-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
2015 General Election
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Adam
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- The Smiler
Miliband and Cameron spent all night slagging each other off and didn't make one reasoned point between them, pretty tragic that they're the only two people who we can realistically choose between to run the country. Wish I was Scottish just so I could vote SNP, Sturgeon seemed like the only one who actually knew what she was talking about last night. She seems a much better leader than Salmond and I wouldn't mind having her as vice PM in a Labour-SNP coalition, atleast out of all the likely outcomes. (Even if I do think having a regional party as part of the national government is a bit dodgy).
Tom
TS Member
I don't identify myself as being any political party, however I find the intelligence of people that have jumped on the anti-Clegg/Lib Dem bandwagon minimal at best.
I've heard regurgitated sentences from newspapers like the Sun so many times it's become a joke. Promises are made on the basis on majority governments. It also showed huge maturity to form a stable government in times of a major crisis. also if people think the Conservatives would have prioritised taking the lowest earners out of tax then they need to read more neutral material.
I thought the debate flowed better than I expected, but there were still too many people there. I was pleasantly surprised with Sturgeon but the Plaid women was so insularly-Welsh in her language she was bordering offensive to the rest of the UK.
I currently intend to vote Labour tactically as only they can beat the Conservatives in my constituency. I would rather vote for who I want to, but under this ancient voting system I would rather not waste my time.
I've heard regurgitated sentences from newspapers like the Sun so many times it's become a joke. Promises are made on the basis on majority governments. It also showed huge maturity to form a stable government in times of a major crisis. also if people think the Conservatives would have prioritised taking the lowest earners out of tax then they need to read more neutral material.
I thought the debate flowed better than I expected, but there were still too many people there. I was pleasantly surprised with Sturgeon but the Plaid women was so insularly-Welsh in her language she was bordering offensive to the rest of the UK.
I currently intend to vote Labour tactically as only they can beat the Conservatives in my constituency. I would rather vote for who I want to, but under this ancient voting system I would rather not waste my time.
Martin
TS Member
I'd understand the anti-anti-Lib Dem thing if senior Lib Dems including Nick Clegg didn't vote FOR things they stood against in their campaign. It's one thing to say "we tried to stop the Tories doing it but they've got more say than us", and another to promise one thing then go the opposite way.
Clegg got in on the student vote, then voted for the tripling of fees, him saying last night that tripling the fees was the next best thing to his original idea of not increasing them was probably the most bizarre moment. In a debate including Nigel Farage that takes some doing.
Clegg got in on the student vote, then voted for the tripling of fees, him saying last night that tripling the fees was the next best thing to his original idea of not increasing them was probably the most bizarre moment. In a debate including Nigel Farage that takes some doing.
Dar
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Taron
Paint...*dramatic music sting*...with Nigel Farage
http://www.paintwithnigelfarage.com/
http://www.paintwithnigelfarage.com/
Danza91
TS Member
I've just watched the debate. Farage was, as expected, just offensive, annoying, completely clueless and blamed everything on immigration. The HIV argument was a new low. UKIP won't get into power, and thankfully, but the fact that they will probably have some seats is worrying.
I thought Sturgeon came across the best, however I understand she feels strongly about scrapping Trident, which I'm undecided on. Cameron trying to defend the NHS saying that it's better than before shows how out of touch he is. Hard to see anything other than a hung parliament right now.
I thought Sturgeon came across the best, however I understand she feels strongly about scrapping Trident, which I'm undecided on. Cameron trying to defend the NHS saying that it's better than before shows how out of touch he is. Hard to see anything other than a hung parliament right now.
khalichanan
TS Member
Those who genuinely think that Conservatives are the only ones who can be trusted to run the country are idiots and haven't done any political research. They probably also lack understanding of 20th Century history.
There are arguments I can see for Conservative economic plans are valid and follow a certain ideology. But to think they are the only way forward is wrong and naive and shows that the right wing press has been able to manipulate you.
There are arguments I can see for Conservative economic plans are valid and follow a certain ideology. But to think they are the only way forward is wrong and naive and shows that the right wing press has been able to manipulate you.
Harv
TS Member
But let's be honest, Capitalism works and Socialism doesn't (with the exception of Cuba which is pretty much third world anyway, hardly comparable to the standard of living that Britons expect). People who have and haven't read history alike can see that left-wing economic policies are flawed, whether we are talking domestically (the post-Labour recession) or internationally (the fall of the Soviet Union).
For a case study, let's look at the US in the Great Depression. The right-wing want individualism, but the left-wing Keynesian New Deal ends up being implemented. The plan was to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy by allowing the government to fund huge public work schemes and put a wage in people's pockets. In all honesty, it was a great idea but it failed - the money never really got flowing. Ultimately, it took the economic demands of a World War to get the US economy moving again. If we look at Brazil during the same time period, they suffered enormously too. Vargas (yes, a dictator, but ignore that bit) was very right-wing and managed to turn his impoverished country around - look at the improvements in healthcare and particularly in transport in 1930s Brazil. He was able to remain right-wing AND provide social improvements.
Whilst I believe in the state supporting the people, and feel that the enormously unequal distribution of wealth in this country is fundamentally wrong, history does show us that socialism is more miss than hit. It's great whilst we have money flowing in (as we did from the US, when Atlee was able to reform our country to great effect) but whilst times are tough, austerity is the only way to get things moving.
Tl;dr - I think that if anything, 20th Century history proves to us that the Conservatives are the only ones who can be trusted with running our country in its current state.
Adam
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- The Smiler
Tom
TS Member
Say what you want about Cuba, but there are no images of the above there - at least people would soon be taken in if people ever were in that situation. People also have their health and live long lives, which is arguably the most important thing. It's survived despite America's best efforts and is a wonderful place to visit.
Harv
TS Member
Cuba is somewhere I'd love to visit and it is admittedly the best example of successful socialism. The country has done well for itself. But if you do some research, you'll find that Cuba's free healthcare system (just like the ours) is in critical danger of collapsing. Everybody is equal, but everybody is dirt poor. The demise of the USSR damaged Cuba massively; it is not self-sufficient and actually, it was in a really bad place not too long ago. The prosperity seen in recent years is a direct result of the US coaxing Cuba round to capitalism with its dollars. Like it or not, the beacon of socialism has crumbled to the whims of capitalism. That isn't something I say happily (I repeat, I love the sentiment of socialism, there needs to be a far greater role played by the very rich in serving society, I want this ideology to work) - but it is the truth.
Adam, I could post pictures of poverty from numerous Socialist states (Vietnam, the former USSR, various countries in Africa and yes, Cuba, too). As terrible as that photo is, suffering still exists where any ideology is implemented. I agree that capitalism in our society as it currently exists needs reshaping to benefit the many rather than the few. But I think before any change comes, we need to get the deficit down and have a blank canvas to work with. And unfortunately, the only party I trust to do that is the Conservatives.
Adam, I could post pictures of poverty from numerous Socialist states (Vietnam, the former USSR, various countries in Africa and yes, Cuba, too). As terrible as that photo is, suffering still exists where any ideology is implemented. I agree that capitalism in our society as it currently exists needs reshaping to benefit the many rather than the few. But I think before any change comes, we need to get the deficit down and have a blank canvas to work with. And unfortunately, the only party I trust to do that is the Conservatives.
Adam
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- The Smiler
They aren't socialist states. The definition of socialism is the economic means of production being within the ownership of the wider community, being used for public need as opposed to the benefits of higher corporation, something which you don't get in Cuba, China or any other country that claims to be socialist. For the record, I'm not a socialist anyway, but if you look up the true methodology of how society in a socialist system would actually work, you'd be surprised to see how little countries the mass media likes to portray as being socialist/communist are actually those things.
As for only trusting the tories, their austerity idealogy is a terrible method of economic management which unfairly makes the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich, and has actually seen national debt increase by £300 billion since they came to power.
khalichanan
TS Member
Hi; my area of expertise is the post-war Attlee government. I'm currently writing my dissertation on it. There is a clear difference between socialism and social democracy. The money wasn't 'flowing in' from the USA as you make it sound like it did. It also came with various other complications that shaped how Attlee ran the country. Please, if you want to open up the debate about that period I'm more than happy to but I have read incredibly widely on this and have spent hours in archives sifting through the reasons why they were able to implement social democracy (NOT socialism).
May I ask where you get your 20th Century History knowledge from? Is it online/wikipedia or are you a historian with a degree? British history is something I have studied intensely since I was a teenager. The Conservatives have presided over several economic recessions and have not fared consistently well either. To make things simple I will consider the most recent one, if you look online you will see various sources suggesting that the economy was already recovering by the 2010 election. Austerity has completely slowed down the regrowth of the economy. It just didn't work very well. Economies often naturally recover. Secondly, the 1945-51 government came into power on the brink of a recession. Massively in debt, and the money coming from the USA wasn't free money. It was Marshall Aid, which was a loan. We had to pay it back. We had to borrow money to get the economy going. There were several difficult periods as well, such as the winter fuel crisis which threatened the economy. Nevertheless, by following solid Keynesian economic policy and state planning and by nationalising key industries they created a form of capitalism that was far more solid, and did not require any reductions to services. This is what we know as social democracy. In fact, the welfare state created went above and beyond the suggestions made in the Beveridge Report, which is what it was based upon. By the end of the government they had balanced the books and avoided considerable catastrophe.
One of the most telling factors of how successful this government was was that until Thatcher we had something called 'consensus politics' whereby both the Conservatives and the Labour Party followed very similar economic and social planning ideas. What is so important about social democracy is that it is a form of capitalism that can encourage growth of businesses and enterprise whilst still providing that safety net that made communism so popular. Happy businesses, happy workers, happy chappies.
Harv
TS Member
Absolutely not, you clearly know your stuff and it was only a passing point to illustrate that the improvements that I would associate with socialism in Britain - principally the creation of the NHS and the provision of so many new homes - were in vastly different circumstances than the ones we have in the country today.
Not at degree level yet, but it is a subject I'm studying at higher level as part of my International Baccalaureate and I have my place at uni to study it next year. Obviously this area is something you know very well, but by no means are my facts plucked from the internet, I read around the subject intensely from a large variety of sources; of which Wikipedia is not one.
Yep, fair enough. I'm by no means an expert in the conditions that cause economies to collapse and recover, and I gladly accept that sometimes the reasons are just part of a natural, socioeconomic chain of events. But it is categorically undeniable that the deficit that worsened the recession was caused in the first place by spending too much and taking back too little. Public spending was too high. There was a complete ignorance in the country (from both sides, yes, don't think I am a Conservative sympathiser) that things might go bust. But it was Labour that was in charge, not the Conservatives. For me, that damages their credibility. The fact that Miliband still won't admit that mistake concerns me. If Labour do get in, will they simply repeat the process of burying their heads in the sand and spending irresponsibly?
But that's exactly what I said; whether it had to be paid back or not is irrelevant for this argument; money was flowing in to get the economy moving but nowadays it isn't. We don't have billions of US dollars to fund Keynesian policies and get things going. So how can social democracy succeed without that massive injection of cash necessary to kickstart the economy? We're already up to our eyeballs in debt. I just fail to see how we can implement the same system as Attlee in our current condition. We don't have money to nationalise any of our assets and we don't have money to chuck at public works to raise employment levels. Believe me when I say I look at the achievements of the post-war Labour government with admiration, but our situation now is so vastly different in that we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of another enormous loan from abroad, that it is hard to see how social democracy can be implemented now.
I'm not even going to bother quoting the Thatcher stuff. I agree with it all. Thatcherism changed things here and the sharp end to consensus was very unwise. But most Tories now would (maybe not publicly) recognize that it was a bad time for the majority of Britons and I feel that they would avoid repeating such radical steps in government, if the past five years is anything to go by.
I wholeheartedly want a welfare state. It was a massive step forwards for Britain when it was introduced. But reintroducing it simply isn't a viable option until we are firmly back on our feet. Labour and the SNP would vastly increase public spending which true to Tory rhetoric, would lead us right back to square one. I'm not brainwashed by the media or anything, it is just the truth. Sturgeon is going to fight for more money per head in Scotland and Miliband is going to reverse cuts. And that is why I think the Conservatives have to have our next government; because until we have money to start throwing around and using constructively in the long-term, we are going to be in this perpetual cycle of scraping enough together to make things work.
(I know I'm not very articulate at times, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying).
khalichanan
TS Member
I disagree with the idea that public spending was too high. Modern governments run a lot on deficits. See this, for example: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-deficit_gov-dfct-table-en. Some countries still run on a surplus but there are plenty with healthy economies that do not. Now obviously it's not ideal but what has been proven with this government is that austerity does not reduce deficit very well. What works is things like higher taxation. If we're 'all in this together' surely some weight must be carried by the very wealthy and not just by the poor who are affected most by public spending cuts. The strongest one on that table is without a doubt Norway. They follow social democracy whereby there is massive public spending (beyond anything that we see here) but taxes are high enough to fund it. Furthermore, the Conservatives have borrowed more than any other Labour government ever; see this for more information: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/george-osborne-failure-public-trust.html. We must also put an end to the myth that the Labour government borrowed too much and spent too much: http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/en...ve-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess and in particular this graph, which shows that there was a surplus in income vs spending up until 2008 when the recession was caused by the bankers, when it became necessary to spend a lot in order to try and get the economy moving again, following the economic principles of a party that leans lefter than the Tories. As you can also see, there have been periods when the Tories also went into a deficit of spending.
Can we not allow ourselves loans from providers? The terms on which to pay Marshall Aid back weren't exactly favourable. It was a loan as much as any other loan that the government borrows now, just a larger sum. Furthermore, I reiterate my point about not having billions of dollars; we could do if we look into the taxation levels that were in place in 1945. Time and time again they have proved to be better for raising money than austerity.
Interestingly, the Americans threatened to withdraw Marshall Aid unless they significantly scaled back the nationalisation process, and the money from Marshall Aid was not meant to go to nationalisation.
We still do live in a social democracy, because we still do have a welfare state and an NHS etc etc.
Good to hear you're choosing a good degree. Where are you off to?