UK General Election 2015

[brenflys777]

One of the interesting things about this election is how unpredictable it is and how many opposing viewpoints are absolutely convinced that they represent the only thing stopping total catastrophe..

One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...

It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.

My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.

I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'

Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 4th February 19:51

[Wombat3]

McWigglebum4th said:

Wombat3 said:

QED - there's that stupid definitive statement about what he does & doesn't want to do, again.

Kipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.

I voting tory don't you know

I am now completely sane and an upstanding member of society


Isn't what that happens when you vote tory?

You are suddenly a sensible person who believes in exactly what david cameron believes in

I might even invest in a wind turbine

I should get back to worrying about how you might off-load that house of yours - it looks to me like that might be your more imminent concern

[confused_buyer]

brenflys777 said:

I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.

If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.

[brenflys777]

confused_buyer said:

brenflys777 said:

I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.

If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.

I voted for him last time around, he has failed to deliver the promises I found attractive, increased foreign aid but cut Police, got us a worse deal with Scotland by winning a referendum and failed to deliver anything substantive on the EU. This time he asks for my vote because he really will deliver, but this shows that with FPTP and two main parties and leaders who are so uninspiring, he cannot be trusted to stick to principals.

A vote for the conservatives might stop Labour getting the next PM, but it doesn't offer a guarantee that a conservative PM will deliver conservative policies.

[Wombat3]

brenflys777 said:

One of the interesting things about this election is how unpredictable it is and how many opposing viewpoints are absolutely convinced that they represent the only thing stopping total catastrophe..

One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...

It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.

My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, where it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.

I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'

Die hard kippers will do what they do & seem to think its all great fun & a grand wheeze. Idiots IMO - instability is nobody's friend and increasingly that is what the alternative to a Conservative win in 2015 is looking like it will deliver.

Your other options are :

Clueless labour
Labour held to ransom by the SNP
Labour + leftie coalition of the SNP, the Greens & maybe Lib Dems - and then held to ransom

Any of those could last 5 years or could stumble through a couple of wasted years before forced into another election. Depends on the maths of the number of seats involved

Alternatively we could get Tories + Lib Dems again if it turns out that the LD meltdown is not as bad as has been predicted.

The UKIP "onslaught" is (fairly predictably) topping out at around 15-17% but the polls also indicate it will deliver very few seats. UKIP may well be a factor in May but it is unlikely to be a player AFTER the count and there in lies a key issue and a key difference between UKIP and the SNP or the Lib Dems.

One of the key components of any democratic process (and especially of the way we run ours) is that its likely that a very high number (usually a majority) of voters will not actually get what they vote for. Therefore it is entirely appropriate for people to consider the "least worst option".

There appears to be only one of those.

[Wombat3]

brenflys777 said:

confused_buyer said:

brenflys777 said:

I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.

If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.

I voted for him last time around, he has failed to deliver the promises I found attractive, increased foreign aid but cut Police, got us a worse deal with Scotland by winning a referendum and failed to deliver anything substantive on the EU. This time he asks for my vote because he really will deliver, but this shows that with FPTP and two main parties and leaders who are so uninspiring, he cannot be trusted to stick to principals.

A vote for the conservatives might stop Labour getting the next PM, but it doesn't offer a guarantee that a conservative PM will deliver conservative policies.

In the grand scheme of things you are highlighting insignificant issues in the context of where we might have been had this government not succeeded in putting the economy substantially back on track (not that its entirely fixed yet). If it had all gone badly tits up after 2010 (and it very well might have) these issues that you complain about would be less than a sideshow. Its a measure of their success that you can cite them as being so important - success which you seem to take for granted.

Even so, as things stand these issues are still nowhere near the top of the pile of things to be concerned about IMO.

[Axionknight]

Many people take those issues very seriously though, and feel let down as was metioned in the post you quoted - seems to me like you want to sweep those issues under the carpet and hope people focus on the economy, where the Conservstives have clearly done very well, they are three months from an election and only eighty billion quid short of reducing the deficit they said they'd eliminate.

But but Europe, but but Lib Dems, but but Labour..... Always excuses from the Tory party, I'd expect the same next time around.

[BlackLabel]

confused_buyer said:

brenflys777 said:

I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.

If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.

Yet he repeated that immigration pledge even after becoming PM. Some Conservative supporters seem to think the pledge is void because the party didn't win the election. Cameron didn't think so in 2011:

Dave in 2011 said:

Levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s. Net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people

[Axionknight]

With our membership of the European Union in its current form such targets could never be reached.

Did Dave lie, or doesn't he know what he's doing?

[Esseesse]

Axionknight said:

With our membership of the European Union in its current form such targets could never be reached.

Did Dave lie, or doesn't he know what he's doing?

Yes weird. Seems a strange thing just to come out and lie about without pressure, but quite unbelieveable that he was naive about the EU.

[brenflys777]

Wombat I think you've highlighted the point I was trying to make quite well. You call UKIP voters 'diehard kippers' and idiots. (I'm almost surprised you don't go for broke and refer to current conservatives as loyal and enlightened!)

You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.

I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

Bluebarge said:

turbobloke said:

el stovey said:

I agree but what you will hear in the media is (some) big companies saying they might move overseas if GB leaves the EU. There will be lots of scare stories about what might happen. That's what will stop people voting for it, the fear of the unknown. Like the Scottish referendum all the older people and pensioners will be the most influential group and will likely vote no as they want things to stay the same.

But this is the UK not a splinter off it. The prospect of what's ahead if we remain in is also weighing heavily on voters.

Axionknight said:

Who can blame them, with the lies the Yes campaign peddled.

Indeed, and we've heard it all before already.

The problem is that parts of the UK are pro-EU (Wales and Scotland and London). If the UK votes to leave the EU, you can easily envisage parts of the UK who are pro-EU opting for independence under an EU umbrella. If London also opted to do this then England would be truly fooked ;-)

Yes London matters but a city can't just wish for independence and it happens, even whole countries can't manage that trick.

Ask Mr A Salmond

If Scotland and Wales wanted out of the UK and back into the EU it couldn't possibly happen quick enough, there should be no delay in which they could change their minds.

i must live in a parallel country to this pro eu scotland ,i know not one single person that is pro eu from a fairly diverse group.

[Wombat3]

brenflys777 said:

Wombat I think you've highlighted the point I was trying to make quite well. You call UKIP voters 'diehard kippers' and idiots. (I'm almost surprised you don't go for broke and refer to current conservatives as loyal and enlightened!)

You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.

I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.

What other outcomes/options do you think are realistically possible at this juncture?

As I said, if foreign aid and some of the other stuff you mention is what determines your vote then good luck to you. In the grand scheme of things its utterly irrelevant IMO. Its very easy to criticise foreign aid and I am not 100% convinced by everything we do with it. Equally I am of the view that it is a tool that we need to let the government use. In the wider context we are an extremely wealthy country with very high living standards.

For me economic stability that creates an environment in which I can achieve something is far more important than these kind of minutae. Putting that at risk will make a far bigger difference to me than whether we spend £5Bn on foreign aid or £15Bn. OTOH its clear what you do for a living & so you probably enjoy a level of employment, income and pension certainty not enjoyed by many (and good luck to you for it). Perhaps if you ran a small business where those things are far less certain your priorities might be different.

Many conservatives are also frankly tired of being kicked and criticised for trying to sort the st out & make some progress. Its no wonder tempers get frayed. This government is given so little credit for what it has achieved it beggars belief IMO. Doesn't get everything right by a long shot but overall, in consideration of the circumstances, its been a very good government for this country. It could have been SO much worse - and yet they get the st kicked out of them at all levels week in, week out.

Its also plain that basically every single Labour government we have had in the last 40 years has been a disaster (with a couple of near misses in Kinnoch & Foot thrown in). Every one has caused long term economic damage. Not every Tory Gov't has been brilliant but none has fked things up as badly as the other lot. The current opposition is also so weak and incompetent that the idea that its worth risking Mili-balls having their hands on the credit card is beyond stupidity to me.

As to the policing issue - you keep harping on about that one - and yet I am not aware of there being any major crime wave that is not being addressed. It looks like criticism for the sake of criticism when there are so many more pressing issues. If your issue is that something was said about protecting the police budgets and it wasn't done well, "There's no money left" .... remember that one? All roads lead to that one and there is still a structural deficit & we are still spending £90Bn more than we earn per year.

Meanwhile, over in the Kipper thread someone (of a deeply purple persuasion) was pontificating only the other day as to how it was a good thing that (UKIP) politicians should change their ideas and policies to suit circumstances. But what's good for the UKIP goose, is apparently not good for the Tory Gander it seems

As to Syria, there is also never a foreign "intervention" that is free from its critics. Whatever the situation was around the Syria thing I am pretty certain of two things:

a) Those at the centre of government have more information to base their decisions on than I do (and that's what I pay/elect them to do)

and

b) I'm pretty sure (whichever party they are from) they don't sit around the cabinet table going "whoop, whoop, tally-ho chaps. Anyone fancy a punch-up? Who can we go to war with this week??"

Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 4th February 23:08

[brenflys777]

Wombat3 said:

What other outcomes/options do you think are realistically possible at this juncture?

As I said, if foreign aid and some of the other stuff you mention is what determines your vote then good luck to you. In the grand scheme of things its utterly irrelevant IMO. Its very easy to criticise foreign aid and I am not 100% convinced by everything we do with it. Equally I am of the view that it is a tool that we need to let the government use. In the wider context we are an extremely wealthy country with very high living standards.

For me economic stability that creates an environment in which I can achieve something is far more important than these kind of minutae. Putting that at risk will make a far bigger difference to me than whether we spend £5Bn on foreign aid or £15Bn. OTOH its clear what you do for a living & so you probably enjoy a level of employment, income and pension certainty not enjoyed by many (and good luck to you for it). Perhaps if you ran a small business where those things are far less certain your priorities might be different.

Many conservatives are also frankly tired of being kicked and criticised for trying to sort the st out & make some progress. Its no wonder tempers get frayed. This government is given so little credit for what it has achieved it beggars belief IMO. Doesn't get everything right by a long shot but overall, in consideration of the circumstances, its been a very good government for this country. It could have been SO much worse - and yet they get the st kicked out of them at all levels week in, week out.

Its also plain that basically every single Labour government we have had in the last 40 years has been a disaster (with a couple of near misses in Kinnoch & Foot thrown in). Every one has caused long term economic damage. Not every Tory Gov't has been brilliant but none has fked things up as badly as the other lot. The current opposition is also so weak and incompetent that the idea that its worth risking Mili-balls having their hands on the credit card is beyond stupidity to me.

As to the policing issue - you keep harping on about that one - and yet I am not aware of there being any major crime wave that is not being addressed. It looks like criticism for the sake of criticism when there are so many more pressing issues. If your issue is that something was said about protecting the police budgets and it wasn't done well, "There's no money left" .... remember that one? All roads lead to that one and there is still a structural deficit & we are still spending £90Bn more than we earn per year.

Meanwhile, over in the Kipper thread someone (of a deeply purple persuasion) was pontificating only the other day as to how it was a good thing that (UKIP) politicians should change their ideas and policies to suit circumstances. But what's good for the UKIP goose, is apparently not good for the Tory Gander it seems

As to Syria, there is also never a foreign "intervention" that is free from its critics. Whatever the situation was around the Syria thing I am pretty certain of two things:

a) Those at the centre of government have more information to base their decisions on than I do (and that's what I pay/elect them to do)

and

b) I'm pretty sure (whichever party they are from) they don't sit around the cabinet table going "whoop, whoop, tally-ho chaps. Anyone fancy a punch-up? Who can we go to war with this week??"

Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 4th February 23:08

The outcomes of this election have so many variables UKIP/SNP/LIB DEM that I think the only sure thing is that there is no sure thing. For that reason alone I think tactical voting is not just weak, but possibly pointless. The options for me are easy, vote for the party with the best fit or don't vote.

It is - as you said - easy to criticise foreign aid. The reason is because it is hard if not impossible to evidence a benefit to the UK but very easy to show evidence of corruption and waste. I've not met a conservative/lib deem or labour voter who is in favour of increasing foreign aid whilst making austerity cuts, but for whatever reason the MPs of all parties seem to accept it is normal. The foreign aid bill next year exceeds the Policing costs for the whole of the UK, this is not a minor issue, this is serious money being skunked abroad whilst we are told cuts at home are essential. It's not conservative and it erodes any legitimacy in being parsimonious elsewhere. The crime figures are not reflective of the whole situation and some of the cuts will only be felt at a point when it becomes very difficult to correct due to lead in time.

My standard of living is reliant on passing a medical once a year (lap of the Gods) and twice annually being tested in the simulator for two days during which my ability to perform my job is assessed critically. A further day a year involves being assessed on the line plying my trade. If MPs were assessed for competence in a similar way I suspect their chances of job security would be lower than mine

The point you make about Labour governments probably stands as a general rule, but confidence is a big factor in politics. Look at what Boris achieves in London! In 97' Blair was a conservative PM with a social conscious masquerading as a Labour MP. Confidence was high and things went well. It went wrong later when the old Labour values re asserted themselves and Blair went wild eyed Maggie early. Milliband might be disastrous but he would ensure a properly conservative PM next time, if tactical voting is about thinking big picture, Milliband might be the best thing to happen to the conservatives since the Argies invaded the Falklands.

The change of policies on the UKIP thread is something else. At the moment the conservative and Labour seem very tribal to me, to the point if someone on the other team does something good, the other side seem too keen to criticise because it's not theirs...but on the big issues of EU Lisbon/boundary change/lords reform etc Cameron asks us to accept that circumstances change whilst claiming the right to claim moral superiority and ignore public opinion on foreign aid. It is nonsense.

Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 4th February 23:59

[hidetheelephants]

wc98 said:

i must live in a parallel country to this pro eu scotland ,i know not one single person that is pro eu from a fairly diverse group.

The essenpee are quite keen on euroballs, as are chunks of the Aye campaign as was. I think both rotten edifices, Strasbourg and Brussels, need torching, ideally with the gravy train fkwits still inside. The common market is a good idea, as is Schengen; uncontrolled migration not so much and the rest is an expensive employment scheme for wkers who can't find gainful employment doing something useful and a honeypot for fraudsters, spivs and assorted professional handwringers.

[McWigglebum4th]

Wombat3 said:

Die hard kippers will do what they do & seem to think its all great fun & a grand wheeze. Idiots IMO -

I want to try a wee experiment

You tory boys are abject fking idiot, you don't have a single brain cell, you only vote tory because your mum told you too, you are incapable of rational thought, you hate white people, you shag chickens, you smell funny, your breath smells of fart, you are all virgins, your mother was a hamster, you are denying a village their idiot, your father smelt of elderberries etc and so on

Going to vote UKIP now?

Thought not

Calling kippers idiots doesn't help your cause

[Esseesse]

brenflys777 said:

It is - as you said - easy to criticise foreign aid. The reason is because it is hard if not impossible to evidence a benefit to the UK but very easy to show evidence of corruption and waste. I've not met a conservative/lib deem or labour voter who is in favour of increasing foreign aid whilst making austerity cuts, but for whatever reason the MPs of all parties seem to accept it is normal.

A caller (sounded older and educated) on LBC the other day was explaining that pre-EU all foreign aid had to be spent with British companies. I think those in receipt of aid probably never saw any money, but had a budget that they could spend with British companies that our government would fund. This was good because it got our industry a foot hold in these places around the world, and hopefully future business would follow.

When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.

[Bluebarge]

wc98 said:

i must live in a parallel country to this pro eu scotland ,i know not one single person that is pro eu from a fairly diverse group.

Well the SNP, the Lib Dems and Labour are all pro-EU, so I think that only leaves one constituency where the sitting MP's party is ambivalent. Perhaps you should spend less time at the Old Fettesian Golf Club

[BlackLabel]

Clegg trails Labour by 10 points in a Survation constituency poll.

http://survation.com/poll-in-nick-cleggs-sheffield...

I wonder if these kind of polls change the voting intention of Tory voters in the constituency. You know your party can't win this seat so do you vote for Clegg to keep Labour out or do you vote Labour in order to humiliate Clegg?

[Munter]

McWigglebum4th said:

I want to try a wee experiment

You tory boys are abject fking idiot, you don't have a single brain cell, you only vote tory because your mum told you too, you are incapable of rational thought, you hate white people, you shag chickens, you smell funny, your breath smells of fart, you are all virgins, your mother was a hamster, you are denying a village their idiot, your father smelt of elderberries etc and so on

Going to vote UKIP now?

Thought not

Calling kippers idiots doesn't help your cause

Oh now come on. My Mum couldn't tell me how to vote and be a hamster. It's this kind of fundamental flaw that brings down every UKIP policy in the end.

2/10. Derivative, contradictory and lacks the word .