I think i've lost my vote too, as i changed my name and my address at the same time, and i havent filled in any forms so i think ive cofused a few systems there

To be honest though, i really dont think any party deserves my vote at all. I hate having to say that, because i believe its really really important to vote, as its one of the only chances you actually get to have a say in the way the country is run, but the whole system has become a joke recently, with Labour managing to 'lose' large sums of money, and the Conservatives unable to explain how they can cut taxes dramatically yet still have enough money for more police officers, cleaner hospitals and fewer debts for students. As for the Lib Dems, in my opinion they're just weak - they have a weak campaign strategy and a weak leader.
Before i was old enough to vote, I always thought i'd vote for Labour, as thats what the rest of my family did, and their manifesto seemed absolutely brilliant. But if you actually look at what Tony Blair promised when he first came into power in 1994, and how many of his promises he actually kept, for example one goal from their 1997 manifesto: The Labour Party planned to raise public-education standards and to earmark 100 million pounds sterling to speed up the treatment of patients by the National Health Service.
What happened there?
Of course, Labour has achieved some of their aims, for example punishment of juvenile offenders, introducing curfews, ASBO's, etc, but even these arent much use if there are no police officers to enforce them!!

The Conservatives, (in my opinion, of course) seemed to be doing very well recently, now that the majority of people have now got bored of Tony Blair. The main reason people voted him into power in the first place was because he wasnt John Major, and of course the optomistic viewpoint that any change is a good thing.

If you want to see what the entire country will look like in a few years if Labour wins the elections again, come to Stoke on Trent, and when you get there, pay a visit to a little town called Meir. Believe me, you'll want to marry Michael Howard. Labour got some of their highest percentages of voters from the midlands, yet the irony is that the midlands probably recieve the least benefit from the party.

The Conservatives would probably have the strongest and best campaign of all three if thay actually cared about their roles in society - i doubt Michael Howard has actually even heard of Stoke on Trent, and I didnt even know who my local MP for the Tories was until i checked the website - as famous as his rallying campaigns are.

Anyway, i'd better stop ranting, or i'll type for hours and get myself sacked! Would be interesting to see what others have to say though........

I think the tories only strength lies in the fact that people are sick of Labour.
Their policies seems to be retaliations rather than aims to me. for example, they want to reduce the cases of MRSA and they are acting as if Labour and the Lib Dems wants to increase them.

I know this sounds stupid and short sighted but i feel there is something intrisically evil about the tories. Like people don't matter but money and settling a score do.

__________________________

Honestly now...

They are all so full of promises and I don't know who I will vote for. The one thing that Labour have done which I am very happy about is to ban hunting.

I will make the effort to go and vote, (Emeline Pankhurst and all that!)

__________________________

Who is she? Who IS she? And where did you find her?

It doesnt sound stupid or short sighted at all, in fact, i actually think it's slightly true, but at the end of the day, i dont think Labour are actually going to take this country any further, and the Tories may actually be the way forward, which really will settle a score......

I have the right to vote but i'm not even sure if i will... that said i might just vote monster raving loony party for the simple reason of at least they know their a bunch of fools and idiots so maybe things might get better with some genuine honesty around you know?

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 10:33, Sgt_Oddball wrote: I have the right to vote but i'm not even sure if i will... that said i might just vote monster raving loony party for the simple reason of at least they know their a bunch of fools and idiots so maybe things might get better with some genuine honesty around you know?

Well, no. You'd just be voting for an unfunny twat in a silly hat, who hasn't yet accepted that (a) they're not very funny, and (b) their party leader committed suicide six years ago.

Don't get sucked into thinking "they're all the same" , because it's simply untrue. They have different manifestos and will place different priorities on different things. Choose whichever is closest to what you think, even if it is just a case of choosing the one which is fractionally less abhorrent to you personally; it may still count for something in the end. Voting for a twat in a hat won't.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 09:54, smurf-gal wrote: It doesnt sound stupid or short sighted at all, in fact, i actually think it's slightly true, but at the end of the day, i dont think Labour are actually going to take this country any further, and the Tories may actually be the way forward, which really will settle a score......

I know I'm just echoing Labour's own campaign slogan, but I honestly do believe that the tories can only take us backwards. A lot of things have gotten better over Labour's two terms, including investment in health and education, and the conservatives would most certainly reverse that. They're all about spreading the wealth as thinly as possible - not spending it on other people's healthcare, and other people's children.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 10:44, Tim wrote: Don't get sucked into thinking "they're all the same" , because it's simply untrue. They have different manifestos and will place different priorities on different things.

so you're not one for the old saying. Different day, same shit?... Look through history of the 20th century, if you're working class you get screwed over who ever you vote for. Argue all you like but the lesser of two (or how ever many) evils are almost all but one and the same.

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 17:09, Sgt_Oddball wrote: so you're not one for the old saying. Different day, same shit?... Look through history of the 20th century, if you're working class you get screwed over who ever you vote for. Argue all you like but the lesser of two (or how ever many) evils are almost all but one and the same.

Oh cut the violins, we're not debating the history of the 20th century, we're talking about the next government, and the one we have now. In what particular way have Labour "screwed over" the "working class" (as opposed to anyone else)? Want to give any examples?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 17:09, Sgt_Oddball wrote: so you're not one for the old saying. Different day, same shit?... Look through history of the 20th century, if you're working class you get screwed over who ever you vote for. Argue all you like but the lesser of two (or how ever many) evils are almost all but one and the same.

Thats an excuse, what are we going to say - look at the history of the 20th Century - never trust a German leader? Using history isn't an acceptable arguement, this is the present and we are talking about the future, a completely different climate from the earlier 20th century.

__________________________

Honestly now...

Actually, historical evidence is the only sort you can ever have, and it's often worth considering. However, politics is extremely fluid (to the extent that what a party is doing will change from the day they tell people to the day they start doing it).

I'm reliably informed I should either vote Green or Lib Dem, so I don't stand much of a chance. The Tories, however, were last on my list, and I want a two-horse race less than a one-horse one...

[edit] And besides, the history of the 20th century suggests that a German leader is not particularly likely to start a world war; there were more leaders in that century than just Hitler, you know...

This message was edited by:Legionary on 2005-04-15 13:08

Quote:

On 2005-04-15 13:04, Legionary wrote: [edit] And besides, the history of the 20th century suggests that a German leader is not particularly likely to start a world war; there were more leaders in that century than just Hitler, you know...

Um, I think that was the point? Of course history can tell us a lot, but judging the current government and political climate by the sum total of the last century is a nonsense. That was then, this is now - we are n't all in cloth caps and we aren't all being sent down the mill/mine/trenches.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Quote:

On 2005-04-16 07:46, Tim wrote: That was then, this is now - we are n't all in cloth caps and we aren't all being sent down the mill/mine/trenches.

No, we're not but you just have to visit some areas to see that we're paying for things we arn't receiving. Council tax to pay for social workers who don't do their job and for politcal correctness to over rule common sense. Or about road tax to pay for more speed camera's and more holes in the roads. Or how about watching whole families that have never worked a day in their lives get given half a million pound homes just because they can? Yes things arn't perfect and of late i feel that we all are losing out to bussiness in terms of who's more important. It all comes down to money or votes. And in some cases money for votes.

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-16 07:46, Tim wrote: Um, I think that was the point? Of course history can tell us a lot, but judging the current government and political climate by the sum total of the last century is a nonsense. That was then, this is now - we are n't all in cloth caps and we aren't all being sent down the mill/mine/trenches.

Quite.
There's trouble at 'mill...

Quote:

On 2005-04-16 10:09, Sgt_Oddball wrote: No, we're not but you just have to visit some areas to see that we're paying for things we arn't receiving. Council tax to pay for social workers who don't do their job and for politcal correctness to over rule common sense. Or about road tax to pay for more speed camera's and more holes in the roads. Or how about watching whole families that have never worked a day in their lives get given half a million pound homes just because they can? Yes things arn't perfect and of late i feel that we all are losing out to bussiness in terms of who's more important. It all comes down to money or votes. And in some cases money for votes.

That, sir, is human nature and not something that is going to be changed by a shift in leadership; especially given that said leaderhip has been brought up under similar (identical? Technology progresses, but does it get used?) circumstances. You'd be hard pressed, travelling back in time, to find an era where the working class* have as much political clout as anyone with money or a better station.

Unfortunately, a stable alternative to capitalism has yet to be found. I assume the political science academics are working on it.

I have yet to work out what political correctness is for (not that anyone pays for it). The current strongest contender in my stable of theories is that it's for protecting the sensibilities of Americans who don't understand that the word 'bugger' can be used in an everyday context...

[edit] * This isn't to say that I believe that there is a class system per se; I use it here as a term with a fairly well-recognised meaning.

[edit2] And what on Earth is all that nonsense about half-a-million-pound houses? Are you talking about people who inherited wealth? Because if so, then that wealth has been taxed at least twice - once when it was acquired in the first place, and once again when it was handed down as an inheritance. It's called inheritance tax. You pay VAT on more or less everything apart from books. You pay council tax. Even if you aren't actively drawing a salary, you still pay tax. You know, you pay tax on lottery winnings.

Actually, you get taxed on all gifts over a certain size (I'm not sure what it is, though).

This message was edited by:Legionary on 2005-04-17 06:11

I'm talking about those work shy people who get 6-7 bedroomed houses just because they can.

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-17 14:07, Sgt_Oddball wrote: I'm talking about those work shy people who get 6-7 bedroomed houses just because they can.

Who are they? Where are they?

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

And have they or have they not paid tax on the cash used to buy said 6-to-7-bedroom houses?

More to the point, do they use all of those bedrooms? If so, they need a house that large; and if not, they're wasting money anyway (which will either a] go to the estate agents, who will pay tax, and then to their employees, who will pay tax, then buy goods from other merchants, who pay tax...
Or, b] go to the builders, who pay tax, the supply yards, who pay tax, their employees, who pay tax...)

What are you actually complaining about, and does it have anything whatsoever to do with who should be elected?

By the way, I live in a five-bedroom house. Admittedly, four of us are students and the other (Rob) behaves as though he is, but the house is basically owned by Rob*...

----------

*The actual owner of the house is Dave, who is payed a nominal rent (by Rob) to cover the mortgage (which in turn is paid by us students, plus a little bit for bills, which works out at somewhere slightly over £11,000 per annum split between four students). Occasionally plans are suggested involving Dave selling the house entirely to Rob, rather then occupying himself with this scheme, but nothing's come of it so far. However, Rob is planning to rent rooms in the house that Dave currently lives in to students (and friends) next year...

Convoluted, isn't it?

I was refering to those who don't work and don't intend to work, I my self like in a 4 bedroomed house which i pay for with rent money, students who also have to pay will one day make a contribution back to socility but it's those who only take and never give back that bug me. It's all abit unfare having to be ripped off for more and more money every year to see very little of it come back. Now i know this might sound selfish but you'd be selfish too if all you ever see is little tearaways trashing crap because they can while the parents do nothing but swear at them and watch tv...I want my value for money..

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-20 09:03, Sgt_Oddball wrote: I was refering to those who don't work and don't intend to work, I my self like in a 4 bedroomed house which i pay for with rent money, students who also have to pay will one day make a contribution back to socility but it's those who only take and never give back that bug me. It's all abit unfare having to be ripped off for more and more money every year to see very little of it come back. Now i know this might sound selfish but you'd be selfish too if all you ever see is little tearaways trashing crap because they can while the parents do nothing but swear at them and watch tv...I want my value for money..

So why is that happening? What (if anything) have the government done to cause that? What (if anything) could or should they do to stop that? And how does that match up with what any of the parties are saying at the moment?

Personally I'd say it was a complex societal problem that doesn't necessarily relate directly to the actions of any government, but it may be there are things the government can do to encourage change. On the other hand, I don't think any government should be denying those families a roof over their heads, or storing up much bigger problems in the future by forcing their kids to grow up homeless because of their parent's mistakes.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Quote:

Now i know this might sound selfish but you'd be selfish too if all you ever see is little tearaways trashing crap because they can while the parents do nothing but swear at them and watch tv...

I agree that there is a major problem with kids nowadays, there seems to be a disturbing increase in juvenile crime. However the govermnent do seem to be making an effort (albeit a small, almost pathetic one) in curbing these statistics - as i've said before, many ASBO's have been issued, which has worried a few would be tearaways, but Sgt_Oddball is right, there are some really bad parents out there who do sit in front of the TV and let them get on with it. I do believe Blair is responsible for this in some way, increasing benefits may not be the way forward (and before i get screams of prostests and witch hunts at my door, i would like to point out that i am the eldest of 6 children, and my mother recieved family allowance and extra benefits until the youngest was old enough to go to school, and she got a job.) So i'm not saying that people who do need help shouldnt get it, what i am saying is if someone is capable of getting off their backside and getting a job, why the hell should they be allowed to sign on and recieve dole payments, and give today's kids a bad example?

Unemployment is the lowest it's practically ever been tho, and Labour are responsible for new iniatives like the New Deal which - from what I've seen - really have worked for a lot of people. I'm not convinced that "lazy" parents (or people in general) are a new thing, or in any particular way a Labour problem - they have done a fair bit to tackle this, and benefit fraud.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

I'm surprised that the parties haven't made more of that as an election issue, actually. Or perhaps they have and I missed it; the last time I was paying any attention at all I was being told four times in the same day that Plaid Cymru had released their manifesto.

I quite agree about bad parenting producing a generation of kids who get off on being as antisocial as possible (there were a few on the bus yesterday; they were collectively ignored. Brits are annoyingly good at ignoring things like that), but I fail to see how a government can encourage better parenting. As Tim said, it's a societal issue, and whilst low unemployment levels mean that there are fewer people living on benefits alone, this doesn't change the attitudes of the parents.

I worry for this country, I really do, but I don't think electing one party over another will suddenly eradicate the jaded generation.

[edit] Hmm. Are parents held legally responsible for the actions of their children? And if not, should they be?

This message was edited by:Legionary on 2005-04-20 11:16

Quote:

On 2005-04-20 11:14, Legionary wrote: [edit] Hmm. Are parents held legally responsible for the actions of their children? And if not, should they be?

They can be - ASBO's can have a parenting order attached to them (if warranted) with a possible £1,000 fine if they fail to control their child as directed by the court (this can include things like making sure they go to school, don't go to places they're not supposed to, etc). Local authorities are still getting to grips with these laws (as are housing associations like the one i work for) but they are starting to make a difference i think.

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

Now there's a good idea. I like that.

The only problem comes when the child doesn't like the parents...

Rice Crispies. Nuff said Tim

__________________________

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

12 years ago D! nuff said!

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

if you are unsure where you stand right now look at this, Tim won't be happy with me but i turned out to be mostly Lib Dem or Green. I was pleased to see i was in negative figures for the tories.

__________________________

Honestly now...

The Libdems habitually promise everything to everybody, so it's not surprising they come out tops in things like that (it reckons I should vote for them as well). It's a trick!

Put them in power and they'll fall to pieces, and deliver nothing. Can you imagine Charles Kennedy keeping it together as prime minister? I can't...

__________________________

Delete! Delete!

The problem with the low unemployment is a large portion of said 'new' jobs are public sector, the governments making jobs to help with figures, plus there's an ever increasing trend in getting temps into work. These are often forgoten from the figures because while they are employed for 3 months or so they aren't unemployed afterwards for long enough to be on the figures. A neat little trick on spin if i say so my self.

__________________________

Cheese I choose you!

Quote:

On 2005-04-22 06:34, Lisa wrote: if you are unsure where you stand right now look at this,

I was Green, which I was not suprised about. I wouldn't vote for the Green Party though as I don't think they could run the country.

__________________________

Who is she? Who IS she? And where did you find her?