Are you going to vote tactically?

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 16 Apr 2010, 06:49

Lyniezian, the very wish to become a politician should automatically alert you to a person's motives.

However, if you have found someone you can genuinely trust, I wish you both well on the 6th May.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 16 Apr 2010, 08:37

Of course there are at least a few genuine politicians - I know at least one too. But it does seem that the old saying that power corrupts, has a very strong ring of truth.......

There are lots of decent people in general society too and in the church. I suppose we can fall into the trap that as we get more worldly wise, we also get more cynical, I (we) need to guard against this.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Apr 2010, 14:27

There was a mini-poll on my local news web site -

"Who do you think will win the Cambridge City constituency?"

I voted lib dem, because they are the odds on favourite. (ie. I was answering the question).

Imagine my amusement when the result of votes so far came out with them being pipped at the post by the green party...

The poll has been replaced.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 16 Apr 2010, 21:35

I'm going to vote tactically - conservative (rather than libdem) to help make sure labour don't get back in.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 17 Apr 2010, 05:44

cubes wrote:I'm going to vote tactically - conservative (rather than libdem) to help make sure labour don't get back in.

Another poor soul who is probably too young to remember the Thatcher years. Be careful what you wish for.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Apr 2010, 07:52

Let's all agree to vote Liberal, no matter what our politics. It will be fun to see what happens.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 17 Apr 2010, 11:55

Aurora wrote:
cubes wrote:I'm going to vote tactically - conservative (rather than libdem) to help make sure labour don't get back in.
Another poor soul who is probably too young to remember the Thatcher years. Be careful what you wish for.

I did pretty much all my schooling during the Thatcher years :p It didn't seem too bad from where I was and we weren't well off by any stretch of the imagination.

People complain, but we've had far worse pm's than her, and the country was better at the end of her tenure than at the beginning. Not something we can say about the current labour government, or the one before in fact.

Also 3 terms in office for 1 party is more than enough, a 4th labour term? they were all out of idea after the 2nd (like the previous conservative government).

Cameron <> Thatcher, remember that when you try and tar people with the same brush. It sounds like you're stuck in your ways and can only think of the past not the future.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 17 Apr 2010, 12:24

Context is everything. Thatcher was then, Cameron is now, and whilst the Tory party may have still roughly (or should that be smoothly?

) the same makeup, Cameron is a vacuous puff of PR.

The possibilities for voting tactically are defined by the constituency. I guess from your choice cubes that you are in a Labour-Conservative constituency? Maybe even a marginal. Whether that is the case or not, there will be a lot of would-be Lib Dem voters who make your sort of choice in a straight Labour-Conservative fight. However, if everyone had the courage to vote for the party/candidate they really wanted, unexpected outcomes could happen...

The sooner we can scrap this crazy system of voting to keep out the party one doesn't want and replace it with a system where every vote counts towards the party one does want, the better.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 17 Apr 2010, 13:01

Yeah, lab-con here (Norwich North).

I really would like to see the lib-dems form the next government - but I know it would require a huge swing from where we are now for that to even be a possibility.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 17 Apr 2010, 15:06

cubes wrote: I did pretty much all my schooling during the Thatcher years :p It didn't seem too bad from where I was and we weren't well off by any stretch of the imagination.

A politally aware schoolboy? I think not.

People complain, but we've had far worse pm's than her, and the country was better at the end of her tenure than at the beginning.

A few hard facts about Thatcher's 'reign of terror' my naive young friend:

For those of us in our fifties, it's sometimes hard to remember that anyone younger than that almost certainly has no memories of Margaret Thatcher, the vicious and corrosive effect she had on British society and the special and undying loathing for her which is still nurtured by those of us who were there.

Some commentators say that she was a necessary evil to curb the runaway power of unions in the 1970s.

Unions needed modernising and moderating, not crushing into dust. The result of Thatcher's prolonged assault on them was to leave the workforce less empowered and more exploited than at any time since the end of the 19th Century.

Thatcher did more than any other human in history to destroy the idea that people should take care of each other as well as looking out for Number One. She was by a country mile the most socially divisive Prime Minister this country ever had. The miner's strike and poll tax alone tore the population into two bitterly-opposed halves and caused more violent unrest on the streets than at any other time in British history.

She led, and created the environment that caused, the most corrupt, sleaze-ridden government the UK has ever seen. Anyone still remember Westland?

She was at the forefront of the privatisation policy that has left our railways - once the envy of the world - a laughing stock, and caused countless other disasters which we're still paying to try to clean up.

She caused the death of hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Argentinian conscripts by deliberately allowing the conflict over the Falklands to escalate into a war, for her own political benefit.

Her policies caused the highest unemployment in this country's history, throwing 3 million out of work and into poverty and misery - at a rate which exceeded even the general recession - and brought about the fastest acceleration in the gap between rich and poor recorded under any UK government. (These two facts are related both as cause AND effect.)

She almost single-handedly destroyed Britain as an industrial manufacturing economy, replacing those jobs with low-paid, no-security service industry work.

She poisoned national relations with the rest of Europe.

She presided over and/or directly created, some of the most disastrous boom-bust economics of modern history. Some of us still remember when mortgage interest rates rocketed to 16% under the party that was supposed to represent the safe financial hand.

With regard to her ambition to curb inflation, she presided over a doubling of inflation between 1979 and 1980, from around 10 to over 20 per cent, and a return to 'double-digit' inflation by the end of the 1980's.

She effectively destroyed BOTH of Britain's main political parties, and with them democracy as a tool of choice. Labour had to turn into 'Tory Lite' in order to get elected, destroying the socialist side of the divide (to be fair, Blair holds considerable responsibility here too, as the party of Kinnock and Smith looked likely to finally get elected while still holding onto most of its socialist principles).

The Tories, their ground stolen, were left with nowhere to go, an ineffectual, irrelevant squabbling rump. Britain is now and for the forseeable future a de facto one-party state, with opposition so weak as to be useless. For a woman who preached choice and strength, that's a pretty ironic legacy.

On leaving Downing St, Thatcher bequeathed to Britain "high inflation, rising interest rates, unemployment and a Tory Party tarnished by allegations of sexual and financial wrongdoing". Who says so? John Major, her own successor. Source: The Spectator, Aug 2001

Cameron <> Thatcher, remember that when you try and tar people with the same brush. It sounds like you're stuck in your ways and can only think of the past not the future.

“History Teaches Everything, Including the Future”, wrote Alphonse de Lamartine.

Better the devil you know than a party led by a smooth talking, opportunist wide-boy and his gullible young economic apprentice.

re · Post by re » 17 Apr 2010, 15:53

Damn fine post Aurora.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 17 Apr 2010, 16:47

Thanks. I've actually posted the same piece on PowerSwitch in the past but, hey, why reinvent the wheel?

I'm afraid that today's twenty and thirty something's need a history lesson.

Thatcher was incredibly divisive and when Cameron chooses to blame the Labour party for our current financial downfall, he forgets to mention that the 'Iron Lady' was responsible for deregulating the banks in the first place.

Unfortunately, when the Labour party came to power, Blair and Brown continued to 'live the dream' when they should have realised that we were all living in 'Lotteryland'.

A fool's paradise based on smoke and mirrors.

Now we ALL have to pay the price even though many of us have led a prudent life style during the past couple of decades.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Apr 2010, 17:44

Well said Aurora. (Twice!)

Where Labour have failed it's inasmuch as they have tried to be like the Tories to catch the 'middle ground'. The word 'socialism' seems to have quite slipped out of their vocabulary and even some members of cabinet have forgotten that they were once in CND. It has become clear that only the Liberals are committed to not replacing Trident. That, and the prospect for entertainment which a hung parliament will bring, gets them my vote in a safe Tory constituency.

I really don't understand how superficially nice people can consider voting for the Nasty Party.

re · Post by re » 17 Apr 2010, 19:30

To be honest, there seems little point in voting round these parts:
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/neath

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 17 Apr 2010, 21:53

Aurora wrote:A politally aware schoolboy? I think not.

A high-schooler can see what's happening, maybe those years are too far behind you for you to remember

Unions needed modernising and moderating, not crushing into dust. The result of Thatcher's prolonged assault on them was to leave the workforce less empowered and more exploited than at any time since the end of the 19th Century.

We saw what happened when labour let the unions have their way, Thatcher went too far and I'm sure there's an (un)happy medium that nobody likes but is best for everyone out there.

Thatcher did more than any other human in history to destroy the idea that people should take care of each other as well as looking out for Number One. She was by a country mile the most socially divisive Prime Minister this country ever had. The miner's strike and poll tax alone tore the population into two bitterly-opposed halves and caused more violent unrest on the streets than at any other time in British history.

Any other human...? LOL you are going too far there, please keep exaggeration to a minimum please.

She led, and created the environment that caused, the most corrupt, sleaze-ridden government the UK has ever seen. Anyone still remember Westland?

Look back a hundred years - you'll find governments are more corrupt then than any you'll see now. The current government (as well as MPs from all sides) hasn't exactly been spotless has it? Reading about the westland affairs doesn't actual show it stinking of corruption - just a major disagreement between cabinet members - maybe you have a better source to read?

She was at the forefront of the privatisation policy that has left our railways - once the envy of the world - a laughing stock, and caused countless other disasters which we're still paying to try to clean up.

(Damn I hit submit by accident)

Some privitsation was necessary - Leyland for example, some could have been handled better, and some were completely out of order, such as water, power and gas. When our railways were the envy of the world was before they were nationalised - and they were nationalised due to losing money hand-over-fist as private companies (something they continued to do after too).

She caused the death of hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Argentinian conscripts by deliberately allowing the conflict over the Falklands to escalate into a war, for her own political benefit.

The argentinian govt. wasn't exactly willing to do a deal that was acceptable to britain either was it? Would you rather have a goverment like that?

Look at the current labour government, they are invaded *2* countries with little legitimate backing either internationally or internally. This is what we want to perpetuate?

Her policies caused the highest unemployment in this country's history, throwing 3 million out of work and into poverty and misery - at a rate which exceeded even the general recession - and brought about the fastest acceleration in the gap between rich and poor recorded under any UK government. (These two facts are related both as cause AND effect.)

She almost single-handedly destroyed Britain as an industrial manufacturing economy, replacing those jobs with low-paid, no-security service industry work.

Much of that industry was sorely in need of investment with money the country didn't have - and would have been wiped out in the 90s by outsourcing to far east anyway. Did you know that Britain is *still* one of the biggest manufacturers in the world? No, I didn't either until recently. We're just more specialist now. Those industrial jobs that are 'gone' wouldn't have lasted much past the 80s anyhow.

She also gave people opportunities they never though they had before - many people started their own businesses in the 80s (my parent among them) - they wouldn't have dreamed about it in the 70s.

She poisoned national relations with the rest of Europe.

Have to agree with you on this one, otoh, much of the country seemed to (and appears to still) agree with her.

She presided over and/or directly created, some of the most disastrous boom-bust economics of modern history. Some of us still remember when mortgage interest rates rocketed to 16% under the party that was supposed to represent the safe financial hand.

"No more boom and bust" - thatcher said that didn't she. oh no, I'm mistaken, it was Gordon Brown...

They went up to 17% at 15 Nov 79, 16% for 3 July 1980 and went down further on 25 November. They haven't exceed 15% since. 6 months isn't enough to make major changes to the economy is it? Maybe the fault with this lies with the labour govt that preceeded Maggies?

With regard to her ambition to curb inflation, she presided over a doubling of inflation between 1979 and 1980, from around 10 to over 20 per cent, and a return to 'double-digit' inflation by the end of the 1980's.

Arn't you conviently forgetting the double-digit inflation during most of the 70s too? I believe that was mainly a labour decade.

She effectively destroyed BOTH of Britain's main political parties, and with them democracy as a tool of choice. Labour had to turn into 'Tory Lite' in order to get elected, destroying the socialist side of the divide (to be fair, Blair holds considerable responsibility here too, as the party of Kinnock and Smith looked likely to finally get elected while still holding onto most of its socialist principles).

She didn't do a good enough then job if you ask me

a sea-change in politics would probably be welcomed by both of us.

The Tories, their ground stolen, were left with nowhere to go, an ineffectual, irrelevant squabbling rump. Britain is now and for the forseeable future a de facto one-party state, with opposition so weak as to be useless. For a woman who preached choice and strength, that's a pretty ironic legacy.

So, you're saying that labour had to copy Maggie in order to win?

On leaving Downing St, Thatcher bequeathed to Britain "high inflation, rising interest rates, unemployment and a Tory Party tarnished by allegations of sexual and financial wrongdoing". Who says so? John Major, her own successor. Source: The Spectator, Aug 2001

The worst thing she bequeathed was John Major if you ask me

By my own opinion, 2 terms is enough for any party to be in power, they run out of good ideas and seem to be come complacent.

“History Teaches Everything, Including the Future”, wrote Alphonse de Lamartine.

Like labour screwing up again...

Better the devil you know than a party led by a smooth talking, opportunist wide-boy and his gullible young economic apprentice.

Heh, you can have you "a one-eyed Scottish idiot" (Clarkson) and shove him... nevermind

No, better the lib-dems get in power imo, that would really shake things up. I was hoping Clegg would do well and he did, hopefully he'll keep it up in the next 2 debates.

I do honestly believe that another labour term would be an utter disaster for the country. They have done a reasonably good job in areas - but a terrible job in others. I'm sure a conservative govt won't do a great deal better but as I said above - 2 terms is enough for any party to be in power, time to give someone else a chance to screw things up!