The great TP election thread

The Labour party wanted to weaponise the NHS and have been using the NHS to garner votes for a long time. The other parties are on the bandwagon too but I think it's pretty safe to say that Labour are the keenest to link themselves to the care and welfare of the NHS as they see it as a vote winner and something they can use to counterbalance what some see as their lack of economic competence.

On the class war thing, I regard myself as a socialist and apart from at the last election I've always voted Labour (last time I voted for an independent socialist) but I also recognise what I see as the realities of life one of which is that we can't pay out more than we get in indefinitely. Over the years and now during this election process we have had are still getting some reoccurring class war rhetoric from Labour and personally I think they should drop it and move on. I'm sick of hearing about "The Rich" and "Big Business" as if hammering them will lead us to Nirvana. These should be redundant class war phrases left behind with Red Robbo and the worst excesses of that time. We need people and businesses to generate wealth and if we hammer them too much we stand the chance of losing out.
 
woof woof said:
The Labour party wanted to weaponise the NHS and have been using the NHS to garner votes for a long time. The other parties are on the bandwagon too but I think it's pretty safe to say that Labour are the keenest to link themselves to the care and welfare of the NHS as they see it as a vote winner and something they can use to counterbalance what some see as their lack of economic competence.

On the class war thing, I regard myself as a socialist and apart from at the last election I've always voted Labour (last time I voted for an independent socialist) but I also recognise what I see as the realities of life one of which is that we can't pay out more than we get in indefinitely. Over the years and now during this election process we have had are still getting some reoccurring class war rhetoric from Labour and personally I think they should drop it and move on. I'm sick of hearing about "The Rich" and "Big Business" as if hammering them will lead us to Nirvana. These should be redundant class war phrases left behind with Red Robbo and the worst excesses of that time. We need people and businesses to generate wealth and if we hammer them too much we stand the chance of losing out.
Click to expand...


I actually couldn't agree more
 
I can't believe the Tories are resurrecting/extending the `right to buy` scheme. :(
 
right to buy seems to split opinion quite neatly down the middle. as a housing association tenant, im paying MORE than HSBC Mortgage will lend me each month in rent, after 10 years of paying that, it would be nice to think it will bring the price of the house i like in down and maybe it will be enough to allow to to get on the property ladder, but with house values as they are, there wont be many who can take advantage of it.
 
I'm against it in principle, just as I was when Maggie did it.
How the hell will this help with the massive housing shortage & how will it be funded?

The Tories today have been playing to the working class more than I've ever noticed before.
 
I agree that with the house prices in the South as they are, not many will be able to afford to take up the offer anyway.

There was a housing association guy on the news & he was saying that even the banks will be less likely to lend to them to build new/replacement properties, because they won't have the equity.
 
Last edited:
The LibDems and UKIP.....are publishing their manifestos today.....interesting reading?
 
archangel said:
The LibDems and UKIP.....are publishing their manifestos today.....interesting reading?
Click to expand...
LibDems - Major policies offer insight into what they would demand in a coalition. Minor policies can be safely filed away as Things That Will Not Come to Pass.
UKIP - Little point reading it, as Farage already admitted he didn't even read, let alone write, the last one. However, I predict that every policy will involve blaming foreigners for our current situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jST
Llamaman said:
LibDems - Major policies offer insight into what they would demand in a coalition.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, like an end to tuition fees in rUK.
 
Steep said:
Ah yes, like an end to tuition fees in rUK.
Click to expand...
I said "demand" not "achieve". They didn't get tuition fee abolition. But they did get;
- a major increase in personal allowance
- a referendum on electoral reform
- pupil premium
- independent exam assessment board
- shared parental leave
which were also major policies. You can't expect a minor coalition party to get everything they want. Personally, I think they chose the wrong priorities, but to expect them to deliver everything from a manfiesto written for majority government when a minor coalition partner is unreasonable and naive.

I'd go further and suggest (this is a general comment, not aimed at you personally) that this hoo-hah about the 'broken promise' of tuition fees beliess the immaturity British voters have with regards to non-majority government. The electorate need to wise up quickly, because I think we might never see a majority government again until Scotland leaves the UK.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
LibDems - Major policies offer insight into what they would demand in a coalition... .
Click to expand...

... but didnt in this five year coalition despite saying they would
 
big soft moose said:
... but didnt in this five year coalition despite saying they would
Click to expand...
Didn't what? I don't recall any party making promises about what they would do in a coalition government prior the last election. Or are you referring to a promise made after the election that hasn't been kept?
 
I'm saying that lib dems didnt get any of their major policies accepted as a quid pro quo for going into coalition, because basically clegg rolled over and had his tummy tickled far too easily despite being in a position of strength
 
Steep said:
Ah yes, like an end to tuition fees in rUK.
Click to expand...

The referendum to allow an independent Scotland has passed. It voted to remain part of the UK. Why insist on refering to rUK? The SNP have accepted that result and won't push for another, Honest
 
boyfalldown said:
The referendum to allow an independent Scotland has passed. It voted to remain part of the UK. Why insist on refering to rUK? The SNP have accepted that result and won't push for another, Honest
Click to expand...

if at first you don't suceed cry like a baby until you get a referendum with the result you want
 
Matt said:
right to buy seems to split opinion quite neatly down the middle. as a housing association tenant, im paying MORE than HSBC Mortgage will lend me each month in rent, after 10 years of paying that, it would be nice to think it will bring the price of the house i like in down and maybe it will be enough to allow to to get on the property ladder, but with house values as they are, there wont be many who can take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Only those who are in the private market surely need more help, as they're paying higher rates? Why should someone who is already paying subsidised rent, get a minimum 35% reduction (capped at £70K) on the value of a house, just because of who their landlord is?

IMO, they should make social housing available on a need only basis, re-assess tenants every 3 - 5 years and once you can comfortably afford to buy, ore rent privately, they should be made to do so, or pay the market rent on their housing association property and the additional rent used to fund more properties.

Reducing the stock of social housing is the main goal of the Right to Buy schemes and a way for the Tories to try and buy the votes of people who are in social housing, but already earning enough that they could buy a property.
 
big soft moose said:
I'm saying that lib dems didnt get any of their major policies accepted as a quid pro quo for going into coalition, because basically clegg rolled over and had his tummy tickled far too easily despite being in a position of strength
Click to expand...
I'm saying you're completely wrong :)
At the time you replied to my post I had already listed;
- a major increase in personal allowance
- a referendum on electoral reform

And I subsequently editted it to include;
- pupil premium
- independent exam assessment board
- shared parental leave

All of which were on the LibDem 2010 manifesto, and which have subsequently been adopted by the coalition. The first two in particular were massive - it's unlikely we'll see another referendum on electoral reform in my lifetime and it only happened because the LibDems pushed hard for it (the two major parties have no interest in electoral reform for obvious reasons). Alas, the electorate got the result wrong ;)
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
The referendum to allow an independent Scotland has passed. It voted to remain part of the UK. Why insist on refering to rUK? The SNP have accepted that result and won't push for another, Honest
Click to expand...
Because tuition fees only apply to rUK, the Scots having abolished them north of the border. It would be a bit daft to campaign for the abolition of that which is already abolished.

And you're right to be sceptical of SNPs 'acceptance' on the referendum decision. A party formed around a single, clear goal is unlikely to give it up, just because it's what the electorate wanted... although Labour ditched the commitment to public ownership of services, so I guess anything is possible.
 
Yes but they wanted proportional representation, what they got was a referendum they couldnt win - the electorate know jacks*** about that kind of thing so a refeendum was never going to end well - he should have said "we'll go into coalition with you if you support our call for PR othewise you can p*** off

and on personall allowance a staged increase from 7475 to 10,500 is hardlly massive - it means that a low earner will be £605 per year better off, ie a tad over £11 per week - whilst at the same time other tax rises and benefit/service cuts have taken more than that back

ditto for pupil premium - we'll give you £1300 per child registered for free school meals, but we'll cut your budget overal by a large ammount - wow, thanks :banghead:

and ditto shared parental leave - good in theory irrelevant in practice if you can't afford to take it

so as i said in practical terms he got jack s*** because he didnt have the balls to negotiate (he was far too quick to publically announce he wouldnt form a lib lab coalition - for a cheap publicity win - thus giving up his strongest card in bargaining with cameron)
 
The strongest play for the lib dems would have been to let the pariliament remain hung and then play kingmaker on individual policies by holding the balance of the votes every single time there was a vote by MPs, rather than turn their back on their main vote winning policy (tuition fees) just get that taste of power. I'll certainly never be voting for them again, I agree with a lot of their policies, I just don't trust them to actually do anything they say anymore.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
The strongest play for the lib dems would have been to let the pariliament remain hung and then play kingmaker on individual policies by holding the balance of the votes every single time there was a vote by MPs, rather than turn their back on their main vote winning policy (tuition fees) just get that taste of power. I'll certainly never be voting for them again, I agree with a lot of their policies, I just don't trust them to actually do anything they say anymore.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I was the opposite, never ever would vote lib dem but have been impressed with their role in the last 5 years. Every time I see clegg I see someone more honest than the others. Had they won the election they would have carried out tuition policy. What they did was negotiate. Had they held out for this they may not have been in government and so something is better than nothing. Not looked at manifesto that much but at the moment the only thing stopping me voting for them is the pro eu policy. If they promised a referendum they could well get my vote.
 
cambsno said:
Interesting. I was the opposite, never ever would vote lib dem but have been impressed with their role in the last 5 years. Every time I see clegg I see someone more honest than the others. Had they won the election they would have carried out tuition policy. What they did was negotiate. Had they held out for this they may not have been in government and so something is better than nothing. Not looked at manifesto that much but at the moment the only thing stopping me voting for them is the pro eu policy. If they promised a referendum they could well get my vote.
Click to expand...

They basically got the votes they did by their MPs campaigning on the tuition fees issue. Then agreed to abstain in the vote as part of the coalition. Which since their abstention gave the Tories a majority, is just as bad as voting for. So I don't trust them in the slightest now. You get your votes based on a policy, then you should enact that policy, that should have been a red line for the coalition agreement.
 
But had they insisted and then not been part of the coalition it would have been cutting nose to spite face. We all change our minds based on change of circumstances.

Every party has broken promises and are untrustworthy so they are no worse than the others.
 
boyfalldown said:
The referendum to allow an independent Scotland has passed. It voted to remain part of the UK. Why insist on refering to rUK? The SNP have accepted that result and won't push for another, Honest
Click to expand...

rUK because Scotland doesn't have tuition fees, no other reason.
 
It was interesting listening to the discussion on radio 2 earlier, "who will jump into bed with whom" ( the marginal parties) if its a hung Parliament,
and the lines they will draw, demands they will make "or else"
Some were good points, some sounded more like spoiled brats stamping their feet.
Its certainly not swayed my opinion though.
They are still a lot of serving serving basts
But one thing we can be sure of the only losers will be "us" which ever way it happens to go.
 
Cobra said:
It was interesting listening to the discussion on radio 2 earlier, "who will jump into bed with whom" ( the marginal parties) if its a hung Parliament,
and the lines they will draw, demands they will make "or else"
Some were good points, some sounded more like spoiled brats stamping their feet.
Its certainly not swayed my opinion though.
They are still a lot of serving serving basts
But one thing we can be sure of the only losers will be "us" which ever way it happens to go.
Click to expand...

Clegg has firmly ruled out having a three way with Cameron and Farage - this is good news (although also not a mental image anyone wanted)
 
big soft moose said:
Clegg has firmly ruled out having a three way with Cameron and Farage -
Click to expand...
Its doesn't matter its only us that will get shafted :D

But seriously can you imagine a 3 way coalition? what ever that mix might be?
2 is bad enough.
What ever alliances are formed, you can bet that only the MP's will be on a winner ;)
 
big soft moose said:
so as i said in practical terms he got jack s***
Click to expand...
That wasn't what you said. You backtrack like a pro - have you considered a career in politics? ;)
big soft moose said:
he didnt have the balls to negotiate (he was far too quick to publically announce he wouldnt form a lib lab coalition - for a cheap publicity win - thus giving up his strongest card in bargaining with cameron)
Click to expand...
Or maybe he can do basic arithmetic and worked out that a Labour-Liberal coalition would also need support from at least 2 other parties (most likely 4 based on the options) to have a majority and thought it unworkable? Yeah, it's probably that.
 
Llamaman said:
Or maybe he can do basic arithmetic and worked out that a Labour-Liberal coalition would also need support from at least 2 other parties (most likely 4 based on the options) to have a majority and thought it unworkable? Yeah, it's probably that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he should have gone into a coalition with labour - I'm saying he could have used the threat of not going in with the conservatives to get more concessions out of cameron , instead of humping his leg like an over eager puppy who needs a newspaper across the nose
 
Cobra said:
Its doesn't matter its only us that will get shafted :D

But seriously can you imagine a 3 way coalition? what ever that mix might be?
2 is bad enough.
What ever alliances are formed, you can bet that only the MP's will be on a winner ;)
Click to expand...

It would be like Japan only worse - Maybe we should have a Con/Lab coalition - that would at least be interesting :lol:
 
big soft moose said:
It would be like Japan only worse - Maybe we should have a Con/Lab coalition - that would at least be interesting :LOL:
Click to expand...
I refer back to a post I made ages ago, with reference to Jim Bowie.
Last man standing and all that, and think of the revenue that could be raised from selling tickets :thumbs:
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Reducing the stock of social housing is the main goal of the Right to Buy schemes and a way for the Tories to try and buy the votes of people who are in social housing, but already earning enough that they could buy a property.
Click to expand...

Correct. Also when Maggie started it, it was during the anti union days & a way of putting pressure on workers not to strike once they had a mortgage.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Only those who are in the private market surely need more help, as they're paying higher rates? Why should someone who is already paying subsidised rent, get a minimum 35% reduction (capped at £70K) on the value of a house, just because of who their landlord is?

IMO, they should make social housing available on a need only basis, re-assess tenants every 3 - 5 years and once you can comfortably afford to buy, ore rent privately, they should be made to do so, or pay the market rent on their housing association property and the additional rent used to fund more properties.

Reducing the stock of social housing is the main goal of the Right to Buy schemes and a way for the Tories to try and buy the votes of people who are in social housing, but already earning enough that they could buy a property.
Click to expand...

i dont think that the reduction would apply to many properties, cetrinaly not mine, as mine is part rent/part buy, however the reduction would allow me to staircase more, ive paid 10 years of rent as well, with none of the benefit of my neighbours, who get all their maintenance carried out by the HA, while i have to repair the p*** poor build quality problems myself.
 
Matt said:
i dont think that the reduction would apply to many properties, cetrinaly not mine, as mine is part rent/part buy, however the reduction would allow me to staircase more, ive paid 10 years of rent as well, with none of the benefit of my neighbours, who get all their maintenance carried out by the HA, while i have to repair the p*** poor build quality problems myself.
Click to expand...

1.3 million families in HA houses, not counting people who've already bought under shared ownership. And the 35% discount is available to anyone who has lived there for 5 years, increasing by 2% a year up to 70% / £70000, whichever is lower.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I'm not saying he should have gone into a coalition with labour - I'm saying he could have used the threat of not going in with the conservatives to get more concessions out of cameron , instead of humping his leg like an over eager puppy who needs a newspaper across the nose
Click to expand...
A threat that no-ones believes will ever be carried out (and may not even be possible) is no threat at all - it just discredits the person making the threat.

The only viable coalition was Lib-Con so he did the right thing in getting on with that rather than wasting everyone's time trying to do a deal with Labour (who effectively had no leader as everyone knew Brown was a busted flush), Plaid Cymru, the SNP, AND the SDP (the DUP are historically bedfellows of the Conservatives so were unlikely coalition partners).
As an added pressure, we were still in the middle of a financial crisis and markets tend to respond poorly to political impasse - getting an agreement in place was actually pretty important to shoring up our credit rating.
 
Llamaman said:
- getting an agreement in place was actually pretty important to shoring up our credit rating.
Click to expand...

and they did such a good job of that that we were downgraded from AAA to AA+ within weeks

Also saying "if you don't do XYZ I won't g into coalition" isnt an empty threat as said earlier they could have left the tories with minority govt and used their balance of power to cherry pick policies and extract concesions from both Con and Lab , but clegg didnt have the cojones - wrong man for the moment
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top