The General Election Thread

[Schoolmarm]

Joce it was pretty much ruined when we moved in.

 

[Carol]

Poor Esselle, whose intentions are not entirely known but her first post was jumped on!

I too have removed two lath and plaster ceilings, (to reveal medieval beams as intended originally) each was only twentieth century and not historically significant (I know! I checked!) But in our first few years here I did several things which could have been disastrous. Only by reading up in books and exploring sites like this did I acquire more knowledge and I feel strongly that we as a forum should be much less aggressively judgemental, especially with new posters. If I had been slammed like Esselle, I would have probably left and never returned.

And yes, I did give her the name of a good local builder who will be able to spread the Lime light!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Poor Esselle, whose intentions are not entirely known but her first post was jumped on!

I too have removed two lath and plaster ceilings, (to reveal medieval beams as intended originally) each was only twentieth century and not historically significant (I know! I checked!) But in our first few years here I did several things which could have been disastrous. Only by reading up in books and exploring sites like this did I acquire more knowledge and I feel strongly that we as a forum should be much less aggressively judgemental, especially with new posters. If I had been slammed like Esselle, I would have probably left and never returned.

And yes, I did give her the name of a good local builder who will be able to spread the Lime light!

Well said Carol. I'm glad I didn't post on Esselle's thread as I would probably had got the balance wrong :roll: . I would also have conveniently forgotten that my own crime is also to have pulled down a lath & plaster ceiling - again before I was more aware of things by reading this site and many books. So many of us seem to have done similar things.

It is a very fine balance (especially in non-listed buildings) between making alterations that are aesthetically or functionally beneficial to us, and not altering or destroying original fabric. I'm struck that all of the former inhabitants of my house over the past 3-400 years have made alterations that they wanted (decorative, structural or functional) without any regard for retaining or conserving what was there. I'm glad they did, as it now has features covering many periods.

 

[Nigel Watts]

"They [the Lib Dems] are a bunch of euro-loving road-hump fetishists who are attempting like some defective vacuum cleaner to suck and blow at the same time; and the worst of it is that if you do vote Lib Dem in the demented belief that there could ever be such a thing as a Lib Dem government, you won't get Prime Minister Clegg. You'll get Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for five more holepunch-hurling years"

Boris you are so right.

 

[biffvernon]

Something's rattled his cage.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Biff - it's rattling many of us on the right! The prospect of 5 more years of Brown and/or the implementation of wacky Lib Dem policies. Our electoral system is now in uncharted waters and the seat predictors don't really work anymore - almost anything could happen.

I would imagine that there's a fair few Lib Dem candidates getting worried now - they might be elected! :shock:

 

[biffvernon]

Interesting piece by Yelland on how Lib Dems were frozen out by Murdoch media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

 

[Penners]

I would imagine that there's a fair few Lib Dem candidates getting worried now - they might be elected! :shock:

Not only that, but Compo and Cleggy (ie: Vince and Nick) are faced with the remote possibility that they might actually have to put some of their idealistic/unrealistic policies into practice.

In that eventuality, I suspect that Young Nick might yearn for the far-off, comfy days of being a party leader with no chance whatsoever of having his policies tested in the real world.

 

[Moo]

Interesting piece by Yelland on how Lib Dems were frozen out by Murdoch media

Ironic, doncherthink, that it was Sky's transmission of the debate that catapulted the personable Mr Clegg to the top of the polls on Thursday.

 

[Penners]

"They [the Lib Dems] are a bunch of euro-loving road-hump fetishists who are attempting like some defective vacuum cleaner to suck and blow at the same time; and the worst of it is that if you do vote Lib Dem in the demented belief that there could ever be such a thing as a Lib Dem government, you won't get Prime Minister Clegg. You'll get Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for five more holepunch-hurling years"

Boris you are so right.

Whether you love Boris or hate him, you have to enjoy the richness and colour of his prose.

I shall mentally file the adjective "holepunch-hurling" for future use!

His essential message is, of course, quite correct.

 

[biffvernon]

Last Thursday was ITV - SKY is this week - then the Beeb.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

His essential message is, of course, quite correct.

Vote Clegg, get Brown! :shock:

Whereupon they'll gerrymander our electoral system to ensure we have permanent LibLabbery.

 

[johnandrew]

His essential message is, of course, quite correct.

Vote Clegg, get Brown! :shock:

...we have permanent LibLabbery.

Good!

 

[DaveBrigg]

Flyfisher - your earlier assessment of the link between wealth and education was not so far from what I think, and just making people rich overnight won't help. However, while we still have inequalities, it is the children who are the victims. We have pupils with no internet access, no room of their own to do homework and parents on shiftwork who are asleep or absent in the morning and afternoons. These problems are not insurmountable, but they must all be overcome just to reach the starting point of others. If parents cannot or will not provide support, I don't want the rug to be pulled from under the children's feet just to fund my £3 a week for being married.

Now that it looks like Cameron has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, will Ashcroft be demanding a refund of his £5 million? I noticed today that the 'Change' posters on the main road into Grimsby had disappeared, so maybe he kept the receipt.

Cameron's problem is that he has no angle of attack left. In the old days he could appeal to Anti-European xenophobia, but now that's just a rallying call to UKIP and opens old party wounds. He can try to push the immigration button, but anyone who puts this as their main issue has already defected (from both parties) to the BNP.
Any reference to Labour sleaze leaves him equally open to attack. He had his wrist slapped at the start of the campaign by the ONS for trying to misinterpret the statistics, which show crime has fallen. Whatever he says about valuing the NHS, he has already stated that he is committed to cuts to save money, and Labour can remind people of all the extra hospitals and doctors there are now.
The main area of attack was the economy. Unemployment not a good point to mention, since it is now falling and is way below Thatcher's millions. Tax could have been an effective means of attacking Labour, but then he blew it by keeping his tax cuts for the seriously rich. Every time it is raised, he gets 'inheritance tax' as a reply. The £3 a week marriage payment was a hasty and flawed attempt to undo the damage. The old chestnut of Union funding is ineffective now as well; there are fewer strikes, fewer unions allied to the Labour party, and they have not moved to Belize to dodge paying tax.
He can't mention Iraq or Afghanistan, since he supported them, and admitted in the debate that things were getting better anyway. Returning foxhunting is not likely to attract voters in Labour heartlands, and is a liability when he tries to make out that his is the party of the middle classes, most of whom oppose hunting. Judging by the posters, national debt was his last card. Sadly for him, it is winning fewer votes than are lost by people scared about more emotive issues such as losing their jobs and having their school budgets cut.
The only slogan left is 'vote for me because I am not Gordon Brown', which I assume is the basis of 'change'. The trouble with asking the electrorate to vote just on personality is that it cuts both ways, and voters have now seen that Nick Clegg is not Gordon Brown either.

Lib Dems were frozen out by Murdoch media

The Sky survey straight after the leaders' debate put Cameron clearly on top, unlike every other survey at the time or since. A story worthy of Fox news. :lol: Murdoch might be another one who will be checking down the back of the sofa for his receipts on May 7th.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Dave - I think the defining difference between Cameron and the other 2 is the underlying theme of the whole Conservative manifesto (which I think has been handled poorly and hasn't really "resonated") and that is the concept of Big Society vs Big Government.

An adherence to smaller government and over time lower taxation/state intrusion/regulation and more personal responsibility as a core philosophy, is a clear distinction between the Tories and LibLabbery.

We really need to move off the tribal left-wing obsession with toffs and class, and the middle-class obsession with governmental managerialism (which is what many of your points above boil down to IMHO).

There are philosophical and idealogical differences between the parties about where we take the country next - heck, even the liberals have a distinctive philosophy there to debate!

I wish the election would focus a bit more on those :roll:

 

[Moo]

Last Thursday was ITV - SKY is this week - then the Beeb.

Ah. Just shows how alert I am these days.
Perhaps Sky will arrange for Mr Clegg's star to do a nosedive this week.

 

[Gervase]

I may be politically naïve, but for me the whole Big Society idea is rather worrying and not a little bogus.
It comes from a party which did more than any other to centralise government and emasculate local decision-making by removing power from parish and district councils and centralising everything on Westminster.
And the premise would seem to me to be one of abrogating responsibility. As I see it, the Conservatives want to break up public services and hand them over to individuals, charities and private enterprise. Do you honestly imagine that a poorly-performing school in an impoverished area is going to be galvanised by parent power or by a local charity or a private company?
Encouraging people to take on the delivery of local services is fine in an area where you have an involved middle class and people with entrepreneurial experience, but what about those areas where arguably such things are most needed? As such, the ‘big society’ plan would merely reinforce difference and inequality.
What’s more, to set up a host of small organisations, each responsible for a small patch, would surely massively increase bureaucracy and hugely duplicate an enormous number of administrative areas away from the ‘sharp end’.
You would also have the problem of accountability. Who will ensure that all these little satrapies and fiefdoms are run honestly and fairly? The scope for corruption is pretty huge, to be honest.
The overall impression is one of a Thatcherite philosophy rigged out in new clothes – but with the old notion of ordinary people left to sink or swim depending on where they have the good fortune to live. The same old ideology persists – that state intervention is intrinsically bad.
Perhaps that’s why Cameron has rather reined back on the ‘Big Society’ notion and didn’t mention it in the television debate. It’s not a new political philosophy; it’s an old one that was tried and found sorely wanting in the 1980s.

ETA: This is from the Conservative manifesto. Read it, and then try to imagine it actually working. It really is from cloud-cuckoo land:

Our ambition is for every adult in the country
to be a member of an active neighbourhood
group. We will stimulate the creation and
development of neighbourhood groups, which
can take action to improve their local area. We
will use Cabinet Office budgets to fund the
training of independent community organisers
to help people establish and run neighbourhood
groups, and provide neighbourhood grants to
the UK’s poorest areas to ensure they play a
leading role in the rebuilding of civic society.
To stimulate social action further, we will:
transform the civil service • into a ‘civic
service’ by making sure that participation
in social action is recognised in civil
servants’ appraisals;
• launch an annual Big Society Day to
celebrate the work of neighbourhood groups
and encourage more people to take part
in social action;
• provide funding from the Big Society Bank
to intermediary bodies with a track record
of supporting and growing social enterprises;
and,
• develop a measure of well-being that
encapsulates the social value of state action.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Gervase, as I think I mentioned before, experience in Sweden showed that the freeing up of the ownership and running of schools had its greatest impact in the more deprived inner city areas. The Tory education ideas are taken from Sweden, so you should look to see what happened there if you wish to judge them properly.

The arguments you use could be extrapolated to all areas of economic activity and one would end up by concluding that only a centrally planned economy with state monopolies would work and be efficient. Again, from experience, we know that nothing can be further from the truth.

Cameron has been very cautious in coming up with ideas on public sector reform (far too cautious for many Tories), and has sought to present and package them in terms which he thinks will be most marketable. Many people (including many Tories) dont like this Blair-like approach to presentation, but the intelligent response is to look behand the facade at the the substance of what is proposed. What you will see is based on real solutions which have worked in other countries.

 

[Gervase]

I can't say I've been to many Swedish schools, but those who have paint a rather different picture to Michael Gove's bogus assertion that "We have seen the future in Sweden and it works...After 15 years, 900 new schools have been created and standards have been driven up. If it can work there it can work here."

The Independent cites research from the Univeristy of Stockholm casting doubt on the Tories' plans, while the BBC quotes the man who introduced the system to Sweden as saying the plans will have little impact. Furthermore standards in Sweden have not impoved - they have actually declined.

Over the last 15 years Sweden has plummeted to the bottom of international league tables in maths and science. The recent international Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) shows England was ranked several places higher than Sweden in both maths and science. In addition, between the last TIMSS report in 1995 and the most recent one conducted in 2007, the average score for Sweden went down in both subjects while scores for England went up in both subjects.

 

[biffvernon]

They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987.

And now they want Big Society. You sure get change with the Tories.

(But it will only be the small change after the rich have had their tax break.)