Vote for change ?

plowmar
plowmar Posts: 1,032
edited April 2010 in The bottom bracket
Do they mean this or are their marketing people illiterate?

Vfc = coppers i.e change in your pocket, whereas 'Vote for a change' = change of govt. which I presume is what they mean or vote this time if you didn't last time.

Love to know what they mean and not just in this I suppose flippant, instance.

Guess what I am voting after remembering M T getting rid of millions of Iron & steel and Coal jobs not just a few thousand at corus, making us more reliant on the financial industry and see where that led us; and security guards and the like earning only £1 per hour.

There are other political parties to vote for. :twisted:

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I thought it was an americanism?
    _
  • careful
    careful Posts: 720
    "Vote for Notes" would sound funny. It seems like democracy is a triumph of optimism over memory - we voted Tony Blair in for a change and look what happened. Does anyone really believe that a change of government will make any real difference to anything?
  • STEFANOS4784
    STEFANOS4784 Posts: 4,109
    Vote for whoever, nothing really changes except the face behind the lies.


    I will vote green.
    winter beast: http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff016.jpg
    Summer beast; http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff015.jpg
  • Eau Rouge
    Eau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    I'm hoping for a hung Parliament, with either a minority government or a coalition of some sort. Whips enforcing a majority isn't a great way to run a democracy, it leads to lazy government and contrary-for-the-sake-of-it opposition. A system where there is a little more pressure for MP's on all sides to justify their positions a bit more would be good, and ideally we'd have less actual legislation passed, but then I'm one of the few people who thinks MP's currently do too much.

    Civil Servants actually run the country of course and this is probably a good thing.
  • OffTheBackAdam
    OffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    A hung Parliament would be a disaster, it'd hand power to a tiny numberof extremist MPs on either side of the divide, be it BNP, Green or (May the gods help us!) George Galloway!
    It's unfortunate that the Churchillian maxim that "The duty of the Opposition is to oppose."
    The great failing of the current parlimentarians, is their loss of the ability to make a good speach.
    Mind you, since 80% of our laws are now handed to us directly from the EU's democracy deficient system, it'll make f-all difference who gets "power".
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • Bunneh
    Bunneh Posts: 1,329
    I'm still hugely unsure who to vote for. As with a lot of others my annoyance at the expenses and the other scandals, so it makes me think is it worth bothering? Yes I think it is, because one of them will get in so I may as well vote for the best of the worst.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Eurobunneh - My Youtube channel.
  • Eau Rouge
    Eau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    A hung Parliament would be a disaster, it'd hand power to a tiny numberof extremist MPs on either side of the divide, be it BNP, Green or (May the gods help us!) George Galloway!
    It's unfortunate that the Churchillian maxim that "The duty of the Opposition is to oppose."
    The great failing of the current parlimentarians, is their loss of the ability to make a good speach.
    Mind you, since 80% of our laws are now handed to us directly from the EU's democracy deficient system, it'll make f-all difference who gets "power".

    Extremist parties only get a say at all if the numbers are close, which is unlikely, and even then the extreme policies of an extremist party will still not be adopted.
    What undemocratic about the EU? The government ministers all have the final vote on any directive, which then needs to be enacted in British law like any other law. The EU is no less democratic than Westminster, arguably more.
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    You blame M T as the prime mover for the loss of iron, steel and coal jobs, M T isn't entirely to blame, it was the beginning of globalisation in the 80's, we hadn't recognised it and it was painful to live through.

    It has been the policy of the British Government of both main parties not to support "inefficient" industries, Tony Benn stated that in the 60's, however British industry wasn't in the position it later declined into in the 70's and 80's.
  • Eau Rouge
    Eau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    tebbit wrote:
    You blame M T as the prime mover for the loss of iron, steel and coal jobs, M T isn't entirely to blame, it was the beginning of globalisation in the 80's, we hadn't recognised it and it was painful to live through.

    It has been the policy of the British Government of both main parties not to support "inefficient" industries, Tony Benn stated that in the 60's, however British industry wasn't in the position it later declined into in the 70's and 80's.

    Globalisation or not (and I tend to agree that it was) the *way* the Tory governments of the 80's handled it all was utterly callous and plain wrong.
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    I tend to agree that the Tories did not get the economic tranisition right and we are still living with the consequences, some areas were hit very hard and have still to recover, if we are to have a radicalisation of the civil service with major reductions in staff thought has got be given as to what the people who are made redundant are to do.
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    +1
  • nolf
    nolf Posts: 1,287
    plowmar wrote:
    Do they mean this or are their marketing people illiterate?

    Vfc = coppers i.e change in your pocket, whereas 'Vote for a change' = change of govt. which I presume is what they mean or vote this time if you didn't last time.

    Couldn't you have, "A vote for change"?

    Also, debates over Margaret Thatcher are so 90's.
    "I hold it true, what'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better to have loved and lost;
    Than never to have loved at all."

    Alfred Tennyson
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    "Change"

    From what to what?

    And not always for the better...
  • mr_poll
    mr_poll Posts: 1,547
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    A hung Parliament would be a disaster, it'd hand power to a tiny numberof extremist MPs on either side of the divide, be it BNP, Green or (May the gods help us!) George Galloway!
    It's unfortunate that the Churchillian maxim that "The duty of the Opposition is to oppose."
    The great failing of the current parlimentarians, is their loss of the ability to make a good speach.
    Mind you, since 80% of our laws are now handed to us directly from the EU's democracy deficient system, it'll make f-all difference who gets "power".

    This is standard scare mongering from the big parties to try and avoid a hung parl so they can continue to whip their back benchers to pass any and all legislation through. It is very very unlikely for any of the parties mentioned to get a seat due to first past the post, the greens might sneak Brighton but that is due to the mess that the 3 parties are in there. A hung parliament would mean more co-op with the Lib Dems, SNP (poss NI parties but they are all over the place in Ulster) and Plaid Cymri - bad spelling (although with a prob 3 seats they wont have a great say).
    Overall parties will work together on common ground and back benchers from the minority party will be able to vote for the major party without the threat of the whip. The major benefit is that we might get actual debate and common sense politics in the house rather than a load of sheep just voting with the government passing legislation that hasnt been throughly thought out and debated. The only drawback is that the city might not like it as decisions take a little longer (as they are debated and amended) but most other european countries manage and quite frankly seen as the city roulette took us into recession due to Brown's love affair with them, I would rather have a house that works for us (i know a little idealistic) than the fat cat bankers.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    plowmar wrote:
    Do they mean this or are their marketing people illiterate?

    Vfc = coppers i.e change in your pocket, whereas 'Vote for a change' = change of govt. which I presume is what they mean or vote this time if you didn't last time.

    Love to know what they mean and not just in this I suppose flippant, instance.
    :

    On a similar note, I'm a big fan of Labours "a Future Fair For All" slogan... Will there be Waltzers do you think?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    On a similar note, I'm a big fan of Labours "a Future Fair For All" slogan...

    Ironic as society is less socially mobile now than when they came to power.
  • passout
    passout Posts: 4,425
    I think VFC is perfectly clear as a slogan and it does sum up why the Conservatives are ahead in the polls.
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    But it's still as vacuous as when it was used in the Obama campaign
  • passout
    passout Posts: 4,425
    Hung Parliament could be bad for the long term future of N. Ireland; it could shift power across to Paisley and co. and upset and delicate balance of power over there. According to Radio 4 anyway.
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    And what would the Lib-Dems demand in order for their support of a minority govt? Closer ties with the EU? Adoption of the euro? STV-PR?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Cressers wrote:
    And what would the Lib-Dems demand in order for their support of a minority govt? Closer ties with the EU? Adoption of the euro? STV-PR?


    Serious electoral reform.

    More robin hood style tax.

    Some stuff on education and poor children.

    The usual.


    No European clause.


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 873717.ece

    Depends who gets in though, naturally.
    _
  • eh
    eh Posts: 4,854
    Surely the Lib Dems would have to support a kind of ken Clarke type conservative party, after all their core vote is most certainly not Labour leaning.
  • Cressers
    Cressers Posts: 1,329
    I think that PR/electoral reform of some kind will be first on their list as they'd want to ensure perpetuity of coalitions/minority govts.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    nolf wrote:
    plowmar wrote:
    Do they mean this or are their marketing people illiterate?

    Vfc = coppers i.e change in your pocket, whereas 'Vote for a change' = change of govt. which I presume is what they mean or vote this time if you didn't last time.

    Couldn't you have, "A vote for change"?

    Also, debates over Margaret Thatcher are so 90's.

    You dont know Man, you werent there :evil: :wink:

Categories