The Wasted Vote

[McWigglebum4th]

Mon Ami Mate said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I live in a safe lib dem seat

I can't think of one single reason to vote tory.

Can anyone give me one?

Because people thinking like you is what makes it a safe Lib Dem seat.

So let me get this right

I should vote tory (who i regard as muppets) in a safe lib dem seat because there is a chance they might win despite them having little or no chance of winning

But i shouldn't vote UKIP in a safe lib dem seat because they have little or no chance of winning

[Wombat3]

powerstroke said:

Wombat3 said:

AJS- said:

eharding said:

As per the other thread - and I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a different simulation - if we model the huge Eastleigh swing to UKIP at a General Election, the result is a Labour absolute majority.

How much of a swing would it take for a UKIP government? Seriously?

Then a Conservative victory in 2020, with a right wing Tory party committed to EU withdrawal and serious tax and regulation cuts and free of global warming bks, unopposed by UKIP.

If 5 years of Labour is what it takes to get there so be it. I don't see any point in voting for a party who promise to be st and still disappoint, because the other party might just be even stter.

We won't make it to 2020 in one piece.

Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.

We will be at the IMF within 3 years

Yes this looks like a re run of the 1970s!! with weak goverments tory then labour then a strong tory goverment comeing in 1979 and realy getting to grips with the economy and the then over powerful unions, maybe only a balls & edd goverment will wake a sleeping giant in the tory party who will slay cameron and the wets or maybe it will be the end for the them and we will have UKIP goverment they seem to have the policys and an increasing momentum to replace them ??

UKIP are a one trick pony with a large amount of undeveloped or invisible policy, zero parliamentary experience and no international credibility. They are also very light on credible personnel. They are not fit for government - you might as well elect the Monster Raving Loony party.

That's not to say they can't fix that but it won't be in the next 2 years and probably not in the next 7.

Additionally, I do not think there is an appetite in this country any more for a properly right wing government any mre than there is for another very left leaning government and besides, a modern society takes care of everyone - it just also needs to make sure than nobody gets a free ride - which is easier said than done from where we are starting now.

Vote UKIP & you'll get Labour & we'll be at the IMF in 3 years. The only people who try & suggest we wouldn't get a Labour Gov't are, funnily enough, UKIP-ers who are screaming hysterically about it - I wonder why?

UKIP can't win, all it can do is fk it up for everyone else.

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 4th March 09:52

[Einion Yrth]

Wombat3 said:

UKIP can't win, all it can do is fk it up for everyone else.

Recent experience would suggest that the same could be said for Cameron. Get rid of him and Osborne and that split in the rightish vote might be healable.

[AJS-]

Wombat3 said:

We won't make it to 2020 in one piece.

Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.

We will be at the IMF within 3 years

Any difficult reform is always met with the response that it might be a good idea but not at this time. Of course we'll make it to 2020 in one piece. We're not going to have a civil war or be lost to famine, pestilence and barbarism by another 5 years of incompetent government that's just ever so slightly left of the Tories. We are however going to slide into irrelevance and terminal decline if we don't tackle the monster of ever expanding government we can't afford.


There's so much rubbish being talked by Tories on this thread.

[McWigglebum4th]

AJS- said:

There's so much rubbish being talked by Tories on this thread.

Vote TORY as they are only a tiny weeny bit less fking useless s then labour

[The Black Flash]

AJS- said:

Wombat3 said:

We won't make it to 2020 in one piece.

Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.

We will be at the IMF within 3 years

Any difficult reform is always met with the response that it might be a good idea but not at this time. Of course we'll make it to 2020 in one piece. We're not going to have a civil war or be lost to famine, pestilence and barbarism by another 5 years of incompetent government that's just ever so slightly left of the Tories. We are however going to slide into irrelevance and terminal decline if we don't tackle the monster of ever expanding government we can't afford.


There's so much rubbish being talked by Tories on this thread.

Indeed. The whole of politics seems predicated on the spreading of fear and doubt, rather than actually having a belief in a particular system, and trying to convince people of that.
A pox on the lot of them.

[Wombat3]

The Black Flash said:

AJS- said:

Wombat3 said:

We won't make it to 2020 in one piece.

Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.

We will be at the IMF within 3 years

Any difficult reform is always met with the response that it might be a good idea but not at this time. Of course we'll make it to 2020 in one piece. We're not going to have a civil war or be lost to famine, pestilence and barbarism by another 5 years of incompetent government that's just ever so slightly left of the Tories. We are however going to slide into irrelevance and terminal decline if we don't tackle the monster of ever expanding government we can't afford.


There's so much rubbish being talked by Tories on this thread.

Indeed. The whole of politics seems predicated on the spreading of fear and doubt, rather than actually having a belief in a particular system, and trying to convince people of that.
A pox on the lot of them.

Fear and doubt or an understanding of reality that doesn't suit some people's more radical agenda? (which, in the first instance is highly likely to be a minority view in the first place).

UKIP is not fit to govern and won't be in either 2 or 7 years. It is short on policy, people, experience and massively short on credibility both domestically and internationally.

To suggest we would make it to 2020 "unscathed" by another labour government is not to understand just how deep is the st we are in and just how close the (global) financial systems came to collapse in 2008.

If that had happened, suddenly there would have been no food on the shelves, its that simple. Supermarkets can't buy supplies with no credit.

No food = civil unrest.

Alarmist? not really when you look at what actually happened.

The reality is that we are very, very lucky to be where we are all things considered & we need to try & do everything we can not to fk that up again - or would you rather have 25% unemployment like they do in Spain ? (while its actually falling here!)

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 4th March 10:49

[Einion Yrth]

Wombat3 said:

UKIP is not fit to govern and won't be in either 2 or 7 years. It is short on policy, people, experience and massively short on credibility both domestically and internationally.

UKIP is no less fit to govern than any of the rest of them, which, nota bene, is not to say that they are fit to govern. It says more of the state of the "mainstream" parties than it does of UKIP.

[Wombat3]

Einion Yrth said:

Wombat3 said:

UKIP is not fit to govern and won't be in either 2 or 7 years. It is short on policy, people, experience and massively short on credibility both domestically and internationally.

UKIP is no less fit to govern than any of the rest of them, which, nota bene, is not to say that they are fit to govern. It says more of the state of the "mainstream" parties than it does of UKIP.

Er, aside from Neil Hamilton, who in UKIP has the first clue as to how Westminster even works?

Who has any experience of government?

How much UKIP policy is actually complete and fit for purpose?

How much credibility does UKIP have internationally?

In all those respects, basically none and certainly nowhere near enough is the answer.

Its still a "one trick pony"

[Einion Yrth]

Wombat3 said:

Er, aside from Neil Hamilton, who in UKIP has the first clue as to how Westminster even works?

Who has any experience of government?

How much UKIP policy is actually complete and fit for purpose?

How much credibility does UKIP have internationally?

In all those respects, basically none and certainly nowhere near enough is the answer.

Its still a "one trick pony"

A party with experience of government that is governing the country down the toilet is no great improvement and plainly an increasing number of people are starting to agree with me.

[Wombat3]

Einion Yrth said:

Wombat3 said:

Er, aside from Neil Hamilton, who in UKIP has the first clue as to how Westminster even works?

Who has any experience of government?

How much UKIP policy is actually complete and fit for purpose?

How much credibility does UKIP have internationally?

In all those respects, basically none and certainly nowhere near enough is the answer.

Its still a "one trick pony"

A party with experience of government that is governing the country down the toilet is no great improvement and plainly an increasing number of people are starting to agree with me.

Define "governing the country down the toilet" please

Lets get into some specifics on that rhetoric & consider what options are really available & see how much of it is just bunk & myth shall we?

[Einion Yrth]

Wombat3 said:

Define "governing the country down the toilet" please

Energy policy, virtually all of it - a disaster for pretty much everyone, except Yeo, Gummer and Cameron's father in law.

[Wombat3]

Einion Yrth said:

Wombat3 said:

Define "governing the country down the toilet" please

Energy policy, virtually all of it - a disaster for pretty much everyone, except Yeo, Gummer and Cameron's father in law.

Rock & a hard place at the moment given what they were left with by Brown & also the presence of the Lib Dems (Huhne & co). The individuals you cite have had basically nothing to do with shaping current energy policy such as it is. But I agree that it is an area that needs a lot of work. The likes of Alex Salmond have far more to answer for.

Lots of people will be (are) making money out of the current policy but noted that the implication in your post (for cheap plitical points scoring purposes) is that the current national energy policy has only been framed to benefit known tories - which is plainly and clearly utter bks

Shale gas will end up being the answer.

Next

[Einion Yrth]

Wombat3 said:

Shale gas will end up being the answer.

Possibly. I'll believe it when I see it - I'm doubting the DECC will allow it to go ahead quite frankly.

Wombat3 said:

Next

No not next, remind me again which berk it was that gave energy policy to the LDs and which clown promised to be the greenest government ever, you can't just handwave away what have to be some of the dumbest decisions ever. Or rather I guess you can but it hardly predisposes me to expend time and energy enumerating my other problems with your party leadership.

[McWigglebum4th]

Wombat3 said:

Rock & a hard place at the moment given what they were left with by Brown & also the presence of the Lib Dems (Huhne & co). The individuals you cite have had basically nothing to do with shaping current energy policy such as it is. But I agree that it is an area that needs a lot of work. The likes of Alex Salmond have far more to answer for.

So the reason we have lots of windy mills and impending blackouts is Alex Salmond

The McFarce is strong in this one

[Wombat3]

Einion Yrth said:

Wombat3 said:

Shale gas will end up being the answer.

Possibly. I'll believe it when I see it - I'm doubting the DECC will allow it to go ahead quite frankly.

General view with the energy industry and the energy brokers (that I've spoken to) - is its too valuable to ignore and the example of what it delivers is right there in the US now.

Einion Yrth said:

Wombat3 said:

Next

No not next, remind me again which berk it was that gave energy policy to the LDs and which clown promised to be the greenest government ever, you can't just handwave away what have to be some of the dumbest decisions ever. Or rather I guess you can but it hardly predisposes me to expend time and energy enumerating my other problems with your party leadership.

You raised energy policy specifically to talk about three individuals ( to score cheap political points). Hence it got the reponse it deserved.

Energy was given to the LD's as part of the coalition agreement. That kind of thing happens with coalitions. Think yourself lucky St Vince didn't get to be chancellor!

Being green and finding ways to save and manage energy (finite resources) and reduce pollution is also hardly an immoral objective. The wind power initiatives are, however, fundamentally flawed IMO, but they were all put in place by labour & the contracts signed & money committed. The SNP are also major advocates of it.

Its also hardly "centre stage" either in the grand scheme of things but there is a school of thought that people will look back in 100 years time and marvel at the wasy we wasted oil & gas by just burning it (when it is such a key component in manufacturinng of so many items and products - plastics etc).

What else ?

[einsign]

Wombat3 said:

Next

Wombat, you seem to want to put down UKIP or anyone who thinks they might be a viable alternative party. What do you think the others bring to the table that is useful?

[McWigglebum4th]

Wombat3 said:

The wind power initiatives are, however, fundamentally flawed IMO, but they were all put in place by labour & the contracts signed & money committed. The SNP are also major advocates of it.

The SNP?

The SNP have 6 MPs in westminister

Are you telling me that a minor party who want independence from something who only have a tiny amount of MPs can have a major influence of government policy

And then you also say i should not vote UKIP as they will never be more then a party who want independence from something and will only have a tiny amount of MPs will never be a major influence on government policy

[Wombat3]

einsign said:

Wombat3 said:

Next

Wombat, you seem to want to put down UKIP or anyone who thinks they might be a viable alternative party. What do you think the others bring to the table that is useful?

The entire governement is in "fire fighting mode" which is hardly surprising, but a lot of things (welfare policy, economics, public sector pay etc) are undergoing fundamental reform. Its going to take a long time to undo the mess we are in and for the full effects of those things to filter through.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I disagree with everything UKIP says and endorse the tories 100%, because that's not the case.

However, I consder myself to be a realist. We are where we are, we are in a mess, the question is how we can safely steer our way out of it and it seems clear that the answer is NOT UKIP (or more Labour)

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 4th March 12:30

[AJS-]

eharding said:

Given what happened between 1997 and 2010, there doesn't seem to be any question of might. If 13 years of Labour government didn't return a hard-right Conservative government, what makes you think another 5 years of Labour would?

Just 5 more years of damage, 5 more years of uncontrolled immigration, 5 more years of reckless spending, and frankly 5 more years to skew the electoral system in their favour.

But then, unless things have changed, you're not actually a UK resident, are you? So thanks for offering to let the rest of us endure another Labour government.

On the first part - there was no possibility of a hard right Conservative government in 2010, so who knows what would have happened if a conservative had been leading the party at that time. To imagine it would have gone the same way as 2001 or 2005 in the circumstances seems strange.

We have all of those ills anyway. We might be getting them at 80% rather than 100% but we're still getting them.

Nothing changed, I still live abroad, I'm still a British citizen, with a vote and an interest. Sometimes seeing things from afar lets you see them a bit more dispassionately, and in their broader context.