2015 Election

[Diello]

Or, from another perspective:

 

The Tories get in and slash public spending so they can spend it on white elephant projects (HS2) or cut taxes for their friends, privatising as they go (Royal Mail, trying to do it with the NHS), all but destroying public services in the process - the NHS had an awful winter this last year, and I've never seen teaching staff so stressed and vacancies so under-applied for.

Labour get in and have to overspend to fix things quickly, meaning they have to make the unpopular choice of raising taxes to do so.

The Tories get back into power and slash and burn all over again

GOTO 10

[...]

 

The whole "cut taxes for their friends"-line actually goes to show how savvy Labour were... they set the Tories up, and the population fell for it. Labour had the top rate of tax at 40p until April 2010 when they whacked it up to 50p, knowing the Tories would drop it if they got in as it was too high, and low and behold the Tories did, to 45p... so still higher than Labour had it until their final few months in office... but now they can claim the Tories gave the wealthy a tax cut... technically true, but rather misleading. Worse, the public fall for it!

 

Privitatisation has its issues, but anyone would think British Rail were the height of brilliance from the way people seem to think having everything in public ownership is the solution to excellent service!

[sonofsanta]

The whole "cut taxes for their friends"-line actually goes to show how savvy Labour were... they set the Tories up, and the population fell for it. Labour had the top rate of tax at 40p until April 2010 when they whacked it up to 50p, knowing the Tories would drop it if they got in as it was too high, and low and behold the Tories did, to 45p... so still higher than Labour had it until their final few months in office... but now they can claim the Tories gave the wealthy a tax cut... technically true, but rather misleading. Worse, the public fall for it!

 

Letting Vodafone off an enormous tax bill was a bad looking disaster of their own making though, no?

 

Privitatisation has its issues, but anyone would think British Rail were the height of brilliance from the way people seem to think having everything in public ownership is the solution to excellent service!

 

My problem is that the Tories seem to believe privatisation is the answer to everything. The free market is their hammer that makes every problem look like a nail. The converse to your point is that the rail system hasn't actually got any better, has it? It's not achieved anything the privatisation was promised to. Royal Mail was suspiciously underpriced as well.

 

My main point, though, is that privatisation cannot possibly be the best solution when the best outcome of a service is not profit. You can't quantitatively measure education or health, despite the best efforts of the last two decades, so how can you possibly use a private enterprise approach that relies on profit to measure success?

 

Don't think I'm advocating out-and-out inefficiency when I say this, but the efficiency-above-all-else quest does a disservice to patients and students alike. If you want to maximise your resources, slash your staffing in half - that way, everyone is busy all the time and you're maximally efficient! But health and education are both better served by having some inherent inefficiencies. It's probably not efficient to have a primary school of only 100 kids, but to those 100 kids in that village it's everything, and much better than getting on a bus every morning at five years old for a half hour trip to the nearest town. Already in Lincolnshire we're losing primary schools that were only tenable under the LEA model, wherein they were propped up by the efficiency of larger town schools. Now everyone has gone to an academy - and in Lincolnshire, it's really been pushed - those small primaries are having to close, because by themselves they're not sustainable. Have we got a better provision because of academies? Not at all. It's been a net loss for the county, I'd argue, as top heavy as the old LEA could be.

[eyetea]

After doing a couple of vote match / vote for policies my opinions seem to fall in line with Labour, followed closely by the Greens

[unixman_again]

It's not a legal requirement to vote - it is your right to choose to vote or not

 

I think adding a "none of the above" option will be at odds with various Human Rights people as they'll see it as one step closer to compulsory voting.

Australia has compulsory voting, which IMO is a very good idea. It preserves democracy. If you don't want to vote, you have still the right although you will be fined. If you want to avoid the fine but don't want to vote, because for example, you think they are all crooks, you can either deliberately spoil your ballot paper or simply not complete it. Secret ballot is a wonderful thing. Supposedly, we have a secret ballot here in Blighty, as mandated by the Ballot Act 1872. If this is the case, why do they write your elector number on the ballot paper?

 

The Utopian idea of if none of the above wins, and there has to be another election in which none of the original candidates can stand, sounds wonderful but I suspect it would be difficult to implement.

 

Preferential voting is a excellent system but I'm not sure if the great unwashed would know how to use it, unless they are educated. Australia has preferential voting, but over the last 25 years or so, it has been watered down by allowing you to vote for a party (rather than a candidate) and your preferences are distributed according to the party line. THis is a really bad idea IMO.

[ZeroHour]

Poll now edited to include the max possible 12 options

 

Boosted the limit a bit @elsiegee40

[speckytecky]

Thank you @MatthewL for changing the Poll to include most of the parties fielding Candidates. It surprises me that Labour seem to be getting a fair bit of support on here. Do so many of you fellow Edugeekers really want Ed Milliband representing the Country as Prime Minister. Additionally the have had their chance and mired themselves in both the expenses scandal but also lurched severely to the right of centre so they like the Lib Dems and UKIP are just another right wing party nowadays. Little Socalists about them at all.

[Garacesh]

More than 100 company leaders have declared support for a Conservative-led government in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph.

It is also set to promise a curb on "exploitative" zero-hours contracts.

 

Well they bloody would then, wouldn't they? O.o

I despise zero-hour contracts.

[Disease]

Labour supporters harp on about privatization of the NHS and other public services such as schools, saying that conservatives favor big business. what convenient memories they have.

 

BSF, PFI in hospitals, what a great plan that was for public sector resources, the hospital near us was made a super hospital under labour, sure it looks lovely from the outside but they can not afford to open all the new wards because the running costs of the contract are massive. Same with schools, they end up with less money to spend on TL and big companies cream off massive guaranteed profits.

 

£1000 to replace a sink that was broken in the hospital, nice one labour.

[LeMarchand]

Do so many of you fellow Edugeekers really want Ed Milliband representing the Country as Prime Minister. Additionally the have had their chance and mired themselves in both the expenses scandal but also lurched severely to the right of centre so they like the Lib Dems and UKIP are just another right wing party nowadays. Little Socalists about them at all.

 

True, but they're the least right-wing of the likely suspects. I think a lot of people who would previously been predisposed to giving the Lib-Dems a chance don't trust them after the coalition.

 

Also, I'm not aware of any leading Labour politicians who have stocked up on water cannons just in case the proles finally decide to take to the streets.

[Garacesh]

True, but they're the least right-wing of the likely suspects. I think a lot of people who would previously been predisposed to giving the Lib-Dems a chance don't trust them after the coalition..

That's certainly the case for me.. I'm less enthused with the Tories than I am with Labour, but I would've given the Lib's a chance if they'd have pulled their neck out during the last term.

[abillybob]

UKIP:

He announced the party's "pledge to Britain", which includes saying no to the EU and an extra £3bn for the NHS. - Yup.

His party also wants to "control our borders", cut foreign aid spending - Yup. I don't want our country to be used as a bus stop for foreigners to come over and use our NHS (illegal immigrants) there needs to be tighter control on this.

No Tax on minimum wage earners - Yup. This is fair and may even help to persuade people to go to work rather than be better off on benefits.

Inheritance tax will be abolished. - Yup. It's my inheritance not the governments.

Students from the EU will pay the same student fee rates as International students. - Yup. Only fair, as should we if we go to the EU.

We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa. UKIP will commit to spending £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges in England. - Yup. Don't see why immigrants can come over here for a while and then leave when they've had their treatment, also I like the fact they're abolishing parking charges with some of the savings in hospitals, there shouldn't be parking charges at any hospital it's a money making game. I'm not shopping.

There is a lot I agree on when it comes to UKIP's policies these are just a few, I have read every party's policy in detail and I can't say the same thing about Labour or the conservatives. The only other party I quite like is the Green Party, but they don't have any chance of winning realistically. Just my views - which I'm sure you'll all jump on the bandwagon to try and change, they won't by the way so don't waste your breath.

 

Bottom line; vote for who you think will benefit yourself and the country more. It doesn't matter what others say, if you think socks should come in 3's just in case you loose one sock then vote Looney Party by all means. Politics is quite a personal subject and you should do what your gut says not be persuaded by someone on an internet forum or anyone for that matter, this is why I'm a bit confused why this thread has been made other than to persuade others to vote one way or another or just to start debates/arguments.

 

Just my two cents.

[zag]

I'd be voting UKIP, if I didn't think it would affect the conservative candidate in my area and let Labour in.

 

There are a lot of Extreme Left wing organizations trying to smear UKIP so be careful what you read on social media or in the left wing papers like the Mirror or the Guardian. The Daily Mail also hate them as they take away the conservative vote.

 

They are in actual fact a load of old conservatives who want out of Europe, its that simple. There's is nothing wrong with voting for them at all if that's what you believe in.

[sonofsanta]

The only other party I quite like is the Green Party, but they don't have any chance of winning realistically.

 

Neither do UKIP

 

The only reason UKIP are such a big story is that - fair play to him - Nigel Farage is very good at playing the media game, setting himself up as "Nige down the local with his pint of mild". The Greens have higher membership numbers and actually have an MP in Westminster right now, so are arguably much more relevant than UKIP. The problem is they're nowhere near cynical and manipulative enough with the media; their own naivety in believing that if only they're good enough and their policies strike the right chord, they'll be OK, is what undoes them.

 

Realistically neither is going to get many seats, if any, thanks to the FPTP system. I think last election the Tories averaged 20,000 votes per seat won, Labour 25,000 and Lib Dem about 90,000, because the first two have concentrated areas of popularity whereas the Lib Dems were sort of popular everywhere, but never enough so in any one seat to get the MP in under First Past the Post. UKIP & Greens will suffer the same problem, but exacerbated by everyone's tendency to be quite reserved in their voting when it comes to general elections. People who will happily vote for a fringe candidate as MEP or councillor will hew much closer to the big three when it comes to the general election, and I think Farage may be disappointed with how little he comes out with.

 

None of which is said to change your mind, btw - if you agree with their policies, you go and vote for them, that's what democracy is. Most people never even look at policies. All I'm pointing out is that your reasoning for not voting Green applies just as much to UKIP, so don't pick based on that. Plus, of course, if everyone always thinks "I'll only vote for someone with a chance of winning", we favour the incumbents and we'll never get any real change. People should stick to their guns, odds be damned; it'd probably be surprising who'd get in if we did.

 

Oh, for AV to have come in.

Edited April 1, 2015 by sonofsanta
tpyos

[Garacesh]

@abillybob I have to say I agree with most of that stuff - except the EU. I think we should stay, but there's a lot of change that needs making, change I'm not sure that can actually be brought about..

 

I don't think we should blindly accept anyone and everyone from the EU just because EU says so, but I think maybe if we sorted out our easily-abused benefits system then maybe anyone and everyone wouldn't want to come here. I don't want to say "NHS only for British citizens!" because everybody needs access to medical treatment, and a lot of medical treatment is absurdly expensive. Are we going to end up billing people thousands of pounds for an operation because they were, say, in a traffic collision that may not have been their fault? Are they going to rock up to $Hospital spilling 50% of their red stuff for a doctor to go "Nah mate, you're not one of us, innit?".. Or can we make their embassy pick up the tab? Obviously they can't just be left in that state, so what would you propose we do?

 

A lot of people do bash UKIP as utter racists for their anti-immigration stance but I do applaud them for their willingness to actually speak up because something does need to be done about it. I don't think I'll vote for them, but I'm still not 100% on who I'll vote for anyway. I'll be paying attention to the upcoming debates and reading over manifestos, I expect.

[Andrew_C]

Are we going to end up billing people thousands of pounds for an operation because they were, say, in a traffic collision that may not have been their fault?

I think you'll find (and I maybe wrong) that their insurers will be picking up the tab for that one. I heard a while back of a Brit being billed (via insurance) for NHS treatment following a RTA, can't remember the detail though.

[Garacesh]

I'm not certain that the majority of people actually take out travel insurance, personally..

[abillybob]

I'm not certain that the majority of people actually take out travel insurance, personally..

In my eyes that's their fault not the states. Those that haven't made a decent enough contribution to our society should not be given free this and free that (this goes for everything not just NHS). It's only fair. I wouldn't expect to go to America with no travel insurance, loose a limb and for the government to pick up the bill for that and then I leave the country all happy with my limb re-attatched all paid for. I also wouldn't expect to go over to Portugal and be given a free council house and live off the state.

 

In this country the truth is that attitude is far too common right now and something needs to be done.

 

It seems a lot of people nowadays think they should always get something for nothing. I for one am a strong believer that everyone should work hard to get where they want not have thing handed on a platter to them when they want it.

[Garacesh]

In my eyes that's their fault not the states.

It is. But are you really going to look a dieing man in the eye and say "Nope. Off with you!"?

 

It seems a lot of people nowadays think they should always get something for nothing. I for one am a strong believer that everyone should work hard to get where they want not have thing handed on a platter to them when they want it.

After working for 3 years in a proper 'career' job and earning my own wad, I can safely say my attitude has certainly changed now. I don't mind the ~£10 charge for prescriptions (though that may be due to £10 being a considerably lower percent of my income now) and the things that I want I save up for or buy on my credit card. I appreciate the things my parents have done for me that I now see I didn't fully realise the consequences of.. When I was a child, grown-ups were rich because they had jobs.. Looking back on it, I wasn't in poverty, but I can see how my mother was struggling to make ends meet and did her best to shield me from that. Being 'a man in the working world' has really changed my perspective. With this in mind, is it not perhaps that some people just don't understand the 'value' of working, because they've never been taught the benefits of it? Sure, I can name to-hand at least 5 people I know (Well, used to know) that are the 'lazy' stereotype who don't want to work because free cash and can play xbox all day.. I'm waffling on now and don't really know where I'm going with this (so I'd probably be an amazing politician)

[Arreks]

I'm fairly confident that Labour will be taking it this year, that isn't to say I support them though.

 

I haven't decided who or whether I'll even be voting this year however it definitely won't be: BNP, UKIP, Conservatives.

 

Maybe we should start the EduGeek party.

[abillybob]

It is. But are you really going to look a dieing man in the eye and say "Nope. Off with you!"?

 

I'm pretty sure that how they did it in other countries was to operate on you or give you the necessary health care, If you didn't have insurance it was then up to you to find the money to pay the bill. So that person wouldn't die but would have a lot of debt at the end of it... Bottom line pay for health care if you're not entitled to have it for free.

[Oaktech]

Maybe we should start the EduGeek party.

 

At least the government IT projects would actually get done on time, on budget and to spec...

[Garacesh]

I'm pretty sure that how they did it in other countries was to operate on you or give you the necessary health care, If you didn't have insurance it was then up to you to find the money to pay the bill. So that person wouldn't die but would have a lot of debt at the end of it... Bottom line pay for health care if you're not entitled to have it for free.

 

Does it really matter if you're indebted to the government of a country in which you don't reside?

Legit question. I don't really know how debt works beyond "I buy something on my CC and pay it off over a period of months."

[Diello]

Letting Vodafone off an enormous tax bill was a bad looking disaster of their own making though, no?

 

Agreed.

 

My problem is that the Tories seem to believe privatisation is the answer to everything. The free market is their hammer that makes every problem look like a nail. The converse to your point is that the rail system hasn't actually got any better, has it? It's not achieved anything the privatisation was promised to. Royal Mail was suspiciously underpriced as well.

 

My main point, though, is that privatisation cannot possibly be the best solution when the best outcome of a service is not profit. You can't quantitatively measure education or health, despite the best efforts of the last two decades, so how can you possibly use a private enterprise approach that relies on profit to measure success?

 

Don't think I'm advocating out-and-out inefficiency when I say this, but the efficiency-above-all-else quest does a disservice to patients and students alike. If you want to maximise your resources, slash your staffing in half - that way, everyone is busy all the time and you're maximally efficient! But health and education are both better served by having some inherent inefficiencies. It's probably not efficient to have a primary school of only 100 kids, but to those 100 kids in that village it's everything, and much better than getting on a bus every morning at five years old for a half hour trip to the nearest town. Already in Lincolnshire we're losing primary schools that were only tenable under the LEA model, wherein they were propped up by the efficiency of larger town schools. Now everyone has gone to an academy - and in Lincolnshire, it's really been pushed - those small primaries are having to close, because by themselves they're not sustainable. Have we got a better provision because of academies? Not at all. It's been a net loss for the county, I'd argue, as top heavy as the old LEA could be.

 

Agree with the sentiment. My problem is the idea that, 1) Labour want to get the nasty rich people, and the Tories want to help the nasty rich people - Truth: They're both as bad as one another in this, just in different ways. Labour's biggest claim is the Tories giving the richest a tax cut... which was basically a set up by them... they had lower taxes for the rich for the majority of the time they were in Government, and only put it up a few months before they knew they were going to lose.

 

2) Privatisation - Agreed, but again the issue is Labour claim to be against it, and claim the Tories are all for it - Truth: They both like it when it suits them. Labour tried to cause the biggest privatisation of education in living history, and privatised many bits of the NHS. I'd rather Royal Mail was privatised than education. Education and the NHS are services essential to life, you can well claim that delivering letters isn't, especially when they de-regulated the sector to allow private companies in anyway. Neither education or the NHS should be privatised.

 

The problem I find with all of this is it's smoke and mirrors, and largely the public fall for it. They think Labour, or any party for that matter, stand for something, because they say they do, but their actions say different.

[pcstru]

At least the government IT projects would actually get done on time, on budget and to spec...

Or more likely, not funded by the head.

[Theblacksheep]

Not the drunk conservatives with BNP backing.