The General Election Thread

[Moo]

Thanks, Stephen.

So - the Lib Dems promise to "protect …our built heritage by reducing the cost of repairs ... equalise on new build and repair ... help to reduce the costs of repairs to historic buildings."

and the Tories will " … abolish Home Information Packs …"

Hmmm. Er...

 

[Penners]

But aren't the Tories promising an immediate cull of HIPS?

I've understood so. Reason enough, in itself, to vote for them.

I wonder whether I could sue New Labour to get my HIP fee* back? Bloody stupid, half-baked idea.




*No connection should be made or inferred with a surgical procedure of a similar name.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I've been through the Tory education manifesto, and although it is wrong to mock the stupid, it reveals levels of ignorance of which my year 7's would be ashamed.
They want 'special needs' pupils to be taught in 'special schools'. Aside from any educational and moral issues, Cameron then went on television to say that parents can choose wherever they want to send their children. These two ideas completely contradict each other.
They want to recruit better qualified teachers. How do they do this? Freeze (i.e. cut) pay. Not sure of the logic of this incentive.
They promise that parents can send children to a school of their choice. What plans do they have when 700 pupils want to go to a school with 250 places? A nice idea but impossible to achieve.
They will legislate to allow heads to ban and confiscate items. A quick check would have shown that this power already exists. They will also allow head teachers to search pupils. We have pupils (especially girls) who hide mobile phones in their underwear. Can anyone see parents having an issue with their daughter being searched in school?
They want to copy the system of Charter schools which is used in the USA. Half the charter pupils do no better than if they had been in a normal school, and a third do worse. That's a promise to lower standards.
They will make primary schools teach synthetic phonics. A quick check would show that this already happens, but how does a promise to prescribe teaching methods fit with the idea of less 'big' government intervention?
They say that failing schools will be taken over by successful academies. What does that do for parental choice? What if, as has happened, it's the academy that fails? What if the academy does not want to take over the failing school, because it is full of pupils that the academy has just excluded?
They will provide an online database of exam papers and mark schemes. These already exist, but are little use for those without internet access, who have been promised nothing.
They will allow headteachers to pay more for the best teachers, but will at the same time cut school budgets.


There are pages of this stuff. Either promising legislation for something which already exists, or promising some fantasy completely at odds with the cuts in funding.
I know education is not a priority for many, but if they can get it so wrong here, what hope the economy?

 

[Moo]

But aren't the Tories promising an immediate cull of HIPS?

I've understood so. Reason enough, in itself, to vote for them.

I see where you're coming from (as they say), but the orange ones are also dangling an attractive carrot.......

 

[Flyfisher]

I've been through the Tory education manifesto, and although it is wrong to mock the stupid, it reveals levels of ignorance of which my year 7's would be ashamed.

Frankly, I think political parties (of all colours) have about as much idea about how to run an education system as they have about how to run the economy.

My reasoning for this is that, ever since I started school (well, probably not infants' school) I can remember my parents, their friends and the media all having heated discussions about how best to run the education system. The fact that such debates continue to rage many decades later suggests that no conclusion has been agreed. In other words, it's simply not possible to create and manage an education system that will suit everyone - or nobody actually knows how to achieve it. Things will be forever tweaked this way and that but with little fundamental improvement. Indeed, there is a body of opinion that today's school examinations have actually been 'dumbed down', which might explain why so many young people now go on to university compared with 40 years ago. But whatever the reason, I've not detected any significant overall increase in educational standards over the years - and I speak as someone who has managed student sponsorship schemes for UMIST and Brunel electrical engineering and computer science students, attended umpteen 'milkrounds' to interview prospective new employees and sifted my way through hundreds CVs in my time.

I'm not saying there are no bright youngsters coming out of schools any more, of course there are, but I've not detected their numbers being particularly different than they've ever been, implying that, after decades of debate, education still seems to bumble along mostly in the dark. It's a good job I'm not cyncial or I might conclude that all the syllabus and examination changes over the years have been made precisely so that it's very hard to track real educational standards from one generation to another, making it easier for the government of the day to claim their way is best - which, of course, they all do.

I also think it's much the same with the economy. With all the professionals and experts that any government has access to, isn't it a little surprising that there is still no consensus about how best to run things? If it was possible to actually do a really good job and please everyone then someone would have discovered the secret by now and they'd never be voted out of office. The fact is, these are impossible jobs and it's simply not possible to please everyone and control everything. This is not just a UK issue, it's global. Add ideology into the mix and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that any government will ever be able to satisfy everyone. I'm sure we're all far 'richer' in almost every respect than my parent's generation, yet it doesn't seem to have brought about any particularly significant social changes; the same old issues remain and, I suspect, they always will.

And so it goes on. :roll:

 

[biffvernon]

There are pages of this stuff. Either promising legislation for something which already exists, or promising some fantasy completely at odds with the cuts in funding.
I know education is not a priority for many, but if they can get it so wrong here, what hope the economy?

Oh it's not just education. All the other policy areas are of a similar standard.

 

[Flyfisher]

A lovely piece here, from Stephen Fry: http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/05/04/how-i-will-vote/

Especially wonderful is his "final plea":

"If you wish to avail yourself of the commentary option below, please remember to be considerate, understanding and democratic in spirit. By all means tell me why I should vote Conservative or UKIP or any other way, but do so without rancour, resentment, spite or viciousness. Trolling is the internet’s cancer and its lethal metastasising horrors have no place here. Go to other political blog sites or newspaper comment areas if you want to be splenetic and loud and mercilessly abusive. Not here. Please."

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's a lovely piece of writing, but I for one would have to take issue with this bit (apropos Vote option one, for Brown, dour and sensible):

When the house is a ruin, go for solid and unglamorous damp-coursing and roof relining – you can worry about the wallpaper, furniture and carpeting later.

 

[Schoolmarm]

:lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I had to smile at that. Perhaps he's not quite so aware of the benefits of throwing open the windows to let in some fresh air. :wink:

 

[Nigel Watts]

Towards the end of the Major administration there was a strong feeling - even in some Tory circles - that only a Labour government would be able to bring about the kinds of radical reform to welfare and public services which the country needed.

Thirteen years later we can see that this never happened. Instead Labour increased taxes and borrowed heavily to pile vast quantities of cash into an unreformed unresponsive and inefficient public sector. Of course some of the money got through and some improvements were made, but at a huge cost which was not sustainable, just as the economic structure of Britain in the 1970s was not sustainable with overly mighty unions and state subsidies artificially prolonging the life of dead and uncompetitive industries.

David Cameron's Conservatives are the only party which has anything to say about public sector reform and the only one with the courage and energy to do anything about it. Clegg has some good ideas - noone earning less than £10,000 paying tax should be a Tory policy too and perhaps when the economy is in better shape it will be - but the Liberals lack coherence and cant form a government. Labour has nothing new to offer at all.

The choice is clear: we need change, we need economic reform. Only the Tories can deliver this.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Vote Nigel! 8)

Last couple of days getting very exciting now (Ok, I'm weird, I admit :lol: ). Liberal vote seemingly dropping away (a la 1983?), Labour vote hardening a little and the Tory vote firming upwards too. It is crystalising into the traditional "Change of team & direction" vs a "Don't risk it" election.

My final prediction (based on nowt more than a hunch and a few bets I've made) is 38 C, 29L, 26 LD. Given it will be a much larger lead in England (Even Howard won more votes than Blair in Englan in 2005), whether that produces a majority for the blues will depend upon whether the LD vote is around 26 or whether it is a couple of points higher. It will also depend heavily upon the weather and (<outrageous steroptyping alert>) Labour's vote choose to dodge the forecast raindrops and keep watching TV.

The biggest question is whether the new Penners baby could be the first one born under a new government??? In which case I vote for "Dawn" for a girl's name - as in "a new Dawn" !! :roll:

 

[biffvernon]

So we arrive at the end of the campaign with all parties committed to economic growth and still no leading politicians has admitted the degree to which the economy is linked to oil production, that we have reached peak oil and that, consequently, further economic growth will be a function of the degree to which the economy can be detached from oil dependence.

The best result will be the widest possible coalition so that we can avoid scapegoating and blaming and concentrate on the transition to a future different to business as usual.

 

[Feltwell]

Quite surprised to get this through the door last night -



I'm in what is very much a marginal constituency, that's the first we've heard from the local Tory MP - who is not that old, late 30's / early 40's I'd say. The tone of that was unexpected - all it's lacking is "Bring back the birch". It could almost have been written by the BNP.

It smacks of desperation - "Cars should not be parked on grass verges" in big shouty bold capitals as one of the key points??? :roll:

 

[Schoolmarm]

They aren't key points, they are actual issues residents have raised with him.

 

[MdB]

It smacks of desperation - "Cars should not be parked on grass verges" in big shouty bold capitals as one of the key points??? :roll:

I bet if you went a canvased at the door, it would be one of the items that was at the top of peoples gripes - which is equally sad.

 

[Feltwell]

I expect you're right. The tone is such that I really would not have been surprised if that letter had come from the BNP candidate.

 

[biffvernon]

And what exactly are the noisy neighbours getting away with?

Oh, yes, parking on the grass.

Can anyone seriously consider voting for this bunch?

(Vote Cameron, get Paisley. Daily Torygraph)

 

[skier-hughes]

yes if those are the local issues that local people who have been questioned want sorting, what's wrong with that?

 

[DaveBrigg]

David Cameron's Conservatives are the only party which has anything to say about public sector reform and the only one with the courage and energy to do anything about it.

As far as I can see, reform is a euphemism for sacking 40,000 public service workers. These people all have names, families, and more to the point, jobs. That's 40,000 more sets of unemployment benefit, housing benefit, free school meals. 40,000 fewer families able to spend money and support businesses. 40,000 fewer police officers, teachers, nurses, passport checkers, tax officers, health inspectors...

For those who are left, there is a wage cut. Care to predict what will happen when bin men, teachers, DVLA staff etc wake up to find that they will be penalised financially, at the same time that £6 billion is being given to Cameron's millionaire friends in tax breaks? Then when their child tax credits disappear and their children lose EMA payments? Look to Greece (as the Tories like to say) and see what happens when wages are cut. I could accept it if there was really no other option, but if there is money spare to boost the income of the richest, whilst robbing the poor Cameron is morally bankrupt. That's Tory economic reform. We saw it in the 80's, with the resulting riots, recession, strikes and mass unemployment. It happened again in early 90's. Brace yourselves for a repeat if things go the wrong way on Thursday.

Still, at least I'll get my £3 a week for being married.