The Rise and Rise of UKIP

[eFestivals]

That's your opinion, but not necessarily true. One of the major sways against Labour vote was Gordon "Bigot" Brown, without him at the helm it's just as possible the Labour share would increase.

True, that might have been how it panned out - tho I'd say there weren't too many who voted not-Labour who would have been happy to vote Labour under any leader at that time. Remember, while it was a globally caused financial crisis, nuLabour's lax bank regulation policies had been a part of the problem, and much of the electorate is too think to realise that others preached even-more-lax.

That aside, I'd have bet on an immediate election which wouldn't have given Labour time to show themselves as changed under a new leader. It's not like there was any shining star ready to pick up the reigns.

And I can't believe an immediate election wouldn't have been won by the tories either. 2nd time around people would have voted to have a govt, a tory govt, rather than stuck rigidly to their more-normal party voting. The fact of a coalition not having been formed would have had people voting strictly tory or Labour to a greater degree than they had in May (and there were few extra votes for Labour to pick up).

It would all be a different story if Joe Average took an interest in politics to not be voting ignorant, but we have what we have.

[grumpyhack]

I think it's still too early to call the next general election. Things seem to be unravelling for a lot of the parties almost daily.

Who knows what other things will have emerged by next year.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Off topic but I had a strange conversation last night. Some Labour supporters knocked at the door asking who I was going to vote for in the local and general elections next year. I told them my vote for the general but said I had no idea for the local as I did not know who the candidates were. This lad said "I am the Labour candidate so you would be voting for me".

He seemed genuinely perplexed when I pointed out I meant all the candidates of all the parties. He looked even worse when I said that I would vote for the person I best would represent my community even if that meant UKIP. (It won't but what the hell I was on a roll). I have never seen a canvasser disappear so fast.

[wee_insomniac]

They bare faced lied to millions of students.

The put there name to every budget, every cut and every decision made over the last couple of years. You can't jointly pass a budget when in power and disown it the next day. The might of watered down a few things but ultimately its there name on every decision taken. Its their votes and their MPs passing the decisions.

It was still not their place to stop it though... They did not have the power, the right nor the influence to stop the Tories on every policy they had.

Maybe they should have stood firm on the policies they wanted to implement from their own manifesto when they negotiated their way in, but they didn't.

[viberunner]

No one forced them into bed with the tories

Quite so. They chose their bedfellows, they chose to go face-down, and they chose to continue sharing the bed without getting so much as a reacharound.

They're not even whores, whores get paid. They're political slags.

[viberunner]

It was still not their place to stop it though... They did not have the power, the right nor the influence to stop the Tories on every policy they had. Maybe they should have stood firm on the policies they wanted to implement from their own manifesto when they negotiated their way in, but they didn't.

They should - and could - have stood firmer on some of the social issues. The richest got a 10% rise in income through tax breaks, stood by the odious touchy-creepy Lord Rennard, oversaw the privatisation of the Royal Mail (having first socialised the cost), and are still happy to see disabled people - and those others unable to move - with the bedroom tax, happy to be part of a government that "sanctions" those on benefits for WEEKS on end - resulting in actual fatalities and throwing many others to food banks. Oh and tuition fees.

They did all this for ministerial pensions (which do, it must be admitted, greatly personally profit the top-end of the LD party) and they got an AV vote... and so despised were they by the British electorate we rejected it 30/70.

They're not even keeping their deposits at by-elections. I have high hopes the GE will see them wiped out.

[eFestivals]

I think its stands true though no matter who was in power it wouldn't of made much change to the cuts dished out. Which is also same for the next parliament.[/gb] Which makes the next government just as much if not more of a poisoned chalice.

Not true.

Labour plans around half of the cuts that the tories want to make.

[eFestivals]

I have high hopes the GE will see them wiped out.

Why? That would make a tory govt more likely.

It's all very well not liking what has happened in the past, but a better future is a better thing than more of the tories.

And despite how you feel, the LibDems are not the tories.

[eFestivals]

Link? I haven't seen that

Then you've not been paying attention.

The tories don't only wish to deal with the deficit, they also plan tax cuts - which means greater spending cuts.

[kaosmark2]

I'd like you to back that up please Barry. Every quote I've heard from Ed or Ed has been saying that Labour will not be afraid to make the necessary cuts, but will ensure they fall fairly, as opposed to saying they'd cut as much.

[kaosmark2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30339240

Found this... So I guess Neil is right.

Yeah. The necessary cuts don't involve creating a surplus or cutting taxes for the rich. The Tories want to go beyond the necessary wants out of an ideological hatred for anyone and everyone benefitting from public services.

[russycarps]

Osborne has failed and is utterly discredited. How anyone could even contemplate voting Tory in this election is utterly beyond me.

[kaosmark2]

Osborne has failed and is utterly discredited. How anyone could even contemplate voting Tory in this election is utterly beyond me.

What Osborne has achieved in regard to cutting the deficit is what Darling promised. Labour said Tory plans were unrealistic, would hinder growth, be brutally unfair, and benefit the wealthy. Labour politicians may still be lying scumbags, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[eFestivals]

I heard from Ed Balls on the BBC last week that they would cut just as much but the cuts would be more fair so unless you have something to back up what you say then I don't buy it.

If you're not paying attention to the widely reported issues, what puts you in the position to hold a discussion on those issues? I'm not here to read you the already-well-reported news.

But even within your words there, might you stop and consider "the cuts would be more fair" alongside the tory promises of a tax cuts for the better paid?

Edited December 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The necessary cuts ....

... do not include extra spending cuts to give the rich tax cuts, as promised by the tories.

Join up the frigging dots!

[eFestivals]

So I guess Neil is right.

There's no guessing over what I said that Labour have said.

I guess you can guess at whether it might pan out like that, but that's still a big difference from the explicitly stated tory plan of extra spending cuts so that the rich can have a tax cut.

[russycarps]

What Osborne has achieved in regard to cutting the deficit is what Darling promised. Labour said Tory plans were unrealistic, would hinder growth, be brutally unfair, and benefit the wealthy. Labour politicians may still be lying scumbags, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

The problem they now have is being implicated in these horrific CIA torture revelations. I wonder how many votes this will lose them

[eFestivals]

Neil you really are a massive w*nker

Perhaps, but a massive w*nker that pays attention to widely reported news, which puts me in a good position to have a discussion on the facts.

[eFestivals]

Or is Labour prepared to keep our fiances in a state for the sake of winning power back?

I honestly don't know....

You only have to listen to the tory promises of tax cuts to know.

Edited December 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

The problem they now have is being implicated in these horrific CIA torture revelations. I wonder how many votes this will lose them

I didn't find them that surprising, but then I'm a paranoid cynic.

[eFestivals]

I think we need a combination of cuts, growth and higher taxes.

We do.

Which is very different from the tory plan of cuts, no growth, and lower taxes if you're rich.

[eFestivals]

You might as well close down this section of the website then and there isno perhaps about it....

So you don't think there's any value to you wising up on common facts, after firstly being the w*nker who knows fuck all but has an opinion based in shite?

[kaosmark2]

being the w*nker who knows fuck all but has an opinion based in shite?

To be fair, I don't think he's THE w*nker who knows fuck all but has an opinion based in shite. There's a lot of such idiots around, you only need to look at the UKIP vote tally.

[kaosmark2]

I'm going to put this out there for all of efests to see:

I think both Neil and Barry are massive w*nkers. Doesn't stop me enjoying the arguments though.

[eFestivals]

If you don't read the news sites on a certain day you can miss things.

in this case it would take never reading anything on the subject at all. Or reading the Daily Mail or it's ilk for the purposes of staying deliberately ignorant.

A thought for the day for you: if you want to be smart you have to put the effort in. Others cannot gift you your own intelligence.

Edited December 10, 2014 by eFestivals