I'm in Bromley & Chislehurst constituency. No idea who to vote for at present as I'm unsure if any of them deserve my vote - however seeing as a fair number of folk died in two world wars to ensure we have a democracy to partipate in, someone will get my vote.
This. Never belonged to a party or found one that felt totally represented me.
Sunday Times saying Labour 4 %points ahead after the debate making Ed the winner in the debate and the GE.
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
As a life-long Labour supporter and someone who has always voted, and always felt it important for everyone to try and engage and/or listen to the debates surrounding a General Election and to use their hard won right to vote (a right won by the same motivation for social justice for the common man that spawned the Labour and Trade Union movements) and defended in two World Wars, I nevertheless can understand this point of view. I hear and read this view all the time. What I can never understand is the often heard lament today that there is no longer any real difference between the parties and that the Labour party has changed and has been ruined by Tony Blair. Of course the Labour party has changed! The world has changed! More than 90% of the rights and freedoms that the Labour and working class movements have fought for over the last 200 years have been won (freedom from the tyranny of the church, the landed aristocracy and factory owners, the right to vote, access to basic health and education irrespective of income or background, basic welfare for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work, free speech, the right to live and work in safe environments, the rights to representation in courts of law etc. The list goes on. These rights and freedoms are enshrined in our society now.
For this reason, the fact that all these rights and freedoms have been won, and are not under serious threat from any other political party, for the first time in my life I am thinking I may not vote. I think it will be better for the country and the Labour party in the long term if Ed Miliband is defeated and we get his brother as Leader of the Labour party and eventually the country sooner than later.
But, on the other hand, I am impressed by the way Nick Clegg consistently and openly asserts his atheist beliefs. As someone who believes that the most serious threat to the rights and freedoms that have been won for the common man in this country is from the evil Islamic ideology that is spreading throughout the world I find it incredible that how we tackle this threat is not at the top of the agenda for all the political parties. Yesterday I was reading an article in the New York Times about the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. What really struck home for the first time was how close Iran is to being able to build a nuclear weapon and that the best the free and rationale world can hope for is monitoring access agreements to ensure that they are always a least a year away from achieving such a weapon. I keep reading and hearing political commentators telling me I should be worried about climate change and the threat from Putin and Russia! Get real! Within 10 years a bunch of religious lunatics who sincerely believe their God wants them to kill all infidels will have their finger on the nuclear button!
Still undecided. Chelmsford is simon burns Tory and will remain so regardless... Meant to be a good mp, but I don't like the Tories much. Or labour. I normally vote lib dem or green, but they are both wasted votes and also low on credibility. Sod it, I'll decide on the day and go for who I most agree with.
Simon Burns is a good MP. In my two dealings with him he went above and beyond of what was reasonably expected of him.
My late grandparents were communist/labour voters (of the Dom perignon variety) and were governors of a school... They didn't have a bad word to say about him as an mp even though they were dead against his politics. I've never dealt with him, but if they can give him credit that's enough for me.
Im still unlikely to vote for him, but I wouldn't be that upset if he stayed in.
You'd hope that's how politics should be. I detest Tory policies but know a few Tory voters who are good people otherwise. I remember when my aunt made the papers because when she was Labour mayor of Slough she kissed the Tory MP at a function. How daft is that.
Used to vote Green but their latest policies are just bonkers. I am in Tunbridge Wells and Greg Clarke is a Tory shoe in, can't vote Labour after their last go at leading the country which we will be paying for for god knows how long besides Miliband reminds me too much of Piers (The New Statesman). Undecided although probably Tory
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
As a life-long Labour supporter and someone who has always voted, and always felt it important for everyone to try and engage and/or listen to the debates surrounding a General Election and to use their hard won right to vote (a right won by the same motivation for social justice for the common man that spawned the Labour and Trade Union movements) and defended in two World Wars, I nevertheless can understand this point of view. I hear and read this view all the time. What I can never understand is the often heard lament today that there is no longer any real difference between the parties and that the Labour party has changed and has been ruined by Tony Blair. Of course the Labour party has changed! The world has changed! More than 90% of the rights and freedoms that the Labour and working class movements have fought for over the last 200 years have been won (freedom from the tyranny of the church, the landed aristocracy and factory owners, the right to vote, access to basic health and education irrespective of income or background, basic welfare for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work, free speech, the right to live and work in safe environments, the rights to representation in courts of law etc. The list goes on. These rights and freedoms are enshrined in our society now.
For this reason, the fact that all these rights and freedoms have been won, and are not under serious threat from any other political party, for the first time in my life I am thinking I may not vote. I think it will be better for the country and the Labour party in the long term if Ed Miliband is defeated and we get his brother as Leader of the Labour party and eventually the country sooner than later.
But, on the other hand, I am impressed by the way David Clegg consistently and openly asserts his atheist beliefs. As someone who believes that the most serious threat to the rights and freedoms that have been won for the common man in this country is from the evil Islamic ideology that is spreading throughout the world I find it incredible that how we tackle this threat is not at the top of the agenda for all the political parties. Yesterday I was reading an article in the New York Times about the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. What really struck home for the first time was how close Iran is to being able to build a nuclear weapon and that the best the free and rationale world can hope for is monitoring access agreements to ensure that they are always a least a year away from achieving such a weapon. I keep reading and hearing political commentators telling me I should be worried about climate change and the threat from Putin and Russia! Get real! Within 10 years a bunch of religious lunatics who sincerely believe their God wants them to kill all infidels will have their finger on the nuclear button!
This is a really a good post, although there are bits I don't agree with. What I do agree with is the struggle for the right to vote being a precious leap forward, and not to at least visit the polling station even if it's to write 'no acceptable alternative' boldly on the voting slip, would be a huge pity.
I have a couple of broader and less specific points. The notion of rights and freedoms is an interesting philosophical question. Essentially it could be argued there are no such things as rights or freedoms, but there are such phenomena as restraints, restrictions and compulsions. The powerful, from the childish bully, the tribal leader, the warlord, the baron, the Kings and Queens, the dictators, the theocracy, the promotion of fear, even human nature and psychology, these are the things that have constrained us. We don't struggle for freedom, we struggle against oppression. I always think about that approach so I can know who my enemies are, rather than struggle for something more vague like the sunny uplands of freedom and human rights.
The other point I want to make is about the threatening aspects of Islam, and in this context I absolutely agree that Nuclear Weapons make everything a game changer. My theory is that in the development of Islam, a younger religion than Christianity, they have reached the stage Christianity was at four or five hundred years ago. the era of inquisitions, burnings at the stake, witch hunting and so on.
Coupled with modern world conditions, the global village, the ability to wreak havoc on an apocalyptical scale, it worries me greatly that Islam is still at such a crude age of it's philosophical development.
There is only going to be one long term solution to radicalisation, and that I am afraid is to succeed in the struggle for hearts and minds, which is the hardest struggle of all.
Used to vote Green but their latest policies are just bonkers. I am in Tunbridge Wells and Greg Clarke is a Tory shoe in, can't vote Labour after their last go at leading the country which we will be paying for for god knows how long besides Miliband reminds me too much of Piers (The New Statesman). Undecided although probably Tory
Interesting that you won't vote Labour due to the debt they ran up yet this is rarely levelled as a criticism against Osborne, who has added more new debt to the UK during his tenure than every previous Labour government combined.
I read recently that only two Labour governments have ever left office with a higher debt as a percentage of GDP (generally viewed as a very relevant indicator of a functioning economy) than when they were elected. One in the late 1920's and Gordon Brown's term. Both were, arguably, the result of worldwide economic crashes and the UK economy was not alone in tanking at the time. Even under Labour in the late 70 's the debt to GDP ratio decreased.
Frankly, Osborne would chew his own arm off to be able to boast debt to GDP ratios of even the worst performing Labour chancellor yet somehow is seen by many as a safe pair of hands.
Will vote Tory for the 1st time in my life. The sole reason being they look as though they are getting the economy back on track after the Blair & Brown fiasco.
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
Get real! Within 10 years a bunch of religious lunatics who sincerely believe their God wants them to kill all infidels will have their finger on the nuclear button!
Wow Red, Just wow.
Thanks for posting that. I think a lot of other posters may have been called out over that statement.
I'll be voting Tory. Always have done. My colleague at work who is dyed in the wool Labour will also be voting Tory because he doesn't trust Milliband and Balls with the economy. He says a vote for Labour would put us back 15 years
I'll be voting Tory. Always have done. My colleague at work who is dyed in the wool Labour will also be voting Tory because he doesn't trust Milliband and Balls with the economy. He says a vote for Labour would put us back 15 years
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
I understand that point of view and at certain times in all our lives other things than who's running the country clearly take priority. Like family, work, running your own excellent internet forum :-) ...but it does matter.
For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be considering limiting child benefit to the first two children and applying tax to disability benefits. Now neither of those policies effect me directly, (in fact I am in favour of the first policy actually), but they will have a massive impact on some households.
To me that's just two very small examples of the policy differences between the parties having an effect at a day-to-day level and that's why I would encourage everyone to use their vote.
TBH, I can see no reason for paying people to have children, in a country increasing by 250k pa, where we cannot adequately house, the existing population, let alone all the other issues that go alongside.
If The Tories were to limit child benefit, I'm confident it would be for children born in the future, as they have said. So, no unfairness and personally a non issue, imo.
As for taxing disability benefits. I've not heard this rumoured.
But in any case I think we should be dealing with facts/pledges, even if they are not kept, rather than rumours.
My view, like others have expressed is that I see no material difference to who is in power and my daily life. As a result I haven't voted in the last 2 elections. Perhaps this time I should cast a vote, not thinking of myself but who is better for society in general. The problem is, I still don't don't know which party that would be. I really wanted to vote green based on their ideology and the environment, but after the mess their leader made on TV, I'm not too sure. Pretty much everyone at my work hates labour based on how they perceive the poor handling of the economy. I've just moved to east dulwich so have no idea which party is in control of this constituency, that will make a difference. If you live in a constituency where there's a massive majority, do you think what's the point?
I think it will be Conservatives in the end though who win it
Used to vote Green but their latest policies are just bonkers. I am in Tunbridge Wells and Greg Clarke is a Tory shoe in, can't vote Labour after their last go at leading the country which we will be paying for for god knows how long besides Miliband reminds me too much of Piers (The New Statesman). Undecided although probably Tory
Interesting that you won't vote Labour due to the debt they ran up yet this is rarely levelled as a criticism against Osborne, who has added more new debt to the UK during his tenure than every previous Labour government combined.
I read recently that only two Labour governments have ever left office with a higher debt as a percentage of GDP (generally viewed as a very relevant indicator of a functioning economy) than when they were elected. One in the late 1920's and Gordon Brown's term. Both were, arguably, the result of worldwide economic crashes and the UK economy was not alone in tanking at the time. Even under Labour in the late 70 's the debt to GDP ratio decreased.
Frankly, Osborne would chew his own arm off to be able to boast debt to GDP ratios of even the worst performing Labour chancellor yet somehow is seen by many as an safe pair of hands.
Well two points to consider here.
1 - The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1997 was around 45%. Gordon Brown left it at around 80%, nearly doubling it. True this is largely in part to the global financial crisis but also to a massive increase in state-spending in the run-up to the global crash. Under Osborne the ratio appears to have levelled out at about 90%. So really you're comparing a 35% increase under Brown to a 10% increase under Osborne.
2 - When Osborne took over, the financial crisis was still unfolding, the Eurozone was imploding and the effects of economic measures do not happen overnight, in fact it can take several years to see the full effects of long-term economic policy, therefore anyone who thinks that because the main economic indicators have not seen a dramatic reversal in their decline overnight clearly does not have a realistic view of how national economies actually operate.
The fact is Cameron and Osborne have a good record to defend when it comes to the economy, especially on job creation. Compared to other Western developed nations only Germany has arguably weathered the storm better than the UK and that can be attributed to their relative strengths in areas where the UK is not. France has pursued a policy that Ed Miliband has stated he would adopt as Prime Minister that has seen their economic strength deteriorate and wealth creators deserting the country.
As for voting, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I currently live in what was a safe Labour seat but the Tories nearly won it in 2010. For the last year I've had fortnightly propaganda stuck through my letterbox from the local Labour party, almost always filled with statements that are either simply not true or just wild fantasies designed to poison voters' minds. It's unlikely the Tories, as the incumbent party of Government, will see a swing in their favour and it will probably go back to a safe Labour seat but since it is in the country's best interests that Labour are not let back into power, I might have to consider voting Tory for the first time to at least try to help keep them out.
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
I understand that point of view and at certain times in all our lives other things than who's running the country clearly take priority. Like family, work, running your own excellent internet forum :-) ...but it does matter.
For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be considering limiting child benefit to the first two children and applying tax to disability benefits. Now neither of those policies effect me directly, (in fact I am in favour of the first policy actually), but they will have a massive impact on some households.
To me that's just two very small examples of the policy differences between the parties having an effect at a day-to-day level and that's why I would encourage everyone to use their vote.
TBH, I can see no reason for paying people to have children, in a country increasing by 250k pa, where we cannot adequately house, the existing population, let alone all the other issues that go alongside.
If The Tories were to limit child benefit, I'm confident it would be for children born in the future, as they have said. So, no unfairness and personally a non issue, imo.
As for taxing disability benefits. I've not heard this rumoured.
But in any case I think we should be dealing with facts/pledges, even if they are not kept, rather than rumours.
Anyone can put down rumours they've heard.
Both options for benefits cuts were contained in a leaked civil service document prepared for the Tories this weekend. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722
I agree that rumour and speculation are unhelpful but when those responsible are unwilling to disclose even when we will find out what their plans are let alone any detail it's inevitable.
Still undecided. Chelmsford is simon burns Tory and will remain so regardless... Meant to be a good mp, but I don't like the Tories much. Or labour. I normally vote lib dem or green, but they are both wasted votes and also low on credibility. Sod it, I'll decide on the day and go for who I most agree with.
Simon Burns is a good MP. In my two dealings with him he went above and beyond of what was reasonably expected of him.
My late grandparents were communist/labour voters (of the Dom perignon variety) and were governors of a school... They didn't have a bad word to say about him as an mp even though they were dead against his politics. I've never dealt with him, but if they can give him credit that's enough for me.
Im still unlikely to vote for him, but I wouldn't be that upset if he stayed in.
Sorry to hear your grandparents were disciples of such a dangerous creed.
It's all credit to UKIP that they ban anyone who was a member of an extremist party or organisation. Labour would be more electable if they followed suit.
This was the 30s and 40s, and were were one extreme or another - by great grandfather was into the far right apparently. They agreed to disagree and went to each others rallies. Give me the middle ground of ed and Dave any day... The far right and the communists were each responsible for countless millions of lives.
Used to vote Green but their latest policies are just bonkers. I am in Tunbridge Wells and Greg Clarke is a Tory shoe in, can't vote Labour after their last go at leading the country which we will be paying for for god knows how long besides Miliband reminds me too much of Piers (The New Statesman). Undecided although probably Tory
Interesting that you won't vote Labour due to the debt they ran up yet this is rarely levelled as a criticism against Osborne, who has added more new debt to the UK during his tenure than every previous Labour government combined.
I read recently that only two Labour governments have ever left office with a higher debt as a percentage of GDP (generally viewed as a very relevant indicator of a functioning economy) than when they were elected. One in the late 1920's and Gordon Brown's term. Both were, arguably, the result of worldwide economic crashes and the UK economy was not alone in tanking at the time. Even under Labour in the late 70 's the debt to GDP ratio decreased.
Frankly, Osborne would chew his own arm off to be able to boast debt to GDP ratios of even the worst performing Labour chancellor yet somehow is seen by many as an safe pair of hands.
Well two points to consider here.
1 - The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1997 was around 45%. Gordon Brown left it at around 80%, nearly doubling it. True this is largely in part to the global financial crisis but also to a massive increase in state-spending in the run-up to the global crash. Under Osborne the ratio appears to have levelled out at about 90%. So really you're comparing a 35% increase under Brown to a 10% increase under Osborne.
2 - When Osborne took over, the financial crisis was still unfolding, the Eurozone was imploding and the effects of economic measures do not happen overnight, in fact it can take several years to see the full effects of long-term economic policy, therefore anyone who thinks that because the main economic indicators have not seen a dramatic reversal in their decline overnight clearly does not have a realistic view of how national economies actually operate.
The fact is Cameron and Osborne have a good record to defend when it comes to the economy, especially on job creation. Compared to other Western developed nations only Germany has arguably weathered the storm better than the UK and that can be attributed to their relative strengths in areas where the UK is not. France has pursued a policy that Ed Miliband has stated he would adopt as Prime Minister that has seen their economic strength deteriorate and wealth creators deserting the country.
As for voting, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I currently live in what was a safe Labour seat but the Tories nearly won it in 2010. For the last year I've had fortnightly propaganda stuck through my letterbox from the local Labour party, almost always filled with statements that are either simply not true or just wild fantasies designed to poison voters' minds. It's unlikely the Tories, as the incumbent party of Government, will see a swing in their favour and it will probably go back to a safe Labour seat but since it is in the country's best interests that Labour are not let back into power, I might have to consider voting Tory for the first time to at least try to help keep them out.
Used to vote Green but their latest policies are just bonkers. I am in Tunbridge Wells and Greg Clarke is a Tory shoe in, can't vote Labour after their last go at leading the country which we will be paying for for god knows how long besides Miliband reminds me too much of Piers (The New Statesman). Undecided although probably Tory
Interesting that you won't vote Labour due to the debt they ran up yet this is rarely levelled as a criticism against Osborne, who has added more new debt to the UK during his tenure than every previous Labour government combined.
I read recently that only two Labour governments have ever left office with a higher debt as a percentage of GDP (generally viewed as a very relevant indicator of a functioning economy) than when they were elected. One in the late 1920's and Gordon Brown's term. Both were, arguably, the result of worldwide economic crashes and the UK economy was not alone in tanking at the time. Even under Labour in the late 70 's the debt to GDP ratio decreased.
Frankly, Osborne would chew his own arm off to be able to boast debt to GDP ratios of even the worst performing Labour chancellor yet somehow is seen by many as an safe pair of hands.
Well two points to consider here.
1 - The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1997 was around 45%. Gordon Brown left it at around 80%, nearly doubling it. True this is largely in part to the global financial crisis but also to a massive increase in state-spending in the run-up to the global crash. Under Osborne the ratio appears to have levelled out at about 90%. So really you're comparing a 35% increase under Brown to a 10% increase under Osborne.
2 - When Osborne took over, the financial crisis was still unfolding, the Eurozone was imploding and the effects of economic measures do not happen overnight, in fact it can take several years to see the full effects of long-term economic policy, therefore anyone who thinks that because the main economic indicators have not seen a dramatic reversal in their decline overnight clearly does not have a realistic view of how national economies actually operate.
The fact is Cameron and Osborne have a good record to defend when it comes to the economy, especially on job creation. Compared to other Western developed nations only Germany has arguably weathered the storm better than the UK and that can be attributed to their relative strengths in areas where the UK is not. France has pursued a policy that Ed Miliband has stated he would adopt as Prime Minister that has seen their economic strength deteriorate and wealth creators deserting the country.
As for voting, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I currently live in what was a safe Labour seat but the Tories nearly won it in 2010. For the last year I've had fortnightly propaganda stuck through my letterbox from the local Labour party, almost always filled with statements that are either simply not true or just wild fantasies designed to poison voters' minds. It's unlikely the Tories, as the incumbent party of Government, will see a swing in their favour and it will probably go back to a safe Labour seat but since it is in the country's best interests that Labour are not let back into power, I might have to consider voting Tory for the first time to at least try to help keep them out.
Your figures are wrong.
Not sure where you got that graph from but a brief Google search has corroborated my figures over wherever you got that nonsense from.
Must be honest, I have always voted as I see the right to vote as important. But I'm so indifferent to it all now and really don't care. I find it staggering / baffling / amusing how other people are so blinkered with their political viewpoints (like The Hague thread for example)
If I'm honest, I genuinely don't think my life would be impacted in any way whatsoever whether we had a Labour or Conservative government over the next five years. Of course they have differing idealisms, but the reality of decision making when in government means virtually nothing would be different imo.
I understand that point of view and at certain times in all our lives other things than who's running the country clearly take priority. Like family, work, running your own excellent internet forum :-) ...but it does matter.
For example the Tories are currently rumoured to be considering limiting child benefit to the first two children and applying tax to disability benefits. Now neither of those policies effect me directly, (in fact I am in favour of the first policy actually), but they will have a massive impact on some households.
To me that's just two very small examples of the policy differences between the parties having an effect at a day-to-day level and that's why I would encourage everyone to use their vote.
TBH, I can see no reason for paying people to have children, in a country increasing by 250k pa, where we cannot adequately house, the existing population, let alone all the other issues that go alongside.
If The Tories were to limit child benefit, I'm confident it would be for children born in the future, as they have said. So, no unfairness and personally a non issue, imo.
As for taxing disability benefits. I've not heard this rumoured.
But in any case I think we should be dealing with facts/pledges, even if they are not kept, rather than rumours.
Anyone can put down rumours they've heard.
Both options for benefits cuts were contained in a leaked civil service document prepared for the Tories this weekend. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722
I agree that rumour and speculation are unhelpful but when those responsible are unwilling to disclose even when we will find out what their plans are let alone any detail it's inevitable.
Fair enough. You should have posted the link, although IDS has said this isn't true.
However, I do believe that they should say where the cuts will come.
It came from this guy, who spends most of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator: Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
Comments
Sunday Times saying Labour 4 %points ahead after the debate making Ed the winner in the debate and the GE.
But long way to go yet.
For this reason, the fact that all these rights and freedoms have been won, and are not under serious threat from any other political party, for the first time in my life I am thinking I may not vote. I think it will be better for the country and the Labour party in the long term if Ed Miliband is defeated and we get his brother as Leader of the Labour party and eventually the country sooner than later.
But, on the other hand, I am impressed by the way Nick Clegg consistently and openly asserts his atheist beliefs. As someone who believes that the most serious threat to the rights and freedoms that have been won for the common man in this country is from the evil Islamic ideology that is spreading throughout the world I find it incredible that how we tackle this threat is not at the top of the agenda for all the political parties. Yesterday I was reading an article in the New York Times about the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. What really struck home for the first time was how close Iran is to being able to build a nuclear weapon and that the best the free and rationale world can hope for is monitoring access agreements to ensure that they are always a least a year away from achieving such a weapon. I keep reading and hearing political commentators telling me I should be worried about climate change and the threat from Putin and Russia! Get real! Within 10 years a bunch of religious lunatics who sincerely believe their God wants them to kill all infidels will have their finger on the nuclear button!
Im still unlikely to vote for him, but I wouldn't be that upset if he stayed in.
I remember when my aunt made the papers because when she was Labour mayor of Slough she kissed the Tory MP at a function. How daft is that.
This is a really a good post, although there are bits I don't agree with. What I do agree with is the struggle for the right to vote being a precious leap forward, and not to at least visit the polling station even if it's to write 'no acceptable alternative' boldly on the voting slip, would be a huge pity.
I have a couple of broader and less specific points.
The notion of rights and freedoms is an interesting philosophical question. Essentially it could be argued there are no such things as rights or freedoms, but there are such phenomena as restraints, restrictions and compulsions.
The powerful, from the childish bully, the tribal leader, the warlord, the baron, the Kings and Queens, the dictators, the theocracy, the promotion of fear, even human nature and psychology, these are the things that have constrained us. We don't struggle for freedom, we struggle against oppression.
I always think about that approach so I can know who my enemies are, rather than struggle for something more vague like the sunny uplands of freedom and human rights.
The other point I want to make is about the threatening aspects of Islam, and in this context I absolutely agree that Nuclear Weapons make everything a game changer.
My theory is that in the development of Islam, a younger religion than Christianity, they have reached the stage Christianity was at four or five hundred years ago. the era of inquisitions, burnings at the stake, witch hunting and so on.
Coupled with modern world conditions, the global village, the ability to wreak havoc on an apocalyptical scale, it worries me greatly that Islam is still at such a crude age of it's philosophical development.
There is only going to be one long term solution to radicalisation, and that I am afraid is to succeed in the struggle for hearts and minds, which is the hardest struggle of all.
I read recently that only two Labour governments have ever left office with a higher debt as a percentage of GDP (generally viewed as a very relevant indicator of a functioning economy) than when they were elected. One in the late 1920's and Gordon Brown's term. Both were, arguably, the result of worldwide economic crashes and the UK economy was not alone in tanking at the time. Even under Labour in the late 70 's the debt to GDP ratio decreased.
Frankly, Osborne would chew his own arm off to be able to boast debt to GDP ratios of even the worst performing Labour chancellor yet somehow is seen by many as a safe pair of hands.
Thanks for posting that. I think a lot of other posters may have been called out over that statement.
If The Tories were to limit child benefit, I'm confident it would be for children born in the future, as they have said.
So, no unfairness and personally a non issue, imo.
As for taxing disability benefits. I've not heard this rumoured.
But in any case I think we should be dealing with facts/pledges, even if they are not kept, rather than rumours.
Anyone can put down rumours they've heard.
Anyway, what's ironic about my post?
I think it will be Conservatives in the end though who win it
1 - The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1997 was around 45%. Gordon Brown left it at around 80%, nearly doubling it. True this is largely in part to the global financial crisis but also to a massive increase in state-spending in the run-up to the global crash. Under Osborne the ratio appears to have levelled out at about 90%. So really you're comparing a 35% increase under Brown to a 10% increase under Osborne.
2 - When Osborne took over, the financial crisis was still unfolding, the Eurozone was imploding and the effects of economic measures do not happen overnight, in fact it can take several years to see the full effects of long-term economic policy, therefore anyone who thinks that because the main economic indicators have not seen a dramatic reversal in their decline overnight clearly does not have a realistic view of how national economies actually operate.
The fact is Cameron and Osborne have a good record to defend when it comes to the economy, especially on job creation. Compared to other Western developed nations only Germany has arguably weathered the storm better than the UK and that can be attributed to their relative strengths in areas where the UK is not. France has pursued a policy that Ed Miliband has stated he would adopt as Prime Minister that has seen their economic strength deteriorate and wealth creators deserting the country.
As for voting, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I currently live in what was a safe Labour seat but the Tories nearly won it in 2010. For the last year I've had fortnightly propaganda stuck through my letterbox from the local Labour party, almost always filled with statements that are either simply not true or just wild fantasies designed to poison voters' minds. It's unlikely the Tories, as the incumbent party of Government, will see a swing in their favour and it will probably go back to a safe Labour seat but since it is in the country's best interests that Labour are not let back into power, I might have to consider voting Tory for the first time to at least try to help keep them out.
Your choices in May are;
General Election 2015: Dulwich and West Norwood
UKIP: Rathy Alagaratnam
Liberal Democrat: James Barber
Labour: Helen Hayes
Conservative: Resham Kotecha
TUSC: Steve Nally
Green: Rashid Nix
I agree that rumour and speculation are unhelpful but when those responsible are unwilling to disclose even when we will find out what their plans are let alone any detail it's inevitable.
https://google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country:uk:de:el&hl=en&dl=en
However, I do believe that they should say where the cuts will come.
I don't think Labour are saying either.
Your figures are wrong.
Not sure where you got that graph from but a brief Google search has corroborated my figures over wherever you got that nonsense from.
https://google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country:uk:de:el&hl=en&dl=en
It came from this guy, who spends most of his time analysing US public spending
Web Site Creator:
Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.
Christopher Chantrill is an American writer and conservative, and author of Road to the Middle Class. He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer (Who he?)