The Election - Decisions Decisions ...

[tegk68]

I am finding this election the most tricky of all my voting years.

 

Animal welfare, the countryside and rural economy are some of my bigger issues. As is our soldiers. I still need to get my head round each parties policies on such matters and also whether I feel I can *trust* them!

 

It's when I read opinons, in this case on Animal Welfare, such as this below that I nervously sigh!:

 

In summary, the three main parties are all taking a completely different approach to the issue of animal welfare in the lead up to the election. While Labour may be the only one to have a dedicated policy page on their website, their tendency is to focus largely on past achievements and not make fresh pledges. Although these achievements are impressive, it remains to be seen whether track record will be enough. The Liberal Democrats turned out to have some winning policies but they weren't readily available. However, it is the Conservatives who are the biggest enigma – on the one hand they have promised to vote on overturning the hunting ban, while on the other hand they have some of the most robust policies on biodiversity, compassionate farming and illegal trades in animal parts.

 

Full article here:http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/briefing/animal-welfare/what-does-the-general-election-mean-for--animal-welfare--$1363593.htm

[tegk68]

Can anyone tell me where all parties stand on banning battery hen cages. I think Conservatives and lib Dems (?) strongly support a ban. Labour did a u-turn on this in Jan, but may well have changed back since? As an aside, to me this is more important than fox hunting (so sorry foxes :-( ), I believe if the conservatives are voted back in there will allow a public vote on fox hunting (?), I think that's what I read anyway, which means all those against get a chance to vote a big 'no' to repealing the ban.

[Laura_E]

From a purely selfish perspective I will be voting labour. Not because I have any faith in them as a party, but because I want to keep my job. If the conservatives get voted in (and I believe they will) my job, and a number of other social care professions, will be in serious jeaopardy.

 

It's a difficult one really as I hate what labour has done to this country, but the alternatives aren't much better. I would vote for Lib Dem, but I don't think they will get enough votes to make a difference. I know that's the wrong attitude to take, but I want my vote to count.

[Ian]

Helly may be alarmed to learn that we do have (at least two) things in common after all

 

I didn't vote in the penultimate election but have otherwise voted Tory. I'm not happy on David Camerons views on hunting among other things and think he's lacked the courage to outline his policies since he took the Leadership. I think that stemmed from the fact that whether you loved or hated where she was leading us nobody could ever doubt that Margaret Thatcher was a great leader - unlike her various successors prior to, and possibly including, Cameron so I'm still an undecided at the moment.

 

I might have seriously considered voting for Tony Blair this time had he still be in office (though why any true Socialist ever did is beyond me) I don't warm to Gordon Brown really, though I find it ironic that for so long he was considered a great Chancellor & yet the economy is what's probably going to cost them the election

 

Traditionally I've always thought anything else a wasted vote as it's always been a two horse race. This time however I find myself undecided. This local "experts" analysis was on our local papers site today & there in the comments was a link posted which I found interesting. According to that Labour & Conservative where as bad as each other for me, and Lib. Dem. is my nearest match, closely followed by UKIP

 

The idea of us ending up with a coalition Government worries me however. I think it would be a disaster, as if we are not in a big enough mess & facing tougher times already - regardless of which one party is left to get us out of it again. The only thinhg worse would be if the BNP got any foothold.

 

Wondering who operated the site whether it was biased etc I tried again with a set of completely different answers & Labour became "my vote" so it's not a party based thing, though it doesn't include any animal welfare options / questions I'm afraid.

 

http://www.votematch.org.uk/

 

 

http://www.thisishul...il/article.html

Edited April 14, 2010 by Ian

[Ian]

Not cynical - realistic.

Whatever Labour promises the question must always be asked -"Well why didn't you do it before then? You've had 13 years."

 

I agree. It amazes me that you still hear people blaming Margaret Thatcher for this & that - she's been out of office 20 years & there has been plenty of time & opportunity for change.

 

Cameron said something about Government & the last 40 years yesterday - whether he was either not noticing that he was criticising his own party or deviously attempting to imply some distance between his Tory Government & The Thatcher & subsequent Governments I'm not sure. Personally I think he's got a lot to learn and prove before he's in any position to criticise either Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair though. Love them or hate them both managed to take their party from also ran to 3 straight election wins. What has he done by comparison?

[murtle]

That is an interesting system Ian and given me food for thought as to what is actualy important to me and what isn't.

 

though this question disturbs me:

 

"People convicted of crimes who were not born in this country should be deported."

 

It reminds me of the case in Scotland, I think, of the young lad who vandalised things and they wanted to send him back *home* to a country he had never known.

 

 

I think that's a dreadful thing and I would hate to be returned *home* to a place my parents moved me from at the age of 2

[merledogs]

whether you loved or hated where she was leading us nobody could ever doubt that Margaret Thatcher was a great leader

That's a sweeping statement and one with which I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a big difference between being a leader and being someone in a position of power.

 

I agree. It amazes me that you still hear people blaming Margaret Thatcher for this & that - she's been out of office 20 years & there has been plenty of time & opportunity for change.

And we are still suffering for some of her policies - this pretty much sums it up for me : Thatcher's legacy.

 

I don't wish to get into a debate about it as I don't want to waste my energy on that vile woman, just wanted to express my POV.

[elricc]

That's a sweeping statement and one with which I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a big difference between being a leader and being someone in a position of power.

 

 

And we are still suffering for some of her policies - this pretty much sums it up for me : Thatcher's legacy.

 

I don't wish to get into a debate about it as I don't want to waste my energy on that vile woman, just wanted to express my POV.

 

I totally agree Alex, she set in a blight which rotted communities, when money became more important than everything else.

 

I usually would vote Labour in national elections and green in the local. But I am getting to the point where I am so appaled at state intervention in so many facets of life, and how many people don't stand on their own to feet any more that I don't think I will vote. Could never vote Tory.

David Cameron is so smary and has little idea of ordinary peoples lives.

[Ruthi (borrowadog)]

I studied politics at University, and it led me to the unfortunate conclusion that people who stand for election are by definition unfit to govern. Later I realised that people often go into politics because they want to make a difference, but its almost impossible to remain totally principled. The time will come when they do something less than obviously straight because of what they think is the greater good. They are probably no less fit than those who would gain power by any other means.

 

To be honest, I think its a very dangerous thing to decide who to vote for because they happen to agree with me about a small number of specific topics. Even though I feel passionately about the DDA, and I am a small business struggling with the huge burden of red tape and taxation I don't think its wise to vote for a party just because they happen to agree with my views on these matters. I wouldn't be happy in a country that did exactly what I wanted on those topics, and then threw every last black skinned person out of the country, for example.

 

When you are deciding which party to vote for, its quite helpful to stand back and look at what the party stands for in a big picture way, rather than getting tied up in the minutae of their policies. No party is ever going to have exactly the policies that I would like, so I look at the direction they are going in.

 

Here's my personal summary of the underlying beliefs of the major, and not so major parties.

 

Tory - the way to the greatest good for the greatest number of people is through capitalism. Its a good thing to have wealthy people at the top of the heap because their wealth will filter down to the majority. It doesn't matter if there are losers in this system, someone has to be at the bottom of the heap, we'll just give them basic (very basic because we don't want too much taxation to discourage the people who create wealth, ie middle and upper earners) care and support. Regulation is generally a bad thing because it is expensive and hinders the creation of wealth. Oh, and war is the right way to sort out our disagreements with others nations if diplomacy fails.

 

Liberal - the aim is to create a society where everyone can achieve their potential. The route to this is to provide good education, welfare and health services, and if its necessary to tax people to pay for that, that's fine. Winners in a liberal economy have a moral duty to give up some of their wealth to help the less lucky, but there is an expectation that everyone will do their best to contribute in society. Regulation is essential to ensure fairness, but not so much as to stifle creativity. War is a Bad Thing and hardly ever justified.

 

Labour - traditionally the old labour/left wing paradigm was that money is the root of all evil, and if someone has it they are by definition wicked. Employers left to their own devices would return to the Victorian factory system. The workers deserve an equal share of all wealth. Anyone who is not working also deserves an equal share of the wealth because they surely didn't choose their situation. No-one should have to face the risk of losing their livelihood, or any risk for that matter. Regulation is good because people in power, and especially employers, are fundamentally untrustworthy. The labour problem is that so very few people are now working class, with almost the entire population being defined as, or thinking of themselves as middle class, owning their own homes, and reluctant to pay taxes. War is a Bad Thing, but unfortunately its still necessary.

 

Greens - if we destroy our environment all other discussions will be pointless

 

UKIP - we are a proud island nation, and its not in our interests to be part of the EU who don't understand our values or have our interests at heart.

 

BNP - we are a proud white island nation and immigration is bad. Immigrants are therefore bad.

 

You could write your own summary of what you think parties stand for, of course, and I am sure they would read different to mine! I just tried to summarise what I see, and couch it in terms that weren't too value laden!

 

As it happens, I don't think that a coalition would necessarily be a bad thing at all. Coalitions in general (and there are lots of examples worldwide) do seem to manage to act when things are really serious, but on normal stuff, a period of careful reflection before bringing in yet another raft of poorly thought out legislation can only be good. You only have to look at the DDA - a piece of hastily drafted legislation, poorly thought out, that doesn't really solve the problem for which it was designed. I doubt if a coalition would have brought it in - certainly not in that form!

[cycas]

I totally agree Alex, she set in a blight which rotted communities, when money became more important than everything else.

 

 

It's a valid point, but the 'twenty years ago' point is also a good one. I found Thatcher's lack of compassion appalling, and certainly many of her actions have visible consequences today: on the other hand, I'm not sure why if the deregulation of the banks was so obviously appalling, it was continued and developed for so long.

 

I think if Gordon had been a more competent Chancellor and more concerned with long-term plans than immediate buying of popularity in the 'good years', then some of the economic problems could have been anticipated or at least treated earlier.

 

 

The credit crunch is an international phenomenon, not a local one, it's not something one can really blame any one British PM for, but I find it difficult to excuse the current administration for some of it's more wacky decisions.

 

In particular, the tax changes to pensions that Gordon brought in that has more or less put pensions beyond the reach of most people not working in the public sector. That is not something we can really blame horrible Maggie for, that was Gordon's daft plan. It was pretty obvious to most people working in the financial sector what impact that would have, and it has done pretty much what everyone thought it would, so why was it done at all?

 

Or, what about the NHS database system? I was training people on the very early stages of that back in the 90's and pretty much everyone agreed it would be hugely overbudget, badly implemented and more problematic than anyone thought. If it was obvious to all of us, why wasn't it obvious to the Govt?

 

Identity cards? The costs are already mindblowing, yet somehow we're careering onward in that direction, why...?

 

I've got to the point where I don't care if they understand how ordinary people live, if they can add up and understand roughly how an economy works, I'm prepared to at least consider them, even if they do share a name with the Conservatives of the 80's.

Edited April 15, 2010 by cycas

[Ian]

That's a sweeping statement and one with which I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a big difference between being a leader and being someone in a position of power.

 

 

And we are still suffering for some of her policies - this pretty much sums it up for me : Thatcher's legacy.

 

I don't wish to get into a debate about it as I don't want to waste my energy on that vile woman, just wanted to express my POV.

 

 

There aren't too many still talked about so frequently so far down the road. You may feel she led us to disaster, I may disagree, and we are both quite entitled to an opinion but either way she most certainly was leading us somewhere, not just sat in a position of power (unlike her successors up until Tony Blair) otherwise those around her would have had a greater voice / "legacy" to carry.

 

 

As the Mirror article itself says we had massive problems pre the Thatcher Government - rubbish piling up in the streets, the three day week, electricity cuts, the army providing the fire service with aging Green Goddesses etc.

 

To suggest that it's Margaret Thatcher's fault (or indeed any other Prime Minister) that people quickly sold off their shares for profit, tend to these days prefer clean, convenient gas & electricity to coal or that any Government 20 years ago is responsible for todays failings is just nonsense. Tory high interest rates were long passed and it was after all Gordon Brown who handed control of the banking system to the Bank of England, enjoyed a long period as being hailed a brilliant Chancellor, No mention of the past problems they had to deal with then , and has had plenty of time to correct any "wrongs" before the banking crisis we have today hit us.

 

 

Here is a BBC take on the 70's http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm

 

 

Also a Guardian piece, which, personally, I would say was fairer than the Mirrors article, whichever side of the fence you sit on. Whatever else New Labour may be it most certainly isn't offering true socialism anymore in my opinion.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/06/margaret-thatcher-election-new-labour

[merledogs]

And thank feck for that, because I'm not a socialist

[snow]

I shall keep my comments as unemotive as possible, which is exceedingly hard for me to do since I lived through the 70's and Maggies appalling attacks on her own people and have had to live with the consequences of what she and her government caused for the past 20 years. It is FAR from being "history" for me and my family, and this is one subject that truly is red rag to a bull and red mist time whenever it comes up. Lets not forget why there were 3 days weeks shall we? or why the miners went on strike, I was THERE; I LIVED it, I gave a days pay every week to the miners, I volunteered at the soup kitchens, I went on strike, I had loved ones and family members on BOTH sides including my uncle who was SPG and on the police lines (bastard) and colleagues whose husbands & sons were on strike. Whole communities were wiped out! Perhaps for those who have no conception of what Welsh mining communities were like this can be discussed as an interesting debate topic - for those of us whose culture and history were destroyed it's far far far from being something we can ever forget or ever just view as something abstract.

 

Moreover for 20 years my husband and I have lived DAILY with the results of what happened under Maggie - paying a "mortgage" for a house we hadn't owned for 20 years and totally unable to be able to afford or qualify for a mortgage to become home owners again... *deep breath* OK sorry but nope red mist is descending and I am going to break my word and maybe even the forum rules if I continue to post in this thread, so thats me walking away before I really post exactly how I feel about that bitch and what she did.

[phoebejo]

 

http://www.votematch.org.uk/

 

Brilliant link, thanks for that. My results didn't surprise me and backed up what I knew all along.

 

Where I live the Tories have been in charge since World War 2 and I'm sure it isn't going to change now.

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

Aisling and I have been talking a lot about how you choose your vote and I just wanted to say Ruthi I found your entire post very helpful