This is from The Guardian /Observer blog so cannot be airily dismissed as "the Tory press" or similar.
The final sentence categorically states what those of us opposed to the EU know only too well: namely that the Lib Dems (Clegg's lot) are the most rabidly Europhile of the 3 main parties.
Anybody the slightest bit Eurosceptic would do well to bear that in mind before voting Lib Dem....
This is from The Guardian /Observer blog so cannot be airily dismissed as "the Tory press" or similar.
The final sentence categorically states what those of us opposed to the EU know only too well: namely that the Lib Dems (Clegg's lot) are the most rabidly Europhile of the 3 main parties.
Anybody the slightest bit Eurosceptic would do well to bear that in mind before voting Lib Dem....
No question that if UK had ditched £ for the Euro as the Lib Dems in particular had wanted some years ago, economically we would now be well and truly screwed.
[cite]Posted By: Thommo[/cite]Left or Right, i dont want a single non British man exerting so much control over our media and our lives.
Spot on Thommo.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]all these 'well worth a read' 'here is the truth' stories about the Murdoch papers, all seem to come from the Guardian, they would not have an axe to gring though would they? You lefty types and your repetitive conspiracy theories, must be cos the left are under pressure at the polls again.
Where else would the stories be published? The Telegraph!!!!? Murdoch controls the rest.
Poll for Guardian indicates that Labour's share of vote could fall below 20% - and Conservative supporters voting intentions "harder" than that of either Labour or Lib Dem supporters, though Lib Dem support has further upside potential. Well worth a read ;0)
[cite]Posted By: Dec[/cite]David Cameron wants to be a world leader. He also feels he would be absolutely incapable of running a coalition government without setting the economy on fire and having the country revert to subsistence farming. Jesus. How will he do in negotiations with people who do not have a reason to co-operate? How lowly does he rate his own ability to form consensus?
I think labour are facing meltdown at the polls and the Tories sense it. Why else would they suddenly switch to targetting previously safe labour seats instead of marginals. The turnout at an election is normally 60-70%, the polls can't predict who out of the 100% of people they ask will actually vote. Polls may also include those who may not be eligible to vote. The parties have their own polls and these tend to be more detailed and focused on particular regions, so they often have more idea on voting trends than you will see in the press. Will be an interesting election, first time the result has been in the balance since Neil Kinnock won.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I think labour are facing meltdown at the polls and the Tories sense it. Why else would they suddenly switch to targetting previously safe labour seats instead of marginals. The turnout at an election is normally 60-70%, the polls can't predict who out of the 100% of people they ask will actually vote. Polls may also include those who may not be eligible to vote. The parties have their own polls and these tend to be more detailed and focused on particular regions, so they often have more idea on voting trends than you will see in the press. Will be an interesting election, first time the result has been in the balance since Neil Kinnock won.
True, the parties internal polling is more micro-targeted and this tells more than a broad national poll.
This election won't see anything close to 70% turnout, it will be just above 60% if recent trends are anything to go by.
I always find polls are rubbish anyway. For the simple reason that if asked who I want to win the election I'd probably say Lib Dems, but in reality only Labour, Conservatives or BNP (oh the joys of the midlands) have a hope in hell of winning the seat I'm voting for, so I can't vote for them. Think I'm gonna have to vote for that tosser Brown seeing as I detest Cameron .....
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I always find polls are rubbish anyway. For the simple reason that if asked who I want to win the election I'd probably say Lib Dems, but in reality only Labour, Conservatives or BNP (oh the joys of the midlands) have a hope in hell of winning the seat I'm voting for, so I can't vote for them. Think I'm gonna have to vote for that tosser Brown seeing as I detest Cameron .....
I'm voting for the party I like most. Don't care if they have no chance of winning, but they're who I'll be voting for. The more people who do it, the more likely the party they support will actually win.
Anyway, as one person put it to me, your vote is worth nowt in real terms, because elections are very rarely decided by one vote. It's already irrational to vote - there's no point in trying to rationalise it by voting to keep someone out. You might as well just give your support to the ones you like the most.
I think everyone should do this, whether they support Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, Green Party, Plaid Cymru or whoever
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]all these 'well worth a read' 'here is the truth' stories about the Murdoch papers, all seem to come from the Guardian, they would not have an axe to gring though would they? You lefty types and your repetitive conspiracy theories, must be cos the left are under pressure at the polls again.
Not me mate. I've never voted Labour in my life. I am just concerned with the effect of vested interests on the democratic process.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I always find polls are rubbish anyway. For the simple reason that if asked who I want to win the election I'd probably say Lib Dems, but in reality only Labour, Conservatives or BNP (oh the joys of the midlands) have a hope in hell of winning the seat I'm voting for, so I can't vote for them. Think I'm gonna have to vote for that tosser Brown seeing as I detest Cameron .....
I'm voting for the party I like most. Don't care if they have no chance of winning, but they're who I'll be voting for. The more people who do it, the more likely the party they support will actually win.
Anyway, as one person put it to me, your vote is worth nowt in real terms, because elections are very rarely decided by one vote. It's already irrational to vote - there's no point in trying to rationalise it by voting to keep someone out. You might as well just give your support to the ones you like the most.
I think everyone should do this, whether they support Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, Green Party, Plaid Cymru or whoever
That's a very good way of putting it! I suppose that's the joys of democracy, everyone's vote is worth the same, so that in a population of over 61 million people, it's worth sweet FA!
Back to the polls though, I saw one today which was "who do you want to be the next Prime Minister?" which was almost treating it as a presidential type role. Now of the three, I much prefer Clegg, however as it's not a presidential role, I found the question rather pointless!
As a first time voter and so actually thinking about politics seriously for the first time, I'm coming to the opinion that we need a system similar to the American one, where there is the vote purely for the country's leader. At the moment I'm in a situation where the local Labour MP has by all accounts been an excellent servant and done lots of good work in the local area, however by voting for him I'm also supporting someone in Gordon Brown who I don't want to be leading the country! Or I could vote for Mr Clegg by supporting the Lib Dem candidate who is a 22 year old guy, who although a nice lad, has been parachuted in from about 200 miles away, who imo doesn't have the required experience in 'real life' to be my MP (and I'm saying that as a 20 year old!) and is using this as a mere stepping stone onto other places.
To me it seems wrong to have to choose between local issues and national ones
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]I always find polls are rubbish anyway. For the simple reason that if asked who I want to win the election I'd probably say Lib Dems, but in reality only Labour, Conservatives or BNP (oh the joys of the midlands) have a hope in hell of winning the seat I'm voting for, so I can't vote for them. Think I'm gonna have to vote for that tosser Brown seeing as I detest Cameron .....
I'm voting for the party I like most. Don't care if they have no chance of winning, but they're who I'll be voting for. The more people who do it, the more likely the party they support will actually win.
Anyway, as one person put it to me, your vote is worth nowt in real terms, because elections are very rarely decided by one vote. It's already irrational to vote - there's no point in trying to rationalise it by voting to keep someone out. You might as well just give your support to the ones you like the most.
I think everyone should do this, whether they support Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, Green Party, Plaid Cymru or whoever
That's a very good way of putting it! I suppose that's the joys of democracy, everyone's vote is worth the same, so that in a population of over 61 million people, it's worth sweet FA!
Back to the polls though, I saw one today which was "who do you want to be the next Prime Minister?" which was almost treating it as a presidential type role. Now of the three, I much prefer Clegg, however as it's not a presidential role, I found the question rather pointless!
As a first time voter and so actually thinking about politics seriously for the first time, I'm coming to the opinion that we need a system similar to the American one, where there is the vote purely for the country's leader. At the moment I'm in a situation where the local Labour MP has by all accounts been an excellent servant and done lots of good work in the local area, however by voting for him I'm also supporting someone in Gordon Brown who I don't want to be leading the country! Or I could vote for Mr Clegg by supporting the Lib Dem candidate who is a 22 year old guy, who although a nice lad, has been parachuted in from about 200 miles away, who imo doesn't have the required experience in 'real life' to be my MP (and I'm saying that as a 20 year old!) and is using this as a mere stepping stone onto other places.
To me it seems wrong to have to choose between local issues and national ones
If you have a good local MP vote for them, whatever the party.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]all these 'well worth a read' 'here is the truth' stories about the Murdoch papers, all seem to come from the Guardian, they would not have an axe to gring though would they? You lefty types and your repetitive conspiracy theories, must be cos the left are under pressure at the polls again.
Not me mate. I've never voted Labour in my life. I am just concerned with the effect of vested interests on the democratic process.
I think a lot of people of varied political persuasions may read the Guardian for political and social comment because it is perhaps closer to a public-service paper than the others, it is pretty fair-minded and relatively free from the controls of the vested interests of big business and rich individuals.
Very impressive and, in fact, non-partisan speech and comments this morning from Brooke Kinsella in support of Conservatives' policy on youth crime etc.
Mrs Clegg breaking her elbow made 2nd item on radio 4 news.
Means either radio 4's news values are up the creek or that Clegg is now considered newsworthy. Or more likely both.
Cameron is, IMHO, trying very hard to live the Obama/Blair image he's been told he needs and not succeeding. Both DC and GB seem much more comfortable when talking about policy and detail but then suddenly remember they have to sell themselves and come over rather false.
Brown seems to have fallen back on "I'm the only one to do the job so listen to me" which is, IMHO weak but the best line of attack he has.
Clegg seems to have rode the wave of attacks and DC and GB talking about not having hung parliaments or PR plays into his hands as it keeps Lib-dem issues up the agenda.
For all the fuss though I still think the Tories will get the anti-government vote where it counts and so win the majority they need.
I can't remember a previous election where the campaigns are so completely dominated by the leaders. In the old days there would always be 3 or 4 big personalities from the main parties making the news throughout the campaign as well as the leaders. It really does seem to have turned into a presidential campaign with all the discussion about the personalities of the leaders rather than the policies of the parties.
When Brown called the election, standing in front of his cabinet, he emphasised that he was asking the country to vote for his experienced team and contrasting the personality and experience of his team compared with the teams of the other parties.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]None of the 3 main parties wants to discuss policy because in real terms so much is determined by the EU and they are powerless to do anything.
That is why we have to suffer this vacuuous personality politics nonsense.
Or, maybe, because they all know they can't really fulfill any of their spending/taxation promises, so they'd prefer if they weren't made promise anything.
[cite]Posted By: johnnybev1987[/cite]now this is getting a bit political this thread
rules=sink! lol
Nah it's okay, just as long as no one brings up the issue of how much money we're spending on debatable climate change initiatives we'll be alright. Doh..!
The leaders have become the campaign because of the debates, and now that's out of the lamp, you can't change it, as the expection will be for 3 more debates in 2015 (or October/November this year when there is another election)
I know kinnock never won, but he thought he had. I think the election has become a bit like an X factor competition with the live debates, which is a bad thing as people forget the policies and the future of their country along the way. The best thing that may come out of a hung parliament would be some sort of PR, though you can bet your life it will be the model that suits the (now) three main parties to the exclusion of the smaller ones, the ones the disaffected might want to actually vote for. Lib dems have had a lucky break with the live debates starting, but you can be sure they will not offer this opportunity to other small parties in the future.
Is The Spectator classed in the same group as the Guardian?
The current electoral system is as bad as it gets for smaller parties, Steve Dowman. Any change to something slightly proportional would be better for all of those small parties you talk about. The more proportional the system the better for the smaller, marginal parties.
I agree with your point about the Lib Dems changing the system to suit themselves, but what suits them best is a very proportional system, more so than anything Labour or the Conservatives have mentioned yet.
The current voting system is inadequate, how anyone can supprt a system where the majority of the coutry did NOT vote for the incumbent government (Thatcher, Blair/Brown) really needs to ask why they support an undemocratic system in a democratic country.
This afternoon I watched Clegg talking to the RCN conference, not only was his speech very good but it was full of policy and short on flannel.
But could you really imagine him talking to the CBI or the armed forces, police? It is ok talking on home ground, but what about when you have an audience that do not already agree with you, that is a proper test. They have some strange views, which people seem to want to gloss over as they are the chosen 'party of change' for this election and are tapping into a willing audience. Their policies in the real world will be harder to consume when it comes to decisions. I await their full embrace of PR, with enthusiasm, but know this will not be the case and will end up with a system AV or AV+ that will only help the major parties. The cost will be permanent coalition of the self appointed political class and nothing will change in reality, just a bunch of self serving politicos looking out for themselves.
Labour record: First job 1997 was rob the pension fund.They have now taken more than £100 billion pound out and turned a healthy product into one with no strength , now telling us we have to work years after 65 cos there's not enough money. Robbing bastards. We now have record balance of payment losses. Whatever you thought of John Major, when Labour took over in1997 the balance of payments were in a healthy state and well managed. Now these clowns have screwed us for generations to come, and please don't blame on the world ressession Whatever problems Brown had as chancellor the answer was throw money at it. Even during their first parliament he sold almost all our gold reserves at rock bottom prices. The mans an absolute tosser. This working mans government have created approx 140 NEW taxes that never existed before, they just can't resist putting their hands in your pockets. They even abolished the 10% tax for the lowest paid so the lowest band is now 20% so much for looking after the working man and the lowest paid. Bastards. We have mass emmigration that is ruining the country . We all know it so lets not pretend it's not ,For every decent immigrant wo have about 50 scroungers who just want to live on benefits and take out of the system. When Labour started this they knew what they were doing they know that that these are all Labour votes for the future and that is their main aim. Unlike Allez les I detest Brown and would always have Cameron. I can't understand after all the f--k ups how people can still vote Labour. They will still get the votes of the 'I've always voted labour and my dads always voted labour' people. They could bankrupt us and these people will still vote labour. If people voted on the performance of the last 13 years the bastards would hardly get a vote. As you can see I f--king detest them. Sorry rant over.
Comments
This is from The Guardian /Observer blog so cannot be airily dismissed as "the Tory press" or similar.
The final sentence categorically states what those of us opposed to the EU know only too well: namely that the Lib Dems (Clegg's lot) are the most rabidly Europhile of the 3 main parties.
Anybody the slightest bit Eurosceptic would do well to bear that in mind before voting Lib Dem....
No question that if UK had ditched £ for the Euro as the Lib Dems in particular had wanted some years ago, economically we would now be well and truly screwed.
Spot on Thommo.
Where else would the stories be published? The Telegraph!!!!? Murdoch controls the rest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/labour-support-fall-icm
True, the parties internal polling is more micro-targeted and this tells more than a broad national poll.
This election won't see anything close to 70% turnout, it will be just above 60% if recent trends are anything to go by.
I don't remember Kinnock being PM either!
I'm voting for the party I like most. Don't care if they have no chance of winning, but they're who I'll be voting for. The more people who do it, the more likely the party they support will actually win.
Anyway, as one person put it to me, your vote is worth nowt in real terms, because elections are very rarely decided by one vote. It's already irrational to vote - there's no point in trying to rationalise it by voting to keep someone out. You might as well just give your support to the ones you like the most.
I think everyone should do this, whether they support Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, Green Party, Plaid Cymru or whoever
I think you're underestimating labours client state propping up the vote. God knows they deserve oblivion though.
Not me mate. I've never voted Labour in my life. I am just concerned with the effect of vested interests on the democratic process.
That's a very good way of putting it! I suppose that's the joys of democracy, everyone's vote is worth the same, so that in a population of over 61 million people, it's worth sweet FA!
Back to the polls though, I saw one today which was "who do you want to be the next Prime Minister?" which was almost treating it as a presidential type role. Now of the three, I much prefer Clegg, however as it's not a presidential role, I found the question rather pointless!
As a first time voter and so actually thinking about politics seriously for the first time, I'm coming to the opinion that we need a system similar to the American one, where there is the vote purely for the country's leader. At the moment I'm in a situation where the local Labour MP has by all accounts been an excellent servant and done lots of good work in the local area, however by voting for him I'm also supporting someone in Gordon Brown who I don't want to be leading the country! Or I could vote for Mr Clegg by supporting the Lib Dem candidate who is a 22 year old guy, who although a nice lad, has been parachuted in from about 200 miles away, who imo doesn't have the required experience in 'real life' to be my MP (and I'm saying that as a 20 year old!) and is using this as a mere stepping stone onto other places.
To me it seems wrong to have to choose between local issues and national ones
Now who was it who said that?
If you have a good local MP vote for them, whatever the party.
Means either radio 4's news values are up the creek or that Clegg is now considered newsworthy. Or more likely both.
Cameron is, IMHO, trying very hard to live the Obama/Blair image he's been told he needs and not succeeding. Both DC and GB seem much more comfortable when talking about policy and detail but then suddenly remember they have to sell themselves and come over rather false.
Brown seems to have fallen back on "I'm the only one to do the job so listen to me" which is, IMHO weak but the best line of attack he has.
Clegg seems to have rode the wave of attacks and DC and GB talking about not having hung parliaments or PR plays into his hands as it keeps Lib-dem issues up the agenda.
For all the fuss though I still think the Tories will get the anti-government vote where it counts and so win the majority they need.
When Brown called the election, standing in front of his cabinet, he emphasised that he was asking the country to vote for his experienced team and contrasting the personality and experience of his team compared with the teams of the other parties.
That is why we have to suffer this vacuuous personality politics nonsense.
Or, maybe, because they all know they can't really fulfill any of their spending/taxation promises, so they'd prefer if they weren't made promise anything.
Not everything has to be about the EU, you know.
rules=sink! lol
Nah it's okay, just as long as no one brings up the issue of how much money we're spending on debatable climate change initiatives we'll be alright. Doh..!
Is The Spectator classed in the same group as the Guardian?
The current electoral system is as bad as it gets for smaller parties, Steve Dowman. Any change to something slightly proportional would be better for all of those small parties you talk about. The more proportional the system the better for the smaller, marginal parties.
I agree with your point about the Lib Dems changing the system to suit themselves, but what suits them best is a very proportional system, more so than anything Labour or the Conservatives have mentioned yet.
This afternoon I watched Clegg talking to the RCN conference, not only was his speech very good but it was full of policy and short on flannel.
We now have record balance of payment losses. Whatever you thought of John Major, when Labour took over in1997 the balance of payments were in a healthy state and well managed. Now these clowns have screwed us for generations to come, and please don't blame on the world ressession Whatever problems Brown had as chancellor the answer was throw money at it.
Even during their first parliament he sold almost all our gold reserves at rock bottom prices. The mans an absolute tosser.
This working mans government have created approx 140 NEW taxes that never existed before, they just can't resist putting their hands in your pockets. They even abolished the 10% tax for the lowest paid so the lowest band is now 20% so much for looking after the working man and the lowest paid. Bastards.
We have mass emmigration that is ruining the country . We all know it so lets not pretend it's not ,For every decent immigrant wo have about 50 scroungers who just want to live on benefits and take out of the system. When Labour started this they knew what they were doing they know that that these are all Labour votes for the future and that is their main aim.
Unlike Allez les I detest Brown and would always have Cameron.
I can't understand after all the f--k ups how people can still vote Labour.
They will still get the votes of the 'I've always voted labour and my dads always voted labour' people. They could bankrupt us and these people will still vote labour.
If people voted on the performance of the last 13 years the bastards would hardly get a vote.
As you can see I f--king detest them.
Sorry rant over.