If there was to be a snap election tomorrow?

[Grand Fromage]

I know its impossible, BUT, who would you vote for?

I've voted Tory my whole life, but just am not sure that if it were to come tomorrow, after seeing Osbournes financial ideas, and having Cameron as party leader, I'd be able to do it again. The Europe thing is bugging me as well, and am interested to see whether the tories get less than the 85% I'd expect of the PH vote.

[rhinochopig]

Why not start a thread asking whether you want to be shot or stabbed to death.

[AndrewW-G]

No UKIP option? yet two extreme party's

[Disco_Dale]

Like turkeys voting for Christmas....

The only reasoned choice as things stand would be "none of the above"
Until they stop bullsh*tting that's mine.
Guess I'm in for a long wait.

Edited by Disco_Dale on Monday 12th October 22:38

[Pooh]

Grand Fromage said:

after seeing Osbournes financial ideas

Just curious what your objection to his ideas are?
It seems to be that Labour have left us in such a financial mess that steps have to be taken to reduce costs and his announcements where at least a start.

[chr15b]

i dont like any of them, but i despise Brown the most. it'd be a difficult choice between not voting and voting tory just to get him out.

[Skywalker]

The Tories need an overwhelming majority to sort out the economy and then perhaps in a second, but certainly by a third term a more balanced Palace of Westminster so that arguments are won on merit not just by colour.

The Tories are as much to blame for today as Labour was for the end of the Tories last time.

Weak opposition equals piss poor government over time.

[Grand Fromage]

Pooh said:

Grand Fromage said:

after seeing Osbournes financial ideas

Just curious what your objection to his ideas are?
It seems to be that Labour have left us in such a financial mess that steps have to be taken to reduce costs and his announcements where at least a start.

The basis of his thinking, that just because a country is so much% of GDP in debt means it needs drastic (and not very well thought out) solutions in the very short term really bugs me. Throughout history, this country has been in a huge deficit, its really only in the last 20 years that we have been on top of our countries debt. He is proposing some very odd short term measures that in all honesty, wont make a big enough difference in the timescale he is suggesting, and don't 'set the ball rolling' for a longer term climb from this recession that will adversely affect the lives of the hard working man/woman without seeing any benefit in the countries finances as a whole.

As has already been said, we left the country in a similar (if not worse) mess when Labour were voted in in '97 and they had a few years of boom and a few years of bust. Financial markets go in cycles, as does the balance of power in the country - this is no coincidence.

[Grand Fromage]

AndrewW-G said:

No UKIP option? yet two extreme party's

My apologies for missing out UKIP - I was racking my brains trying to think of the obvious I had missed out - it's been a long day!

[Pooh]

Grand Fromage said:

Pooh said:

Grand Fromage said:

after seeing Osbournes financial ideas

Just curious what your objection to his ideas are?
It seems to be that Labour have left us in such a financial mess that steps have to be taken to reduce costs and his announcements where at least a start.

The basis of his thinking, that just because a country is so much% of GDP in debt means it needs drastic (and not very well thought out) solutions in the very short term really bugs me. Throughout history, this country has been in a huge deficit, its really only in the last 20 years that we have been on top of our countries debt. He is proposing some very odd short term measures that in all honesty, wont make a big enough difference in the timescale he is suggesting, and don't 'set the ball rolling' for a longer term climb from this recession that will adversely affect the lives of the hard working man/woman without seeing any benefit in the countries finances as a whole.

As has already been said, we left the country in a similar (if not worse) mess when Labour were voted in in '97 and they had a few years of boom and a few years of bust. Financial markets go in cycles, as does the balance of power in the country - this is no coincidence.

Are you suggesting we should keep spending money like water and not pay off the debt in the hope that we will come out of recession faster?
The problem with that is that we have to spend a fortune on servicing the debt and there is no guarantee that the rest of the world will continue to lend us the money at affordable rates.
Freezing public sector pay for a year is not that big a hardship and many in the private sector have had no rises or even cuts so why should the public sector be different?
Delaying the retirement age by a year is just a case of facing the reality of an ageing population and don't forget that they plan to increase pensions as a result.
Regarding the economy in 97 it was actually in very good shape so I am not sure what you are on about.

[Zod]

AndrewW-G said:

No UKIP option? yet two extreme party's

I agree that hey should have been included, but thye probably fit with the othre two as single issue parties:

don't like duskies;

don't like frogs, krauts and spics;

don't like PHers.

[anonymous-user]

Grand Fromage said:

As has already been said, we left the country in a similar (if not worse) mess when Labour were voted in in '97 and they had a few years of boom and a few years of bust. Financial markets go in cycles, as does the balance of power in the country - this is no coincidence.

Eh? Economically the country was in great shape in 97. Clarke handed over a very solid and prosperous economy to Winky which is why his incompetence was disguised for so long.

[Shoot Blair]

If you added UKIP a fair way through, how is this a fair test?

[s2art]

unrepentant said:

Grand Fromage said:

As has already been said, we left the country in a similar (if not worse) mess when Labour were voted in in '97 and they had a few years of boom and a few years of bust. Financial markets go in cycles, as does the balance of power in the country - this is no coincidence.

Eh? Economically the country was in great shape in 97. Clarke handed over a very solid and prosperous economy to Winky which is why his incompetence was disguised for so long.

True, the OP's post is baffling.

[fluffnik]

Where's the SNP option?

[Poledriver]

OK, OWN UP! Who voted for the greens?

On Pistonheads? FFS!

Edited by Poledriver on Tuesday 13th October 01:05

[miniman]

The fact remains that today, as in 1997, the majority of votes are not for a particular party, they are against another. The only realistic way to rid ourselves of Brown and his bunch of tards is to vote Tory, as in 1997 the only way to rid ourselves of Grey Major (as the majority seemed to want to do) was to subject ourselves to Bliar. The existence of the other niche parties is futile at best IMHO, particularly given how many decades it has taken the Lib Dems to get themselves firmly ensconsed in third place.

[Don]

73% of Phers in "would vote Tory" non-shocker.

Well the latest yougov doesn't get quite that far - but still enough to be forming a government with a landslide.

I hope they have their programme of law-changing and constitutional reform ready because I suspect they'll only have the sort of majority predicted for their first term. Two terms minimum in power, I reckon IF it pans out like the polls say.

You can't be certain until the fat lady sings. Mind you she's warming up in the corner...

[odyssey2200]

UKIP

For the single reason that they will get us out of Europe.

Even if they fked everthing else up, (like all the other parties would) being out of the EU socialist state has got to be a good thing.

[Baby Huey]

unrepentant said:

Grand Fromage said:

As has already been said, we left the country in a similar (if not worse) mess when Labour were voted in in '97 and they had a few years of boom and a few years of bust. Financial markets go in cycles, as does the balance of power in the country - this is no coincidence.

Eh? Economically the country was in great shape in 97. Clarke handed over a very solid and prosperous economy to Winky which is why his incompetence was disguised for so long.

Labour kept it that way for 11 years, longer than the Tories have ever managed.