General Election 2015

[DulwichFox]

You can always tell when ANY Politician is lying..

Their lips move.

DulwichFox

[Loz]

That joke is even older than you, Foxy.

[DulwichFox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That joke is even older than you, Foxy.

Maybe.. But I wasn't joking.

Foxy

[maxxi]

My thanks to Andrew Rawnsley for my favourite word-of-the-election-week-moment (I'm convinced journos trawl for these when there's nothing but log jam predictions to report) - the word - Swithering. No it's not a school house for wizards that speak with forked tongue but the condition of being uncertain which course of action to choose.

I am officially all of a swither.

[Otta]

This could represent a conflict of interests for Helen Hayes.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/04/dulwich-and-west-norwood-labour-party-candidate-clarifies-position-regarding-her-company-and-brixton-arches-evictions/

[JohnL]

Well the twitter fights I saw on the weekend (and there was a load of activity)

Eds huge monolith

Abby - founder of "Milifandom" -she was being chased down by the Sun and her parent didn't know what she'd done.

The Labour party had a gender separate meeting in Birmingham

[Louisa]

Well if I was floating before (I wasnt) then I'd certainly not be now. A desperate attempt to gain the endorsement of this Russell Brand individual who claims one minute we need a revolution and voting cannot get that, then he's saying we can have that by voting Labour. It seems I voted labour for the very last time in 2005, and this is the second election I've been turned off by these desperate media stunts.

I'm voting for Steve Nally on Thursday.

Louisa.

[Reg Smeeton]

The only party that I've seen canvassing has been Labour. In fact Helen Hayes came to my door, she seemed sensible and keen to listen. Despite my severe reservations about Miliband, I think Helen Hayes will be a good constituency MP and I'll be voting for her.

[JohnL]

I saw them canvassing outside Peckham Rye Station.

One guy had a "Hell Yes" tee shirt.

[uncleglen]

The US adviser that Miliband has employed making his mark then. I thought that was ironic....'Hell Yes' if Labour get in- my thoughts exactly

[Blah Blah]

But all this scaremongering about Labour is just that, scaremongering. There's actually not much difference between Labour and the Conservatives when it comes to fiscal economics. Both are totally avoiding the same looming problems, for example, of growing proportions of over 65s and the costs that come with it, to name but one. Everything else is just tinkering. One wants to take more tax from the top 1%, the other wants to strip the poorest 1% of the small amount of welfare they try to live on. Neither intends to tackle the housing market in any kind of meaningful way (although the Conservatives are really on a downer if they think selling off HA homes is a good idea) and neither party has any answer to wage poverty. Both parties instead will continue to subsidise landlords, and employers.

We are very good at blaming parties, or sectors, or corporations, for economic catastrophe. The truth though is that it is the system that is flawed. Whilst politicians continue to fix the economy with more of the same, i.e. the very things that cause the problems, we won't get anywhere.

[bodsier]

It's clear to me that it's a question of the best of a bad bunch....the link below is worth a look.

However, if as predicted its a hung parliament, is it better to vote labour and a green seat so that we get labour and green coalition? Rather than labour and any of the others? Sorry if I sound Ill informed, but I don't think I am alone in not fully understanding the paper when I am in the voting booth.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/

[bodsier]

Actually Louise I think it's a good idea. Cameron refers to it as a joke, but millions of people actually respect Brand's views and are equally disillusioned by British politics. He isn't one to conform, so if he was convinced enough by Milliband to admit it ain't perfect but it's the best we can do as a country to vote labour, Milliband must have been saying something right. Cameroon is sooo removed from the people, he can't even see it's potential, politically or superficially. It's true, Brand took a long time in seeing sense in tactical voting, but it's certainly not been overnight! It could have had more impact, if it was done before the registration deadline.......

[Loz]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, if as predicted its a hung parliament, is it better to vote labour and a green seat so that

> we get labour and green coalition? Rather than labour and any of the others?

The greens will probably have only one MP so, given the numbers, they would be fairly irrelevant unless the polling is a lot lot closer than predicted. Labour are currently looking about 50 MPs short, so even the Lib Dems (predicted 20-30 MPs) probably wouldn't be able to help Labour get the numbers together.

[bodsier]

Simple and clear cut analysis.....

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/

[uncleglen]

People will vote out of self-interest or tactically. Those that live in HA homes and are working and want to own their home will vote for this. When Mrs T introduced the Right to Buy council tenants in a position to were very glad to purchase their homes...and all the 'socialists' who already owned their own homes were the first to scream blue murder ( I speak from personal experience). After all- they could then no longer have that feeling and attitude of superiority.

[DulwichFox]

Having watched on TV people being interviewed about who they will be voting for,

I get the impression some people simply do not know what the Election is all about.

People saying it's such a close call that they cannot tell who will win and therefore unable to

choose who to vote for.

You are not placing a bet on a horse. Looking for a winner.

You are supposed to be voting for who you think will best represent your interests and needs and

perhaps persuade others to vote the same.

DulwichFox

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Having watched on TV people being interviewed

> about who they will be voting for,

>

> I get the impression some people simply do not

> know what the Election is all about.

>

> People saying it's such a close call that they

> cannot tell who will win and therefore unable to

> choose who to vote for.

>

> You are not placing a bet on a horse. Looking for

> a winner.

> You are supposed to be voting for who you think

> will best represent your interests and needs and

> perhaps persuade others to vote the same.

>

> DulwichFox

Are they thinking of voting tactically

Apparently Clegg is only going to survive from Tory votes.

These interviews are probably all in marginals

[JohnL]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People will vote out of self-interest or

> tactically. Those that live in HA homes and are

> working and want to own their home will vote for

> this. When Mrs T introduced the Right to Buy

> council tenants in a position to were very glad to

> purchase their homes...and all the 'socialists'

> who already owned their own homes were the first

> to scream blue murder ( I speak from personal

> experience). After all- they could then no longer

> have that feeling and attitude of superiority.

Tories would benefit me - but I struggle to vote for them.

The 'right to buy' proposed by Cameron will never happen.

[Otta]

I've even heard people on the radio saying they're Labour people but they'll be voting Tory to keep UKIP out.

[maxxi]

Voting for the party you believe in is a futile exercise in this area if you are not Labour or LD. - Cor, I dunno, (someone on social media might say) just as you start to think your vote may count and are willing to give democracy a go ... the first past the post system shits in your satchel and, unless you are a follower of the two mentioned, you may as well stay home.

[Louisa]

First past the post has kept our democracy stable for a long time. Yes, it has its flaws, most electoral systems do surely? But it's provided sure fire majorities for almost all general elections over the last century, far more than any none-plural system could ever do. Seems funny how the media and minor parties hype up the end to plurality in its current form and the rise of the proportional system. It isn't going to happen, simple as that. It's political suicide for both main parties. The only reason we are where we are now is because the Tories failed to win a majority last time around and went into collation with a party who normally would be considered the natural protest vote. With both parties taking a bit of a thumping this time around, plus the perfect storm situation in Scotland, The main parties find themselves in this position. People have short memories, it will all correct itself over the next five years and we will be back to stable plural government.

Louisa.

[Loz]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Simple and clear cut analysis.....

>

> http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/

Or, to summarise: the author took 77 graphs to show he thinks Cameron is bad, but then concludes that Miliband will only a teenie-tiny itsy-bit better. Maybe.

[bodsier]

Like I said....best of a bad bunch..... Those worth a vote don't stand a chance this time round..... Economic growth would have been better under labour..... Surely that's enough incentive in the current climate.

Till we improve on the situation as a whole.....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/05/election-issues-media-ignoring-nation-arrested-development?CMP=share_btn_fb

[BrandNewGuy]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> First past the post has kept our democracy stable

> for a long time. Yes, it has its flaws, most

> electoral systems do surely? But it's provided

> sure fire majorities for almost all general

> elections over the last century, far more than any

> none-plural system could ever do. Seems funny how

> the media and minor parties hype up the end to

> plurality in its current form and the rise of the

> proportional system. It isn't going to happen,

> simple as that. It's political suicide for both

> main parties. The only reason we are where we are

> now is because the Tories failed to win a majority

> last time around and went into collation with a

> party who normally would be considered the natural

> protest vote. With both parties taking a bit of a

> thumping this time around, plus the perfect storm

> situation in Scotland, The main parties find

> themselves in this position. People have short

> memories, it will all correct itself over the next

> five years and we will be back to stable plural

> government.

>

> Louisa.

Of the 80 years between 1885 and 1945, only 11 were under a government which held a majority. Those years involved more than two big parties (mirroring the decline of the Liberals and the rise of Labour) and we may be heading that way again.

'Stable' government gave us 18 years of Thatcher/Major and 13 years of Blair/Brown, neither of which approached anything like majority support in terms of votes cast. Supporters of FPTP shouldn't whinge about 'Prime Minister X only received Y% of the vote so doesn't really have a mandate.'