UK Election Debate No.1

[Versus]

I was having a good laught at the #ImVotingLabour twitter feed yesterday.

I'd love to know your backround, I would assume your parents are middle class and have had quite a privileged upbringing.


Interestingly, of the past 95 years 1915 - 2010,

Tories have been in for 52 years

Liberals have been in for 6 years

Labour have been in for 37

 

[Teh Mite]

Pretty bloody presumptuous, aren't you?

 

[Teh Mite]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391907-how-to-scrounge-off-the-state-by-gordon-brown.do


Not much has changed I see

 

[Versus]

Yeah, I am. But saying that the Tories are going to save this country is aswell, which made me thought you were a devote follower.

Truth is, none of them are going to do the job needed, what is needed is to pull out of the EU, but none of them want to do that because they profit from it in some way or another. Spending cuts are going to happen, we had a recession, the world did, no one in America or France is blaming Brown for the recession, because it isn't his fault, recessions occur naturally.

Cameron is more focused on insulting opposition parliament members, Brown is more focused on his 10 bananas a day and Cleggie is more concerned about keeping the peace with his Spanish wife and all his Spanish named children (who wears the pants huh?).

If you really want to get down to it, Cameron claimed £350,000 to buy a house. Payed back £115,000 because he said he lost the rest due to the recession. Cameron is planning to cut tax credits for those earning below £30,000 as published in his manifesto and wants to continue with having 700+ non-elected Lords making most of the decisions. I don't really care at the end of the day, it is your country, do what you want, but it will be worse under Cameron. But then again, all the parties are bloody idiots and I wouldn't give my vote to any of them, none of them deserve it.

The fact is, if Brown really did bugger up as everyone seems to say, the Tories would be 70+ in the polls, not 33, sitting just above the rest. The fact is, his policies aren't very compelling and the only reason he is going to be elected into a hung parliament is people want change.

 

[Teh Mite]

Your theorey would be sound if the elected government had anything to do with their ability to do their job here.

Fact is, Adolf ******* Hitler could rise from the grave, **** on the queens head, wear a red ribbon, say some obscure ******** about Fa-Cha and get elected against Winston Churchill if the North of England had their say.

 

[Versus]

Uh... what?

Who are you voting for then.

 

[gingergenius]

good point Versus on the fact that Brown and Labour have done everything they can to lose this election in the public eye, yet the Tories are just ahead in the polls.

However, if the Lords are elected, then there's no point in them - we already have a house full of elected representatives. That house has the power to bypass the Lords if they're really being objectionable. But what the Lords do give us is a law-making body made up of experts. A lot of the MPs nowadays are career politicians, and as such have no experience of the real world. Take Cameron, and the likely next leader of the Labour party, David Miliband, as examples. The Lords, on the other hand, are awarded their status for their achievements and as such can add expertise, experience and quality to ideas coming from the Commons.

 

[Versus]

I see your point, the House of Lords if I am correct is a lot like congress in America? But the problem is these Lords and such are born into this position, so they don't have the life experience required to make informed decisions and at any case 700+ is excessive. New Zealand has about 110 seats? I realize New Zealand is a smaller country and we get a lot of hung parliaments, but things still get done, because the two main parties Labour and National don't waste their time with pety squabbles like Cameron and Brown with this poster fiasco. But you guys have 600+ in the commons? Then 700+ in the lords, a bit much in my eyes, too many people getting payed for nothing. Because half of those people are getting payed for what? Slagging off the party in control?

They aren't focusing on the main priority and that is major companies tax dodging, which every big company does which costs the UK billions per year, but no one is willing to do this because all politicians have their hands in business somehow, they all own stocks and shares which means less profit to them.

 

[shtove]

Good point on the Lords - unelected, but the best political debate in the system. One reservation is that certain peers are jobsworths.

Anyone concerned about unelected knobs running the government should point the finger at Brown - his economic miracle was possible because he was the plaything of the banks and still is. Why is the cost of accomodation so high? Because banks were allowed to run wild. Why is the public sector so dominant in the UK? Because the banks propped up insane government borrowing as a quid pro quo to Brown and politicians like him. Add on reckless immigration policy when jobs were being sent overseas, and you get a right pile of ****.

Interesting election, played out against the the backdrop of riots and murder in Greece - if that isn't enough to make the electorate call a halt to the great NuLab Project, then look out for yourself and pray you have a decent after-tax income over the next few years. Voting LibDem doesn't cut it.

 

[Versus]

Wasn't he bragging in 2005 saying the banks were perfect? Or was it 2006? The BOOM. I see what you mean about the houses, because before Labour came in they were about 80,000 for a three bed, now at roughly the same population in the regions of 250,000 depending on the area. In London more like 500,000 for a family home.