The Alternative Vote (AV)

[SS4]

I started work in 2000 - and I can honestly say that my previous idea that Labour are the party of the working man has truly been swept away! I can't tell you how glad I was to see the back of them last year, and I hope it'll be a good while before we have to suffer them again. Their economic mismanagement has done more harm than I thought was possible - and they deserve a very long time out of office as a result. Still, my gut feeling is that within 3 years they'll be back to foul it up all over again. The only way I'll ever vote Labour again, is if they get rid of the two Eds and install people with some concept of fiscal responsibility at the top. Whether Cameron and Osborne are the right two people to be at the helm is open to debate, but the two clowns at the head of the Labour Party are little more than failed politicians from the previous administration who have no credible plan to sort the country out.

Labour are Tory-Lite nowadays yes but at least they don't treat the unemployed as the scum of society
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They admitted to causing the economic problems and the Conservatives are clearing up after them.

Which economic problems? The Tories have been equally vague about what problems Labour have caused. The banks everyone knows is due to sub-prime lending in the United States of America. Last I checked Brown had no power in that country.

Osborne needs to look across the Irish Sea to see the effects of sharp cuts. I wonder how long it will be before we go cap in hand to the EU...

 

[HST Power]

Labour are Tory-Lite nowadays yes but at least they don't treat the unemployed as the scum of society

With all due respect, if you think the Conservatives treat the unemployed as the scums of society, you are taking on the typical stereotype of 'all Tories are rich and all Tories live the life of Riley'.

Under Ian Duncan Smith's new legislation, the poorest families in Britain, unemployed or employed, are recieving £25 a week extra to help with the cost of living. That's £100 a month.
We are not treating the unemployed as scums. We are trying to help them back to work. There are people who genuinely need benefits and there are people who just can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning. The Conservatives are tackling those who can't be bothered. Under Labour, I lost count of the times that I opened the newspaper and read about benefit claimants recieving ridiculous sums of money, and openly admitting they could work. Let me give you an example.

I know this newspaper is utter garbage, but this is a true story, and this shows what we are tackling.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...im-190000-housing-benefits-in-five-years.html

And for the record, the economic problems weren't just in the US. They were over here as well, caused by Labour's failure to regulate the banks and to balance the economy. Miliband has admitted this so again, read the next article I have provided. What happened in the US had a knock on effect over here, which Labour failed to handle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/13/ed-miliband-labour-wrong-debt?CMP=twt_fd

 

[Ferret]

Labour are Tory-Lite nowadays yes but at least they don't treat the unemployed as the scum of society
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Which economic problems? The Tories have been equally vague about what problems Labour have caused. The banks everyone knows is due to sub-prime lending in the United States of America. Last I checked Brown had no power in that country.

Osborne needs to look across the Irish Sea to see the effects of sharp cuts. I wonder how long it will be before we go cap in hand to the EU...

But then he only has to look into Europe to see what happens if you get your country into too much debt! And we really haven't heard the last of that one just yet........

With regard to the US issue - do you actually believe that, or are you just being naïve? It became completely obvious that we'd been doing exactly the same as the Americans were doing in lending to people who could not afford to pay it back. Sure, it kept the economy growing for a while - but it was entirely artificial growth and in the end it all collapsed like a pack of cards. This was an entirely separate issue from the decisions taken by Brown and Balls to run a budget deficit while we were still in a growth phase - and the impact of the banking crisis combined with a ludicrous budget deficit leads us to where we are today. Of course, it's easy to say that the cuts hurt people - in other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods - but it's less easy to outline the real longterm damage that doing nothing would do.

 

[Zoe]

Would the Tories really have regulated the banks if they had been in power? It would seem to go against the free market principles.

 

[SS4]

Under Ian Duncan Smith's new legislation, the poorest families in Britain, unemployed or employed, are recieving £25 a week extra to help with the cost of living. That's £100 a month.

After freezing the child trust fund. They may or may not be cutting tax credits. I should think so too after VAT and Inflation rising. How is this going to be funded?

We are not treating the unemployed as scums. We are trying to help them back to work. There are people who genuinely need benefits and there are people who just can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning. The Conservatives are tackling those who can't be bothered.

How do you tell the difference? I worked in DWP and it's virtually impossible to tell the difference. Those who can't be bothered to get out of bed know the system the best of all so this is all talk and no trousers as far as I'm concerned. Attempts will just hit those genuine cases who don't know the system and forgive me for being cynical but Iain Duncan Smith will be rubbing his hands with glee.

I'm no economist but cutting 500,000 jobs is really not helping people back to work.

Under Labour, I lost count of the times that I opened the newspaper and read about benefit claimants recieving ridiculous sums of money, and openly admitting they could work. Let me give you an example.

That's the Tory, taking a minority case and implying that everyone does it to stir up hatred.

And for the record, the economic problems weren't just in the US. They were over here as well, caused by Labour's failure to regulate the banks and to balance the economy. Miliband has admitted this so again, read the next article I have provided. What happened in the US had a knock on effect over here, which Labour failed to handle.

Can't deny that. The question is will the Coalition?

But then he only has to look into Europe to see what happens if you get your country into too much debt! And we really haven't heard the last of that one just yet........

Eurozone countries cannot control their interest rates nor undergo QE.

Of course, it's easy to say that the cuts hurt people - in other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods - but it's less easy to outline the real longterm damage that doing nothing would do.

The cuts definitely hurt the poor more though. Regardless of the reason councils in poor areas are getting more cuts than those in rich areas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would the Tories really have regulated the banks if they had been in power? It would seem to go against the free market principles.

Of course not!

 

[HST Power]

I don't know how it'll be funded. I'm an Advisor, not an economist. But what matters is that they are getting it, and that this Government it sticking up for the families who require support.

How to tell the difference between genuine and bogus claimants? Seriously? If you work in the DWP, I'm sure you should be aware that they are introducing checks similar to those made on incapacity benefit claimants.

Stirring up hatred? That's the Tory, and every single party in the UK. How else are people going to get voted in? If you like I can provide plenty more cases.

The coaliton have admitted the problems and are trying to fix them. That's what they've done and what they are currently doing.

I also remind you that those on salaries of £150k plus a year are now getting more tax.

 

[LE Greys]

The Free Market isn't true Toryism anyway, it's the economic Liberalism of Freidman and von Hayek seized upon by Thatcher. True Toryism would involve curbing the power of the City and giving more control to the countryside establishment, in other words telling London to leave us alone. I know we have to go back to Disraeli before we find that sort of policy, but to me it makes far more sense than allowing the urban majority free reign over the country.

If I were running the party, I would concentrate on re-establishing rural services, reducing the City's power to influence policy and getting control of government spending. It does cost more to support the countryside, people aren't conveniently crammed together, but if we were talking about any other kind of minority, I don't think we would be written off and ignored in the same way. The Free Market is fine for the City, but they can shove it up their fancy suits AFAIC.

 

[Ferret]

Eurozone countries cannot control their interest rates nor undergo QE.

Thus highlighting their folly of joining the Euro in the first place. Hats off to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of that particular shambles - I give it 2 years before we see certain countries pulling out.

 

[Zoe]

Thus highlighting their folly of joining the Euro in the first place. Hats off to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of that particular shambles - I give it 2 years before we see certain countries pulling out.

Are countries in the EU able to withdraw from the Euro though? I thought that once you joined there was no way out. If Blair had got his way then Britain would likely also be in.

 

[gordonthemoron]

a lot of Ireland's problems have been caused by British Banks lending Irish Banks loads of money that they can't pay back

 

[HST Power]

a lot of Ireland's problems have been caused by British Banks lending Irish Banks loads of money that they can't pay back

And how do we fix it? By lending them even more money!

 

[Zoe]

There's not much choice though when the only options are a bailout or financial collapse.

 

[HST Power]

I know, I was just pointing out the irony!

 

[Ferret]

Are countries in the EU able to withdraw from the Euro though? I thought that once you joined there was no way out. If Blair had got his way then Britain would likely also be in.

If it comes to a choice between letting the likes of Portugal leave or seeing the currency collapse, I'd say that French/German power axis will be more than happy to see them leave!

 

[gordonthemoron]

except that Germany makes lots of money by flogging stuff to other eurozone countries. Which is why it keeps stumping up the bailout cash. Plus, the euro is basically a german project

 

[Ferret]

except that Germany makes lots of money by flogging stuff to other eurozone countries. Which is why it keeps stumping up the bailout cash. Plus, the euro is basically a german project

So Germany doesn't sell products to us because we use a different currency?!

 

[gordonthemoron]

they would prefer all of the EU to use the euro because they wouldn't suffer from exchange rate fluctuation

however, they'll flog their stuff to whoever

 

[313103]

Ferret, if RailForums had a like button, I would be pressing it fifty times over! Good call!
Labour are an utter disaster. They admitted to causing the economic problems and the Conservatives are clearing up after them.
Miliband is an utter joke. He has no policies of his own and is running an already tarnished party further down into the ground.
Harriet Harman was recently asked what Labour would do to fix the economy and she failed to name a single cut or saving they would make. It makes me so angry that people are booting the coaliton for these spending cuts, when at the end of the day, they are essential to get our economy back on track. If we don't make them now, the country is well and truly down the toilet, as our debt is through the roof. The Conservatives have been honest about the defecit problems and are taking proper measures to fix the issues, unlike Labour, who fiddled with their pens and gazed up at the ceiling as if waiting for an answer from God.
It doesn't matter who's in power, cuts will still be made. But if we hand the economy and public services back to Labour, the ones who greatly contributed to our problems, we're doomed. Seeing as they can't even name a single cut or saving when they are not in office, what are they going to do if they are in office? It's unbelievable. Miliband is a joker. I cannot bear to watch him or his cronies on the TV, slagging off the Tories, when he doesn't even have any economic solution himself. How did this man come to lead the party?
I've seen eight year olds with better policy.

Of course in your rose tinted eyes the tories can and will do nothing wrong, its all labours fault we are in this mess, of course the tories never slagged off labour did they, just like you aint in the above message.

 

[Ivo]

The Conservatives can do wrong; no-one is denying that. But if they had won in 2005 we would not be in the position we are in now. Blair was a decent PM but the dunce who replaced him was a complete failure. You could tell when he retained his seat (Kirkcaldy I think?) that he had almost accepted defeat, and that was good of him. But why had he been forced to say as much? Because the electorate knew that he was one of the major players in our "struggles" over the last few years, and that most felt that it was time for Labour to be gotten rid of. If they had won, would we have come as far as we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

And this was worsened by the in-fighting at Labour. You should be grateful that Harperson didn't assume the role of PM after Blair's departure; had she taken over, Labour would have come third last year at best! And it would be decades before they would return to power (2030 at least I would expect).

The principles of Labour are long gone. They don't stick up for the poor. For one thing, few if any of their members have been there and experienced poverty themselves! How can any party claim to support the not-so-well-off when most of their members are at least Middle Class?

 

[313103]

With all due respect, if you think the Conservatives treat the unemployed as the scums of society, you are taking on the typical stereotype of 'all Tories are rich and all Tories live the life of Riley'.

Under Ian Duncan Smith's new legislation, the poorest families in Britain, unemployed or employed, are recieving £25 a week extra to help with the cost of living. That's £100 a month.
We are not treating the unemployed as scums. We are trying to help them back to work. There are people who genuinely need benefits and there are people who just can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning.

Your organisation says its trying to get the unemployed back into work, yet you have announced up to 500,000 public sector job cuts! Do you suppose that the private brigade is going to pick up all these and more jobs? I was listening to some small businessman on LBC radio last night and he said the only people he could employ was volunteers and those on what we use to call Job training schemes as he couldnt afford to even pay the national minimum wage! Is that the way we get people back into work?

 

[HST Power]

Of course in your rose tinted eyes the tories can and will do nothing wrong, its all labours fault we are in this mess, of course the tories never slagged off labour did they, just like you aint in the above message.

You have totally failed to understand my post and jumped to an inaccurate and ridiculous conclusion. With all due respect, if you had bothered to read it properly, you would have found that I was stating that Miliband had no right to slag off the Tories as he himself has failed to provide us any economic policy or recovery plan.

Of course the Tories can make mistakes. I am uncertain about their NHS plans and was not happy with what happened with the soldiers in Afghanistan being sacked via email.

All the parties make mistakes. I acknowledge that, and of course the Conservatives slag off Labour. All the parties belittle each other.

Though in future, please read my posts properly before you reply to them.

 

[SS4]

You could tell when he retained his seat (Kirkcaldy I think?) that he had almost accepted defeat, and that was good of him. But why had he been forced to say as much?

Yet why would such a dunce hold onto a seat? Answer, it's a safe seat.

Because the electorate knew that he was one of the major players in our "struggles" over the last few years, and that most felt that it was time for Labour to be gotten rid of. If they had won, would we have come as far as we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

Brown wasn't charismatic enough which is a sin in it's own right in our celebrity and image culture. No doubt he wasn't helped by the press. If you look at Cameron he looks too glossy to be real, the true velvet glove concealing the Party's iron fist and Clegg did well at the debates.

Even the maps are biased - Tories use a geographical map since they get the most area thanks to rural constituencies covering a lot of area and Labour use the equalised one to emphasise the urban constituencies.

And this was worsened by the in-fighting at Labour. You should be grateful that Harperson didn't assume the role of PM after Blair's departure; had she taken over, Labour would have come third last year at best! And it would be decades before they would return to power (2030 at least I would expect).

Labour would have came second. FPTP means the top 2 will always be Labour and Conservative. Why do you think AV is a Lib Dem idea and only supported by Labour to look good in opposition and when it looked like they'd lose power?
It's possible there'd have been a Tory majority yes but Labour would not have come third.

The principles of Labour are long gone. They don't stick up for the poor. For one thing, few if any of their members have been there and experienced poverty themselves! How can any party claim to support the not-so-well-off when most of their members are at least Middle Class?

It's all relative. Who'd have thought the Lib Dems would sell their soul for power? As I mentioned above Labour could well be mini conservatives but it remains better than the full thing.

I must give credit where it's due to Tory party for it's stand on immigration though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do the DWP think are going to get jobs in the private sector while they have the extra unemployed having to do "work trials", "job placements" etc which in turn prevents jobs being created? Why should the private sector create paid jobs when they can get free labour? It's a sort of vicious circle

 

[Seacook]

But if they had won in 2005 we would not be in the position we are in now.

Obviously not. We would have a Labour goverment after the Conservatives had presided over an economic recession. I do not recall the 2005 manifesto containing urgent commitments to introduce more regulation into the financial markets. No measures would have been taken to avert the crash; I am not sure that there was anything a British government of any stripe could have done unilaterally.

How can any party claim to support the not-so-well-off when most of their members are at least Middle Class?

It is always makes me nostalgic to see that Marx and Engels' views of the struggle of class against class has not entirely died out. According to a survey last month over 70% of the people consider themselves middle class. Why should MPs be different?

 

[Zoe]

Even though Brown's government was very unpopular Cameron was still not able to win a majority and he only has power now as Clegg sold out. If people really wanted the current Tory policies then they would have elected the Tories with a large majority.

 

[DarloRich]

Clegg has sold us all down the river for this vote - which i doubt he will win. The Tory boys must be laughing thier little cocks off at him! They get power, he gets a vote on the smallest possile crumb of electoral reform and a vote that he will loose. The turn out will be very low Most people have no idea what this vote is about or why it is taking place. Most people dont understand wha they are being asked to vote on or perhaps more importantly dont care what or why they are being asked.

personally i think FPTP works well but it does mean that a majority of the voters in many areas are effectivley disenfranchised! As an example, I used to live in the Richmond constituency held by William Hauge. I voted Labour (and will do till i die) but i might as well have just torn my paper up and posted it back for all the good it would do. The old saying that they wiegh the votes is true in Richmond - The conservatives will never loose that seat any time soon

So while i think FPTP works it disenranchised me for many years. My vote had no weight, or effect or deep down purpose. However, move a few miles down the road towards Darlington and you get into the Sedgefield constituacy held by a certain T Blair for many years. Posistion reversed! It is madness.

While a fairer system is desirable, i dont think it will come about becuase the current system is so easy to understand. I do like the fact that AV would mean an MP was elected with a majoirty vote, and that the constituent-MP link is preserved ( which i feel is important) but i dont like the idea that my vote could go to someone who i wouldnt urinate on if they were on fire!

It is a hard one but i dont feel, deep down, that AV is enougth of a change to merit a yes vote, much as i hate myself for thinking such a thing.

 

[SS4]

AV is a poor voting system yes but the consequences of it not being passed will mean electoral reform, with the exception of gerrymandering, will not take place for at least half a century. The Lib Dems will be finished by the next general election and they were the only major party that wanted it before the election. Labour and the Conservatives can see that FPTP benefits them due to their more concentrated support

 

[Ferret]

Darlorich - I disagree - I actually think it will be a yes vote, though I expect it to be close. Time will tell!

 

[LE Greys]

The Conservatives can do wrong; no-one is denying that. But if they had won in 2005 we would not be in the position we are in now. Blair was a decent PM but the dunce who replaced him was a complete failure. You could tell when he retained his seat (Kirkcaldy I think?) that he had almost accepted defeat, and that was good of him. But why had he been forced to say as much? Because the electorate knew that he was one of the major players in our "struggles" over the last few years, and that most felt that it was time for Labour to be gotten rid of. If they had won, would we have come as far as we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

And this was worsened by the in-fighting at Labour. You should be grateful that Harperson didn't assume the role of PM after Blair's departure; had she taken over, Labour would have come third last year at best! And it would be decades before they would return to power (2030 at least I would expect).

The principles of Labour are long gone. They don't stick up for the poor. For one thing, few if any of their members have been there and experienced poverty themselves! How can any party claim to support the not-so-well-off when most of their members are at least Middle Class?

I'd say that Brown's influence goes back much further than that. Who came up with the "Golden Rule"

Over the economic cycle, the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending

then proceeded to decide that much of current spending was actually investment in the future. He then proceeded to borrow massive ammounts of money for "investment in the future". However, where were the reserves? Where was the Sovereign Wealth Fund? No, it was lots of borrowing and lots of "future investment". One has to abide by the spirit of the rules as well as the letter.

 

[BlythPower]

Would the Tories really have regulated the banks if they had been in power? It would seem to go against the free market principles.

S'funny - no matter how times this question's asked on the political threads, the Tories never answer it...

 

[Ferret]

S'funny - no matter how times this question's asked on the political threads, the Tories never answer it...

We'll never know the answer to that, but you can probably take a wild guess! But then, the banking farce was only half of the problem.