PDA

View Full Version : who are you going to vote for and why?



simon silverdollar
03-05-2005, 09:41 AM
i'm going to vote labour, because i want to see the tories crushed and also inequality in the uk was reduced last year for the first time in over 20 years, as a result of labour policies.

who are you going to vote for?

Rachel Verinder
03-05-2005, 11:05 AM
plantagenet

bassnation
03-05-2005, 12:02 PM
i'm going to vote labour, because i want to see the tories crushed and also inequality in the uk was reduced last year for the first time in over 20 years, as a result of labour policies.

child poverty has gone up since labour have been in power. also the gap between the very richest and the very poorest has widened. in what sense is this a socalist government that is concerned with equality?

simon silverdollar
03-05-2005, 12:22 PM
child poverty has gone up since labour have been in power. also the gap between the very richest and the very poorest has widened. in what sense is this a socalist government that is concerned with equality?

i don't really want to turn this thread into a defence of labour- i'm just interested in how others are voting, but this from the economist weblog might answer yr points:
--------------
POVERTY:

In absolute terms Britain's war against poverty has made great strides. Absolute child poverty, for example, has fallen a great deal. According to the DWP report:

There were 3.2 million children below 60 per cent of 1996/7 median income Before Housing Costs in 1996/7; by 2003/04 this had fallen by over half, to 1.4 million.

Likewise, the overall number of people living in absolute poverty has fallen by 40 per cent or 1.7 million since 1996/7. For pensioners, the IFS report that pensioner poverty "continues to fall dramatically" when measured after housing costs: "it fell by 10 per cent in the single year 2002/032003/04, and has fallen by over a quarter since 1998/99."

However, not all have benefited, and the improvements in relative poverty have been more modest lately. The latest child poverty figures were disappointing; they did not show the big drop that both DWP and the IFS were expecting.

The IFS' assessment for trends in poverty in 2003/04 is mixed:

Poverty for the population as a whole changed little between 2002/03 and 2003/04. This is because the declines in child and pensioner poverty were broadly offset by a rise in poverty among working-age childless people, which is now statistically significantly higher than it was in 1998/99.

INCOME AND INEQUALITY:

On incomes the good news is that inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficent, fell for the third consecutive year in 2003/04. In an era of globalisation and widening earnings dispersion this is no mean feat.

The bad news is that after several years of solid real income gains, household income growth stalled in 2003/04. Real median housheold income rose by just under 2 a week (a modest 0.5 per cent increase), while mean incomes fell by 0.2 per cent. According to the IFS this is in part due to rises in national insurance, income tax and council rates. However:

...even excluding them income growth was low compared to previous years. This is explained in part by a big drop in income from self-employment.

Meanwhile "the incomes of poorer households were boosted in 2003/04 by the introduction of the child tax credit and working tax credit, both more generous than the credits and benefits they replaced."


----------------
labour aren't a socialist government. but when the sun, the mail, and the telegraph are among the biggest selling newspapers in the uk, i don't think we'll get a socialist government. the best we can hope for is a labour government, consisting of people who became politicians because they care about reducing inequality.

Randy Watson
03-05-2005, 12:28 PM
Well, David Amess says he's going to put the great back into Great Britain. Whilst this is a bold election promise it is one that I have heard before and is not really one that addresses my concerns this time around. Still, all the old biddies round here will return him anyway and no-one is addressing my main concern - sending Blair off to the War Crimes court.

There's also a rather suspicious character running as an English Democrat - his manifesto involves withdrawing from europe but also ending the British Union! He also wants to see the re-introduction od "English customs", but remains unspecific on the last matter. Maypoles and morris dancing presumably. Anyone know anything about the English Democrats?

Marc should have stood - I'd have voted for him.

Rachel Verinder
03-05-2005, 12:34 PM
David Amess could do with putting some discipline into his own son before blethering on hypocritically about "greatness."

streatham is rock-solid labour insofar as if a freak tsunami wiped out everyone south of st leonard's church they would still get in with an unassailable majority. therefore i don't suppose my vote will in itself make a blind bit of difference; nonetheless i want to vote for the party of my choice, rather than tactically. hence: lib dem, as i did in oxford west & abingdon last time.

Rambler
03-05-2005, 01:16 PM
Lib Dem - because they're against ID cards and the recent terror bill and Labour's utter disregard for civil liberties.

Plus, it's a tight Labour/Lib Dem race where I am, so for the first time in my life my vote might help make a difference, which I'm very excited about.

bassnation
03-05-2005, 01:27 PM
i don't really want to turn this thread into a defence of labour- i'm just interested in how others are voting, but this from the economist weblog might answer yr points:


Thats absolute poverty and of course, its encouraging to see that drop. unfortunately it depends where you get your figures from, read this from the institute of fiscal studies:



"Children who live in the poorest UK households have less of a chance of escaping poverty than when Labour came to power, a report concludes.

The research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the total poverty gap - the total income by which families fall short of the poverty line - has increased under Labour.

This is despite the fact that the actual number of poor children has fallen.

Child poverty is one of Labour's key targets, and has been at the heart of the political agenda since 1999.

The report said some families had benefited from new means-tested benefits and incentives to return to work, which has led to a fall in the number of poor children and improved living standards of the "vast majority of children" since 1997. "


the other problems with labour as far as i'm concerned are:


Rhetoric on asylum and immigration (although the tories are MUCH worse)
creeping privatisation of health service, schools etc
pandering to religion, faith schools, new laws prohibiting criticism of religions (and faith welfare to come no doubt)
iraq


wandering off the topic a bit i suppose. in answer to your original question, probably lib dem or nothing, what with basildon being a safe tory seat!


Marc should have stood - I'd have voted for him.

lol, what we should do is start a party along the same lines as the one those guys from altern8 set up in the nineties. we could repeal the cjb, make huge free outdoor raves mandatory and make DRM illegal!

bassnation
03-05-2005, 01:32 PM
the best we can hope for is a labour government, consisting of people who became politicians because they care about reducing inequality.

oh yeah, i also meant to respond to this bit :)

IMHO i don't believe its good enough to put up with a crap government because thats the best we can hope for. i hope and want a lot more for this countries governance than that. its supine acceptance to put up with labours worst traits because the political system is fucked. if thats the case, we should put all our energies into changing the system so it works for the people, better than it does right now.

also voting for labour on their occasionally commendable social / domestic policies condones and rewards the death and destruction they have brought about. i don't compartmentalise the two things and they've invalidated any progress they've made at home with the suffering they've visited on people overseas.

craner
03-05-2005, 02:31 PM
I will gladly and proudly vote Labour because of, among other things, interventions and wars of liberation in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

bassnation
03-05-2005, 02:40 PM
I will gladly and proudly vote Labour because of, among other things, interventions and wars of liberation in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

so i guess you are hoping for rematches with burma, communist china, cuba, iran and saudi if successfully elected. we could start world war III and root out all those evil folk. sounds fantastic.

gabriel
03-05-2005, 03:32 PM
labour. was very anti the iraq war but for some reason don't factor that in to my voting decision. most of me thinks that any politician in blair's position would have gone to war (certainly the tories would have). also never been bothered by the lying thing; to me it was obvious from the start that the whole thing was made up. i have much more contempt for those in the media who believed and printed those lies without adequate examination/scepticisim, than those who perpetrated them.

bassnation
03-05-2005, 04:09 PM
labour. was very anti the iraq war but for some reason don't factor that in to my voting decision. most of me thinks that any politician in blair's position would have gone to war (certainly the tories would have). also never been bothered by the lying thing; to me it was obvious from the start that the whole thing was made up. i have much more contempt for those in the media who believed and printed those lies without adequate examination/scepticisim, than those who perpetrated them.

and even after knowing they were lying, you'll still vote for them?

we will never get a better government while we accept this standard of conduct from them.

the feeling i get from all of this is that everyone is so utterly pessismistic that no-one believes anything better could ever be acheived.

jenks
03-05-2005, 04:28 PM
last time round i got involved in some tactical voting via make votes count, with days to go still don't know if i can vote for the local lib dem, but as it's dave amess territory i feel i must at least attempt to wipe the grin off his face. we also have an asian doctor standing as an anti-immigration candidate and a ukip, all who will probably poll more than the labour camdidiate!

soi
03-05-2005, 04:45 PM
politicians don't really interest me much; they rarely put anything in their manifestos i feel fired up by (more coppers? muh)

and i got a surprise the other day when i looked at my (conservative) MP's voting record and found that I agreed with about 90% of his behaviour in parliament in terms of voting.

still going to try and get him out though! we have a winnable LD seat here so my vote's going to them. if the buggers get my proxy vote sorted, i am not optimistic about that.

bassnation
03-05-2005, 05:17 PM
last time round i got involved in some tactical voting via make votes count, with days to go still don't know if i can vote for the local lib dem, but as it's dave amess territory i feel i must at least attempt to wipe the grin off his face. we also have an asian doctor standing as an anti-immigration candidate and a ukip, all who will probably poll more than the labour camdidiate!

before the iraq war started, i wrote to amess to ask him to forward my views to the government. to his credit, he did what he said and he stated upfront that his position was in agreement with the government. i suppose at least he was honest.

i can't forget how amess was duped by chris morris into asking parlimentary questions on the made up drug, "cake". hes definitely not the sharpest tool in the box, is he?

Randy Watson
03-05-2005, 05:25 PM
[QUOTE=jenks]but as it's dave amess territory i feel i must at least attempt to wipe the grin off his face/QUOTE]

Jenks, just go along to a saturday surgery and ask him what he's going to do about drunken yobs smashing bottles over other people's heads in nightclubs. He usually fails to see the funny side of that one. Also, any references to whether he still has his "I love Basildon" t-shirt.

The labour candidate looked good but I just can't bring myself to imply support for Blair. I'm voting Lib Dem and comforting myself with the knowledge that next week will see an end to Michael Howard in public life.

simon silverdollar
03-05-2005, 05:27 PM
the feeling i get from all of this is that everyone is so utterly pessismistic that no-one believes anything better could ever be acheived.

i do believe that better can be achieved, but gradually. The main thing for me at the moment is to vote to keep the Tories out, so that Labour can continue to work to entrench some kind of 'progressive consensus', as limited as that may be at the moment. After that, i'll vote for whoever wants to make this progressive consensus more progressive and egalitarian, which may or may not be Labour.

gabriel
03-05-2005, 06:55 PM
and even after knowing they were lying, you'll still vote for them?

yep


we will never get a better government while we accept this standard of conduct from them.

no i guess not, but we won't get a better government by voting anything other than labour either right now


the feeling i get from all of this is that everyone is so utterly pessismistic that no-one believes anything better could ever be acheived.

am inclined to subscribe to simon silverdollar's theory on this; in some ways seems very naive but i don't really see what other option there is.

all of this is probably academic anyway as i live in a safe labour seat so my vote doesn't really count for much.

simon silverdollar
03-05-2005, 07:13 PM
am inclined to subscribe to simon silverdollar's theory on this; in some ways seems very naive but i don't really see what other option there is.

.

how is it naive?
a consensus can be, and has been, built on certain policies ( the minimum wage, the end of thatcherite/nozickian moral arguments against taxation to help the vulnerable-which is why tory arguments now focus on 'waste' in public services-, and overt racism against british ethnic minorities is now beyond the pale for mainstream parties, as is homophobia). why think that this consensus cannot be extended to become more progressive, however painfully slow this process might be?

gabriel
03-05-2005, 09:28 PM
how is it naive?
a consensus can be, and has been, built on certain policies ( the minimum wage, the end of thatcherite/nozickian moral arguments against taxation to help the vulnerable-which is why tory arguments now focus on 'waste' in public services-, and overt racism against british ethnic minorities is now beyond the pale for mainstream parties, as is homophobia). why think that this consensus cannot be extended to become more progressive, however painfully slow this process might be?

i don't think that it cannot be extended, just that it won't necessarily be. the naive bit would be trusting it to happen. i guess it does seem kind of inevitable though, however long it takes. which is good.

matt b
04-05-2005, 10:55 AM
I will gladly and proudly vote Labour because of, among other things, interventions and wars of liberation in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

you missed out an important word- 'illegal'

simon silverdollar
04-05-2005, 04:36 PM
i don't think that it cannot be extended, just that it won't necessarily be. the naive bit would be trusting it to happen. i guess it does seem kind of inevitable though, however long it takes. which is good.

i hope it is inevitable, but i guess it all depends on whether you see contemporary politics as moving generally leftwards or rightwards: and the recent pressures on scandinavian countries to move away from their social democratic consensus, as well as the proposed neo-liberal reforms of the EU, might be a scary indication of the latter trend.

but still, i think that, overall, things are going to get gradually better in the next ten years or so if labour gets in, if only because we've started from such a low-point: the ravages of thatcherism.

simon silverdollar
04-05-2005, 04:43 PM
little dog's day blog comes out fighting (http://littledogsday.blogspot.com)

craner
04-05-2005, 06:41 PM
Yes, Kosovo was illegal. What does that tell you about UN 'legality'?

don_quixote
05-05-2005, 07:54 AM
voted lib dem

theyre in a sort of winnable position (over a labour mp) here and whilst they have some pretty bizarre ideas if they got into government, i dont see that happening and they also oppose everything i dislike about a labour government.

would rather see a reduced labour majoirty going to lib dem hands than conservative hands

matt b
05-05-2005, 09:37 AM
Yes, Kosovo was illegal. What does that tell you about UN 'legality'?

not just kosovo ;)

it tells you, that like all legal systems it has its flaws. therefore we should work on removing those flaws, not ignore the only system of global governance that exists. otherwise we are in schoolground bully type scenarios.

mpc
05-05-2005, 06:07 PM
I'm gonna vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk.

He speaks to me on a personal level.

Rambler
09-05-2005, 10:34 AM
For those that want to tell the world and their MP who/why they voted:
http://www.ivotedforyoubecause.com/