The General Election Thread

[smudgedj]

The problem with this is that it's backwards. UKIP are NOT some revolutionary group who want to "stick it to those fat cats in Washington Westminster", they are a bunch of upper class white people who decided that the Tories were no longer right wing enough..

Nigel Farage is literally a rich stockbroker who is the son of a rich stockbroker who was public school educated and went straight into the Tory party. He isn't Che Guevara. He is part of the problem and not the solution.

So who is the solution then?

There is no solution. UKIP only exist due to wanting to get out of Europe, the Tories are the only party to offer a referendum (craftily set for after an election) and the rest are no hopers.

Seeing as the general consensus is that Europe is a pile of poo then I expect other parties to jump on the bandwagon. It's the only way to get in power it seems.

So the way to get elected

1 Promising shorter waiting lists in A&E.
2 Higher taxes for other people.
3 Referendum on Europe.

 

[hilts]

The problem with this is that it's backwards. UKIP are NOT some revolutionary group who want to "stick it to those fat cats in Washington Westminster", they are a bunch of upper class white people who decided that the Tories were no longer right wing enough..

Nigel Farage is literally a rich stockbroker who is the son of a rich stockbroker who was public school educated and went straight into the Tory party. He isn't Che Guevara. He is part of the problem and not the solution.

So who is the solution then?

There is no solution. UKIP only exist due to wanting to get out of Europe, the Tories are the only party to offer a referendum (craftily set for after an election) and the rest are no hopers.

Seeing as the general consensus is that Europe is a pile of poo then I expect other parties to jump on the bandwagon. It's the only way to get in power it seems.

So if a voter was against an open door policy of immigration within the EU he/she would be wise to vote UKIP, in affect on this particular policy Nigel Farage is very much the solution, if the two main parties are not careful the ground they lose will be long term, he has put them in a impossible situation really

Labour couldn't possibly shift towards a referendum neither the Liberals, will the tories offer a referendum before 2017?, unlikely as they could well lose

 

[Damocles]

So if a voter was against an open door policy of immigration within the EU he/she would be wise to vote UKIP, in affect on this particular policy Nigel Farage is very much the solution, if the two main parties are not careful the ground they lose will be long term, he has put them in a impossible situation really

Labour couldn't possibly shift towards a referendum neither the Liberals, will the tories offer a referendum before 2017?, unlikely as they could well lose

This is the voter's fallacy.

The problem is that you're not JUST voting for that policy, you are voting for every single policy that they have including the ones that you don't know much about or don't really understand the issues behind.

Politicians like to market themselves as single-issue people because a strong position on a controversial issue gains more votes than an even position. Politics is by definition a system of compromise and nobody gets exactly what they want, just a weird reflection of what everybody wants all joined together.

 

[TGR]

So who is the solution then?

There is no solution. UKIP only exist due to wanting to get out of Europe, the Tories are the only party to offer a referendum (craftily set for after an election) and the rest are no hopers.

Seeing as the general consensus is that Europe is a pile of poo then I expect other parties to jump on the bandwagon. It's the only way to get in power it seems.

So the way to get elected

1 Promising shorter waiting lists in A&E.
2 Higher taxes for other people.
3 Referendum on Europe.

In other words simply tell people exactly what they want to hear repeatedly (whilst you do the exact opposite).
That was Tony Blair's method and he got elected 3 times on the trot!
He was a master at it - without a doubt.

 

[hilts]

So if a voter was against an open door policy of immigration within the EU he/she would be wise to vote UKIP, in affect on this particular policy Nigel Farage is very much the solution, if the two main parties are not careful the ground they lose will be long term, he has put them in a impossible situation really

Labour couldn't possibly shift towards a referendum neither the Liberals, will the tories offer a referendum before 2017?, unlikely as they could well lose

This is the voter's fallacy.

The problem is that you're not JUST voting for that policy, you are voting for every single policy that they have including the ones that you don't know much about or don't really understand the issues behind.

Politicians like to market themselves as single-issue people because a strong position on a controversial issue gains more votes than an even position. Politics is by definition a system of compromise and nobody gets exactly what they want, just a weird reflection of what everybody wants all joined together.

Completely disagree the rest of their policies are not relevant, they are made up just so if they get questioned they have an answer, UKIP will not gain power, they know it so do the voters, their aim is to get us out of europe, if they gain enough support to form a coalition with the tories they will want only one concession, a referendum on the EU

They are trying to force through one policy, no one who votes UKIP need worry about their other policies as they will never see the light of day

They are the equivalent of an online petition, enough people sign up for it and the big boys are forced to tackle the issue to save their own arses

 

[Len Rum]

There is no solution. UKIP only exist due to wanting to get out of Europe, the Tories are the only party to offer a referendum (craftily set for after an election) and the rest are no hopers.

Seeing as the general consensus is that Europe is a pile of poo then I expect other parties to jump on the bandwagon. It's the only way to get in power it seems.

So the way to get elected

1 Promising shorter waiting lists in A&E.
2 Higher taxes for other people.
3 Referendum on Europe.

In other words simply tell people exactly what they want to hear repeatedly (whilst you do the exact opposite).
That was Tony Blair's method and he got elected 3 times on the trot!
He was a master at it - without a doubt.

You'll be pleased to know the Tories have no plans to increase VAT in the next Parliament.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Tristram Hunt
Appropriate rhyming slang

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

However I won't vote for a party that advocates flat rate tax, privatising the NHS and allows rich benefactors to buy a cabinet position.

Ukip are a joke.

 

[Gabriel]

Tristram Hunt
Appropriate rhyming slang

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

However I won't vote for a party that advocates flat rate tax, privatising the NHS and allows rich benefactors to buy a cabinet position.

Ukip are a joke.

Are those UKIP policies? Just looked on its site and that doesn't seem to be the case, and does it have cabinet positions? Where did you see this?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is the voter's fallacy.

The problem is that you're not JUST voting for that policy, you are voting for every single policy that they have including the ones that you don't know much about or don't really understand the issues behind.

I'd counter that by saying that:
1) I don't usually agree with every single policy of the party I vote for and I doubt many people do.
2) Most of those policies in the typical manifesto never get implemented anyway.

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of any of the main parties so tend to vote on the basis of questions like:
1) Have the party in power done a reasonable job? If yes I'd tend to vote for them. If not then I'd ask myself question 2.
2) Are the other lot offering something better for the country?
3) Do the other lot look like they can do a better job of delivering that vision (or at least be no worse)?
4) Who would I prefer as PM from a trust/personality point of view?
5) Who would I want as my MP?


Answers this time:
1) Really don't know but tend to think not.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Neither of the main party leaders. Both are appalling.
5) This isn't an important question for me this time. My MP (who is a nice enough guy) is a Shadow Minister who tends to keep his head down on local issues and has, more than once in the past, tried to ride two horses with one arse. Personally I'd rather have someone who was prepared to be vocal on behalf of his constituents so I'll wait to see who the Tories put up. His (Tory) predecessor was an excellent local MP and even one of his former Labour opponents, when he was on Manchester City Council, spoke highly of him.

 

[aguero93:20]

The problem with this is that it's backwards. UKIP are NOT some revolutionary group who want to "stick it to those fat cats in Washington Westminster", they are a bunch of upper class white people who decided that the Tories were no longer right wing enough..

Nigel Farage is literally a rich stockbroker who is the son of a rich stockbroker who was public school educated and went straight into the Tory party. He isn't Che Guevara. He is part of the problem and not the solution.

So who is the solution then?

I don't know to be honest. The problem isn't that the actors are shite, it's that the stage is broken.

I think we have to reassess our democratic system entirely. The purpose of an MP is to represent a block of people who couldn't make these decisions directly due to logistical problems in having the whole country in Parliament. We can also now add a lack of available time or interest to that list as reasons.

In a world where I can type a message and it be instantly read on the other side of the world, where X-Factor can garner 3 million phone line votes in a single hour, where everybody has mobile phones with the ability to send text messages, I'm not even sure if we need MPs any more. I see no reason why a truly direct democracy cannot work, it certainly isn't difficult technologically speaking.

This would also engage people in politics in a way that they just aren't currently engaged. There would be no "them" to blame things on if it didn't go right. If the economy wasn't fixed it's because we fucked it up, not some faceless MP that we can all talk cynically about with their links to bankers. People could raise a bill and the public could vote directly. They could read it directly. They could leave comments concerning it and read the comments of others.

There would be problems of course but not insurmountable ones and at least we would reflect the will of the people in a manner that currently we don't. We do however have a rapidly declining voter turnout and Government that over half of this country didn't vote for.

The problem is then that the numpties would have a direct say in the running of the country.