General Election Poll
Discussion
c4koh said:
Perhaps 2005 will turn out to be a "good" election for the Conservatives to lose as well.
Spot on, i think the same and i think i noticed nonegreen said the same thing a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers,
Rob.
Oh, and i'll be voting lib-dems. Can you guys give me a half hour headstart before you chase me down for witchcraft?
>> Edited by Rob_F on Tuesday 19th April 16:11
Rob_F said:
Perhaps 2005 will turn out to be a "good" election for the Conservatives to lose as well.
Spot on, i think the same and i think i noticed nonegreen said the same thing a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers,
Rob.
Well lets hope so-because there is very little hope the Tories will win this one!!
[
And that worries me. An intelligent scientist/engineer who thinks Labour have handled the economy well.
May I suggest that you take a subscription with the Economist magazine?
I remember an lead article two or three years ago when the Economist likened Britains economy with an athlete taking steroids. Short term boost, long term health problems. I think they understated the case.
If the Tories dont get in this time the damage will be much harder to fix. Could see a repeat of 1979 in 2009.[/quote]
I wholehartidly concur, history may well repeat itself, although I can't for the life of me see who will emerge to sort out the festering mess
And that worries me. An intelligent scientist/engineer who thinks Labour have handled the economy well.
May I suggest that you take a subscription with the Economist magazine?
I remember an lead article two or three years ago when the Economist likened Britains economy with an athlete taking steroids. Short term boost, long term health problems. I think they understated the case.
If the Tories dont get in this time the damage will be much harder to fix. Could see a repeat of 1979 in 2009.[/quote]
I wholehartidly concur, history may well repeat itself, although I can't for the life of me see who will emerge to sort out the festering mess
c4koh said:
And that worries me. An intelligent scientist/engineer who thinks Labour have handled the economy well.
May I suggest that you take a subscription with the Economist magazine?
I am also a post-graduate and will be voting for Labour; I'd be careful of equating intelligence with political tendencies - you never know what may come out in the wash!!
Also, I do subscribe to the Economist. As I'm sure you do too, you'll no doubt have noticed that although the Economist is critical (but also praises) a number of aspects of this government, it notes that the opposition doesn't really offer much else!!
And I'm sorry: Labour have handled the economy well, you do not need to read the Economist to figure that out. If people wish to - as Shylock stated "the Devel cites scripture for his own purpose" - refute this then fine.
But if we turned the tables around: if the record from 1997 to 2005 was the same, but for a Conservative government, all the Conservative voters would be trumpeting the low employment, low interest rates and sustained growth.
An interesting point was made in last week's Economist, and that was the 1992 election was a "good" election for Labour to lose. The general messiness - ERM ejection for one - of the following 5 years may not have been handled any better by Labour - but they'd have been out straight back on the 1997 election.
Perhaps 2005 will turn out to be a "good" election for the Conservatives to lose as well.
No, I wasnt equating intelligence with political tendencies. Unfortunately intelligence is just as good at finding reasons to justify an emotional position as it is for dispassionate analysis.
I simply note that Labour are spending more than we can afford, and that the chickens will come home to roost sooner or later. Couple that to Browns destruction of the pension funds and there is a good chance of a very bad outcome in future years.
Labour inherited a golden economic position from the Tories, and during the first term did many good things.
The second term however was rather different.
As for low inflation, I doubt we can ascribe too much credit to Labour. Most (western)economies in the world have enjoyed relatively low inflation in recent years. The UK is not particulary good in this respect.
I note from your last point that you may have your doubts too.
s2art said:
No, I wasnt equating intelligence with political tendencies. Unfortunately intelligence is just as good at finding reasons to justify an emotional position as it is for dispassionate analysis.
I simply note that Labour are spending more than we can afford, and that the chickens will come home to roost sooner or later. Couple that to Browns destruction of the pension funds and there is a good chance of a very bad outcome in future years.
Labour inherited a golden economic position from the Tories, and during the first term did many good things.
The second term however was rather different.
As for low inflation, I doubt we can ascribe too much credit to Labour. Most (western)economies in the world have enjoyed relatively low inflation in recent years. The UK is not particulary good in this respect.
I note from your last point that you may have your doubts too.
I suppose one reason I won't vote Conservative this time is that they really offer no alternative. You note that Labour are spending more than we can afford, however the Conservatives plan to match that spending anyway!! Taxes will go up under the next Conservative government if they keep that pledge, although perhaps Mr Flight was nearer the reality!!
And next time around - as I said in a previous post - there will be a lot more scrutiny on Labour's record; if - and whis was my point - the next 5 years' chickens *do* come home to roost then this will indeed be a good election for the Conservatives to lose, as Labour no doubt'd be booted out in 2009 and they'd get in quite easily.
Ironically, it is not this election, but the next, that Labour needs worry about most.
c4koh said:
No, I wasnt equating intelligence with political tendencies. Unfortunately intelligence is just as good at finding reasons to justify an emotional position as it is for dispassionate analysis.
I simply note that Labour are spending more than we can afford, and that the chickens will come home to roost sooner or later. Couple that to Browns destruction of the pension funds and there is a good chance of a very bad outcome in future years.
Labour inherited a golden economic position from the Tories, and during the first term did many good things.
The second term however was rather different.
As for low inflation, I doubt we can ascribe too much credit to Labour. Most (western)economies in the world have enjoyed relatively low inflation in recent years. The UK is not particulary good in this respect.
I note from your last point that you may have your doubts too.
I suppose one reason I won't vote Conservative this time is that they really offer no alternative. You note that Labour are spending more than we can afford, however the Conservatives plan to match that spending anyway!! Taxes will go up under the next Conservative government if they keep that pledge, although perhaps Mr Flight was nearer the reality!!
And next time around - as I said in a previous post - there will be a lot more scrutiny on Labour's record; if - and whis was my point - the next 5 years' chickens *do* come home to roost then this will indeed be a good election for the Conservatives to lose, as Labour no doubt'd be booted out in 2009 and they'd get in quite easily.
Ironically, it is not this election, but the next, that Labour needs worry about most.
Cannot disagree with the broad thrust of your argument, however the Tories seem to want to move in the right direction. (and Mr Flight was probably speaking the truth).
Labour probably do indeed need worry more about the next election, the problem is that I would prefer not to have to experience the circumstances leading up to that situation.
For that reason I will vote Tory. There is at least a fighting chance that they will avoid the worst of the problems.
MEMSDesign said:
It seems alot of people have been taken in by the BBC/Guardian set. Michael Howard was the best home secretary we have had, in the last 30 years at least. He might not have come across well on TV-but judge him on his record.
Don't read the Guardian, but I do watch Newsnight very occaisionally - unforgettably shifty performance from Howard didn't help him, but I already disliked him.
What aspects of his record do you think are particularly noteworthy? I can't honestly say I've based my opinion on crime statistics and his policies during his tenure - I just don't like the man. Go ahead and convince me.
A key election point for Micheal Howard seems to be immigration and controlling it, which seems a bit strange since had it emerged, as originally intended, on the eve of the general election campaign it could have upset the Tory leader’s applecart by revealing that his Romanian grandfather, Morris Hecht, was an illegal immigrant.
It would have been seen as gross hypocrisy for Howard to bang on about immigration, when his own father and aunt lied to the immigration authorities in the 1930s. They said that Morris Hecht had returned to Romania before the war, when in reality he lived on in London until 1952.
c4koh said:
And that worries me. An intelligent scientist/engineer who thinks Labour have handled the economy well.
May I suggest that you take a subscription with the Economist magazine?
I am also a post-graduate and will be voting for Labour; I'd be careful of equating intelligence with political tendencies - you never know what may come out in the wash!!
Also, I do subscribe to the Economist. As I'm sure you do too, you'll no doubt have noticed that although the Economist is critical (but also praises) a number of aspects of this government, it notes that the opposition doesn't really offer much else!!
And I'm sorry: Labour have handled the economy well, you do not need to read the Economist to figure that out. If people wish to - as Shylock stated "the Devel cites scripture for his own purpose" - refute this then fine.
But if we turned the tables around: if the record from 1997 to 2005 was the same, but for a Conservative government, all the Conservative voters would be trumpeting the low employment, low interest rates and sustained growth.
An interesting point was made in last week's Economist, and that was the 1992 election was a "good" election for Labour to lose. The general messiness - ERM ejection for one - of the following 5 years may not have been handled any better by Labour - but they'd have been out straight back on the 1997 election.
Perhaps 2005 will turn out to be a "good" election for the Conservatives to lose as well.
You're right on all scores and what people also fail to realise is that it took Labour a full term to reverse Britains hard hit economy and a second term to start improving it.
I think back to the last Conservative office and how nationalised industry was sold off or just closed down. We had a national debt, god only knows how with them raking in new revenues through poll tax over the old rates system, increasing VAT and interest rates. How could they say they were the government of low taxation and keep a straight face?
We had 4 million unemployed and the high interest rates and repossesion of peoples homes, interest rates IIRC were over 12%, marvellous if you have no mortgage and abundant savings of course but not so great for the average family.
Plotloss said:
Oh dear, are you going to stamp your little feet and shake your little fists too?
You have very elegantly made my point there for me, thanks.
Sadly, it seems that we are stuck with foul mouthed chavs like you in ever larger numbers. It is just shocking that you have the audacity to blame others for society's ills. Look a bit closer to home old chap, before blaming other people for the ills you see.
>> Edited by NorthernBoy on Sunday 1st May 07:01
>> Edited by NorthernBoy on Sunday 1st May 07:05
cant belive it if PH poll is ant=yhting to go on the Cons will have landslide... I hope not 
although if they do what they say
i would be better off financially under them I just dont like that Howard gezzer he gives me the creeps and talks as if he is talking to 5 year olds... thought I was gonna go Labour but dont really know at all now.. think i'll just go and spoil my paper
BB
although if they do what they say i would be better off financially under them I just dont like that Howard gezzer he gives me the creeps and talks as if he is talking to 5 year olds... thought I was gonna go Labour but dont really know at all now.. think i'll just go and spoil my paper BB
mybrainhurts said:
Wouldn't you feel warmer on a Grauniad forum, NorthernBoy...?
does the grauny have a forum...?
No, I love cars and driving (and bikes, and skiing, and snowmobiling), and am a long way from agreeing with the guardian's stance on most things. I read the wall street journal when I am over here, and the Times in the UK.
I do occasionally read the Guardian, but only because it's important to know your enemy.
In fact, I don't think I know anyone who reads the Guardian. It does not have much to say on the economy that is worth reading.
>> Edited by NorthernBoy on Thursday 5th May 04:18
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff