# Would you change your vote if Labour had a stronger leader?



## Birchy (May 8, 2015)

Interesting question that has arisen from this election which i could probably ask myself. This probably only applies to those that agonised over their choice etc.

If you have voted Labour or Tory (AN other) because you always have and your great grandad did then this question isnt for you. 

My vote was very tight between Labour and Conservative and i ended up siding with the Tories but i did struggle to split the two parties.

Had Labour had a more charismatic leader instead of Miliband that possibly may have swung it their way. Would it have made a difference for you??


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 8, 2015)

Wouldn't have changed my vote

But could have changed the outcome of the election with a different leader

Listening to people on radio etc and a lot it appears removed their vote for labour once Milliband on that telly debate defended the over spending of Mr Brown from previous labour government and that was a massive own goal it seems


----------



## Duckster (May 8, 2015)

Nope.  Not one bit.  I voted Labour and I got a Labour MP.  I wasn't looking at that particular party and most definitely not who was the leader of it (granted I do think they had the wrong Milliband brother).  I was looking at the best person that I thought could represent me as being my MP.  If the rest of the country then followed suit then so be it.


----------



## Spuddy (May 8, 2015)

I'm convinced that a leader that looks 'presidential' (regardless of their policies) is absolutely vital when it comes to those close marginals that decide these elections.


----------



## c1973 (May 8, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			I'm convinced that a leader that looks 'presidential' (regardless of their policies) is absolutely vital when it comes to those close marginals that decide these elections.
		
Click to expand...

And that, right there, is what's wrong with a lot of the electorate (imo). You vote for policies, not a guy/gal in a nice suit with nice teeth.


----------



## Spuddy (May 8, 2015)

c1973 said:



			And that, right there, is what's wrong with a lot of the electorate (imo). You vote for policies, not a guy/gal in a nice suit with nice teeth.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's lots of folk that wait to see who the Sun tells them to vote for!

For the undecideds who really can't decide on policy alone, image could be the tipping point that points them in one direction.


----------



## Foliage Finder (May 8, 2015)

Nope, I voted on policies that I saw in manifestos mainly. Leader was a smaller factor but was still considered. There are people I have spoken to however, that were swayed by personality.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 8, 2015)

I would say that Milliband did lose Labour many votes due to his personality and image.   Not saying thats fair but just reality.

I would also say that it was not the main factor with Labours demise, that IMO was due to the SNP and lack of clarity with issues like immigration and fixing the economy, which like it or not it's what so many used to decide their party of choice.


----------



## chrisd (May 8, 2015)

Nope, not a chance
I'd have loved to have had the chance to NOT vote for that wassock Ed Balls


----------



## Fish (May 8, 2015)

Nope.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 8, 2015)

Birchy said:



			Interesting question that has arisen from this election which i could probably ask myself. This probably only applies to those that agonised over their choice etc.

If you have voted Labour or Tory (AN other) because you always have and your great grandad did then this question isnt for you. 

My vote was very tight between Labour and Conservative and i ended up siding with the Tories but i did struggle to split the two parties.

Had Labour had a more charismatic leader instead of Miliband that possibly may have swung it their way. Would it have made a difference for you??
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  Said it in another post, had Labour chosen the other Milliband it would have been very different.


----------



## Crow (May 8, 2015)

c1973 said:



			And that, right there, is what's wrong with a lot of the electorate (imo). You vote for policies, not a guy/gal in a nice suit with nice teeth.
		
Click to expand...

+1 
(I voted Labour)


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 8, 2015)

c1973 said:



			And that, right there, is what's wrong with a lot of the electorate (imo). You vote for policies, not a guy/gal in a nice suit with nice teeth.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are simplifying it a lot.  It's not just a case of nice suit/nice teeth, but it is much more than that.  For example would you want that person leading your country on a global scale, do you think he/she would compete on a global basis, would he/she have the gravitas and credibility, could he/she work with other leaders.  And to me the suit he or she is wearing or the state of their teeth is the least of the issues I look at when thinking if that party leader would work for me.


----------



## c1973 (May 8, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I think you are simplifying it a lot.  It's not just a case of nice suit/nice teeth, but it is much more than that.  For example would you want that person leading your country on a global scale, do you think he/she would compete on a global basis, would he/she have the gravitas and credibility, could he/she work with other leaders.  And to me the suit he or she is wearing or the state of their teeth is the least of the issues I look at when thinking if that party leader would work for me.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm replying to a post on 'looks'.


----------



## chellie (May 8, 2015)

Nope here.


----------



## USER1999 (May 8, 2015)

It doesn't matter who is in charge, Labour, with its financial policies is UN electable. It just is.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 8, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wouldn't have changed my vote

But could have changed the outcome of the election with a different leader

Listening to people on radio etc and a lot it appears removed their vote for labour once Milliband on that telly debate defended the over spending of Mr Brown from previous labour government and that was a massive own goal it seems
		
Click to expand...

Did you vote after all then?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 8, 2015)

I can see why Milliband is getting the blame but I think for a lot of people the vote was based on manifesto and policies and it's these the new leader needs to tackle and produce something the electorate can believe in and trust.


----------



## jontymo (May 8, 2015)

Nope, i want to see the economy keep on moving the right way and my pension grow! thats the difference between left and right i suppose!


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

jontymo said:



			Nope, i want to see the economy keep on moving the right way and my pension grow! thats the difference between left and right i suppose!
		
Click to expand...

Because people on the left want to see the economy move the wrong way and pensions to shrink do they?  Riiiight... :rofl:


----------



## Andy808 (May 8, 2015)

I voted for the candidate that I thought would do the best for my constituency. 
Will now have to wait and see if he can do the job as well as he says he can.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 8, 2015)

Voted labour and think the country is much the poorer for losing a decent, caring and intelligent guy as Labour leader through the machinations and character assasinations carried out on him by the Tory press.  Happen to think the same about Clegg.


----------



## jontymo (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Because people on the left want to see the economy move the wrong way and pensions to shrink do they?  Riiiight... :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

funny is'n't it!  i see it as serious, if i went the way of voting the way my dad and grandad did then i would have gone labour, sorry but i did not trust labour this time round.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

jontymo said:



			funny is'n't it!  i see it as serious, if i went the way of voting the way my dad and grandad did then i would have gone labour, sorry but i did not trust labour this time round.
		
Click to expand...

I suppose time will tell whether you were correct or not eh. Just don't take your evidence from the press though. What's right for the Billionaire media barons might just not be right for the person on the street.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I suppose time will tell whether you were correct or not eh. Just don't take your evidence from the press though. What's right for the Billionaire media barons might just not be right for the person on the street.
		
Click to expand...

Give people a bit of credit, most dont vote based on what the Media Barons tell them, many do vote on what their Mums and Dads tell them though (Does that put Mums and Dads in the same category as Media Barons).


----------



## Hobbit (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I suppose time will tell whether you were correct or not eh. Just don't take your evidence from the press though. What's right for the Billionaire media barons might just not be right for the person on the street.
		
Click to expand...

Which media barons? The rich Conservative media barons or the rich Labour media barons?

Do I want to fund another civil service and benefits spending explosion, or do I want a Govt that looks to balance the books and spend within its means? Do I want a Govt that attracts businesses to the UK, or one that cripples the businesses that are already here? Do I want to see interest rate rises.... and on and on?

There's too long a history of spending beyond the country's means by Labour. Not for me, not now. I like some of their policies but their funding gap is waaaaaayyy too big.


----------



## Tiger (May 9, 2015)

I think Labour with David Milliband would have been a better proposition but as has already been mentioned by Murph and others the big election issue was the economy and Labour's policy gave me absolutely no confidence.


----------



## Kellfire (May 9, 2015)

Anyone who sees the party leader as anymore than the spokesperson for the party and actually believes what the PM says goes should have their vote removed from them for stupidity.


----------



## Hobbit (May 9, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Anyone who sees the party leader as anymore than the spokesperson for the party and actually believes what the PM says goes should have their vote removed from them for stupidity.
		
Click to expand...

You're not wrong Marc, but I think its also about credibility and honesty. For me, I just didn't believe an awful lot of what came out of Ed's mouth.


----------



## Kellfire (May 9, 2015)

Which is fair enough but it would've been the same information being said by either brother or AN Other. 

It's sad that so many people will be worried about who said it and not what they're saying.


----------



## chrisd (May 9, 2015)

I think the Miliband and Balls team would have been the political equivalent of Laurel and Hardy!


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			many do vote on what their Mums and Dads tell them though (Does that put Mums and Dads in the same category as Media Barons).
		
Click to expand...

No, just the same tax bracket.


----------



## Fish (May 9, 2015)

People buy off people, always have done, always will. 4 people could knock your door and attempt to sell you exactly the same thing, you will possibly exclude 2 immediately, consider 1 but then certainly buy off the other.  I'm not in the Labour camp anyway but a better likeable front person is as critical as the item he/she us selling because it has to be believable, I didn't believe anything Millabore said.


----------



## Maninblack4612 (May 9, 2015)

If Ed Milliband had had the interests of the Labour party, rather than his own, as a priority he would have never stood against his brother, who was clearly, by far, the most impressive candidate. Ed's lust for power has set the Labour party back years. I honestly believe that if David Milliband had been leader we would now have a Labour government. And the unions' backing of Ed has backfired, lumbering them with a Tory administration for another 5 years. Serves them all right!


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Which media barons? The rich Conservative media barons or the rich Labour media barons?

Do I want to fund another civil service and benefits spending explosion, or do I want a Govt that looks to balance the books and spend within its means? Do I want a Govt that attracts businesses to the UK, or one that cripples the businesses that are already here? Do I want to see interest rate rises.... and on and on?

There's too long a history of spending beyond the country's means by Labour. Not for me, not now. I like some of their policies but their funding gap is waaaaaayyy too big.
		
Click to expand...

Genuine question, which are the rich Labour media barons? Murdoch, The Barclay Brothers, Rothermere, Desmond all came down on the right (Desmond tried to buy a Knighthood by funding UKIP). Lebedev could be viewed as centre left, but is markedly on the right as far as the economy goes.


----------



## wrighty1874 (May 9, 2015)

No.Wanted to give UKIP a chance but opted for the road to recovery and a say on leaving the EU.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You're not wrong Marc, but I think its also about credibility and honesty. For me, I just didn't believe an awful lot of what came out of Ed's mouth.
		
Click to expand...

Not picking on you Brian, but does this mean that you do believe Cameron? I definitely don't think that Ed was the right person to lead the country, but I do think he was a principled man.


----------



## jontymo (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Not picking on you Brian, but does this mean that you do believe Cameron? I definitely don't think that Ed was the right person to lead the country, but I do think he was a principled man.
		
Click to expand...

how can you tell he was a principled man and Cameron is not? for me i could not understand many if any of the labour policies and i think labour became entrenched in having no credible plan.
What i can see and feel is the economy moving in the right direction, i see this at work, i see this in my pension pot and i see this in the general mood of a lot of people i work with and see on a daily basis.
Also don't assume someone votes on what you call the media barons advice, give people a little credit.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

jontymo said:



			how can you tell he was a principled man and Cameron is not? for me i could not understand many if any of the labour policies and i think labour became entrenched in having no credible plan.
What i can see and feel is the economy moving in the right direction, i see this at work, i see this in my pension pot and i see this in the general mood of a lot of people i work with and see on a daily basis.
Also don't assume someone votes on what you call the media barons advice, give people a little credit.
		
Click to expand...

The operative word was "think", and I didn't say the Cameron was or wasn't. 
I also didn't say that you voted Tory because of the Newspapers. I said not to take the evidence of their effectiveness from the Press.


----------



## Snelly (May 9, 2015)

No.  I would've voted Conservative, obviously.

My mate Jo sent an email to me last night and made some good points about how this election and the run up to it, has highlighted the problem with the modern day left.  

They are utterly convinced that they are right and have the moral high ground.  The liberals of today love democracy and stringently defend freedom of speech, right up to the point that someone doesn't agree with their exact view. 

At this point, the electorate become stupid or right wing bigots, the press become mind-altering dictators of the outcome and the Tories are positioned as campaigners of fear with the electoral system at fault.   

It is always the same with the left, everyone is equal and everyone is great, unless you don't adhere to my liberal world view because that makes you a racist, fascist pig that I can abuse without fear of retribution because I am morally right and you are clueless. 

Unfortunately, the country doesn't seem to agree this time does it?  Basically after five years of Tory led government, more people this time around have said they support David Cameron and an incumbent PM has increased their number of seats in the commons for the next term for the first time since Queen Victoria was on the throne. 

The left don't like it quite naturally and have reverted to type, on this forum too in some cases.  I think it is pretty pathetic and maybe I am wrong but if the boot was on the other foot and Ed was in number 10, I don't think I would be tearing up my comics and taking to social media or dare I say a golf forum, to vent my spiteful spleen.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

Snelly said:



			No.  I would've voted Conservative, obviously.

My mate Jo sent an email to me last night and made some good points about how this election and the run up to it, has highlighted the problem with the modern day left.  

They are utterly convinced that they are right and have the moral high ground.  The liberals of today love democracy and stringently defend freedom of speech, right up to the point that someone doesn't agree with their exact view. 

At this point, the electorate become stupid or right wing bigots, the press become mind-altering dictators of the outcome and the Tories are positioned as campaigners of fear with the electoral system at fault.   

It is always the same with the left, everyone is equal and everyone is great, unless you don't adhere to my liberal world view because that makes you a racist, fascist pig that I can abuse without fear of retribution because I am morally right and you are clueless. 

Unfortunately, the country doesn't seem to agree this time does it?  Basically after five years of Tory led government, more people this time around have said they support David Cameron and an incumbent PM has increased their number of seats in the commons for the next term for the first time since Queen Victoria was on the throne. 

The left don't like it quite naturally and have reverted to type, on this forum too in some cases.  I think it is pretty pathetic and maybe I am wrong but if the boot was on the other foot and Ed was in number 10, I don't think I would be tearing up my comics and taking to social media or dare I say a golf forum, to vent my spiteful spleen.
		
Click to expand...

Strange, I don't think I've seen anyone "venting their spiteful spleen". I've seen some fairly decent debate though. Predominantly in the correct manner. In fact, I'd say that your post was more inflammatory than most I've seen on the subject.


----------



## Snelly (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Strange, I don't think I've seen anyone "venting their spiteful spleen". I've seen some fairly decent debate though. Predominantly in the correct manner. In fact, I'd say that your post was more inflammatory than most I've seen on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure you would say that.  But that doesn't mean you are right and I certainly don't see my previous post as inflammatory. 

Spiteful spleen - see Twitter.  Loads of people that I follow and admire just seem to have completely lost the plot and turned into vicious left wing fanatics.


----------



## jontymo (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Strange, I don't think I've seen anyone "venting their spiteful spleen". I've seen some fairly decent debate though. Predominantly in the correct manner. In fact, I'd say that your post was more inflammatory than most I've seen on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree with bluewolf, i have not seen a spiteful spleen on here, yes there is some debating but that is life and lets hope we all have a good long prosperous one at that.


----------



## Ethan (May 9, 2015)

Snelly said:



			No.  I would've voted Conservative, obviously.

My mate Jo sent an email to me last night and made some good points about how this election and the run up to it, has highlighted the problem with the modern day left.  

They are utterly convinced that they are right and have the moral high ground.  The liberals of today love democracy and stringently defend freedom of speech, right up to the point that someone doesn't agree with their exact view. 

At this point, the electorate become stupid or right wing bigots, the press become mind-altering dictators of the outcome and the Tories are positioned as campaigners of fear with the electoral system at fault.   

It is always the same with the left, everyone is equal and everyone is great, unless you don't adhere to my liberal world view because that makes you a racist, fascist pig that I can abuse without fear of retribution because I am morally right and you are clueless. 

Unfortunately, the country doesn't seem to agree this time does it?  Basically after five years of Tory led government, more people this time around have said they support David Cameron and an incumbent PM has increased their number of seats in the commons for the next term for the first time since Queen Victoria was on the throne. 

The left don't like it quite naturally and have reverted to type, on this forum too in some cases.  I think it is pretty pathetic and maybe I am wrong but if the boot was on the other foot and Ed was in number 10, I don't think I would be tearing up my comics and taking to social media or dare I say a golf forum, to vent my spiteful spleen.
		
Click to expand...

There is no left in the UK now, apart from the SNP, I suppose. 

The average working person in this country has benefitted enormously from traditional left leaning policies on health, education and working conditions. It is saddening that once many have taken that benefit, they then want to pull the ladder up behind them. That is a traditional right wing approach. 

In this election, I think the hapless Ed played a part in torpedoing the election for Labour, but so too did the Labour party's confused identity. They don't know if they are a party of the traditional Labour supporter or some sort of centrist social democratic party. But the person who ultimately won this election was Lynton Crosby. He painted a simple but compelling (if also false) narrative for Camerpn, who parroted it until it got through the heads of many supporters. 

PS. I didn't vote Labour.


----------



## guest100718 (May 9, 2015)

It wouldnt have changed my vote, but for many others image is a big deal and probably affected thier vote


----------



## Fyldewhite (May 9, 2015)

Ethan said:



			There is no left in the UK now, apart from the SNP, I suppose. 

The average working person in this country has benefitted enormously from traditional left leaning policies on health, education and working conditions. *It is saddening that once many have taken that benefit, they then want to pull the ladder up behind them. That is a traditional right wing approach.* 

In this election, I think the hapless Ed played a part in torpedoing the election for Labour, but so too did the Labour party's confused identity. They don't know if they are a party of the traditional Labour supporter or some sort of centrist social democratic party. But the person who ultimately won this election was Lynton Crosby. He painted a simple but compelling (if also false) narrative for Camerpn, who parroted it until it got through the heads of many supporters..
		
Click to expand...

Agree with every word Ethan. The bold bit sums it all up perfectly for me.


----------



## Beezerk (May 9, 2015)

I know plenty of people who have stated they can't vote for Ed Milliband but would have opted for Labour had they had a "stronger" leader.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

Snelly said:



			I am sure you would say that.  But that doesn't mean you are right and I certainly don't see my previous post as inflammatory. 

Spiteful spleen - see Twitter.  Loads of people that I follow and admire just seem to have completely lost the plot and turned into vicious left wing fanatics.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that there are plenty of vitriolic morons on both sides of the debate.. Take this for instance - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/08/jk-rowling-harry-potter-labour_n_7243710.html

Social media is a great thing, but it does encourage the moronic to engage in other peoples lives..


----------



## MegaSteve (May 9, 2015)

"We own the middle ground" was what did it for me... Almost a confirmation of what, I suppose, I already knew... Labour can, I believe, still look after the 'middle ground' without abandoning their roots which I feel they have done...

The man I was hoping to be the next Mayor of London appears to be setting his sights a little higher... Hopefully, he can be persuaded London should remain his main target leaving party leadership for another time...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 9, 2015)

Beezerk said:



			I know plenty of people who have stated they can't vote for Ed Milliband but would have opted for Labour had they had a "stronger" leader.
		
Click to expand...

...and so they voted UKIP/Tory?  IMO many such who vote Tory have always got a good excuse to cover up for the fact that they vote Tory out of simple self-interest and greed - and they are either embarrassed by that or afraid at looking hypocritical to their friends.  And in the last election they could also hide behind a confected 'fear' over the SNP generated by the Tories and their acolytes/leaders in the right wing press.

Where fear and greed come into play there would be nothing that could have done about it.  The EMiliband effect was I suspect not particularly significant.


----------



## Beezerk (May 9, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so they voted UKIP/Tory?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't ask as it's none of my business how they voted. One said he was a lifelong Labour supported, not sure about the others.


----------



## ColchesterFC (May 9, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so they voted UKIP/Tory?  IMO many such who vote Tory have always got a good excuse to cover up for the fact that they vote Tory out of simple self-interest and greed - and they are either embarrassed by that or afraid at looking hypocritical to their friends.  And in the last election they could also hide behind a confected 'fear' over the SNP generated by the Tories and their acolytes/leaders in the right wing press.

Where fear and greed come into play there would be nothing that could have done about it.  The EMiliband effect was I suspect not particularly significant.
		
Click to expand...

So to you it was fear and greed that won the election for the Conservatives? It wasn't that people didn't trust Labour with the economy. Or that they thought austerity and getting rid of the deficit was the right path to continue rather than a Labour spending spree. Or any number of other personal reasons that people might have had.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 9, 2015)

Indeed it isn't.  But as a Labour voter myself I had reservations about Miliband and their message before and during the campaign.  But his personality does not for me detract from the basic principles and objectives of the Labour party - as much as they might have more recently been diluted and twisted as New Labour.  The LPs heart is for me basically in the right place and in those supporting it I find I m generally with like-minded people.  Conversely no matter how much benefit I myself might accrue from a Tory government, I will never, ever vote for them.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 9, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			So to you *it was fear and greed that won the election for the Conservatives*? It wasn't that people didn't trust Labour with the economy. Or that they thought austerity and getting rid of the deficit was the right path to continue rather than a Labour spending spree. Or any number of other personal reasons that people might have had.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say that - but as sure as heck for many that again is something comfortable to hide their own self-interest behind.


----------



## Hobbit (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Not picking on you Brian, but does this mean that you do believe Cameron? I definitely don't think that Ed was the right person to lead the country, but I do think he was a principled man.
		
Click to expand...

I believe every politician is guilty of omission and of being circumspect with the truth. I also believe that the further they go up the food chain, the more they have to reflect, and speak in support of the party's policies. I just don't believe Ed Millband believed in what he was trying to sell. Unfortunately, he was ably supported by Ed Balls, who got chewed up too many times on questions about the futures finances of the UK and how Labour would fund their policies.

As for being prinicipled. They all are, but their priniciples aren't always aligned to our own.

If it has been the original Blair, from his first term, he'd have got my vote - actually he did. And if it had been David Milliband, supported by a decent shadow chancellor and realistic policies in terms of affordability I would have been very tempted.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I believe every politician is guilty of omission and of being circumspect with the truth. I also believe that the further they go up the food chain, the more they have to reflect, and speak in support of the party's policies. I just don't believe Ed Millband believed in what he was trying to sell. Unfortunately, he was ably supported by Ed Balls, who got chewed up too many times on questions about the futures finances of the UK and how Labour would fund their policies.

As for being prinicipled. They all are, but their priniciples aren't always aligned to our own.

If it has been the original Blair, from his first term, he'd have got my vote - actually he did. And if it had been David Milliband, supported by a decent shadow chancellor and realistic policies in terms of affordability I would have been very tempted.
		
Click to expand...

Good answer..:thup:


----------



## NWJocko (May 9, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so they voted UKIP/Tory?  IMO many such who vote Tory have always got a good excuse to cover up for the fact that they vote Tory out of simple self-interest and greed - and they are either embarrassed by that or afraid at looking hypocritical to their friends.  And in the last election they could also hide behind a confected 'fear' over the SNP generated by the Tories and their acolytes/leaders in the right wing press.

Where fear and greed come into play there would be nothing that could have done about it.  The EMiliband effect was I suspect not particularly significant.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not a Tory voter but this is utter nonsense.

You're suggesting Tory voters/supporters should be embarrassed of the fact whilst you (again...) sit on your high horse?

I don't vote Tory but certainly don't look down my nose at those who do like you!!

They would have valid reasons for voting Tory that aren't all "self interest and greed".

I await your usual parochial response........


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 9, 2015)

NWJocko said:



			I'm not a Tory voter but this is utter nonsense.

You're suggesting Tory voters/supporters should be embarrassed of the fact whilst you (again...) sit on your high horse?

I don't vote Tory but certainly don't look down my nose at those who do like you!!

They would have valid reasons for voting Tory that aren't all "self interest and greed".

I await your usual parochial response........
		
Click to expand...

Why did the opinion polls grossly underestimate the levels of Tory support?

I suggest it was shame; a significant number of Tory voters are ashamed to admit it.


----------



## NWJocko (May 9, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Why did the opinion polls grossly underestimate the levels of Tory support?

I suggest it was shame; a significant number of Tory voters are ashamed to admit it.
		
Click to expand...

May well be, my point is why should they be embarrassed?

If they've considered their options and decided the Tories provide them with their favoured option then good luck to them.

Unless someone who has done the same and come to the conclusion Labour or any other more left leaning party fit their choice are "better" which SILH seems to be suggesting...


----------



## AmandaJR (May 9, 2015)

I voted Conservative and spoke to many before and after who voted the same and in no way shape or form are ashamed and/or embarrassed to admit it!

What the hell is there to be ashamed of and what the hell is there to be so proud of if voting Labour/Lib Dem etc etc?!

I suggest Snelly's point has been proven!


----------



## Hobbit (May 9, 2015)

AmandaJR said:



			I voted Conservative and spoke to many before and after who voted the same and in no way shape or form are ashamed and/or embarrassed to admit it!

What the hell is there to be ashamed of and what the hell is there to be proud of if voting Labour/Lib Dem etc etc?!
		
Click to expand...

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!

And far from self-interest if they said they wanted to put x% on income tax I'd accept it and trust them to spend it in the right places unlike the current spendthrift Labour.


----------



## ColchesterFC (May 9, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Why did the opinion polls grossly underestimate the levels of Tory support?

I suggest it was shame; a significant number of Tory voters are ashamed to admit it.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe it wasn't shame. Maybe people didn't admit to voting Tory because they didn't want to be subjected to the usual "we're better than you" sanctimonious BS that comes their way from Labour voters.

Even SilH admits he had reservations about Milliband and the Labour campaign and he says he would never vote Tory. It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to think that undecided voters felt the same way and that's what swung the election.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

I think left wing warriors which seem in abundance on this site have a poor grip on reality.  Most of them have probably never been really hard up and speak from their elevated armchairs as if they are the only people with morals and consider anyone with a different view as stupid, greedy and selfish! 

Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc.   In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses.   As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of  super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty.   What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and  promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals.  It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others.  The politics of envy.

Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class.    No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.


----------



## c1973 (May 9, 2015)

I don't think it would be embarrassment so much as they can't be arsed with the grief they would get from some quarters, a bit like NO voters in the referendum tbh.

I personally could never envisage a time or reason I would vote Tory, but if you did, then fair play to you, I'd more than likely disagree with your reasons....in fact I'd be bloody certain I would, but if that's your choice then it's one your entitled to make without fear of embarrassment (imo of course).


----------



## Hobbit (May 9, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I don't think it would be embarrassment so much as they can't be arsed with the grief they would get from some quarters, a bit like NO voters in the referendum tbh.

I personally could never envisage a time or reason I would vote Tory, but if you did, then fair play to you, I'd more than likely disagree with your reasons....in fact I'd be bloody certain I would, but if that's your choice then it's one your entitled to make without fear of embarrassment (imo of course).
		
Click to expand...

And thank God we are different. It's disagreement that forces change and improvement. Labour, LibDems etc will up their game, which in turn will force the Tories to up their game and so on and so on.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 9, 2015)

I hope labour get their house in order and elect a strong leader along with firm policies. Every government needs a good opposition party to keep it on track and focused


----------



## Fish (May 9, 2015)

My names Robin and I voted Conservative


----------



## c1973 (May 9, 2015)

Fish said:



			My names Robin and I voted Conservative 

Click to expand...

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I think left wing warriors which seem in abundance on this site have a poor grip on reality.  Most of them have probably never been really hard up and speak from their elevated armchairs as if they are the only people with morals and consider anyone with a different view as stupid, greedy and selfish! 

Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc.   In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses.   As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of  super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty.   What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and  promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals.  It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others.  The politics of envy.

Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class.    No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.
		
Click to expand...

 That's Communism, not socialism. It's different. And just because Capitalism is the current basis for society, it doesn't mean that it works ad infinitum. What happens when the Worlds population reached a level where it can't be sustained? Capitalism requires a growing population to provide growth. What happens when population shrinks?  Every system fails eventually because no system is fully self sustaining. 

Oh, and your generalisations about benefits claimants are beneath you.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			That's Communism, not socialism. It's different. And just because Capitalism is the current basis for society, it doesn't mean that it works ad infinitum. What happens when the Worlds population reached a level where it can't be sustained? Capitalism requires a growing population to provide growth. What happens when population shrinks?  Every system fails eventually because no system is fully self sustaining. 

Oh, and your generalisations about benefits claimants are beneath you.
		
Click to expand...

Communism is the ultimate form of Socialism.

When a population shrinks demand shrinks with it and the equilibrium is maintained.

You know I wasn't referring to all benefit claimants and as such are proving my initial point.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Communism is the ultimate form of Socialism.

When a population shrinks demand shrinks with it and the equilibrium is maintained.

You know I wasn't referring to all benefit claimants and as such are proving my initial point.
		
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that Socialism is an economic doctrine, and Communism is a Political doctrine, then I'd have to disagree with your first point. 

Secondly, there would have to be some fairly severe regulation in place to maintain even the most fragile equilibrium within the global economy. Regulation that would be fought against vehemently by the financial institutions as it would place severe restrictions on their ability to make profits. Especially in the futures markets. 

Thirdly, I'm not sure how disputing your point proves it, but it's bee a long day culminating in a well deserved 0.1 back.

wait, I think I get it now. It was the point regarding left wingers being judgemental people who think that anyone who isn't left wing has no morals yadda yadda yadda. Oh come now, I support everyone's right to a political opinion. I don't judge your ethics and morals based on your vote. That's stereotyping the Left in the same way your accusing the Left of stereotyping the Right.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 9, 2015)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm merely speculating about why the opinion polls were so wrong. I'm sure the majority of Tory voters feel no shame whatsoever.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Don't misunderstand me, I'm merely speculating about why the opinion polls were so wrong. I'm sure the majority of Tory voters feel no shame whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...

Nor should they. Everyone has a belief system. If you follow economics then you'll know that Milt Friedman believed that the best way to empower the working classes was to restrict the welfare state to a bare minimum, thereby shocking the population into work, in turn growing the economy. Keynes believed that the welfare state should provide help to those on their knees, helping them back into work. Thereby growing the economy. The vast majority of countries have followed Keynesian economics, with some notable exceptions.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Bearing in mind that Socialism is an economic doctrine, and Communism is a Political doctrine, then I'd have to disagree with your first point. 

*Secondly, there would have to be some fairly severe regulation in place to maintain even the most fragile equilibrium within the global economy. Regulation that would be fought against vehemently by the financial institutions as it would place severe restrictions on their ability to make profits. Especially in the futures markets. 
*
Thirdly, I'm not sure how disputing your point proves it, but it's bee a long day culminating in a well deserved 0.1 back.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what you are getting at here.   Have you been drinking?    if the population falls demand for goods and services fall with it, it's the way that market forces work, it's self regulating.  It's only when the Nanny State wants to control our lives and the market that regulation becomes complicated.


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm not clear what you are getting at here.   Have you been drinking?    if the population falls demand for goods and services fall with it, it's the way that market forces work, it's self regulating.  It's only when the Nanny State wants to control our lives and the market that regulation becomes complicated.
		
Click to expand...

Lol. That would be true if the population shrunk equally across every demographic. Unfortunately, that's not how population contraction happens is it? Usually it happens because of a shrinking birth rate, which leads to an imbalance between the people paying tax and the people claiming a State Pension. This usually results in massive Austerity cuts, possible stagnation and/or recession. Large scale lay offs, increased welfare spending. Vicious circle after vicious circle. Sound familiar?


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Lol. That would be true if the population shrunk equally across every demographic. Unfortunately, that's not how population contraction happens is it? Usually it happens because of a shrinking birth rate, which leads to an imbalance between the people paying tax and the people claiming a State Pension. This usually results in massive Austerity cuts, possible stagnation and/or recession. Large scale lay offs, increased welfare spending. Vicious circle after vicious circle. Sound familiar?
		
Click to expand...

Surely that only creates a temporary problem and would normally be the effect of previous baby booms or large numbers of immigrants.   Population shrinkage would soon level out unless no babies were born which is unlikely, lets say that the average family had 2 children and this trend continued without any large scale immigration, people are not going to start living much older than now(actually with the number of obese and diabetics these days many will not reach pension age)


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Surely that only creates a temporary problem and would normally be the effect of previous baby booms or large numbers of immigrants.   Population shrinkage would soon level out unless no babies were born which is unlikely, lets say that the average family had 2 children and this trend continued without any large scale immigration, people are not going to start living much older than now(actually with the number of obese and diabetics these days many will not reach pension age)
		
Click to expand...

But your talking about population stagnation if your using a birth rate of 2 as an example. The European birth rate is below 2 (1.84 I think). Couple this with an increased life expectancy means that the issue gets progressively worse for several generations, and possibly for as long as the birth rate is below 2 (plus a generation). The only way to combat this would be to regulate either the amount of people claiming ALL state benefits, or to limit the cash available, therefore reducing EVERYONES state benefits. Neither of those would've a viable option. Can you imagine the first Politician to suggest Logan's Run as a policy!!!!

sorry, forgot to add, immigration is actually a short term solution to a long term issue. Unfortunately, this then exacerbates the problem later in the life cycle.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			But your talking about population stagnation if your using a birth rate of 2 as an example. The European birth rate is below 2 (1.84 I think). Couple this with an increased life expectancy means that the issue gets progressively worse for several generations, and possibly for as long as the birth rate is below 2 (plus a generation). The only way to combat this would be to regulate either the amount of people claiming ALL state benefits, or to limit the cash available, therefore reducing EVERYONES state benefits. Neither of those would've a viable option. Can you imagine the first Politician to suggest Logan's Run as a policy!!!!

sorry, forgot to add, immigration is actually a short term solution to a long term issue. Unfortunately, this then exacerbates the problem later in the life cycle.
		
Click to expand...

I think you may be agreeing with me


----------



## bluewolf (May 9, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I think you may be agreeing with me 

Click to expand...


Only on the point of uncontrolled immigration not helping in the long term. It doesn't cause the problem though, merely worsens it slightly in the longer term. It's a symptom, not a cause.

on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion


----------



## SocketRocket (May 9, 2015)

bluewolf said:




Only on the point of uncontrolled immigration not helping in the long term. It doesn't cause the problem though, merely worsens it slightly in the longer term. It's a symptom, not a cause.

on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion 

Click to expand...

Quite a few probably started then thought ' It's those two again, no point in reading any more'


----------



## MegaSteve (May 10, 2015)

No shame in voting tory in these parts...
Hanging offence if you don't in fact...

I do my very best to vote for the best person...
Irrespective of what colour rosette they have pinned to them...

Quite happy to vote tory in local elections and often have...


----------



## Hobbit (May 10, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion 

Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			Quite a few probably started then thought ' It's those two again, no point in reading any more' 

Click to expand...

I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.


----------



## Fish (May 10, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.
		
Click to expand...

I'm too young to remember Logans Run


----------



## bluewolf (May 10, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.
		
Click to expand...

It's the same formula used to determine Scotland's funding


----------



## Snelly (May 10, 2015)

I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?  

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property?    I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile.  I would like a five minute chat in private with them.


----------



## c1973 (May 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?  

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property?    I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile. * I would like a five minute chat in private with them.*

Click to expand...




Do you think they'd listen? Or maybe just slap you around a wee bit? 



Don't think I can recall a reaction like that after an election. No reason at all to vandalise a war memorial.


----------



## alexbrownmp (May 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?  

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property?    I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile.  I would like a five minute chat in private with them.
		
Click to expand...

bringing you to the same level as them, meeting something you disapprove of with violence.


----------



## Snelly (May 10, 2015)

alexbrownmp said:



			bringing you to the same level as them, meeting something you disapprove of with violence.
		
Click to expand...


What are you on about?  I just want to talk to them, understand their feelings, give them a shoulder to cry on and work with them on a holistic approach to integrating them into the bosom of our society.


----------



## Snelly (May 10, 2015)

c1973 said:



			[/B]


Do you think they'd listen? Or maybe just slap you around a *wee* bit? 



Don't think I can recall a reaction like that after an election. No reason at all to vandalise a war memorial.
		
Click to expand...

Why do the Scottish use the same word for small as they do for the waste liquid that comes out of the urethra?  I have always wondered that?


----------



## alexbrownmp (May 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			What are you on about?  I just want to talk to them, understand their feelings, give them a shoulder to cry on and work with them on a holistic approach to integrating them into the bosom of our society.
		
Click to expand...

of course you do.

You are clearly not that civilized to sink to that level or you think you are being very clever and witty


----------



## Ethan (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I think left wing warriors which seem in abundance on this site have a poor grip on reality.  Most of them have probably never been really hard up and speak from their elevated armchairs as if they are the only people with morals and consider anyone with a different view as stupid, greedy and selfish! 

Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc.   In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses.   As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of  super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty.   What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and  promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals.  It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others.  The politics of envy.

Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class.    No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.
		
Click to expand...

Good post.
I think you speak for many UK citizens.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.
		
Click to expand...


So who creates the jobs for the working people?

Apparently it is OK to suggest that many of the job creators are "amoral fat cats" but there are no welfare scroungers.

As is usual the truth in each case lies somewhere in between.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to have a complete lack of reality when it comes business and what creates wealth in this country.   You constantly harp on about the fat cats salting away the money, who do you think creates the majority of jobs?  It's the small to medium enterprises, people that startup new business, put their homes on the line, take out loans and work their bits off to get up and running.  Some large organisations are as you describe but not all of them and not even most, they employ many people who in turn pay a lot of tax into the system so it's incorrect to believe they salt everything away and dont contribute to the tax system.

There are indeed too many people that abuse the welfare system around and I think most people see it in their everyday lives, no one is saying all people on welfare are like this as that would be wrong.

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, they have many of their own large internationals that are models of free enterprise. They do tend have Social Democratic type systems but not the kind of piffle that was coming from the Labour party in this election.  Their economies are quite different than ours but they have much smaller populations, they also pay levels of tax that people here would find hard to accept and get a great deal of State interference in their lives.   It's not Utopia.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 10, 2015)

I would not be surprised if Ed Milliband turns out to be the last Labour PM.


----------



## Imurg (May 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would not be surprised if Ed Milliband turns out to be the last Labour PM.
		
Click to expand...

Do you maybe, want to re-read that last statement.....


----------



## c1973 (May 10, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Why do the Scottish use the same word for small as they do for the waste liquid that comes out of the urethra?  I have always wondered that?
		
Click to expand...

Dunno what you mean, I thought the waste liquid was called pee.


----------



## Foxholer (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm not clear what you are getting at here.   Have you been drinking?    if the population falls demand for goods and services fall with it, it's the way that market forces work, it's self regulating.  It's only when the Nanny State wants to control our lives and the market that regulation becomes complicated.
		
Click to expand...

While I certainly object to the Nanny State controlling my life, 'the market' is recognised as an area that requires regulation. And, arguably, it was insufficient - or inappropriate - regulation that allowed the most recent Banking Crisis!

Basically, there's a world of difference between 'market forces' and a 'free market'!


----------



## Hobbit (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.
		
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha, oh my sides, you're killing me

I do an awful lot of travelling to Scandanavian countries, and have a great relationship with my colleagues over there... you sir are a joke if you think Scandanavian socialism works.... hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Tell us about the levels of tax in the Scandanavian countries, and the levels of state expenditure on benefits. Maybe you could even tell us about the cost of your average weekly food shopping.... must dash, I've just wet myself with laughter...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (May 10, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			While I certainly object to the Nanny State controlling my life, 'the market' is recognised as an area that requires regulation. And, arguably, it was insufficient - or inappropriate - regulation that allowed the most recent Banking Crisis!

Basically, there's a world of difference between 'market forces' and a 'free market'!
		
Click to expand...

Largely agree with this.

Markets require regulating but is not Government's place to control those markets. 

The recent problems in the Banking sector were IMO due to successive administrations of different political persuasions being in the thrall of the bankers and deregulating the sector. Not just in the UK but worldwide. 

This attitude arose from the belief that developed economies did not require a manufacturing base and could be almost totally reliant upon the service industries such as Financial Services.


----------



## Ethan (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You seem to have a complete lack of reality when it comes business and what creates wealth in this country.   You constantly harp on about the fat cats salting away the money, who do you think creates the majority of jobs?  It's the small to medium enterprises, people that startup new business, put their homes on the line, take out loans and work their bits off to get up and running.  Some large organisations are as you describe but not all of them and not even most, they employ many people who in turn pay a lot of tax into the system so it's incorrect to believe they salt everything away and dont contribute to the tax system.

There are indeed too many people that abuse the welfare system around and I think most people see it in their everyday lives, no one is saying all people on welfare are like this as that would be wrong.

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, they have many of their own large internationals that are models of free enterprise. They do tend have Social Democratic type systems but not the kind of piffle that was coming from the Labour party in this election.  Their economies are quite different than ours but they have much smaller populations, they also pay levels of tax that people here would find hard to accept and get a great deal of State interference in their lives.   It's not Utopia.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the US experience of trickle down economics has shown that giving tax benefits to the rich does not cause a return in either jobs or in terms of greater money circulating in the system. It is a fact that the rich are much more likely to hid their windfalls away in tax vehicles whereas the reworking class are more likely to recirculate their in the economy. The US love of trickle down has burst. 

Obviously jobs need to be created but there is a balance to be struck between incentives to do so and protecting the working class. That balance shifted too far recently.

As for lack of reality, I have worked for big corporate companies as well as small VC-backed companies, and dealt with investors from a variety of institutions interested on working with either type.


----------



## Ethan (May 10, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Hahahahahaha, oh my sides, you're killing me

I do an awful lot of travelling to Scandanavian countries, and have a great relationship with my colleagues over there... you sir are a joke if you think Scandanavian socialism works.... hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Tell us about the levels of tax in the Scandanavian countries, and the levels of state expenditure on benefits. Maybe you could even tell us about the cost of your average weekly food shopping.... must dash, I've just wet myself with laughter...

Click to expand...

I work with Scandinavian companies too, and we nearly merged with one. I guess your colleagues over there are as bitter as you. Were they like that before they met you? The Scandos I know think it works pretty well. 

I guess i just have missed the riots of protest in the streets of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. It is expensive, for sure, but everyone seems to do pretty well, and many more of them have cabins, as they call them, than over here. And they all have good healthcare, better than here.


----------



## Fade and Die (May 10, 2015)

Not read the whole thread so this might have already been said, but for my two penn'orth i think its more than just the leader, it was the message Labour was sending out, as mentioned by the loathsome Mandelson on the Andrew Marr show:

" We sent out a message, which basically said, we're for the poor, we hate the rich and we are completely ignoring the vast swathe of the population that exist in between"

Labour was created as the party for the working class, but now they are seen as the party of the Not working class, and they have lost there way. 

They have a problem where they try to be 3 parties at once, London Labour, Northern Labour and Scottish Labour and they struggle to come up with policies that appeal to all 3. 

If in a few years they were to elect someone like Dan Jarvis as a leader I think he could pull the party together, he would appeal to a lot of Old Labour, New Labour and the floating vote.

I'd still not vote for him though!


----------



## Hobbit (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I work with Scandinavian companies too, and we nearly merged with one. I guess your colleagues over there are as bitter as you. Were they like that before they met you? The Scandos I know think it works pretty well. 

I guess i just have missed the riots of protest in the streets of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. It is expensive, for sure, but everyone seems to do pretty well, and many more of them have cabins, as they call them, than over here. And they all have good healthcare, better than here.
		
Click to expand...

Oh please do explain my bitterness.. And you've worked with Scandanavian companies? Maquet? Arjo? You've used their anaesthetic machines and vents? Or maybe their theatre tables? You may be a big fish in your Consultant's pond but, typically, clueless in the real world. No doubt from your lofty heights you can explain my gullible ignorance.

Anyway, back to the taxation, cost of living and benefits in those countries... do tell.

But hey, crack on. You're in entertaining form today.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I work with Scandinavian companies too, and we nearly merged with one. I guess your colleagues over there are as bitter as you. Were they like that before they met you? The Scandos I know think it works pretty well. 

I guess i just have missed the riots of protest in the streets of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. It is expensive, for sure, but everyone seems to do pretty well, and many more of them have cabins, as they call them, than over here. And they all have good healthcare, better than here.
		
Click to expand...

So vote Labour and get a cabin!   :rofl:  Priceless!


----------



## SocketRocket (May 10, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Sorry to burst your bubble, but the US experience of trickle down economics has shown that giving tax benefits to the rich does not cause a return in either jobs or in terms of greater money circulating in the system. It is a fact that the rich are much more likely to hid their windfalls away in tax vehicles whereas the reworking class are more likely to recirculate their in the economy. The US love of trickle down has burst. 

Obviously jobs need to be created but there is a balance to be struck between incentives to do so and protecting the working class. That balance shifted too far recently.

As for lack of reality, I have worked for big corporate companies as well as small VC-backed companies, and dealt with investors from a variety of institutions interested on working with either type.
		
Click to expand...

I dont have a bubble to burst  unlike the one that has been inflated by your ego.

Do you actually read what people post, did you take in the part where I explained that most jobs and wealth is created through small to medium enterprise.  You seem to be paranoid with big business and fat cats.

You talk about protecting the 'Working Class'  Do you still believe there is such a group of people that can be pigeon holed by that term.   There are now a number of middle class echelons followed by a growing under class and it's been much like this for a considerable time now, probably the late 70s. This is why Labour has a problem positioning themselves as a representative party and shifting to the left leaves them abandoned by so many.   The Conservatives are making an effort to move people out of the degradation of a life on benefits and into work, which is after all the best route out of relative poverty.

Regarding reality you seem to be a fairly well off middle class person (which is nothing to be ashamed of)  I don't know your background but would take a guess that you have never had a business or employed people and don't understand the pressures this brings to small businessmen who are the backbone of the economy .


----------



## MegaSteve (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You talk about protecting the 'Working Class'  Do you still believe there is such a group of people that can be pigeon holed by that term.   T
		
Click to expand...

Despite the very best efforts of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron... Yes....

Might work in warehouses/shops now rather than in factories, mines and farms etc but we are still here... And, owning a home doesn't make you 'middle class' whatever that means these days...


----------



## SocketRocket (May 10, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Despite the very best efforts of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron... Yes....

Might work in warehouses/shops now rather than in factories, mines and farms etc but we are still here... And, owning a home doesn't make you 'middle class' whatever that means these days...
		
Click to expand...

The class system of the past has faded almost into oblivion.   Some people still like to wear a tag on their shirt sleeve but the Working Class that I grew up with doesn't exist as it was, no one I grew up with went to university, their families didn't own their homes, they never had cars or ever went abroad on holidays, they never had refrigerators or carpets on the floor but they all worked hard and were as honest as the days long, if they could see the standard of living most have now they would never consider it Working Class and thats why these labels dont mean anything now.  Labour have just been taught that lesson true and well and will need to seriously contemplate their navels if they want any chance of government .


----------



## MegaSteve (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			no one I grew up with went to university,
		
Click to expand...

No one I grew up with went to university either... What we had though was the opportunity of proper apprenticeships with usually a job, with prospects, at the end of the term... Spend five years at uni now and you might just get the chance of being chief shelf filler... House ownership is now becoming beyond the means of too many particularly here in London... Which is an absolute disgrace when the party in charge is supposedly all about owning your own gaff...


----------



## SocketRocket (May 10, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			No one I grew up with went to university either... What we had though was the opportunity of proper apprenticeships with usually a job, with prospects, at the end of the term... Spend five years at uni now and you might just get the chance of being chief shelf filler... House ownership is now becoming beyond the means of too many particularly here in London... Which is an absolute disgrace when the party in charge is supposedly all about owning your own gaff...
		
Click to expand...

Rome wasn't built in a day but this government is doing a great job with encouraging new job creation after the disaster period before them where people were encouraged to fester on  unemployment benefits. We also need more people in Universities studying subjects that are needed in the workplace, how many art historians or media consultants do we need. We don't have the industry we had in the past that created indentured apprenticeships but there are still many available and I mean real ones that give valuable skills.   Further, if we invested in our own people's skills rather than importing them from countries that do then there would be more opportunities for our young people and that is especially true for the NHS.

Regarding House ownership and the cost of buying a house, it was never cheap and interest rates were phenomenally higher than they are these days.  I put this to you: If you were selling your own house (this is hypothetical as I don't know if you own a house) would you try to get the maximum sale price you could; or would you let it go below market value to help the cause?


----------



## 6inchcup (May 10, 2015)

NO im a TORY always have been always will be.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I put this to you: If you were selling your own house (this is hypothetical as I don't know if you own a house) would you try to get the maximum sale price you could; or would you let it go below market value to help the cause?
		
Click to expand...


I'd absolutely love to be in a position to be able to sell my home short to "help the cause"...


----------



## SocketRocket (May 11, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			I'd absolutely love to be in a position to be able to sell my home short to "help the cause"...
		
Click to expand...

I never asked if you would love to, I asked you if you would!  So how do you get people to sell their houses lower than someone else would pay for it?   People rant on about the greedy rich but still want to make the maximum profit themselves when selling something and especially houses.   Are they closet fat cats or is it normal acceptable behaviour?


----------



## MegaSteve (May 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I never asked if you would love to, I asked you if you would!  So how do you get people to sell their houses lower than someone else would pay for it?   People rant on about the greedy rich but still want to make the maximum profit themselves when selling something and especially houses.   Are they closet fat cats or is it normal acceptable behaviour?
		
Click to expand...


Don't believe any individual/couple seeking to sell their family home for 'the going rate' can be labelled as "fat cats" closeted or otherwise...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 11, 2015)

I think Labour would have done much better with even a half decent leader, same could be said for the Conservatives to be fair. The leader sets the tone, inspires and drives through new, well thought out policies. People didn't believe in Miliband. I'm a Labour supporter and I didn't. First time I have not voted for them, a mixture of Miliband and an inept local Labour candidate. Bring in a better leader, refresh the policies, have some backbone, beef up the shadow posts, stop reading so obviously from a script and they will have a chance next time around.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 11, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Don't believe any individual/couple seeking to sell their family home for 'the going rate' can be labelled as "fat cats" closeted or otherwise...
		
Click to expand...

But you were complaining about the price of housing.  It's not the government that sets the price people sell their houses for.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			But you were complaining about the price of housing.  It's not the government that sets the price people sell their houses for.
		
Click to expand...

Let's see when Housing Associations are forced to sell their properties.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			But you were complaining about the price of housing.  It's not the government that sets the price people sell their houses for.
		
Click to expand...

Not directly but there is lots they can do to affect the price. Individual householders have no choice, if they plan to buy another property they need to realise as much for their own place to compensate for the price of the new one.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			But you were complaining about the price of housing.  It's not the government that sets the price people sell their houses for.
		
Click to expand...


Of course government is to blame... Successive right wing administrations instructed councils to sell off their housing stock without plans to replace them... Which forced folk into the private sector driving up the cost of rent... Impacting on the sales of homes in high demand areas forcing up their value to those wishing to invest in the rental market... I was back in the East End yesterday for a family do... They [family] were telling me some of the old council houses over that way were now on the market for ridiculous sums because of their desirability to the rental market, for which they were originally intended, though beyond the reach of the 'working family'...


----------



## SocketRocket (May 11, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Let's see when Housing Associations are forced to sell their properties.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to people, individuals, not Housing Associations.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 11, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not directly but there is lots they can do to affect the price. Individual householders have no choice, if they plan to buy another property they need to realise as much for their own place to compensate for the price of the new one.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, see that.  The point was in reply to a comment that suggested it was the Government that set house prices.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes, see that.  The point was in reply to a comment that suggested it was the Government that set house prices.
		
Click to expand...



So, why do politicians keep banging on about what they intend with regard to bringing a greater supply of affordable [hate that word] homes to the market... If you are the party of home ownership... Then do what's necessary to ensure to that happens...


----------



## MegaSteve (May 11, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			The man I was hoping to be the next Mayor of London appears to be setting his sights a little higher... Hopefully, he can be persuaded London should remain his main target leaving party leadership for another time...
		
Click to expand...


Good news for Londoners it would appear 'my man' has had a re-think and decided, at this time, not to seek to lead party...


----------



## SocketRocket (May 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			So, why do politicians keep banging on about what they intend with regard to bringing a greater supply of affordable [hate that word] homes to the market... If you are the party of home ownership... Then do what's necessary to ensure to that happens...
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what happens where you live but every time there is a housing development here it has a number of Affordable Homes, otherwise they don't get planning permission.


----------



## delc (May 12, 2015)

I



Birchy said:



			Interesting question that has arisen from this election which i could probably ask myself. This probably only applies to those that agonised over their choice etc.

If you have voted Labour or Tory (AN other) because you always have and your great grandad did then this question isnt for you. 

My vote was very tight between Labour and Conservative and i ended up siding with the Tories but i did struggle to split the two parties.

Had Labour had a more charismatic leader instead of Miliband that possibly may have swung it their way. Would it have made a difference for you??
		
Click to expand...

I didn't vote Labour because I can't forgive them for nearly bankrupting the country under Blair and Brown. I was not impressed by Ed Milliband either. Was he really the best person they could have chosen?


----------



## jp5 (May 12, 2015)

delc said:



			I didn't vote Labour because I can't forgive them for nearly bankrupting the country under Blair and Brown.
		
Click to expand...

Please explain how Labour nearly bankrupted the economy. I believe at the time when Osborne was around he backed their spending plans.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Not sure what happens where you live but every time there is a housing development here it has a number of Affordable Homes, otherwise they don't get planning permission.
		
Click to expand...

Same happens here. Does anyone know how they stay affordable or once bought can you then re-sell those houses at market rate and make a tidy profit? They are not much use if they are only affordable once.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 12, 2015)

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/de...526ca9eaa8aefaac693931407#0WpyixD39odZxUs2.97

Is this what you mean by affordable? Complete with own saltire!
How much for same property south of Preston?


----------



## bluewolf (May 12, 2015)

"Affordable" tends to refer to the rest of the development, and I'm not sure that all developments have to have them. I know the new builds up the road have 6 "affordable" homes. They start at Â£175k I think. The rest of the homes range from Â£200k - Â£600k. There is a small development round the corner that only has 12 homes on it and there are certainly no affordable homes on that one ..


----------



## Tarkus1212 (May 12, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Same happens here. Does anyone know how they stay affordable or once bought can you then re-sell those houses at market rate and make a tidy profit? They are not much use if they are only affordable once.
		
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to "social housing" which is not the same as "affordable housing". The former becomes the property of housing associations and is unlikely to ever be privately owned, the latter would be the property of the local authority and available for purchase under one of the assisted purchase schemes. Social housing is built to an agreed specification (often a higher spec than the private houses on the same estate) and usually tucked away in a corner of the development - certainly as far as possible from the 4/5 bed detached properties. You're right though, once the affordable house is sold it is then removed from the affordable market never to return.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 12, 2015)

Tarkus1212 said:



*I think you're referring to "social housing" *which is not the same as "affordable housing". *The former becomes the property of housing associations and is unlikely to ever be privately owned, *the latter would be the property of the local authority and available for purchase under one of the assisted purchase schemes. Social housing is built to an agreed specification (often a higher spec than the private houses on the same estate) and usually tucked away in a corner of the development - certainly as far as possible from the 4/5 bed detached properties. You're right though, once the affordable house is sold it is then removed from the affordable market never to return.
		
Click to expand...

You weren't paying attention to DC a few weeks ago when he announced that housing associations will be required to offer their stock for sale to the current occupants.


----------



## delc (May 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Please explain how Labour nearly bankrupted the economy. I believe at the time when Osborne was around he backed their spending plans.
		
Click to expand...

By spending far more on Government expenditure than was coming in from taxation. Gordon Brown also sold a fair part of the UK Gold reserves at rock bottom prices.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Not sure what happens where you live but every time there is a housing development here it has a number of Affordable Homes, otherwise they don't get planning permission.
		
Click to expand...


Affordable Home is a pretty meaningless sound bite across most of London...


----------



## Tarkus1212 (May 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You weren't paying attention to DC a few weeks ago when he announced that housing associations will be required to offer their stock for sale to the current occupants.
		
Click to expand...

I will totally admit to switching off when DC starts speaking


----------



## Tarkus1212 (May 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You weren't paying attention to DC a few weeks ago when he announced that housing associations will be required to offer their stock for sale to the current occupants.
		
Click to expand...

From my experience of Housing Association tenants very few would ever be in a position to purchase the properties they live in.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 12, 2015)

Tarkus1212 said:



			From my experience of Housing Association tenants very few would ever be in a position to purchase the properties they live in.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - that's why they will be offered the housing at a sizeable discount.  

BTW - how on earth did you manage to miss that pronouncement

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-right-to-buy-housing-association-properties

Housing Associations not happy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html


----------



## Tarkus1212 (May 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed - that's why they will be offered the housing at a sizeable discount.  

BTW - how on earth did you manage to miss that pronouncement

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-right-to-buy-housing-association-properties

Housing Associations not happy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html

Click to expand...

I haven't bought a newspaper for 30+ years, and I certainly don't read party manifestos. I used to work in the house building industry, if I still did I probably would have kept up with the news.

Even with sizeable discounts a great number of housing association tenants would not be able to find a lender, and if they did they'd probably end up losing their homes through failure to make repayments. These houses may end up being sold relatively cheaply but they won't be free. For some people home ownership is not an ideal, it will be a shame if Housing Associations are forced out of business, I think they do a good job.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 12, 2015)

Many affordable houses they build allow people to purchase a percentage of the property value with options to increase the percentage they own in the future.   Quite a good scheme.


----------



## 6inchcup (May 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Many affordable houses they build allow people to purchase a percentage of the property value with options to increase the percentage they own in the future.   Quite a good scheme.
		
Click to expand...

it is if you can afford to get the mortgage for the other 60% pay for that and your rent and running the property,housing associations should only be building high quality low rent houses,not everyone wishes to have a mill stone around their necks for 30+ years


----------



## SocketRocket (May 12, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			it is if you can afford to get the mortgage for the other 60% pay for that and your rent and running the property,housing associations should only be building high quality low rent houses,not everyone wishes to have a mill stone around their necks for 30+ years
		
Click to expand...

Yes, thats correct. However the discussion was more about people buying and selling houses.


----------

