of my colleagues who always likes to see things as a diagram came out with this in an attempt to discribe where the parties fitted against the political spectrum. It's quite hard to argue against!
LEFT- Communist, Green, Labour, LibDem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP, -RIGHT
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2015, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Mar 8 2015, 09:01 PM)
The country is a mess because grumpy old geezers like you screwed it up. I might be thick but I'm not gullible.
So we can assume you won't be voting, because to do so will mean a certain amount of faith involved. I'm not sure it is in a mess as such; I see responsibility as a shared matter and has a lot to with the global economy.
Here's some Lib Dem gumpf on tuition fees.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/get_the_facts_student_finance#
"The new system is effectively a 30-year graduate tax, in that graduates repay 9 per cent of their income over £21,000. If they lose their job or their income falls below £21,000, they will not pay anything."
BTW - Sorry for calling you thick, that was both unfair and unjust, I have therefore deleted it.
Posted by: Biker1 Mar 9 2015, 12:23 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 9 2015, 10:35 AM)
One of my colleagues who always likes to see things as a diagram came out with this in an attempt to discribe where the parties fitted against the political spectrum. It's quite hard to argue against!
LEFT- Communist, Green, Labour, LibDem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP, -RIGHT
LEFT- Communist, Green, Labour, LibDem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP, -RIGHT
What about The Apolitical Group, The Patriotic Socialist Party and Spoil Party Games?
All of whom we have a chance to vote for this time in West Berkshire
Posted by: On the edge Mar 9 2015, 12:39 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Mar 9 2015, 12:23 PM)
What about The Apolitical Group, The Patriotic Socialist Party and Spoil Party Games?
All of whom we have a chance to vote for this time in West Berkshire
All of whom we have a chance to vote for this time in West Berkshire
Where do you think? As at the highest level, politics is seen to be a fight between left and right, then have a look at what's being said and fit them on the matrix.
My view is that the Apolitical Group are likely to be centrist left leaning, Patriotic Socialist right of Labour, and Spoil Party Games between UKIP and Tory. The really interesting one is Apolitical because it demands a structural change and that would make it a rainbow coalition which matches the consensus view in each constituency.
BUT it's simply a model to encourage your own interpretation, rather than just following the media blandishments.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2015, 05:07 PM
I put Apolitical as centre right I think, although their name is somewhat of an oxymoron in its purest definition.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 9 2015, 06:20 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Mar 9 2015, 12:23 PM)
What about The Apolitical Group, The Patriotic Socialist Party and Spoil Party Games?
All of whom we have a chance to vote for this time in West Berkshire
All of whom we have a chance to vote for this time in West Berkshire
Apoliticals aren't a party in the usual sense because they have no unifying policy at all, they are an umbrella for independents of all political persuasion and their only commonality is that they are prepared to listen to people and decide issues on their merits according to their own personal morality and experience. You'd need to know the individual candidate to understand what they think about any particular issue, but then at the local level that's no different from any of the other parties, except with the established parties they're generally not allowed to express their personal opinion and certainly not if they don't entirely agree with their respective glorious leaders.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 9 2015, 06:34 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 9 2015, 09:35 AM)
LEFT- Communist, Green, Labour, LibDem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP, -RIGHT
That's perfectly true on that single dimensional axis, but national politics is a multi-dimensional world with those on opposite ends of the left-right spectrum capable of having perfectly compatible views on many issues.
I don't even think leff-right is a particularly helpful decomposition. For me I'm much more interested in where someone lies on the libertarian-authoritarian, selfish-caring, and trusting-hating spectra.
UKIP at times have a refreshing honesty, but they sit at the wrong end (for me) of those three political axes, being generally authoritarian, selfish, and hating. The Lib Dems are supposed to be on the libertarian, caring, trusting octant, but they're not, most especially so at the local level where they sit indistinguishedly close to the Tories, and most everyone else in politics for that matter at the present time.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 9 2015, 07:15 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Mar 9 2015, 12:23 PM)
What about ... The Patriotic Socialist Party
I like the party emblem of the Patriotic Socialist Party, it looks like a posidriv head, which is handy if you have a screw loose.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 9 2015, 07:31 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 9 2015, 07:15 PM)
I like the party emblem of the Patriotic Socialist Party, it looks like a posidriv head, which is handy if you have a screw loose.
Lol
Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 05:35 PM
Howdy,
I've been a Tory voter all my life and will continue to be one. The Tories have been very good to us pensioners. This year I should be able to get free TV license and of course heating. The economy is improving and I am concerned with Labour, if they should get back into power and cause havoc like they did under Blair and Brown. UKIP just want us to pull out of Europe and the Greens have lunatic policies. As for the Lib-Dems, they've disgraced themselves and are not really the answer to anything, unless you are a weeding smoking non thinker.
Don
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2015, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (Don @ Mar 10 2015, 05:35 PM)
As for the Lib-Dems, they've disgraced themselves and are not really the answer to anything, unless you are a weeding smoking non thinker.
I completely agree that the Lib Dems locally, and to a degree nationally, have sold out their values (if in fact they ever shared the professed values of their party), but I am still proud to be associated with those values, for standing up for the rights of the little man, and I'm ever hopeful that I will find other like-minded souls who want to build "a fair, free and open society on the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." Not many of us around though.
But I'm intrigued to know what a "weeding smoking non thinker" is.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2015, 06:41 PM
I'm not sure Labour, nor Tories have done much for people on fixed incomes, like pensioners, seeing that interest rates are practically zero. However, Lib Dems claim to have helped take people on low incomes out of paying tax.
Here's what the Tory/Lib Dems claim to have done for the old farts:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/get_the_facts_helping_older_people
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2015, 06:42 PM
Unintentional double post.
Posted by: Strafin Mar 10 2015, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (Don @ Mar 10 2015, 05:35 PM)
Howdy,
I've been a Tory voter all my life and will continue to be one. The Tories have been very good to us pensioners. This year I should be able to get free TV license and of course heating. The economy is improving and I am concerned with Labour, if they should get back into power and cause havoc like they did under Blair and Brown. UKIP just want us to pull out of Europe and the Greens have lunatic policies. As for the Lib-Dems, they've disgraced themselves and are not really the answer to anything, unless you are a weeding smoking non thinker.
Don
I've been a Tory voter all my life and will continue to be one. The Tories have been very good to us pensioners. This year I should be able to get free TV license and of course heating. The economy is improving and I am concerned with Labour, if they should get back into power and cause havoc like they did under Blair and Brown. UKIP just want us to pull out of Europe and the Greens have lunatic policies. As for the Lib-Dems, they've disgraced themselves and are not really the answer to anything, unless you are a weeding smoking non thinker.
Don
That's a shame, i think it's quite immoral to vote Tory and you have even said that your reasons are quite selfish. I wouldn't vote Lib Dem either but I wouldn't dismiss their supporters quite so flippantly.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 10 2015, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 10 2015, 06:47 PM)
That's a shame, i think it's quite immoral to vote Tory and you have even said that your reasons are quite selfish. I wouldn't vote Lib Dem either but I wouldn't dismiss their supporters quite so flippantly.
That is a silly comment as all voters vote for selfish and personal reasons. When I vote I will look at what is best for me. Don't forget that politicians do what is best for them, their party and only then do they think of the people, but collectively and what they think is best.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 10 2015, 07:18 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2015, 06:05 PM)
I completely agree that the Lib Dems locally, and to a degree nationally, have sold out their values (if in fact they ever shared the professed values of their party), but I am still proud to be associated with those values, for standing up for the rights of the little man, and I'm ever hopeful that I will find other like-minded souls who want to build "a fair, free and open society on the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." Not many of us around though.
But I'm intrigued to know what a "weeding smoking non thinker" is.
But I'm intrigued to know what a "weeding smoking non thinker" is.
Probably they are a bunch of gardeners who do nothing other than sit around pontificating, smoking and talking about how to put the world aright. And of course admiring the collective works of their leader Chairman Nick Clegg.
Posted by: Strafin Mar 10 2015, 07:20 PM
I don't think that's true, nor do I think it's a silly comment. I do think a lot of politicians sadly get corrupted by the system and the party machine as they progress in their careers, but the general public, I give a little more credit to.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 10 2015, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 10 2015, 07:20 PM)
I don't think that's true, nor do I think it's a silly comment. I do think a lot of politicians sadly get corrupted by the system and the party machine as they progress in their careers, but the general public, I give a little more credit to.
Do you? Which ones?
Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 07:33 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2015, 06:05 PM)
I completely agree that the Lib Dems locally, and to a degree nationally, have sold out their values (if in fact they ever shared the professed values of their party), but I am still proud to be associated with those values, for standing up for the rights of the little man, and I'm ever hopeful that I will find other like-minded souls who want to build "a fair, free and open society on the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." Not many of us around though.
But I'm intrigued to know what a "weeding smoking non thinker" is.
But I'm intrigued to know what a "weeding smoking non thinker" is.
Howdy Mr Kirby. I do apologise if I offended but it was my attempt at humour. And I meant 'weed' as in the Lib-Dems want to allow it. Concerning the Lib-Dems, I think they did a lot of damage joining up with the Tory's, not only to themselves but also for the Tories, who couldn't implement a lot of their policies because of Lib-Dem restrictions.
Don
Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 07:35 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 10 2015, 06:47 PM)
That's a shame, i think it's quite immoral to vote Tory and you have even said that your reasons are quite selfish. I wouldn't vote Lib Dem either but I wouldn't dismiss their supporters quite so flippantly.
Howdy Strafin,
I must reiterate what Heather said and that is we all vote for selfish reasons. I have worked hard all my life and it is nice to see a party that has us old folks at the top of their list.
Don
Posted by: Strafin Mar 10 2015, 10:01 PM
With all due respect Don, I don't think you or Heather can speak on behalf of "everyone".
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2015, 10:51 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Mar 10 2015, 07:16 PM)
That is a silly comment as all voters vote for selfish and personal reasons. When I vote I will look at what is best for me. Don't forget that politicians do what is best for them, their party and only then do they think of the people, but collectively and what they think is best.
I think you're wrong on both counts. There are plenty of people who vote ethically for what they believe is right for the world at large, and there are politicians too who get into politics to make the world a better place with little thought for themselves.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2015, 10:58 PM
QUOTE (Don @ Mar 10 2015, 07:33 PM)
Howdy Mr Kirby. I do apologise if I offended but it was my attempt at humour. And I meant 'weed' as in the Lib-Dems want to allow it. Concerning the Lib-Dems, I think they did a lot of damage joining up with the Tory's, not only to themselves but also for the Tories, who couldn't implement a lot of their policies because of Lib-Dem restrictions.
Don
Don
Ah, weed-smoking - no offence taken. As it happens I would tend to decriminalise all recreational drugs, though I'd go to some effort to help people avoid their use too - and for what it's worth I'm not a pot-head, but I see that criminalisation creates more harm than it prevents, and I see better ways of discouraging harmful and antisocial behaviour.
As for the Lib Dems inhibiting the Tories, I think that's likely to be a good thing.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2015, 12:20 AM
QUOTE (Don @ Mar 10 2015, 07:33 PM)
Howdy Mr Kirby. I do apologise if I offended but it was my attempt at humour. And I meant 'weed' as in the Lib-Dems want to allow it. Concerning the Lib-Dems, I think they did a lot of damage joining up with the Tory's, not only to themselves but also for the Tories, who couldn't implement a lot of their policies because of Lib-Dem restrictions. Don
What do you think the Tories were prevented from doing?
Posted by: Biker1 Mar 11 2015, 08:35 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2015, 01:20 AM)
What do you think the Tories were prevented from doing?
Increasing the Inheritance Tax Threshold?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2015, 09:05 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Mar 11 2015, 08:35 AM)
Increasing the Inheritance Tax Threshold?
Thanks Biker1, mind you I was hoping to get a reply from our new preelection member!
Inheritance tax is a good one in that it is big on principle but affects few, not that it is a harmless tax of course!
Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2015, 11:36 AM
The inheritance tax issue is again an interesting one. Arguably it's just gesture politics; playing with the percentages! One political supermarket says 'x' percent, the other says 'y'! How about a reward card that you can produce at the Polling Station to go with it?
Has any party said 'we will significantly simplify the tax system so that it's hard to avoid and easy to understand' ? Ooooh no, might scare some people.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2015, 11:36 AM
Sorry, duplicate post!
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2015, 11:49 AM
I understand that Inheritance Tax affects a relatively small amount of people, but because it is emotive, has a profile that it possibly doesn't deserve.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2015, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2015, 11:49 AM)
I understand that Inheritance Tax affects a relatively small amount of people, but because it is emotive, has a profile that it possibly doesn't deserve.
Yes, would go with that! It's been causing an issue since 1906 at least and to give the Liberals their due, they've stuck with it.
Posted by: gel Mar 11 2015, 02:20 PM
It kicks in when Estate is over £325,000, which is more than the value of many owner occupied homes in this area, so penalises those in the South disproportionately as normal.
I think its current level is totally unjustifiable, and is just part of socialist's desire to re distribute any wealth earned by others, as they deem fit.
Obviously whilst living of course they taxed you when you earnt it & when you spent it.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2015, 03:29 PM
QUOTE (gel @ Mar 11 2015, 02:20 PM)
It kicks in when Estate is over £325,000, which is more than the value of many owner occupied homes in this area, so penalises those in the South disproportionately as normal.
I think its current level is totally unjustifiable, and is just part of socialist's desire to re distribute any wealth earned by others, as they deem fit.
Obviously whilst living of course they taxed you when you earnt it & when you spent it.
I think its current level is totally unjustifiable, and is just part of socialist's desire to re distribute any wealth earned by others, as they deem fit.
Obviously whilst living of course they taxed you when you earnt it & when you spent it.
That's now real politics. Do we keep it, because it serves it's original intention; wealth redistribution or do we scrap it, because it's an infringement of personal freedom. Tinkering with the rates simply increases of decreases the number of people we define as rich.
Posted by: Spider Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2015, 12:20 AM)
What do you think the Tories were prevented from doing?
I used to support the Lib-Dems so I am no fan of theirs. But are you saying that the coalition with the Tories made no difference and they would have done the same with or without them? I do not think so. I think you question is naive or you are just playing games. For a start the Lib-Dems stopped them going too far right. The tax policies were influenced by the Lib-Dems (at least in some cases). I also believe that Cameron, who is of the left of his party, was glad of the Lib-Dems. Otherwise he would have been held hostage to the right of his party. Then there is the boundary changes, which were stopped by the Lib-Dems.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2015, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM)
I used to support the Lib-Dems so I am no fan of theirs. But are you saying that the coalition with the Tories made no difference and they would have done the same with or without them?
Where the Fk did you get that cobblers from? Certainly not from my question.
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM)
I do not think so. I think you question is naive or you are just playing games.
You have no right to believe such a thing, other than I wanted to know how well someone knew their subject and perhaps I might have learned something.
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM)
For a start the Lib-Dems stopped them going too far right. The tax policies were influenced by the Lib-Dems (at least in some cases). I also believe that Cameron, who is of the left of his party, was glad of the Lib-Dems. Otherwise he would have been held hostage to the right of his party. Then there is the boundary changes, which were stopped by the Lib-Dems.
The question was, what did the Lib Dems block the Tories from doing. My view was that they traded initiatives, rather than blocked stuff. I also very much doubt the Tries would have lent much more right; they certainly didn't have the mandate to do so.
Posted by: Spider Mar 11 2015, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2015, 06:47 PM)
Where the Fk did you get that cobblers from? Certainly not from my question.
You have no right to believe such a thing, other than I wanted to know how well someone knew their subject and perhaps I might have learned something.
The question was, what did the Lib Dems block the Tories from doing. My view was that they traded initiatives, rather than blocked stuff. I also very much doubt the Tries would have lent much more right; they certainly didn't have the mandate to do so.
You have no right to believe such a thing, other than I wanted to know how well someone knew their subject and perhaps I might have learned something.
The question was, what did the Lib Dems block the Tories from doing. My view was that they traded initiatives, rather than blocked stuff. I also very much doubt the Tries would have lent much more right; they certainly didn't have the mandate to do so.
Your third paragraph answers your first two.
As I pointed out they blocked boundary changes and blocked other areas as well. You might not agree that the Tory's wouldn't have moved more right, I disagree. As for mandate, that hasn't stopped parties in the past.
Posted by: HeatherW Mar 11 2015, 07:29 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 10 2015, 10:01 PM)
With all due respect Don, I don't think you or Heather can speak on behalf of "everyone".
No, but you can make an educated guess. It is also psychological. Most people, if not the majority, vote on what is best for them and their family. You don't get many altruistic people on this planet, and if you did we will all probably be living in harmony by now.
Have you ever heard of the selfish gene?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2015, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Mar 11 2015, 07:29 PM)
Have you ever heard of the selfish gene?
Funnily enough I have, and from your example it's clear you haven't. Dawkins coined the term to illustrate the theory that the granularity of natural selection is not at the level of the organism, but at the level of the gene. You've misunderstood "the selfish gene" as a gene that makes you, the collective organism, behave selfishly, whereas Dawkins means the very opposite, that evolutions selects genes for the fitness of the gene itself, and not for the fitness of the collective in which the genes find themselves.
And you're probably wrong about people too.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2015, 08:56 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 07:22 PM)
Your third paragraph answers your first two.
I'm sorry but it doesn't in my view.
QUOTE
As I pointed out they blocked boundary changes and blocked other areas as well. You might not agree that the Tory's wouldn't have moved more right, I disagree. As for mandate, that hasn't stopped parties in the past.
So far then the Lib Dems blocked boundary changes and a raise in the inheritance tax threshold. I'm not sure that makes them public enemy no1 for denying the public a more efficient government.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 11 2015, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM)
I used to support the Lib-Dems so I am no fan of theirs. But are you saying that the coalition with the Tories made no difference and they would have done the same with or without them? I do not think so. I think you question is naive or you are just playing games. For a start the Lib-Dems stopped them going too far right. The tax policies were influenced by the Lib-Dems (at least in some cases). I also believe that Cameron, who is of the left of his party, was glad of the Lib-Dems. Otherwise he would have been held hostage to the right of his party. Then there is the boundary changes, which were stopped by the Lib-Dems.
All true, but Cameron would not have been able to do anything without the Lib Dem support.
Posted by: user23 Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 11 2015, 09:59 PM)
All true, but Cameron would not have been able to do anything without the Lib Dem support.
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.
Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2015, 10:16 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM)
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.
That's an interesting and valid point. Two party politics or rather two and a bit have been an unwritten feature of our democracy for many years, but coalition as you suggest does not need to be just two in concert. Many European nations work with a multi coalition so with the fragmentation of UK politics, it might be something we'd need to embrace. Right now, UKIP, Green, SNP don't appear to be wanting to disappear!
Posted by: blackdog Mar 12 2015, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM)
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.
'Technically' they could have formed a coalition, but realistically the chances of them getting the likes of the SNP and Plaid Cymru on board are remote to impossible.
Looking at the Commons today: Conservatives have 302 seats and would need another 24 to just ensure a majority - the LibDem's 56 seats ensure a comfortable majority. - The actual number required for a majority is actually a little lower, because the 5 Sinn Fein MPs don't turn up - meaning a majority of 1 can be acheived with 323 seats. So the Conservatives need 21 allies. DUP(8), UKIP(2), Alliance(1) are the most likely allies - so 10 needed. There are 5 Independents, perhaps they'd join in? If so still 3 to go from SNP(6), PC(3), SDLP(3), Greens(1) and Respect(1), most of whom are to the left of Labour. It would be far easier for Labour to pull together a multi-party coalition.
So, without the Lib Dem decision to ally with the Conservatives we may well have had a Lab/Lib/etc coalition.
Or a new election.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)