So who did you vote for?

[Eagle]

Getting back on thread, I have now received the begging info from the three main parties. The Tory & Lib Dem pleas arrived by "leg work", the Labour missive was delivered by the postman (25p).

[wolfie]

Getting back on thread,

 

Quite right Eagle.

 

The consensus seems to be that this may well be the first election that it would be better to lose. As Labour seem intent on losing, how long before the other main parties catch on

[observer]

You've clocked it Wolfie; as Mervyn King has wisely predicted, it's a poison chalice, and whoever enters No10 for the next 4 years of inflicting necessary hardship, won't be thanked or forgiven for a generation.

[Dizzy]

Here's hoping the Lib Dems win then

[Sue Durnim]

I am still not sure who I am voting for, BUT! I do know it is between two parties?.

 

Education and retraining issues confuse me. I understand that the young and people leaving education also need training and apprenticeships, having been told that older people will be now be expected to work for longer and retire later, it is about time that retraining and apprenticeships should be offered to people of any age, people of a certain age should not be discriminated against because they want to take opportunities to change careers or because the industry they once worked in is no longer in existence, age should be no barrier in the 21st century.

 

Although going to university is a worthwhile achievement, people should not feel like a second class citizen/employee or made to feel like an underachiever because they have not got a degree or three or have had the same opportunity as others or the money to finance going to university, it is not just a degree that makes a person good or an exceptional employee, but ability, common sense and hard has its uses and benefits too!

[Dizzy]

I was down to two (I think). My other half was still stuck on three although he says he's noy sure he really want any of them but knows he has to choose or it is a wasted vote

 

Anway keep talking SD as so far YOU have got both our votes

[Sue Durnim]

I was down to two (I think). My other half was still stuck on three although he says he's noy sure he really want any of them but knows he has to choose or it is a wasted vote

 

Anway keep talking SD as so far YOU have got both our votes

 

Thank you, I think???

[observer]

What jobs are you talking about SD? When the cuts do start, they'll be quite a few ex-public sector workers in the dole queue, threatened with losing their dole if they don't take a non-existant job, and resenting any non-Brit who does have a job - a rather explosive mix methinks.

[Sue Durnim]

Observer, I was just highlighting that anyone of any age should have

the same opportunities as everyone else, and age should be no discrimination any one who wants to work should be allowed too and to be given the right opportunities and support to do so, it is better to contribute and feel valued than being on the unemployment list and being a drain on limited financial resources.

 

The other problem is that because of the economic climate and by all accounts if you listen to the news is only going to get worse and I have not heard or read anything from anyone who can solve the present/future situation without severe job losses or cut backs on investment in the private or public sectors, I am not clever or intelligent enough to give an answer, I am sure that someone on this forum will be?

[observer]

The same fiscal imperitive that drives reductions in public sector jobs, will apply to benefits also - Dave is already talking about scrapping a range of benefits - so back to the 20s for the Plebs if he gets in - where questions of ageism will become irrelevant in comparison. The trick is, to keep folk working (even if it's for less money) and paying taxes. rather than turning them into tax consumers.

[Sue Durnim]

Observer, sounds like there will be even bigger divides then ever, between rich and poor, the have's and have nots, the thing is, who are the winners, if the poverty gap keeps on getting wider and people have less money in their pocket to spend, who and where are the people who are going to buy things to keep people in employment and businesses afloat or in profit in this country.

 

It's all very confusing and I am still not sure who to vote for.

[Peter T]

Sue,

Do you really believe that we live in an equal opportunity world?

Opportunities are to be taken, some don't want to take them, but just complain about there being none.

Same with money. There will always be some richer than others.

If you took everyones money off them and people had to start with nothing, you would still get people becoming richer than others. That is how the world is.

It's about how hard people want to work and how they spend their money. Those who re-invest will come out richer than those who subscribe to the food and drink industry.

 

It could well be, with the current financial disaster, that the unions become popular again and we revert back to the 60's because people only complain when they are hungry.

 

Whoever gets in, will have to dish out some nasty medicine. The problem being, that they won't tell us the truth until 'after' the election.

Whoever you vote for, Brown got us into this mess regardless of the world situation.

[wolfie]

I would agree with all of that Peter apart from the last sentence

It was Maggie Thatcher who destroyed British manufacturing industry in favour of unregulated financial services.

[Peter T]

Yes, but Brown thought he could walk on water and spend,spend,spend.

[observer]

Sue; in answer to your question: as I don't vote for any of the main Parties anymore, I think I can try and be objective about their differences - which are few. BUT we're now in for possibly a decade or more of "austerity"; the burden can be shared and fairly apportioned on the basis of who's got the broadest shoulders to bare the weight, in a kind of "we're all in it together" sort of way: OR we could get cuts done wioth the relish of a butcher with a blunt knife, taking good flesh away with the bad. Although Bliarite Labour in sucking up to the city with light touch regulation, and ignoring the Thatcher legacy of a lost industrial base; has certainly contributed to the fiscal fiasco and allowed the widest wealth gap in a generation - you still have to judge who will give the majority of us the softest landing (and I think we can discount the LibDems as they won't form a Gov on their own anyway, but may ally with the party that will act more fairly). On your point about extreme wealth and poverty: Reganomics theorises that no limits on the monopoly of capital by the few, allows them to spend extravagantly and this creats a "trickle down" to the lowest peon; who, as bottom feeders, survive on the crumbs from the rich man's table. However, you've correctly identified the fact, that more folk with more cash, doing more spending is a real economic driver. The problem for the last 10 years or so is, that most folk (and the Government) have been doing this spending on the basis of credit - and now the time to pay for it has arrived.

[Sue Durnim]

Observer, Peter T and Wolfie.

 

I sort of agree with you all, my main put was that people of all ages and backgrounds should have the same opportunities as each other, for education and retraining and hopefully gain fruitful employment, the next Governments want us to all work for longer because of pensions etc, so it seems common sense.

 

As who is to blame, not really relavant, I want to know who and how we are getting out of this financial and political mess?

[Eagle]

I said I would vote for whoever took the trouble to knock on my door, I am now voting Jehovah's Witness.

[theinsider]

Ok - to try and help people make up their minds ask yourselves these simple questions.

 

1. Can we afford to retain the status quo (stay the same)?

2. Have the Lib Dems done a good job of sorting out our local council?

3. Does money make the world go round?

 

Now let me answer them for you

 

1. No we can't because the country is in a bloody mess

2. Power sharing with the Tories - two faced if nothing else!

3. Sadly it does!

 

So when it comes to voting are you going to vote for the same, vote for a two faced party or vote for the richest political party?

 

At the end of the day they all need a kick up the backside and to be kept on their toes, so keep voting for change until we get a political party which listens to the people.

 

So whatever your political beliefs vote for change - and keep on voting for change until somebody gets it right!

 

But don't vote for a hung parliament which will mean deals behind closed doors, bickering between parties, power struggles and another election merry-go-round with 12 months.

 

Most important don't let APATHY win the day by not voting!

[wolfie]

I do agree with Cameron on one point.

 

He Stated that

he regards the conservative-minded people of this country as ?fruitcakes and closet racists?

 

Who am I to argue?

[Bazj]

I do agree with Cameron on one point.

 

He Stated that

he regards the conservative-minded people of this country as ?fruitcakes and closet racists?

 

Who am I to argue?

 

As opposed to the leader of the Labour party who also thinks that his most ardent lifetime supporters are bigots?

 

Come on Wolfie, do try harder...... your lot have had a go and made a bloody mess of it all. The former Tory and multi millionaire Shaun Woodward was on sky this morning and it now appears that Labours entire election plan is to slag off the Tories. They have given up giving their side of the argument in favour of scaremongering politics..... and all the patronising of the voters that goes with it.

 

How many times in the past week have you heard Labour politicians on the TV come out with a line like "what the public don't realise........" and then go on to tell us that the torys will do this that and the other.

 

I did read a line the other day that the only person to really benefit from the last 13 years of Labour rule was the now multi-millionaire Tony Blair and his Human Rites lawyer wife Cherie.....

 

about right

[Paul Kennedy]

so keep voting for change until we get a political party which listens to the people.

 

 

The problem is that "the people" speak with many and mostly differing voices.

[observer]

Well Insider, if we should keep voting for "change", that eliminates the three "main" Parties then! Sue: Ageism like other "isms" is difficult to prove, although lucrative when you do! In theory, in a better economic climate, all should have access to education, jobs and training; however, when jobs become scarce, that luxury evaporates. One of the main problems is youth unemployment, as the evidence suggests that if young folk don't get into the habit of getting out of bed for work at 9am; they sink into the habit of staying in bed and become unemployable; so it's imperitive that we focus on them for the future, and older, more reliable workers may be seen as blocking their access to a reduced employment scene.

[wolfie]

I do agree with Cameron on one point.

 

He Stated that

he regards the conservative-minded people of this country as ?fruitcakes and closet racists?

 

Who am I to argue?

 

As opposed to the leader of the Labour party who also thinks that his most ardent lifetime supporters are bigots?

 

 

The thing is Labour will lose thousands of votes because of Brown's stupid comment, but the fruitcake and closet racist tories will continue to support Cameron.

[Gary]

Nearly 2,000 viewings and yet only 36 votes cast - just about sums it up really!

[Peter T]

And people working into their 70's is really going to help.