Election 2015 - who are you going to vote and predictions

UndercoverElephant

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You know that the Greens have some really nutty ideas, don't you? Like reducing the population of the UK to about 20 million by 2050

Whoa, that is nutty, can you post a link to the Green manifesto where it states this so we can read more? Thanks in advance!

Well, obviously it doesn't *say* that directly:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html

The Green Party wrote:

PP118 To achieve consumption and population levels that are globally sustainable and respect carrying capacity.

Which basically means gas chambers for all the old folk. That way we're able to afford the pension costs and we're much greener.

fat_tail

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

(which is why, incidentally, Sturgeon's promise to screw the Tories no matter what - including if they are the largest minority party - is so disgraceful).

Why is that disgraceful? That's basically the entire premise of Scottish politics.

"We keep the Tories out" is a vote winner every day of the week. That's why Labour did so well for so many years.

You know that. I get a bit of tribal myopia, but come on Gregg!

agreed its disgraceful...

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

A principled stance could be: "We (the SNP) will, if we hold the balance of power, support the party that the UK as a whole has returned as the largest minority party in Westminster".

Your principled stance basically boils down to "the SNP should support my party"

Not really. If the SNP took that position and Labour was the largest minority party, I wouldn't have a problem with the SNP supporting Labour.

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You know that the Greens have some really nutty ideas, don't you? Like reducing the population of the UK to about 20 million by 2050

Whoa, that is nutty, can you post a link to the Green manifesto where it states this so we can read more? Thanks in advance!

Ok. There might have been some hyperbole in what I said. What the Greens do say though is that they want by 2050 to reduce energy and electricity consumption to one third of 2012 consumption levels through efficiency and "demand reduction" (I suppose this means cutting off supply to those who won't play ball), and that is despite also committing to zero carbon emissions. So that should bring NHS costs down. because they will be shutting hospitals left right and centre.

Here Natalie Bennett explains the relationship between population and consumption. She says population is what it is, but consumption must come down. Apparently if we all lived the lifestyle of the typical Bangladeshi, we'd be fine in the jolly old UK. Colour me a bit unenthused at that one. But realistically, consumption isn't going to come down in this country appreciably or at all, so although they don't say so, population has to be the "give".

tailwindhome

Has it been 5 years already?
Good God.

pblakeney

fat_tail wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

(which is why, incidentally, Sturgeon's promise to screw the Tories no matter what - including if they are the largest minority party - is so disgraceful).

Why is that disgraceful? That's basically the entire premise of Scottish politics.

"We keep the Tories out" is a vote winner every day of the week. That's why Labour did so well for so many years.

You know that. I get a bit of tribal myopia, but come on Gregg!

agreed its disgraceful...

It may be disgraceful for you but ask anyone north of Hadrians.
The hatred of Maggie and the Tories has been passed down the generations. It will be a very long time until conservatism in any form is accepted north of the border. Right or wrong.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Has it been 5 years already?
Good God.

Whey-hey! He's back!

msmancunia

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I'd be quite tempted to vote Green - I think this is the first year we've had a candidate - but he hasn't got a cat

I read that far - which is where the line break is on my screen - and thought "OMG! This girl used to be sensible. WTF happened to her?"

Cheeky! To be honest, none of them particularly impress me, and as a single, white, childless female, I'm not a priority for any party. I just don't like the way the Tories run things, and we seem to be making quite a mess of the world and overfilling it with people.

Having said that, I am flying to Jordan tomorrow for a cycling holiday, so I'm not *that* Green

Ps I also really hate cats.

First.Aspect

msmancunia wrote:

Ps I also really hate cats.

They aren't even standing in my constituency.

First.Aspect

msmancunia wrote:

I'm not *that* Green

Neither are the greens. The eschew the only low carbon reliable large scale energy generating technology remotely capable of replacing coal/gas. I really can't abide Luddite-based policy.

elbowloh

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

A principled stance could be: "We (the SNP) will, if we hold the balance of power, support the party that the UK as a whole has returned as the largest minority party in Westminster".

Your principled stance basically boils down to "the SNP should support my party"

Not really. If the SNP took that position and Labour was the largest minority party, I wouldn't have a problem with the SNP supporting Labour.

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You know that the Greens have some really nutty ideas, don't you? Like reducing the population of the UK to about 20 million by 2050

Whoa, that is nutty, can you post a link to the Green manifesto where it states this so we can read more? Thanks in advance!

Ok. There might have been some hyperbole in what I said. What the Greens do say though is that they want by 2050 to reduce energy and electricity consumption to one third of 2012 consumption levels through efficiency and "demand reduction" (I suppose this means cutting off supply to those who won't play ball), and that is despite also committing to zero carbon emissions. So that should bring NHS costs down. because they will be shutting hospitals left right and centre.

Here Natalie Bennett explains the relationship between population and consumption. She says population is what it is, but consumption must come down. Apparently if we all lived the lifestyle of the typical Bangladeshi, we'd be fine in the jolly old UK. Colour me a bit unenthused at that one. But realistically, consumption isn't going to come down in this country appreciably or at all, so although they don't say so, population has to be the "give".

So we just keep on increasing consumption? It's just not sustainable.

rick_chasey

Stop buying so much bike kit then.

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stop buying so much bike kit then.

It's carbon-capture, that's good for the planet. Duh!

elbowloh

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stop buying so much bike kit then.

Buying bike kit and using it > driving everywhere?

rick_chasey

Keep rationalising it to yourself .

rick_chasey

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davis wrote:

Voting Green

HamishD wrote:

I am voting Green.

You know that the Greens have some really nutty ideas, don't you? Like reducing the population of the UK to about 20 million by 2050, reducing electricity use to 25% of its current levels by the same date, and basically deconstructing the western capitalist society we have in favour of an agrarian commune style existence?

Greens are the watermelons of politics: green on the outside and deeply red on the inside.

This is just prepping the land for potential horse-trading post election. You put a few far out policies that you can trade away.

The Tories aren't actually going to repeal the fox hunting ban. But it's an easy one to give away when horse trading with Lib Dems, etc etc.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davis wrote:

Voting Green

HamishD wrote:

I am voting Green.

You know that the Greens have some really nutty ideas, don't you? Like reducing the population of the UK to about 20 million by 2050, reducing electricity use to 25% of its current levels by the same date, and basically deconstructing the western capitalist society we have in favour of an agrarian commune style existence?

Greens are the watermelons of politics: green on the outside and deeply red on the inside.

This is just prepping the land for potential horse-trading post election. You put a few far out policies that you can trade away.

The Tories aren't actually going to repeal the fox hunting ban. But it's an easy one to give away when horse trading with Lib Dems, etc etc.

Not sure it is with the Greens. First, because with a max expectation of one seat they won't be invited to the trading floor, and secondly because (having read large chunks of their manifesto) every one of their policies is derived from a clear ideological basis of Green-fuzziness. They're nuts, and nutters don't negotiate - they just shout louder and louder.

rick_chasey

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

They're nuts, and nutters don't negotiate - they just shout louder and louder.

Sounds like you'd fit right in then .

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

They're nuts, and nutters don't negotiate - they just shout louder and louder.

Sounds like you'd fit right in then .

Think of me as an educator. A teacher if you will.

Every teacher has to shout at the class thickie from time to time, don't they?

PS. Hope you can hear me at the back of the class, Chasey, stood there in the corner with your funny hat on.

rick_chasey

Try shouting louder and louder sir. Might help.

greg66_tri_v2.0

[cross post]

Interesting to see the contrast between this poll and DDD's voter poll. It sort of confirms what I had thought (even without my inherent confirmation bias in play).

Voting between the major two is split fairly evenly. But there is a relatively strong and clear preference for maintaining the status quo.

The trouble is, you can't vote for the status quo.

And both the Cons and the LDs seem to have lost core support over the last 5 years, presumably because they have not not been enough Con-like or LD-like. Yet they aren't acquiring any voters to replace that lost support, despite the overall preference for maintaining the status quo.

Net result: Labour sneak in, supported by the SNP and funded by forests of Magic Money Trees.

(Anecdotally: 66 Major and Minor are both at London fee paying schools. As one might expect, some of their friends have very very loaded parents. Such friends are already passing around what I assume are dinner table conversations from home about leaving school and moving abroad in Labour win. Capital flight in real time).

62nn old geezer

Con's for me, as I have just got my hands on £32k of pension...less 20% tax after quarter tax free etc...
that was offering piss poor annuity rates.
= New e-bike for getting up THEM hills ! 2.7k full suss to ease the 66 y.old bones

need to change my user name !

Beware the old gits, we always vote.


62

tailwindhome

I see the Tories are starting the whole 'largest minority party' talk early as if it was, you know, a thing.....

The Rookie

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Labour sneak in, supported by the SNP and funded by forests of Magic Money Trees.

Crikey and I thought it was going to be the mansion tax (check out all the uses for that in various of the 2 Ed's soundbites).

Are two Ed's better than one?

jedster

"The Tory Council want to build houses in my lovely village. Now we know 250 are coming, and another 300 or so, but the real figures touted around is about 900 or 35% increase to the village population/size - 40% of which is social housing. "

To my mind, the biggest problem in the UK is housing. It is way too expensive because we are not building enough. And the price of it leaves people carry stupid amounts of debt plus sucks capital away from more productive investments. It is an utter shambles. All the policies on offer at this election are a sick joke (i.e., they sound good for 5 seconds provided you don't think about them too much in which case you see that they are irrelevant. At best. Many are downright counterproductive). The only policy that will work is to build more houses and that means crushing NIMBY's ability to block developments or (my preferred route) buying them off by sharing the planning gain around somehow but realistically a bit of both.

It wouldn't be good for my house price or view if houses were built on the field next door but I couldn't campaign to stop it, indeed I genuinely believe I'd publicly support it given the huge problem we have in this country. I'd definitely vote for a party who was honest enough to propose sensible policy on this.

Dominic Grieve is my MP and it is a hugely safe Tory seat. He is one of the few politicians I actually admire - think he was very principled as Attorney General refusing to tell Cameron what he wanted to hear on Human Rights Act, etc but acting with dignity and as a team player after this got him "reshuffled" out. But I'd be voting Tory anyway this time - too much of the Milliband policy agenda is nonsense that sounds superficially attractive provided you are hard of thinking but has been proven not to work (energy price freeze, rent controls, stamp duty cuts to FTBers etc) - to advocate it you have to either only very feebly connected to the real world or dishonest. To be honest I think its more the former which is very worrying.

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

"The Tory Council want to build houses in my lovely village. Now we know 250 are coming, and another 300 or so, but the real figures touted around is about 900 or 35% increase to the village population/size - 40% of which is social housing. "

To my mind, the biggest problem in the UK is housing. It is way too expensive because we are not building enough. And the price of it leaves people carry stupid amounts of debt plus sucks capital away from more productive investments. It is an utter shambles. All the policies on offer at this election are a sick joke (i.e., they sound good for 5 seconds provided you don't think about them too much in which case you see that they are irrelevant. At best. Many are downright counterproductive). The only policy that will work is to build more houses and that means crushing NIMBY's ability to block developments or (my preferred route) buying them off by sharing the planning gain around somehow but realistically a bit of both.

It wouldn't be good for my house price or view if houses were built on the field next door but I couldn't campaign to stop it, indeed I genuinely believe I'd publicly support it given the huge problem we have in this country. I'd definitely vote for a party who was honest enough to propose sensible policy on this.

Dominic Grieve is my MP and it is a hugely safe Tory seat. He is one of the few politicians I actually admire - think he was very principled as Attorney General refusing to tell Cameron what he wanted to hear on Human Rights Act, etc but acting with dignity and as a team player after this got him "reshuffled" out. But I'd be voting Tory anyway this time - too much of the Milliband policy agenda is nonsense that sounds superficially attractive provided you are hard of thinking but has been proven not to work (energy price freeze, rent controls, stamp duty cuts to FTBers etc) - to advocate it you have to either only very feebly connected to the real world or dishonest. To be honest I think its more the former which is very worrying.

The term NIMBY is used to dismiss the view and values of those who choose to live differently to those in large urban spaces and in this case that holds true.

The most important part of my post, underlined for your benefit:

The Tory Council want to build houses in my lovely village. Now we know 250 are coming, and another 300 or so, but the real figures touted around is about 900 or 35% increase to the village population/size - 40% of which is social housing.

There has been no discussion, no consultation and no thought to infrastructure or public facilities to serve this increase in people.

You have managed to ignore the pressing issue, which has been underlined, as skillfully as Maidstone Council. I'm sure they call us NIMBY's too.

My point remains and to make it clear, I completely agree that more houses need to be built, my main concern is that with more property with more people living in geographic area you need public services to serve those people to ensure a quality of life and maintain public health and their safety. This is how Hamlets, become villages, become towns, become cities.

In my case our council are:

1. Building on a larger percentage of greenfield land, arable farmland than brownfield sites.

2. They have shown no intention to invest in road infrastructure, schools, public facilities or create more commercial zones for the increase in the population. Where I live already has the population of town with the services of a small village. 900 more properties is going to help matters. Where are these people going to work, how are they going to get to work, when they're sick how long will we have to wait for doctors appointments, is their enough police/emergency service to safely cover the increased area, where are their kids going to go to school, are there more buses to manage the increase number of school children what will this kids/teenagers do outside of school for activities and entertainment.

All valid question, all ignored avoided and remain unanswered by the Council.

3. In providing planning permission they have ignored the sewage and waste problem - so when it rained heavily and I used my washing machine and diswasher in my utility room, the waste pump backed up and the room flooded. This was basically down to drainage in the area, it's a problem for the neighboring villages either side of mine. The Water company acknowledges this to and finally (after massive pressure from parish councils and independent reports) have agreed to strategically assess the situation, because outright updated it would be too costly. Still the Council intends to build directly on the path of the drainage pipes causing a problem.

4. And the reason they are building with reckless abandon? There is a cash incentive to meet the Government house building quota. Our quality of life be damned.

Build more houses, fine. But build and encourage growth/development of the facilities to serve the people who will live in them or you are going to create another problem further down the line.

Am I still a NIMBY now or are my concerns genuine.

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

NIMBY

And here is an article of a Tory member who has stood as a candidate at borough and county level over a 10 times quitting the party.

Basically he agrees with me.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/n ... ets-15138/

elbowloh

Now the Tories are promising a tax lock over the next parliament, by bringing in legislation to prevent them from increasing income tax, vat or NI.

No this is truly ridiculous. a) it says you can't trust us to actually deliver our promises without legislation b) it says we might not deliver the rest of our promises as we aren't putting them into law and c) it completely hand-ties them in case there is another recession or crisis during the next 5 years.

jedster

"No this is truly ridiculous. a) it says you can't trust us to actually deliver our promises without legislation b) it says we might not deliver the rest of our promises as we aren't putting them into law and c) it completely hand-ties them in case there is another recession or crisis during the next 5 years."


Yep, entirely agree. Latest example of a policy that sounds good if you don't think about it for more than a couple of seconds. My guess is that no coalition partners would accept it and the Tories have no chance of a majority so Cameron knows it will never get implemented and even if it did you could leave a lot of wriggle room in terms of thresholds etc to allow you to raise revenue if you had too. Which of course would, in the end just increase people's disillusionment with politicians.

MisterMuncher

That, and the way the people who pass laws can just as readily repeal them. They'll look disingenuous, sure, but by that point they'll already be elected.

62nn old geezer

62 - 66