UK Elections - Are You Voting Today?

[repiV]

Here's quick critique:

Limit appeals against local planning decisions [i.e. limiting communities' ability to object to planning permission given by corrupt councils]

Raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1m [even if you think it's a good idea this isn't the right time for it]

An annual limit for the number of non-European Union migrants allowed in to live and work in the UK. [the points system introduced a few years ago makes it almost impossible for non-skilled non-EU migrants to work here anyway. Why cap skilled immigration?]

Reduce the number of MPs by 10 per cent. [Money shouldn't be saved at the cost of democratic representation, if you want to lower the cost of parliament then reduce pay instead]

Raise taxes on those drinks linked to antisocial drinking, while abolishing Labour’s new cider tax on ordinary drinkers [contradictory, cider is big for binge drinking teens because it is cheap due to having a tax rate lower than other beverages which Labour finally decided to bring into line. Crass populism]

The Conservatives will keep the first past the post voting system for General Elections [keeping an undemocratic antiquated system unable to properly represent the modern voting public in order to maintain hegemony. Crass self-interest]

How's that for a start?

None of those are particularly important issues. Pretty poor if that's all you came up with for a 70-odd page document. Besides, their cider tax can **** off. Here in the South West we drink proper cider, not that White Lightning crap. Why should I pay yet another 10p a pint on an already ridiculously over-taxed drink?

All punitive taxes are wrong. Taxation should not be a tool for social engineering.

Yes, a fad which increased it's vote a whole 1% over 5 years ago. Riiiight.
Oh but 'youths' vote for them, they must be crap.

In actual fact most of the Lib Dem leadership were involved in writing the Orange Book and are economically centrist, free market liberals despite what you so blithely assume based on... support from dumbshit kids... How ironic.

Tax raises for the wealthy (who already pay an obscene amount of tax) and yet more "green" taxes on people who dare to drive cars or fly in planes, to pay for tax cuts for low earners? Yes...very centrist...

Pay per mile road pricing (you know, that thing that nearly two million people signed the petition against) is highly illiberal.

So you're advocating gerrymandering in order to try and ensure perpetual right-wing hegemony in little england based on the Tories reaching just under 40% of the vote there in the latest election. Your previous statements about how you care about democracy are looking less credible by the day.

I'm advocating representative government. Scottish independence has been on the cards for years now, if you look at the way they vote compared to England, it makes a lot of sense. We get stuck with Labour, more often than not purely because of the Scottish vote, and they get stuck with the Conservatives when they probably wouldn't even exist as a party in an independent Scotland. Also, an element of flippancy in my comment...perhaps you shouldn't take things so seriously.

Did you just make a fuss about democracy because you could paint the EU as undemocratic or have you just become more reactionary and more intellectually dishonest and hypocritical as time has passed? I'm no longer sure whether it's even worth engaging you in debate.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Sulkdodds]

yet more "green" taxes on people who dare to drive cars or fly in planes

I'm interested in why there are quotation marks around 'green'. Is it because you think that the environment is an important issue, but that these taxes won't do any good? ie, they are just greenwashing, and stronger action is needed? Or is it because you don't think there's any problem with the environment and so 'greenness' is a non issue? Or are you just unproblematically quoting them?

 

[repiV]

I'm interested in why there are quotation marks around 'green'. Is it because you think that the environment is an important issue, but that these taxes won't do any good? ie, they are just greenwashing, and stronger action is needed? Or is it because you don't think there's any problem with the environment and so 'greenness' is a non issue? Or are you just unproblematically quoting them?

It's because "green" is just a convenient excuse to tax and control the population. Environmentalism as it exists today is about ideology, not science.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Okay, but which option is that, actually? Is environmentalism (let's just pretend that a main party's manifesto represents 'environmentalism' for a moment) ignoring what actually needs to be done for 'the environment' (ie the future of humans)? Or does nothing need to be done? Or is there nothing to be done?

 

[Dynasty]

Yeah environmentalism IS an ideology, but its an ideology based on science. Call it discovery, call it fact, call it ideology, its still completely generated from science.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Presumably you mean that it's completely congruent with science - ie, the findings of sciendists tend to endorse its project - rather than being completely based on science. Because obviously it's also based on Romantic ideas, themselves linked to agrarian radicalism stretching back through the 18th century to the 1380s peasant revolt, and blah blah blah blah culture

You might call me a pedant but saying that environmentalism as a movement simply came from science opens you up to the obvious criticism of "ner but it takes influence from x non-scientific movement"

 

[hot564231]

Cameron is getting sworn in...

 

[repiV]

Okay, but which option is that, actually? Is environmentalism (let's just pretend that a main party's manifesto represents 'environmentalism' for a moment) ignoring what actually needs to be done for 'the environment' (ie the future of humans)? Or does nothing need to be done? Or is there nothing to be done?

I don't know whether climate change is a real issue or not. I suspect it's a complete crock of shit, and that, even if that wasn't the case, it probably wouldn't matter that much anyway - there are plenty of periods in history when the global climate has suddenly changed quite drastically. We're still here. In any case, the scientific part of it is too obscured by politics, scandals, propaganda and vested interests to be taken seriously.

However, that's not really the point. The point is that the environmentalism movement is just anti-capitalism with a pretty green bow on it. What better way to redistribute the wealth than to hammer the wealthy who just happen to use the majority of the planet's resources and call it saving the world?

Even if we are heading for the next armageddon, the measures that are enacted in the name of green will do sweet **** all to prevent it. All they will accomplish is to penalise and control, and to trash our economy. It's just good old envy and class war. Watermelons...green on the outside, red on the inside...

Extremist fanatics with a hidden agenda have ruined any credibility that "climate change" may have ever had with me or a great many others. In fact, it makes me want to ride the fastest, most unnecessary and most un-PC bike I can get my hands on as irresponsibly and inefficiently as possible just to spite the mean-spirited wolves dressed in sheeps clothing.

 

[ríomhaire]

Just on the point of climate change/global warming/the enhanced greenhouse effect/everyone dying. My astrophysics lecturer showed me a graph similar to this (this one I pulled off google) and quoted three different sources for the data.

The blue lines are data taken from ice core samples that show atmospheric CO2 levels in the past, including during ice ages. The other coloured ones are recent measurements made by different institutes of the current ones. I don't know whether that much is enough to kill us all, but by god it's certainly an increase on the greenhouse effect a little at least. Notice the difference between the warm times and the ice ages and we're that much again on top.

I am not making any kind of political statement about green taxes or that. I'm just presenting a graph.

 

[Bob_Marley]

You see this is the problem - the way to get to people like Viper on this sort of issue is not to go about it with the whole green thing. Securitize it - instead of promoting hybrids because they're going to save the planet, promote them on the idea that by having one you're reducing the state's dependence on forgien oil supplies. Remind them that the oil they need is out in horrible, unstable countries that could cut supplies at any time. By adopting alternative methods of energy production we're reducing Britians dependence on the rest of the world. What could be worse than surrendering powers to Europe? Well, just make it seem like the UK is being held ransom by OPEC (which, of course, it is. Much like everybody else).

Achieves the same end, just people are more likley to be willing to bare it. Then its more like a gobstopper - blue on the outside, green behind that and then finally red .

Anyway, the current noises coming out of the deal seem fairly balanced. Nuclear deterrent, but costs to be heavily scruitinized (though that probably means it's going to be delievered 12 years late and £30 billion over budget, but whatever. As everyone knows, when it comes to government it takes longer to do things quickly and is much more expensive to do them cheaply.), serious attempts to cut the deficit, referendum on AV being adopted and fixed terms for parliament - which will hopefully stop them being such sneaky gits about calling elections. I do think that 5 years is too long, however, I would prefer 4.

 

[Solaris]

A fixed term is pointless becuase if the prime minister can't get the support of the house he has to call an election anyway.

 

[Dynasty]

The point is that the environmentalism movement is just anti-capitalism with a pretty green bow on it. What better way to redistribute the wealth than to hammer the wealthy who just happen to use the majority of the planet's resources and call it saving the world?

So environmentalism is some kind of political, modern-day Robin Hood?

I still fail to understand how anyone cannot believe that we are having an affect on the naturally occuring change in climate. It just infuriates and astounds me every time I think about it.

Wow, we're drifting again arent we. Gotta love HL2.net.

5 years may be too long, but it may also not be enough. People are now going to be looking for an instant turnaround in the next few months, as, well, people are stupid. Its going to take a good 2 or 3 terms in office for any PM to turn this country completely around financially.

It just begs that age-old statement; STOP BORROWING MONEY, YOU'RE NO ***KING GOOD AT IT!

 

[Solaris]

Yeah, I believe in global warming and all that but it's being taken to the absurd extreme and infuriates me.

The Guardian does a weekly Green section that answers peoples Green questions.

They're often something absurd like 'What is the greenest way to send a greetings card?' or 'Is it Green to use a remote control?'. Absolutely ****ing absurd stuff that has no impact on anything.

There's also a 'green dry cleaning' service near me. Again, who gives a ****. It's just a way to make an extra buck with this green propaganda.

Give me a clear well thought out plan to decrease our carbon whatever, and I'm all for it. Start talking about green alternatives to tampons however, and you're venturing into absurdity.

 

[Dynasty]

Actually, stuff like sending a card in the greenest way IS the way to make a difference.

Think how much paper, cardboard and plastic we waste. Thats all just fueling the demand for oils and timber (well, timber pulp anyway).

Take Easter eggs for example. Could be the single biggest waste of cardboard and plastic ever, just to wrap a chocolate egg up in pretty foil and slap advertising on the front. Whats the ***king point? Any smart kid would realise that rabbits dont ***king lay eggs!

And from what Ive seen, its cheaper IN THE LONG RUN to go greener. Solar is expensive yes, but you make up the savings in a few months/years. Its arguably a quick buck yes I agree, but you have to look to the future.

Spend money to save money. I live by that rule. Why pay your car insurance monthly if you can pay the yearly amount now and save £30 - 40 overall? Sure, its only £30, but thats a night out or a shop at Tescos if you're single.

Packaging NEEDS to be reduced. We dont need all this protection. I mean, I bought a memory card for my dad's new camera for his birthday. The box was about 20cm x 15cm x 5cm, for a card inside no bigger than 3cm x 2cm x 0.5mm. And it was in one of those hard-cased plastic tera..whatever packages that has NO WAY of getting into it without smashing it or fighting it with scissors, simply because some genius thought it would be a great idea to seal it shut. That kind of plastic package that has such strong plastic that when you DO cut it open, the edges go sharp, jagged and pointy and you end up stabbing yourself trying to pry the thing open, risking damaging the thing you just ***king bought. Moronic idea.

People think its the big changes that need to occur to make a difference. Errr, yes and no. More can be done by everyone doing something small. Drive less, change your lightbulbs, recycle. It all adds up.

And YOU should give a ***k, as its happening right now. If youre still in your 20s, something is going to happen before you die. And then your kids and grandkids are the ones who are also ***ked because of your incompetence and arogance.

Wow, I love humanity.

 

[Eejit]

A fixed term is pointless becuase if the prime minister can't get the support of the house he has to call an election anyway.

It means he can't call snap-elections whenever he wants.

 

[repiV]

So environmentalism is some kind of political, modern-day Robin Hood?

It would certainly seem that way.

I still fail to understand how anyone cannot believe that we are having an affect on the naturally occuring change in climate. It just infuriates and astounds me every time I think about it.

That we can affect the climate on a local level is without question - cities being 3-4 degrees warmer than rural areas for example. MMGW is a different matter. I don't know whether it's a load of shit or not, and neither do you - we aren't even remotely qualified to make that judgment.

What I do know is that belief in global warming...sorry, climate change (that way we can blame cold weather on people who drive SUVs too)...is driven largely by propaganda and the media, not by science or fact.

What I also know is that there are far too many question marks over not only our understanding of climatology but moreso the motives behind the supposed "facts" and the obvious agendas those "facts" have been used to advance for me to take it seriously. From where I'm standing, it's little more than a new religion for a godless world.

You could have the best product in the world, nobody's going to give a toss if it's sold to them badly. Similarly, I'm way past the point of caring about global warming...I mean climate change.

5 years may be too long, but it may also not be enough. People are now going to be looking for an instant turnaround in the next few months, as, well, people are stupid. Its going to take a good 2 or 3 terms in office for any PM to turn this country completely around financially.

Yeah, and it will be a totally wasted effort because then Labour will get in again and repeat the cycle. Maybe they have a psychopathic addiction to spending other people's money?

By the way, did you know that taxation has doubled since 1997?

 

[Raziaar]

So is this new guy a better thing for Britain and the world, or worse?

Help out this ignorant American!

 

[Eejit]

Shouldn't do too bad, the fact that it's a coalition between centre-right and centre-left should neutralise the extremists in both parties somewhat.

 

[Dynasty]

I dont actually know the full details, but Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrats who got the 3rd highest number of votes) has apparently made a deal with, Im assuming, the Conservatives to give the Lib Dems 5 seats in the House of Commons.

I dont know the entire situation yet, havent really been looking into it that much lately as, well, its not something I can have an affect on now so why worry.

Im torn as to wether a hung parliament is a good thing or not. I can see their being a hell of alot of disagreements and debates, but I guess thats arguably a good thing when it comes to decisions; hearing all sides of the story before becoming dedicated.

 

[Shift]

Yeah I think this new coalition could bring the creation of a new party maybe, even though 'Liberal Conservative' is a bit of an oxymoron. As Eejit said having two sides of the political spectrum come together would lead to more compromise in policies and could potentially get rid of extremism in the ideologies of both. I think some of the ideas from the liberals combined with the mass experience of the conversatives could potentially be the solution we are looking for, its all down to if the parties, and more so, Cameron and Clegg, will remain chummy and are willing to discuss the problems and work out solutions that's for the best of the country, and not their own political agenda.

 

[Laivasse]

I was quite surprised to see all the negativity about the coalition on last night's Question Time. Rather than accepting the reality of the situation - which is that no party won a majority and so concessions had to be made - the British electorate, or the part of it represented by the QT audience, seems more inclined to chuck its toys out of the pram and complain that their favourite Political Idol is having to cross out some parts of their manifesto.

It seems to be the case on all sides, furthermore. Whether it's LibDems who would prefer principled irrelevance to sacrifice, Daily Mail dinosaurs who are pissed off that workhouses aren't being brought back, or indeed working class Labour heroes with a 13 year hole in their memories, people would rather have dictatorship with their favourite logo on it rather than a democracy.

 

[Solaris]

I dont actually know the full details, but Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrats who got the 3rd highest number of votes) has apparently made a deal with, Im assuming, the Conservatives to give the Lib Dems 5 seats in the House of Commons.

You're not very well informed are you?

 

[Dr.Demento]

Neither. I say overthrow the parliament and vote for the royal family instead.

 

[kazsymonds]

So is this new guy a better thing for Britain and the world, or worse?

Help out this ignorant American!

 

[Eejit]

Jack Johnson looks nothing like that.

 

[repiV]

I was quite surprised to see all the negativity about the coalition on last night's Question Time. Rather than accepting the reality of the situation - which is that no party won a majority and so concessions had to be made - the British electorate, or the part of it represented by the QT audience, seems more inclined to chuck its toys out of the pram and complain that their favourite Political Idol is having to cross out some parts of their manifesto.

It seems to be the case on all sides, furthermore. Whether it's LibDems who would prefer principled irrelevance to sacrifice, Daily Mail dinosaurs who are pissed off that workhouses aren't being brought back, or indeed working class Labour heroes with a 13 year hole in their memories, people would rather have dictatorship with their favourite logo on it rather than a democracy.

I think it's great. If for no other reason than it should a) dispel the popular myth of idiots everywhere that the Conservatives are the "party of the rich" and "against the working man" and b) give the Lib Dems a chance to prove themselves and hopefully replace Labour as the left-leaning party as choice.

I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about them getting elected in future because they're nowhere near as sinister or authoritarian as the alternative. Nothing would benefit this country more in the long-term than Labour being resigned to the history books.

Having said that, I don't find the arrangement particularly democratic. How is it that the third most popular party has been able to hold the two most popular to ransom, and the second most popular party now has no power in government yet the third wields a lot? We've basically been at the mercy of the deals the politicians have done. It could conceivably have been the case that the party with by far the most votes could have had no place in government at all. That would have just been ridiculous.

Either way, roll on five years of proper government.

 

[Eejit]

Having said that, I don't find the arrangement particularly democratic. How is it that the third most popular party has been able to hold the two most popular to ransom, and the second most popular party now has no power in government yet the third wields a lot?

Because the first and second most popular parties are completely incapable of working together..?

Also surely a coalition is more democratic than if the Tories had managed to gain a small majority with their current vote percentage. Policies from manifestos collectively voted for by well over 50% of the population can now be enacted rather than only policies from a party which gained 30-40% which is usually the case.

 

[repiV]

Because the first and second most popular parties are completely incapable of working together..?

My point is that the current arrangement has little to do with the votes cast, and more to do with political horse-trading. It could have worked out in a multitude of ways.

Also surely a coalition is more democratic than if the Tories had managed to gain a small majority with their current vote percentage. Policies from manifestos collectively voted for by well over 50% of the population can now be enacted rather than only policies from a party which gained 30-40% which is usually the case.

Four pints and half a bottle of wine is preventing me from being able to answer this part coherently.