General Election 2010

Manufacturing grew 15% in the last sector. Will that change anybody's minds that Labour are shit.

Not mine.

I think he means 15% compared to same quarter/month/time period last year. That's the context

They are not using it to promote "stable families" they are using it to promote marriage (with the civil-partnerships thing being nothing more than a typical Cameron "look we have changed" gesture). It is grossly unfair, not to say outdated, patronising and without any evidence at all that it will have the desired effect. I think the tax break is going to be about £150 a year; worth getting married for? Or staying married for? It is pure idealogy.

Eggzactly. Any marriage that is based on, or continues to exist because of, a £150 tax benefit is hardly going to be the ideal of familial cohesion.

Marriage is a value they believe in; one of the many values they would like to "share" with the rest of us.

Labour pushed Faith Schools as a great thing, but that was one of many bits of tinkering that they did to the education system, and was more influenced by the New Labour ideology that "other people do it better" (be that the private sector, the Church, whoever).

We can rationalise this all we wish, but at the end of the day what is important is the actual result in the real word.

We might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under the Conservatives and we might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under New Labour - and there will always be people who argue that this policy (let's suppose a hypothetical reduction in worker safety) came from a different, more benign, place with New Labour and it came from a more nefarious place when put forward by the Conservatives.

New Labour may be a jolly village green kinda religious party (something I don't agree with, but will let that go for now), but the results are what matter, thousands of schools and millions of children handed over to the church, 100,000 of our children in madrassas alone, a Prime Minister who believed he was telepathically communicating with the creator of the universe, taking advice on such issue as embarking on a war in the Middle East.

This argument of 'sure they did this, but it came from a different place' is wasted on me.

Although I haven't seen any data, I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money on either of the following two statements: 1) the Conservative have more self-identified religious members 1a) either in the party as a whole or 1b) in parliament than Labour; 2) of their religious members, a greater proportion of them are Christians, of some denomination, than Labour.

What point is being made here ?

How are they (the New Labour party) less socially conservative ? Serious question.

Well, this comes as a bit of a shock - I prefer to criticise Labour, so I don't have a fund of references in their defence. Still, here goes:

NL introduced civil partnerships for homosexual couples in 2004. The Tories want to introduce tax breaks for heterosexual married couples. Section 28 was introduced by the Tories in 1988 and supported by them up until 2003 (though Cameron formally apologised for the policy last year). The Shadow Home Secretary suggested as recently as April that B&B's should be allowed to turn away gay couples. Cameron allows his MEPs free votes on legislation which challenges LGBT lifestyles. Cameron suggested in a recent interview with The Catholic Herald that he would be in favour if reducing the upper limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks in light of recent medical advances (Ben Goldacre wrote about why this is bollocks some time ago), as well as preventing people from seeking assisted suicide. Labour tabled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 2008 and had to allow a free vote on the key issues, thanks to an internal Catholic rebellion. The Tories took advantage of the controversy to table amendments to abortion law at the same time and most prominent Tories, including Cameron, were in favour of a reduction. During the passage of the same bill, Cameron and his party voted against amendments that would have given lesbian couples the right to IVF treatment.

Those are just examples . . .

I can see only civil partnerships and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill here (and related Tory embarrassment). I am sure we could find example like this in any administration, as we could find collusion in torture, removal of civil rights, expansion of police powers, prosecuting illegal wars and so on.

My own view of New Labour is of a highly collectivist, controlling, illiberal, authoritarian, statist party, with their, seemingly never ending, assault on our freedoms as their own embodiment of social conservatism.

We could get overly dramatic and do the whole Orwelain, police/surveillance state thing, but even without going down that route it's not controversial to say that New Labour have constructed the most authoritarian state since Word War II.

Gordon Brown is a mouthbreather. (c) scoble.

For that reason I'm out.

We can rationalise this all we wish, but at the end of the day what is important is the actual result in the real word.

We might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under the Conservatives and we might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under New Labour - and there will always be people who argue that this policy (let's suppose a hypothetical reduction in worker safety) came from a different, more benign, place with New Labour and it came from a more nefarious place when put forward by the Conservatives.

New Labour may be a jolly village green kinda religious party (something I don't agree with, but will let that go for now), but the results are what matter, thousands of schools and millions of children handed over to the church, 100,000 of our children in madrassas alone, a Prime Minister who believed he was telepathically communicating with the creator of the universe, taking advice on such issue as embarking on a war in the Middle East.

This argument of 'sure they did this, but it came from a different place' is wasted on me.

I don't think that's the argument he's trying to make (that is, I don't think he's trying to rationalize it, just explain it). I think it's just an attempt to state the reality of the constitution of the parties, and the affect these constitutions are likely to have on policy.

For example (warning, twee as shit example ahead): the Apple Party is likely to be made up of mostly apples and self-hating pears. Therefore, it will have a large number of people who believe in the importance of apples and their beliefs. This unification of beliefs and opinions will make it easier and more likely to have those beliefs and opinions affect policy.

The Fruit Punch Party is likely to have a large number of apples, oranges, pears, pineapples, etc. in it. When they are coming up with policy ideas, the policies which favour/reflect the ideas of apples are less likely to take the lead. Instead, policies which are more open, and allow all the fruits to whatever they want are likely to be more popular (within the party).

You may hate the beliefs of all fruits (racist), so it's lose-lose for you.

What point is being made here ?
It's a point about philosophical origins of the party, and ideological attraction for its members.

Again, it's all just to demonstrate that the Conservative party is made up of a bunch of dick wads. It is not to say that Labour is not also made up of dick wads. The reason the parties attract dick wads are different. And in any case, in the case of Labour, no one needs to convince anyone that they are dick wads. This is why they are likely to lose the election. However, I'd like to convince people that the Conservatives are also dick wads. Because they haven't been in power for years, their dickwadishness is not so fresh in people's minds.

Dick wad.

Dick wad.

Just in case anyone missed it.

Found this in the Guardian. I remember seeing Kinnock say this. And for all his many faults he was spot on.

On the eve of the 1983 election – which, until this year, seemed destined to represent for ever the low watermark of Labour performances – a young member of the party's shadow cabinet delivered what was to be one of his most compelling speeches. Neil Kinnock knew a landslide defeat was imminent so, speaking in Bridgend, he sketched the world to come. "I warn you," he began, addressing a nation about to descend into the bitterest stretch of the Thatcher era. "I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."

was just reading that.

If, on the other hand, Cameron is kept from Downing Street courtesy of a Labour vote tomorrow strong enough to make a Lib-Lab coalition plausible, then there's a clear chance for the 55%-plus majority who regularly vote for liberal or left parties to prevail and reform the system – ensuring that, from now on, the Conservatives hold power only as often as their minority status suggests they should. (They were always a minority party, even in the Thatcher heyday.) In other words, the victor tomorrow will get to set the rules for decades to come. This is a winner-takes-all election and the stakes could not be higher.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-welcome-to-cameron-land-1962318.html

Cameron, you are a first class cunt.

God that is so depressing.

^Thanks for posting that. Anyone still believe there is nothing to choose between the parties?

I'm standing in the local election in Sands End, Hammersmith and Fulham, Liberal Democrat. A vote for Reuben Gibbons is a vote for attempting to rebalance the council and cyclists and against the Conservatives.

I leave you with this, the paper which 3M people read
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html

But. I get the feeling that Sands End like many other of the wards in H&F aren't really being contested, Lib and Lab know they are unlikely to win in these very Con wards and just seem to be scrapping with each other over more marginal wards and leaving these really to paper candidates. Its been said that my home made sign "We agree with Nick" conveniently placed in my window opposite a supermarket and on a road where traffic is quite busy and moves slowly has done more for the campaign than me delivering leaflets or trying to canvass. And this is illustrative of the terrible attitude within the LibDems, of "we should try for 2nd place" and really only try where they might succeed at that and so areas like this are pretty much handed over "because they are safe" anyway.

So the terrible conservative council will stay, reduce social housing therefore increasing their share of the vote by replacing it with modern developments full of richer, more likely to be Tory people. There has been a small surge of new members in the last week so hopefully there is a chance, on the basis that for every person who joins there are probably a few more people thinking the conservatives arent for them.

I've mainly tried to stay out of this thread because it depresses me too much, and I know it has been suggested before, but howbout everyone just agrees to not vote Tory tomorrow? OK cheers.

I agree with wooodrow.

Apparently my grandad is standing as an independent candidate for Harold Wood in the general election. Someone nominated him and paid the £2,000 deposit anonymously, and didn't tell him he was standing as an independent candidate until he got a letter through the post today, telling him to be at the polling station to represent himself!
If you knew my grandad, you'd know he was the worst possible political candidate in the world. He's a retired forester who spends all hi...s time tinkering with old cars.
I think it's a massively elaborate stitch-up...

He's the fifth name down the list.

My whole family have spent the evening pissing our selves with laughter at the thought of him (a confused, often blithering, old man) possibly (acidentally!) becoming an MP.

God that is so depressing.
Yup, polo FFS!

^Thanks for posting that. Anyone still believe there is nothing to choose between the parties?
My pleasure. It's just a shame that it even had to be written in the first place.

I've mainly tried to stay out of this thread because it depresses me too much, and I know it has been suggested before, but howbout everyone just agrees to not vote Tory tomorrow? OK cheers.
Seconded.

make sure he gets 500 votes so he can get the deposit back..

What a Rapha practical joke (excellent, but a bit pricey).

I've asked this elewhere but haven't had much of an answer...
Would a hung parliament be that bad? The only people I've heard arguing against it are staunch conservatives ("nothing would get done") and the parties themselves (although Labour seem to want it now to keep the tories out).
Is it such a bad thing if less got done? We have had a lot of laws passed under the current government that a lot of people think are unnecessary. So could it lead to only those laws that we really need to be passed, being passed? Or will it just make the government even more laughable?

I think I need to be reminded of why the Tories are so intrinsically bad and Labour so intrinsically good.

All I see are two different groups of wankers.

I shan't be voting for either by the way.

I had been meaning to post a response to this but hadn't got around to writing it. Then I read this article, which I think more or less sets out the massive differences between the parties. Freedland is no Labour tribalist, but he is a progressive, liberal journalist and invariably worth reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/05/1983-cameron-victory-kinnocks-words