Party Policies

[Adam W]

I was always under the impression that elections were to be won by coming up with vote-winning policies on things like the economy, education, health, immigration, and crime, then the stereotypical public walkabout with the obligatory kissing of babies.

Labour however have spent their time and resources coming up with the 'Easter Clegg' - a confectionery treat packaged in such a way as to ridicule the deputy Prime Minister:
Labour launches the ?completely hollow? Easter Clegg, ?guaranteed to leave a bad taste in your mouth? - People - News - The Independent

 

[Dan]

A low blow. They'll all do something similar.

What are the %'s of people who can vote V people who do?

I don't think enough people vote overall for there to be a true reading of what the people want.

Like myself, I think some will just not agree with any enough to vote.

 

[Adam W]

I don't know, it seems to be predominantly Labour's style, as a protest party - the others try to come up with ideas to improve the country but Labour just dismiss them as unworkable, then come up with a load of cliches to try to appeal to as many voters as possible.

Percentage turnouts tend to vary but always seem to be low. I always try to vote to exercise my democratic right; I've heard a lot of people saying they're not going to in protest at things like MPs' expenses, but I think it would have more impact to deliberately spoil your ballot paper - tick none of the boxes, draw your own box marked 'none of the above' and tick that, write something like 'they're all as bad as each other', or just a rude word.

 

[Dan]

I doubt they'd count the votes and probably just bin the paper. :-/

I vote on local elections here and there but only if somebody puts a good argument forward. But I'd go off them the moment their only tactic was to knock the other parties.

 

[Adam W]

I think they have to count the spoiled papers as well, hence why I think it would be worthwhile - if only 20% of the electorate turn out the rest could just be dismissed as lazy or indifferent, but if 80% make the effort to turn out, then half of those deliberately spoil their paper, the politicians will recognise potential voters and make the effort to win them over.
In simple terms if nobody votes the politicians can pretty much do what they like.

 

[Dan]

They do what they like anyway it seems.

I'd hope they count the people who don't turn up as having reasons related to not wishing to vote and not just lazy. As in some cases, choosing not to vote is after a fair bit of research. Some who just vote labour every year could be seen as the most lazy IMO.

 

[trev]

As Dan says, all the partys will resort to some sort of knocking policy in the very early stages of the campaign it seems to be the way things are done these days. As we get closer to the election they will begin to say we will do this or that.
For example, in the run up to the last one Mr Cameron promised us
No more top down reorganisations in the NHS.
An end to expenses related sleaze.
A fair welfare policy.
No scrapping of Sure Start, on this one he even took offence that the Labour party claimed he was scrapping it but what did he do? That's right, he scrapped it.
Deficit elimination within one parliament but has borrowed more since coming to power than the previous administration did in 13 years. And we still have a massive deficit.
HoL reform.
A limit on immigration.
A bonfire of the quangos.
Curbs on the diktats of the EU
Renegotiating of our role and position within the EU

 

[Octopus]

There's no difference between any of the parties today. They all promise the earth and deliver ....... nothing.

What made me chuckle today was Gordon Brown saying that a "yes" for Scottish independence would undermine the Scottish pension system - well Mr Brown you well and truly fxcked up all the UK's pensions - we were once the envy of the world - but not now.

 

[UNG]

There's no difference between any of the parties today. They all promise the earth and deliver ....... nothing.

What made me chuckle today was Gordon Brown saying that a "yes" for Scottish independence would undermine the Scottish pension system - well Mr Brown you well and truly fxcked up all the UK's pensions - we were once the envy of the world - but not now.

Raided the pension pot of billions then told us to save more so he could do it again. He did say no more boom and bust and look what we got from him

 

[trev]

While I'm no fan of Brown I think it has to be said that the current state of the country is down to the banking crisis which was a result of deregulation which was started by the grocer's daughter. Furthermore, had it happened on Cameron's watch he would have bailed them out in exactly the same way so we'd be in exactly the same state.

 

[UNG]

While I'm no fan of Brown I think it has to be said that the current state of the country is down to the banking crisis which was a result of deregulation which was started by the grocer's daughter. Furthermore, had it happened on Cameron's watch he would have bailed them out in exactly the same way so we'd be in exactly the same state.

Found this on the web

Since 1997 the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown developed a programme of better regulation. This included a general programme for government departments to review, simplify or abolish their existing regulations, and a "one in, one out" approach to new regulations. In 1997, The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the deregulation of the banks and other financial institutions. They freed the Bank of England from direct government control and removed the power by the Bank of England (and therefore by the government) from controlling the financial activities of banks in the UK. In 2006, new primary legislation (the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006) was introduced to establish statutory principles and a code of practice and it permits ministers to make Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) to deal with older laws which they deem to be out of date, obscure or irrelevant. This act has often been criticised and called "The abolition of Parliament Act".

You will have to help me here the conservatives left power in 1997 or are Blair and Brown closet Tories all down to Labour I'm afraid

 

[trev]

Brown and Blair are closet tories, Blair has never been shy in saying that Thatcher is a heroine of his. Yes it was that administration which freed the BoE from government control (wrongly imho) but any deregulation of the industry as a whole was a continuation of policies started by Thatcher in the 80s which has reduced our economy to something akin to a betting shop based in the City

 

[Guest77]

I don't know, it seems to be predominantly Labour's style, as a protest party - the others try to come up with ideas to improve the country but Labour just dismiss them as unworkable, then come up with a load of cliches to try to appeal to as many voters as possible.

Percentage turnouts tend to vary but always seem to be low. I always try to vote to exercise my democratic right; I've heard a lot of people saying they're not going to in protest at things like MPs' expenses, but I think it would have more impact to deliberately spoil your ballot paper - tick none of the boxes, draw your own box marked 'none of the above' and tick that, write something like 'they're all as bad as each other', or just a rude word.

That is the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen on any forum ever, absolute total tosh.

 

[Guest111]

the yanks had johnny cash,bob hope and stevie wonder.We got david camoron,no cash no hope and no bleeding wonder.

At the end of the day they all lie when it suits them,what it needs is election promises to be contractually binding,i.e a candidate says "vote me in and I'll do "x" " then he has to do "x"within a specified length of time or he gets slung out.It annoys me now when camoron (the moron isn't a spelling mistake btw) says yes we'll have a vote on the EU or whatever it is,after the next election,which we all know he won't.If he seriously was bothered about what the electorate think then he'd have the vote now.at least that way he'd be showing willing and might just manage to regain a bit of popularity.

 

[Octopus]

the yanks had johnny cash,bob hope and stevie wonder.We got david camoron,no cash no hope and no bleeding wonder.

At the end of the day they all lie when it suits them,what it needs is election promises to be contractually binding,i.e a candidate says "vote me in and I'll do "x" " then he has to do "x"within a specified length of time or he gets slung out.It annoys me now when camoron (the moron isn't a spelling mistake btw) says yes we'll have a vote on the EU or whatever it is,after the next election,which we all know he won't.If he seriously was bothered about what the electorate think then he'd have the vote now.at least that way he'd be showing willing and might just manage to regain a bit of popularity.

He'd never get it through the house of Commons - both the Liberals and Labour would oppose it.