The General Election Thread

[Nigel Watts]

Charles Moore in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-will-put-a-cross-in-the-box-marked-hope.html

If Polly Toynbee could write this intelligently I would read her, even if I disagreed, but sadly she comes nowhere close.

 

[biffvernon]

, the public will be more likely to vote on their own experience of the last 13 years..

So as someone who owes their life to the good care received in a hospital built for the expanded NHS and paid for by taxes levied by the Labour government, I suppose I have to vote Labour in gratitude and recognition of a job well done.

 

[Nigel Watts]

On that logic, as someone who saw his father die of hospital acquired infection in an ill-managed and incompetently run NHS establishment, I will have no option but to vote for change.

The logic of course is flawed. What matters is how effective the next government will be. The record of the incumbent is not irrelevant in coming to this judgement, but not the only factor.

 

[Moo]

Does it all come down to whether the quality of one's experience of the NHS is because of, or in spite of, the party in power?

 

[Flyfisher]

Wow. I go away to Cornwall for a week of R&R and you seem to have got the election pretty well covered! A very interesting thread to read in one go.

A few observations:

1. It's interesting how some (most?) people can be committed to a particular party and then pick and choose issues/opinions/spin to support their conviction, as appropriate (and I'm not limiting that comment to the posters here), rather than the other way around, which would surely be more sensible? How does this happen? Is it similar to being 'born into' a particular religion, I wonder?

2. From the week's coverage so far, it seems that everything revolves around our huge deficit and the importance of around 12bn of extra NI or cost savings. All very well but I've also heard it reported that this represents 0.5% of the deficit - a tiny amount really and, given government/economic predictions, one that could well be in the 'noise' of any figures over the next 12 months. Wait for next week's big issue, I spuppose.

3. I've not seen it explained anywhere why it's important to eliminate our deficit over the next term anyway. Many people people take on 25 year mortgages without any problems and don't rush to pay it off within 5 years. Sure, it would be better if we didn't have such debts and we'd be able to do other things with the interest money we pay, but providing we can afford the interest and still have enough to live on, is it really the end of the world? It works for individuals so why not countries?

4. There has been some media discussion about whether 16 year-olds should be able to vote, which has sparked some debate about at what age voters are able to understand all the issues to be able to make sensible voting decisions. It seems to me that even the 'professional' politicians, don't understand all the issues, at least not in the the sense of being able to agree on the best policies to solve the problems the country faces. And isn't that the real heart of the issue? There are no perfect answers, it's just not possible to please all the people - if it was, someone would have done it by now and we'd all be happy and they'd be in government forever. Basically, it's all too complicated to understand and impossible to control. The only thing to do is to lurch from one decision to another, see what happens, make some 'correcting' decisions and lurch from crisis to crisis. In that sense, a change of helm would seem like a good idea.

5. I must confess to a rather poor voting record. I don't like starting from a 'party prejudice' viewpoint so at every election I try to follow the issues, read up on the background and generally do my best to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, I usually fail miserably and, about halfway through all the electioneering, I simply give up. In this, I am comforted only in the knowledge that I've always lived in a contituency with a very large majority so my vote has never been missed.

I do take the previous comments, though, about spoiling ballot papers to at least be counted. I might give that a try this time - unless I have an uncharacteristic breakthough and actually figure some of this stuff out.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Hmm interesting FF. I come from a labour family and was "rescued" by a conservative govt when Maggie got in and this has influenced all my thoughts since. I feel safe with a conservative govt. Although I didn't feel safe in the dying throes of the Major govt.

On another forum we all answered a questionnaire and it then rated our answers against each party's policies. Loads of people kept re-taking it because the choice was wrong of who to vote for! Why not change? Very strange. Mine was still conservatives but lib dem was close behind. Now I still feel that they aren't fit to govern so would be too scared to vote for them.

 

[Feltwell]

Hmm interesting FF. I come from a labour family and was "rescued" by a conservative govt when Maggie got in and this has influenced all my thoughts since. I feel safe with a conservative govt. Although I didn't feel safe in the dying throes of the Major govt.

I come from a Conservative family, but was put off the Tories for life by the actions of Maggie ! I do rather expect to see Cameron coming into No.10 though, to my dismay.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

2. From the week's coverage so far, it seems that everything revolves around our huge deficit and the importance of around 12bn of extra NI or cost savings. All very well but I've also heard it reported that this represents 0.5% of the deficit - a tiny amount really and, given government/economic predictions, one that could well be in the 'noise' of any figures over the next 12 months. Wait for next week's big issue, I spuppose.

Very true - the argument over £6bn of savings to cover blocking the NI rise (jobs tax!) pales into insignificance when set against the £160bn annual deficit which needs to be closed. I feel cheated that neither of the main parties trusts us enough at present to discuss the scale of the cut in public spending required to rein in this scale of deficit.

3. I've not seen it explained anywhere why it's important to eliminate our deficit over the next term anyway. Many people people take on 25 year mortgages without any problems and don't rush to pay it off within 5 years. Sure, it would be better if we didn't have such debts and we'd be able to do other things with the interest money we pay, but providing we can afford the interest and still have enough to live on, is it really the end of the world? It works for individuals so why not countries?

I think you are conflating debt with deficit. In your mortage analogy, your personal mortage equates to a one off debt arrangement. As a nation our problem is that the national debt (mortgage) will shortly reach £1.4trillion whilst we are also adding £160bn of new credit card debt (the public expenditure deficit) (because our salary does not cover our living expenses) to the mortgage each year.

Not many of us remortgage every year simply to cover a shortfall in our salary, because we have expensive tastes beyond our means (not even Joce! 8) ). If we did, we would soon find that that the interest payments exceeded the total of our salary (GDP).

I accept that this is simplistic analaogy (and the economics experts will be along shortly to rubbish me!), and that provided the economy is growing (ie we get a personal annual salary rise) then in some circusmtances it does make sense to finance revenue expenditure through debt arrangements.

What is almost unprecedented is the scale of our current deficit that is driving up our debt. We are only maintining our AAA international credit rating because there is a belief in the markets that after the election the government (any colour) will seriously get to grips with our deficit. The scale of the deficit will shortly exceed that of Greece.

Sorry to bring a few facts into the room, but with regards our Lady in the North (makes her sound like a Catholic saint, which is ironic!) she is wrong on at least two counts. Both the Tories' NI increase block and married persons/civil partners tax credit are genuinely progressive and will significantly help lower and midle income tax payers the most. In the case of the marriage tax credit it will not be available to families earning more than circa £40k per year - and since it is funded by additional taxes on banking it is also positively redistributive from rich to less rich. The IHT changes will actually help 400,000 families not 2-3000 of the riches - and incentivise savings and prudence on money already taxed at least once.

Whether you think that stable family insitutions of two partners coming together and staying together should be supported through the tax system is another area for debate. I happen to think the overwhelming weight of evidence is that this is the most successful arrangement man has yet discovered.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Hmm interesting FF. I come from a labour family and was "rescued" by a conservative govt when Maggie got in and this has influenced all my thoughts since. I feel safe with a conservative govt. Although I didn't feel safe in the dying throes of the Major govt.

I come from a Conservative family, but was put off the Tories for life by the actions of Maggie ! I do rather expect to see Cameron coming into No.10 though, to my dismay.

I think I am a lot older than you though so as a teenager and until Maggie got in it seemed like hell.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Carole, I have this amazing mental image of you as a big-haired 1980's outrider for Maggie!!!

Imagine the mess we'd still be in if Sunny Jim had won in 79 or, God forbid, Foot in 83. Your teenage years would have been awful!

 

[Gervase]

I know quite a few people from Barnsley, Corby and the like whose teenaged years were awful, thanks to Thatcher.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I know

 

[Feltwell]

I think I am a lot older than you though so as a teenager and until Maggie got in it seemed like hell.

Fair point. I do remember the 70's, though I was only a kid - I do remember the 3 day week, power cuts etc. There's absolutely no doubt that change needed to happen. I'm also not saying that everything Maggie did was bad, but my over-riding memory of growing up throughout her period in power is not a good one.

Not to mention the fact that before she got to be PM she took my morning milk off me! :evil: "Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" - who remembers that?

I know quite a few people from Barnsley, Corby and the like whose teenaged years were awful, thanks to Thatcher.

Yes, and many other places beside. Some of those places have still not recovered.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I know quite a few people from Barnsley, Corby and the like whose teenaged years were awful, thanks to Thatcher.

Gervase, do you mean because of the failure of steel and coal industries and the social consequences that followed? Was there an alternative to Thatcher's remedy for ailing State-inductries? Could we really have continued to pour in ever increasing sums of taxpayers' money to prop up uneconomic, highly-unionised manufacturing industries or rigged the markets for products that no one really wanted at prices that weren't good competitive?

I don't think so - and history from around the world doesn't suggest so either.

Thatcher didn't set out in some "evil" or political way to deliberately destroy these communities based around singles industries as the Left like to argue - but you can't flog a dead horse/state industry for ever; after all the public sector is paid for by the wealth generated by a dynamic private sector.

In contrast to "awful Thatcher" I could equally argue that that the cycle is for Labour to tax/spend/ruin our economy and for the electorate to turn to the Tories to come in and sort out the mess with bitter medicine and prudent economics based upon smaller government. It's happening again this time.... :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Not to mention the fact that before she got to be PM she took my morning milk off me! :evil: "Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" - who remembers that?

Did that ever really happen? I was a primary school kid in the late 70s and remember getting my 1/3rd pint bottle of warm creamy milk every day. My sons are still getting it now.... albeit it a metric Tetrapak carton!

Government is about tough choices - faced with a need to make savings in the Education budget in the early 1970's one can understand an Education Secretary targetting free school milk for all, rather than some of the more sensitive areas of eduction spending. She certainly wasn't protecting Tory milk farmers!

Yes, and many other places beside. Some of those places have still not recovered.

What - despite 13 years of NuLab utopia? :wink:

 

[Schoolmarm]

In contrast to "awful Thatcher" I could equally argue that that the cycle is for Labour to tax/spend/ruin our economy and for the electorate to turn to the Tories to come in and sort out the mess with bitter medicine and prudent economics based upon smaller government. It's happening again this time.... :wink:

This is what I always feel happens. Spot on.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

This is what I always feel happens. Spot on.

I have a feeling that our comrades to the left of us will have a slightly different perspective! 8)

 

[Feltwell]

Not to mention the fact that before she got to be PM she took my morning milk off me! :evil: "Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher" - who remembers that?

Did that ever really happen? I was a primary school kid in the late 70s and remember getting my 1/3rd pint bottle of warm creamy milk every day. My sons are still getting it now.... albeit it a metric Tetrapak carton!]

I think it depended on where you lived and what the education authority policy was. Yes, it did happpen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_4486000/4486571.stm

Still depends on where you live now by the sound of it - my kids don't get milk, but they do get fresh fruit every day.

Yes, and many other places beside. Some of those places have still not recovered.

What - despite 13 years of NuLab utopia? :wink:

Yes -that amount of damage takes more than 13 years to repair :wink:

 

[DaveBrigg]

Labour spend 13 years reducing crime, cutting unemployment, rescuing the state education system, reducing the number of days lost by strikes, reducing NHS waiting times and building hospitals fit for the 21st century, setting up Sure Start to support families with young children, reforming the House of Lords, introducing the Freedom of Information Act, rescuing the savings of millions put at risk by irresponsible bankers, helping the low paid through the minimum wage, and undoing a little of the rail privatisation disaster. Then Mr Cameron wants to sort out the economy with 'prudent economics' that include tax breaks of more than £6.8 billion for the richest 1% of the population, breaks that will be paid for out of cuts to services.

Before the words 'prudent', 'economics' and 'Tories' appear in the same post again, those with longer memories may recall Thatcher's recession of 1980-81, when unemployment rates rose for a further 4 and a half years to hit 12%, and their second recession ten years later, which saw 2 and a half years of rising unemployment. Mr Cameron does have a short record of Tory economics though, as adviser to Norman Lamont when £27 billion was spent on Black Wednesday in a futile attempt to keep the £ in the ERM. John Major later commented on the panic and total lack of understanding of what was happening that day. Prudent?

 

[Flyfisher]

I come from a Conservative family, but was put off the Tories for life by the actions of Maggie !

I've always wondered about Maggie's demonisation. I graduated in 1980 and a friend of mine was from Corby and her father was a steelworker, or ex-steelworker as he became. It was a clearly a hard time for them. Yet, in contrast, I began work in 1980, was able to buy our first house in 1983, was able to move to a larger house in 1986. Basically, the 1980s were a very good time for me - what can I conclude from that about Thatcher's 'reign'?

As FW said, was it really Thatcher's fault that many of our manufacturing industries seemed to become uncompetitive during that time period? Would we really have been better off if billions had been sunk into propping them up? Anyway, where would such billions come from? Individuals have to be financially independent (in the main!) and so do companies - so why is a country any different? Why does a steelworker or a miner expect to remain in the same job for life anyway? Let's face it, times change. What's wrong with changing jobs?

In contrast to "awful Thatcher" I could equally argue that that the cycle is for Labour to tax/spend/ruin our economy and for the electorate to turn to the Tories to come in and sort out the mess with bitter medicine and prudent economics based upon smaller government. It's happening again this time....

That seems to be a good summary. The 'left' seems to have an instinct for micro-managing as much as it can, increasing taxes and creating 'big' government. The 'right' seems to have the opposite instincts; lower taxes and smaller government. I can see why many people are uncomfortable with this approach; it relies on people having to figure out more things for themselves and taking more responsibility for their lives.

The other big thing that people always seem to bring up whenever Thatcher is mentioned is the 'poll tax', yet it's another thing I've never really understood - or rather, I've never understood why it was such a bad thing. Surely (as I understand it), it's much fairer to charge for local government services on a per person basis than on the size or value of a house? Is it really fair for a 'household' of four people to pay the same 'rates' as a household of two people living in an identical property. Indeed, is it fair for two people in a small house to pay less than two people in a large house? This, surely, is the politics of envy, not the politics of equality and fairness for all.

Labour spend 13 years reducing crime, cutting unemployment, rescuing the state education system, reducing the number of days lost by strikes, reducing NHS waiting times and building hospitals fit for the 21st century, setting up Sure Start to support families with young children, reforming the House of Lords, introducing the Freedom of Information Act, rescuing the savings of millions put at risk by irresponsible bankers, helping the low paid through the minimum wage, and undoing a little of the rail privatisation disaster.

Yes, but what if the country can't actually afford all those things? It's not exactly hard to figure out worthy things to spend money on is it? It's a con trick really isn't it? One government starts doing all this 'good stuff' and basically living beyond its means and the next government comes along, and is blamed for doing all the 'bad stuff' necessary to get the spending back to something the country can afford.

As for "tax cuts for the rich", this is also just the politics of envy. What's so bad about the rich? Doesn't everyone want to be rich? What do the rich do with their money anyway - yes, they spend it and it ends up in the economy! Except, of course, the government can't control how it is spent - perhaps that's the problem? Not enough control.

I think you are conflating debt with deficit.

Yes, on reading your explanation, I think you're right. I'd rather overlooked the actual debt!

"Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher"

And quite right too - I never could stand that horrid warm milk everyday. Fortunately, there was always at least one kid in the class that loved it! :wink: