NewLabourPoster:I Wish!

mercsport

Pardon me for bringing up politics, but I was amused to see this morning how Labour have thought to tarnish Cameron's image in a new poster campaign :



I WISH !

nicensleazy

They must go!

downfader

Is it Saatchi who've done the new Tory ones? I like those, oddly. Will it make me vote Tory. No. I was nearly swayed until I realised all the negative aspects, plus why are we a nation of "swingers" between just two parties?

Oh and the Saatchi one might as well said "I'll give you Aids" the way one of them was worded. :shock: Shouldnt find it funny, I know.

Crapaud

nicensleazy wrote:

They must go!

Yes, but who to replace them? I don't think the Tories'll be any better and the rest haven't a hope of forming a govt.

It's a different game up here - so I'll be voting SNP just to get up the noses of whoever wins.

They're all a useless shower of tossers.

alfablue

If you hanker for the eighties, you obviously weren't there, or you could afford to be a tory.

downfader

Crapaud wrote:

nicensleazy wrote:

They must go!

Yes, but who to replace them? I don't think the Tories'll be any better and the rest haven't a hope of forming a govt.

It's a different game up here - so I'll be voting SNP just to get up the noses of whoever wins.

They're all a useless shower of tossers.

What I find shocking is how people are just so accepting of it. They hate the main two parties, but theres no one else they'd vote for. :? There are PLENTY of parties here in the UK, and if we discount tossers like the BNP that still leaves some good people to vote for. People just wont think outside the box.

I suspect we very well might get the hung parliament the press have been on about. Would that mean a cohelision (spelling?) government? If so that could be a leaping board for the LibDems, Greens, etc to prove themselves.

holmeboy

Won't be voting Labour, Tory or SNP. Who does that Leave?

Frank the tank

It's our electoral system that means it's only worth voting for one of the big two, which despite what they say are more like one another than ever.

Personally I'm very disenchanted with what "New" Labour have become, and, if tory is the answer the question must have been stupid in the first place. The Lib Dems can make all kinds of promises because they know they'll never be in power (influence in a hung parliament the best they can hope for).

The electoral system needs to change so every vote has the potential to count.

downfader

Frank the tank wrote:

It's our electoral system that means it's only worth voting for one of the big two, which despite what they say are more like one another than ever.

Personally I'm very disenchanted with what "New" Labour have become, and, if tory is the answer the question must have been stupid in the first place. The Lib Dems can make all kinds of promises because they know they'll never be in power (influence in a hung parliament the best they can hope for).

The electoral system needs to change so every vote has the potential to count.

To be fair, the Torys are in the very same position as the LibDems. Infact so are Labour, though we're all pretty certain they'll be out this time :?

IF we actually get to have an election.....

verloren

It does seem that it's almost always only one of the top two parties that gets in, but it's important to remember that which parties those are changes over time. And the best way we have of making that change (that doesn't involve more than taking a short walk every 4 years or so) is to vote for a smaller party and against a larger party.

Personally I'm torn - my local incumbent party (Tory) is campaigning with the slogan "It's time for a change", so I'm not sure if they want me to vote against them or against Labour

mercsport

When Labour, by some clever subterfuge which escapes me at the moment, managed to alter the electoral boundaries some years ago, and lumped my area (Saddleworth) in with East Oldham (predominantly Asian), did my MP go from Liberal / Conservative, overnight, to Labour. Result : Phil Woolas, the current, less than endearing 'immigration minister'.

No, Cameron's not my man either (he voted for the war in Iraq, which was unforgiveable)), but I feel a certain amount of sympathy with him when Brown displays his callow chippiness when he bangs on about Eton. Nick Clegg and the LIb-Dems voted against Labour's war-mongering, and for that deserves consideration, I feel.

Truth is, I don't know where I'll cast my vote. Up until the Blair era I was happily indifferent to politics. But, when they were hanging Saddam, my thoughts were elsewhere and imagining that in a fairer world Blair should have been given the rope. History, of course, is written by the victor, but I don't think that chapter can be overwritten so quickly. Come the election, I hope no one forgets the monumental bloodletting and deep shame that Labour has visited upon every Briton. Forget the economy - all parties will end up getting it wrong: they always do - remember, only, that we are warmongering in places where we do not belong, and never will.

Excuse the desecration of a rather fine painting by someone tooling about in Photoshop, but I appreciate the sentiment :



EDIT : I hasten to add that I'm very much against any form of state sanctioned execution, and in reality would be unhappy to know that the scene imagined above might come to pass. Still, I'd be more than happy to see Blair hauled away to the Hague and stand accused of war-mongering.

ScottieP

I come from a country that changed from the first past the post voting system you have in Britain to a proportional representation system - and I would say be very careful about changing. In my country its meant you now never get a clear winner and the two major parties have to promise all kinds of stupid deals to get a majority - so it becomes the fringe rather than the mainstream that gets a larger than it's fair share (by vote) of power because without the deals there isn't a government. It becomes incredibly hard to change laws because it's so hard to get agreement without doing deals along the way that either weaken or make it all a bit pointless. First past the post isn't perfect I agree but you can actually get a government that can make decisions and changes - which is much tougher under proportional representation. Whoever wins - will have to be able to make some pretty brutal decisions to start fixing the train smash of an economy here (in my humble opinion) - It's not going to be easy for whoever wins - but they need enough of a majority to be able to get on and make changes.

Frank the tank

ScottieP wrote:

I come from a country that changed from the first past the post voting system you have in Britain to a proportional representation system - and I would say be very careful about changing. In my country its meant you now never get a clear winner and the two major parties have to promise all kinds of stupid deals to get a majority - so it becomes the fringe rather than the mainstream that gets a larger than it's fair share (by vote) of power because without the deals there isn't a government. It becomes incredibly hard to change laws because it's so hard to get agreement without doing deals along the way that either weaken or make it all a bit pointless. First past the post isn't perfect I agree but you can actually get a government that can make decisions and changes - which is much tougher under proportional representation. Whoever wins - will have to be able to make some pretty brutal decisions to start fixing the train smash of an economy here (in my humble opinion) - It's not going to be easy for whoever wins - but they need enough of a majority to be able to get on and make changes.

I agree with those sentiments, but, it's the democratic process or what passes for one which seems unfair. It happened for both Thatcher and Blair (her b@st@rd son) their respective parties both gained massive majorities in the house whilst gaining nowhere near half the votes in the poll.

As for boundry changes I remember the tories lumping Hucknall with sherwood a predominantly tory seat. they all do it jerrymandering (spelling) gits

ScottieP

Frank the tank wrote:

I agree with those sentiments, but, it's the democratic process or what passes for one which seems unfair. It happened for both Thatcher and Blair (her b@st@rd son) their respective parties both gained massive majorities in the house whilst gaining nowhere near half the votes in the poll.

As for boundry changes I remember the tories lumping Hucknall with sherwood a predominantly tory seat. they all do it jerrymandering (spelling) gits

I agree on the electoral boundaries point - I read somewhere that 150,000 people will decide the outcome of the election due to the boundaries. No party is going to agree to change to make the boundaries fairer - but that would be a bigger impact (again in my opinion) than changing to proportional representation.

Sirius631

Our economy is like a leaky bucket, and yet Labour refuses to even attempt to plug the holes until after the election just in case it alienates voters. They are, however, happy to propose topping up the bucket by taking more National Insurance off us.

Who would you trust to honestly implement cuts, those who ran up the national debt, or those who have experience of administering cuts from the last time they had to take over after Labour bankrupted the nation?

rick_chasey

holmeboy wrote:

Won't be voting Labour, Tory or SNP. Who does that Leave?

Lib Dems.

Duh.

rick_chasey

Sirius631 wrote:

Our economy is like a leaky bucket, and yet Labour refuses to even attempt to plug the holes until after the election just in case it alienates voters. They are, however, happy to propose topping up the bucket by taking more National Insurance off us.

Who would you trust to honestly implement cuts, those who ran up the national debt, or those who have experience of administering cuts from the last time they had to take over after Labour bankrupted the nation?

Economies are not like buckets.

They are not full of money that 'leaks out'.

That's not how it works.

Why blame Labour for bankrupting a nation when it was a global recession that bankrupted most of the developed economies?

Nor is it particularly Labour's fault that the UK, by nature of its specialisations, was more exposed to this particular type of downturn.

I'm no Labour supporter, but blaming them for a global recession is stupid.

If the party that gets in this election starts cutting public spending before recovery has properly taken hold then the economy will certainly have been badly affected by the gov't.

holmeboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

holmeboy wrote:

Won't be voting Labour, Tory or SNP. Who does that Leave?

Lib Dems.

Duh.

Oooooooh RIGHT

DUH!

simonaspinall

Ok, I can understand the message Labour are trying to use - But they miss the fundamental comparison that Gene Hunt in Life on Mars is a good guy (a rough diamond if you like).

This is a shot to the foot.

I'm disappointed most of all by the negative campaigning rather than setting out policies.

All Davis Cameron says is "we'll let people know in time for an election" rather tell people.

For me, The Lib Dems and the Green Party are where its at.

Le Commentateur

simonaspinall wrote:

I'm disappointed most of all by the negative campaigning rather than setting out policies.

All Davis Cameron says is "we'll let people know in time for an election" rather tell people

It shows how close they reckon the result will be, and possibly how similar their policies are or will be. Plus it gives them the option of making things up as they go along.

Frank the tank

It's greed (both corporate and personal) that has bankrupted this nation and both the tories and "new"labour have presided over it because none of them had the b*ll*cks to intervene in the free market.

I'm for nationalisation of utilities and the national transport system. Before anyone says it wouldn't work IMHO privatisation certainly hasn't.

angry_bird

I'm sick of the lot of them, although i did lol at this

http://www.kevindavis.org.uk/wp-content ... samall.jpg

Frank the tank

ouchthathurts wrote:

I'm sick of the lot of them, although i did lol at this

Isn't this the worrying thing though!

I think the people that post on here represent a fair cross section of the community (with the possible exception of the extremes of the income spectrum i.e. we're the cash cows) and a lot of us are genuinely fed up with the lot of 'em regardless of whatever colour rosette they wear.

Sirius631

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sirius631 wrote:

Our economy is like a leaky bucket, and yet Labour refuses to even attempt to plug the holes until after the election just in case it alienates voters. They are, however, happy to propose topping up the bucket by taking more National Insurance off us.

Who would you trust to honestly implement cuts, those who ran up the national debt, or those who have experience of administering cuts from the last time they had to take over after Labour bankrupted the nation?

Economies are not like buckets.

They are not full of money that 'leaks out'.

That's not how it works.

Rough generalisation. They set a budget which is filled by our taxes and NI contributions and emptied by whatever they wish to spend our money on. What would you say was a good analogy?

I'm no Labour supporter, but blaming them for a global recession is stupid.

I don't blame them for the global recession, only for emptying our coffers before the recession hit, leaving us in the worst state of any industrialised nation to face the downturn.

GavH

I won't be voting for either the Tories or Labour becuase they don't actually stand in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionists have made an attempt to jump on the Tory bandwagon but it won't mean anything over here - it's either Sinn Fein if you are catholic or the DUP if you are a protestant.

angry_bird

I pity whoever gets in,its like when Obama got in, expectations were so high, although he seems to be doing ok so far from what I can tell.

It will be very difficult for whoever gets elected to make a positive change we will appreciate in the next few years, and very easy for them to acheive nothing or completely balls up.

Solution- vote for whoever you hate the most and you won't be disappointed if they fail :roll:

rick_chasey

Sirius631 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sirius631 wrote:

Our economy is like a leaky bucket, and yet Labour refuses to even attempt to plug the holes until after the election just in case it alienates voters. They are, however, happy to propose topping up the bucket by taking more National Insurance off us.

Who would you trust to honestly implement cuts, those who ran up the national debt, or those who have experience of administering cuts from the last time they had to take over after Labour bankrupted the nation?

Economies are not like buckets.

They are not full of money that 'leaks out'.

That's not how it works.

Rough generalisation. They set a budget which is filled by our taxes and NI contributions and emptied by whatever they wish to spend our money on. What would you say was a good analogy?

I'm no Labour supporter, but blaming them for a global recession is stupid.

I don't blame them for the global recession, only for emptying our coffers before the recession hit, leaving us in the worst state of any industrialised nation to face the downturn.

An economy is not the gov't budget. They're fundamentally different.

The bigger the economy, the more tax a gov't receives, so the more tax they have.

I can't really think of a good analogy for an economy because there's not much like it.

The reason gov't lose plenty of money and have to borrow lots during a recession is that they fundamentally need to replace as best they can the loss in national spending.

If businesses stop employing people, and people stop buying stuff, you get a vicious circle, so the gov't steps in and buys shit and employs people to do whatever to get people spending again! That's what drives economies - spending! Recessions are people not spending enough!

That's why gov't spending cuts before recovery are so damaging: just when we need the gov't to keep creating jobs and keeping the economy going, they cut it.


The reason the UK is suffering more in the recession than most others is principally because the businesses it specialises in are more exposed to the kind of downturn experienced: i.e. a credit crunch. The UK was uniquely exposed to that.

Economies are not like your personal bank account. They work in fundamentally different ways.

DonDaddyD

I'm going to throw this out there.

Green Party.

I remember the Green Party candidate for Mayor of London election. They had all these brilliant ideas and policies and one by one Boris, Livingston and the other guys took and re-worded them as their own. A newspaper picked up on it but also cited that due to the relative size of the party their voice was bound to be swallowed up.

My issue with Labour is that they've been in power for too long. Grown too arrogant. Made too many blunders and lost control of all the detrimental aspects of our society. Things are getting worse even if the recession is technically over, I don't feel overly safe, Police presence is often non-existent and that has led to increases in serious crime, schools haven't improved enough and going into a hospital can do more harm to your health than staying out of one. Lastly, when Brown got into power he should have called a general election. I didn't vote for Brown and his Government, I voted for Blair and his. And while Blair faltered to unforgivable levels at the end lets not forget what came before. A lot of things were worse.

That said, Cameron seems like a Blair-light, Nick Clegg a Cameron-light. "Fool me once, fool me twice."

(For work purposes) I've read Conservative polices, a lot of Labour slamming and Gordon Brown slander campaigning*. A lot of stuff is just a rehash of what they said not from the last election but the one before. What troubles me is that there is no real hard meat to their policies. It doesn't go into any great detail much rather falling upon a soundbite. "We'll cut NHS spending". Yes, but how Cameron, how will you do this?

I just read the Green Party policies they are actual policies and not opposition bashing. They are considered, thought through and you get the impression that they've actually surveyed a percentage of the population, listened to the public's view and needs and shaped those around something ethical and beneficial to society and environment. Ultimately with the view of actually improving lives.

God knows that the Country could do with a social and political shift. I can think of a lot worse and not many things that are better than the issues the Green party focuses on.

(I'm not an environmentalist.)

*The question has to be asked, "How arrogant are the Labour and Conservative party to only focus on each other during this election?" They've overlooked all other parties and subsequently the public to go to 'war' against each other. It would serve them right if neither got in. (Think' Rage against the Machine' against X-factor that became arrogant assuming they'd simply get a X-mas no 1).

OffTheBackAdam

Greens are the new Reds.

eh

Greens are the new Reds.

True another party of huge central government, and who think money grows on trees, exactly what we need right now, errr not.

To be honest any party that told McKinsey and their like to f**k off, would probably get my vote.

rick_chasey

eh wrote:

Greens are the new Reds.

True another party of huge central government, and who think money grows on trees, exactly what we need right now, errr not.

To be honest any party that told McKinsey and their like to f**k off, would probably get my vote.

What's wrong with McKinsey?