UK General Election

Talk about current events, entertainment, technology or anything not related to soccer
ScottyBoy
Veteran Member
Posts: 1692
Joined: 05 Aug 2007, 15:39

Post

"He" (David Cameron) did not act quickly, his advisors and sneaky people around him told him what to do that would show him in a good light.

I dont like Cameron, A) Because he is a Tory, but B) He is all about image, he's a good looking charasmatic man who reads things off a card, so you have to ask how much integrity and "talent" as a leader does he actually have. Cameron is basically a poor mans Tony Blair. (who was a tosser aswell)

At least with brown he's not in the job because of any superfical reasons, although granted he is currently there due to default. However he has the experience neccessary to be prime minister.

I dont care if he's got the personality of a rock as long as he runs the country properly and makes correct decisions im fine with that. The guy was chancellor for years and the country was in good shape until last year, you can blame the government for spending but it doesnt matter what party was in power we would still get raped by the worldwide recession (unless the BNP were, then we would have been too busy deporting anybody with a slight sun tan.)

Same as after the election, who ever wins will raise taxes and cut spending
Image

People who say something cannot be done are often surprised by others doing it.

ratherton
Veteran Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: 29 Oct 2005, 18:41

Post

Any person in a senior position will have advisors in all sorts of areas including politics, business and sport. Ultimately, advisors will advise, it is the leader who makes the decision.

I agree about Cameron and its a lot to do with image but unfortunately, that is how politics is now. The majority of people just look at the image and not the politics.

The thing about necessary experience is bollox. Blair didn't have any experience of being Prime Minister until he was elected. Equally, having experience doesn't mean you are up to the job.

You can't be serious about the country being in good shape. His mismanagement left the country in no sort of position to deal with the recession which was caused in part by his lack of control over the banks. The US banks in 1998 made the business decision to go after subprime mortgages or in other words, lending money to people who were considered a higher risk of not paying it back.

The banks make their money on loans via interest rates and if people fail to pay money back, the banks costs will increase. By going after the subprime market, the banks costs increased as more of their new customers defaulted on their mortgages.

The UK banks copied this by lowering lending requirements. A few years ago, you could easily run up a personal debt of £100k on store cards with very little checking to ensure the money could be paid back. Brown gave the Bank of England control of interest rates which went down. This meant people could afford to borrow more money. Banks also started offering 100% and even 125% mortgages which all helped drive up personal borrowing.

Brown didn't care that house prices were going up by 25% a year. It mean home owners felt richer and he also got more money into the treasury from stamp duty. He also did well in tax revenues from the massive bank profits.

In addition, he introduced loads of stealth taxes such as the one on pensions where he stole around £100bn. This cause massive deficits in pensions funds. This had knock on effects. For example, the post office has been closing scores of rural branches to save money. They needed to do this despite the fact they were making a profit as their employees pension fund was short of £3.4bn due to Gordon Brown's raid.

Basically, the UK economy has been living on credit built up over the last 13 years. It wasn't a boom, it was spending money we didn't have and we'll all be paying it off for years. The recession was caused by financial mismanagement and lack of regulation. This wasn't the case in Australia which is why they didn't go into recession with the rest of us.

As you quite rightly pointed out, whoever comes in will have to increase taxes and reduce spending although for some reason Brown seems to think it would be a good idea to delay that as long as possible.

LiveTheDream
Veteran Member
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 May 2009, 05:34

Post

Well. At this stage, hung parliament. What are your guys thoughts? Who did you vote for in the end? I've been keeping an eye on the goings on all day while at school, but being on the otherside of the world doen't make for much of an "Election Day Atmosphere" so to speak...

Also, were any of you guys affected by the polling botch up?
Don't wish things were easier...

... Wish you were better


Focus on the journey, and the result will take care of itself

ratherton
Veteran Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: 29 Oct 2005, 18:41

Post

I voted UKIP as I want nothing to do with the EU at a political level. Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty without any authority from the public and I won't back any party who will not offer a referendum on the subject.

Voting was no problem. I went along about lunch time and I was the only voter there.

Not sure what to think about the Hung Parliament. Short term, its not great as the uncertainty will cause problems with Sterling and the Stock Markets.

Any sort of agreement involving Labour will be a nightmare.

Long term, it could be a good thing as the Tories will have a group of MPs keeping them in check (the LibDems). However, they may have to agree to changes in the voting system which will not do Labour or the Tories any favours.

I think what will happen is a Tory - Lib Dem joint venture will be agreed and then depending how it goes, we could carry on like that. If it turns out to be a problem, there will be another election later this year.

Can't believe the Green Party managed to get a seat. They are a right bunch of cave living communists.

Magicfeet
Moderator
Posts: 1212
Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 10:03
Location: England

Post

The UKIP with these policies?

Christ.

I agree with what you say about the Hung parliament. Whilst I'm no fan of Cameron, he's "won" (not really) the vote. If he makes a deal with the Lib Dem's and we see electoral reform, we'll be on our way to something better. I think he'll make things worse in the short term, but looking to the future, we need a new political format and this is our best bet.

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

What's so bad about a minority government? That's pretty much standard fare in Canada and I believe we're in the best financial position outside of northern europe.

ratherton
Veteran Member
Posts: 2872
Joined: 29 Oct 2005, 18:41

Post

Magicfeet wrote:The UKIP with these policies?

Christ.

I agree with what you say about the Hung parliament. Whilst I'm no fan of Cameron, he's "won" (not really) the vote. If he makes a deal with the Lib Dem's and we see electoral reform, we'll be on our way to something better. I think he'll make things worse in the short term, but looking to the future, we need a new political format and this is our best bet.
Yes, that UKIP. Lets try to look at all their policies rather than ones cherry-picked by a loony left newspaper
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies

Actually, I'm not too fussed who is in charge providing they do what is best for the country. The corruption that has gone on in the UK for the last 13 years would put some African countries to shame.

I'm pretty sure we need electoral reform now. The voting system favours the two main parties and realistically, no-one else can ever gain power or even fair representation in parliament. In 1997, Blair brought Labour to the right to gain the floating voter and now Cameron is bringing the Tories to the left for the same reason.

Net result is two parties that aren't that far apart in their ideologies.

The Scottish and Welsh vote have created the Hung Parliament. On English votes, the Tories would have comfortably won. The imbalance is that Scottish and Welsh MPs also have their own parliament yet can also vote on English matters. English MPs can't vote on Scottish and Welsh matters.

Interesting few days ahead....

Magicfeet
Moderator
Posts: 1212
Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 10:03
Location: England

Post

ratherton wrote:Yes, that UKIP. Lets try to look at all their policies rather than ones cherry-picked by a loony left newspaper
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies
Yeah, looking at their policies in any great detail doesn't make them look any better. Still, we're all entitled to our opinions, and political ideologies rarely make a good debating topic on internet forums.

Definitely need electoral reform.

Magicfeet
Moderator
Posts: 1212
Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 10:03
Location: England

Post

So, Brown is standing down. Good man - Had to be done sooner or later but the timing is right if we're going to have any chance of seeing a LibLab coalition (involving a few other minor parties also).

I have no idea how Cameron has managed to fu** this election up so badly. It should have been a landslide.

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post

I have to say, while I don't completely like the US's election process, it seems to be a lot better than the UK's. I was watching SkyNews this morning and it just seems like everyone's confused.
Why can't we all just go by popular vote? whoever gets the most votes wins.
Image

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is looking more on the cards than ever.

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

soccer11 wrote:I have to say, while I don't completely like the US's election process, it seems to be a lot better than the UK's. I was watching SkyNews this morning and it just seems like everyone's confused.
Why can't we all just go by popular vote? whoever gets the most votes wins.
Unfortunately only those annoyingly smug progressive northern europeans have reformed their voting system. Most other governments (Canada's included) use a stupid first past the post system which means that the green party gets 10% of the votes and 0 seats, the NDP gets 18% of the vote and 9% of the seats and the fucktarded bloc quebecois gets 9% of the votes and 18% of the seats.

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post

Hugh wrote:
soccer11 wrote:I have to say, while I don't completely like the US's election process, it seems to be a lot better than the UK's. I was watching SkyNews this morning and it just seems like everyone's confused.
Why can't we all just go by popular vote? whoever gets the most votes wins.
Unfortunately only those annoyingly smug progressive northern europeans have reformed their voting system. Most other governments (Canada's included) use a stupid first past the post system which means that the green party gets 10% of the votes and 0 seats, the NDP gets 18% of the vote and 9% of the seats and the fucktarded bloc quebecois gets 9% of the votes and 18% of the seats.
I looked it up. Sweden has had over 80% of their population vote, Norway was 77%, and Finland around 74% while the the most recent presidential election here in the US, which was the highest it has been in the last 40 years, was just over 61% and Canada's was just under 60%. Pretty poor showing.

Congrats to David Cameron btw.
Image

LiveTheDream
Veteran Member
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 May 2009, 05:34

Post

Ugh, heard the news on the radio this morning. Ruined my already bad day.

However, I did laugh when on a current events show they said that he hooked up with our PM in NZ, John Key, when he was in London last year. :lol:
Don't wish things were easier...

... Wish you were better


Focus on the journey, and the result will take care of itself

Post Reply