talkmagic.co.uk

Well it is that time of year where voting comes around, and never having done any research into politics I have no clue who really stands for what!

After trying research all the parties seem to be saying the same thing....nothing, but in a lot more words!

Is anybody here able to summarise in an unbiased view what the three main paties stand for?

Cheers!

I think you've got it in one, many people are complaining there isn't any difference anymore

But seriously, keep an eye on TV. Channel 4 have recently aired a Chanceller's debate, and there's three more prime minister/leader debates to come before the election. Not to mention Question Time, whose panelists will be doing a lot of election speak. And talk to your local MP candidates, read the leaflets they shove through the door or ask for one

But in fear of patronising, generally the parties are
Labour - slightly left/liberal, generally try to keep taxes down but current policies include putting up national insurance. Traditionally the worker's party. Also for things like ID cards, being touch on crime and the digital economy bill (giving ofcom more powers over the internet, cutting people off for downloading copyrighted files. But please do your research on this bill first, it's not good!!)
Conservative - sightly right, currently against the NI increase, wants to cut spending on pretty much everything. Currently they're selling themselves as "we're gonna get us out of this mess"
Lib dems - Far left, against taxation for poorer people and pro cutting needless spending on things like ID cards, trident, beuocracy, etc. Pro taxing the very rich (high taxes on big houses, cutting benefits for those earning hundreds of thousands a year), pro helping small businesses

kolm wrote:Lib dems - Far left

I think the Morning Star and the Socialist Workers party (amongst others) may disagree. Seriously - the dear old Lib Dems far left?

Is anybody here able to summarise in an unbiased view what the three main paties stand for?

yes line there pockets with our money, promote there own agenders to be able to line there pockets and then claim secrecy when we the public want to know what there spending our money on.

not sure its unbiased though.

These days they all sound and look alike. However traditionally Labour has been the party of the working man with its main heartlands being in the north, the Conservatives have been the party of the upper and middle classes with main support being in the south, with the Liberals being the party of corduroy wearing teachers with leather patches on their jackets. Or something like that.

One of the other thing to bear in mind is who your local candidates are. You might have a Tory who'd be great for your area even if you wouldn't normally vote conservative. Likewise you might always vote labour but have a total t*** running in your constituency!

Harry Guinness wrote:One of the other thing to bear in mind is who your local candidates are. You might have a Tory who'd be great for your area even if you wouldn't normally vote conservative. Likewise you might always vote labour but have a total t*** running in your constituency!

That's where the liberals usually do quite well - by being very good at local politics. Sheffield (where I live) has been Labour since the dawn of civilisation. However the Lib Dems now run the council, and the area where I live is good old Nick Clegg's constituency. I am surrounded by corduroy wearing teachers with leather patches on the elbows of their jackets. I really am.

And that constituency used to be Conservative (the one blue blot on a red landscape), so the Lib Dems are very good at winning people over with their grass root approach to politics.

themagicwand wrote:

kolm wrote:Lib dems - Far left

I think the Morning Star and the Socialist Workers party (amongst others) may disagree. Seriously - the dear old Lib Dems far left?

OK, more left than labour

I agree about the local candidates, you can get some great local candidates from all three parties. I just sometimes question how much power the back bench MPs really have. You can have the best MP in the world, but sometimes they can't do much to change things

kolm wrote:OK, more left than labour

It's funny, I've never really seen the Lib Dems as being more left-wing than labour but I guess they must be. I've always seen them as being bang down the middle, and I guess other must do too. For instance my constitency used to be Conservative through and through. But the Lib Dems now command it to such a degree that their party leader is the MP. However Labour could never have won here. The Lib Dems managed to sway Conservatives whereas Labour never could have. Ironic that previous Tory voters could be won over by a party more left wing than Labour!

Every election, we're asked to vote for our best local candidate.

"Forget about the party system, vote for the candidate that best represents you and the needs of your local community!

All well and good, but if they dare stand up against their party on issues that affect you, and vote against their party when it fails to represent your interests, the whip comes out, and they're either 'brought into line' with party thinking or replaced with a submissive Yes Man.

I remember when living in Edinburgh, my local MP was 'forced to resign' over the new 'Labour' governments plans to cut benefits for single parents in 1997. In that case, he was representing a constituency which contained a lot of single parents, and was doing the best he could for them. But in taking a stand against his party, he was pushed out of his seat. Funnily enough, he's doing quite well as a Scottish Executive Minister these days...

The bottom line is this:
Whichever party ends up 'winning' this election will do exactly the same as any other - they'll cowtow to big businesses and forget that they have any responsibilities towards the people that voted them in.

My interest this time round will be to support a good strong opposition party. Ideally, it's the opposition that will be able to speak (relatively) freely and keep the 'ruling' party in check.

But yes. career politicians are all about self-serving and treading the path of least resistance. They exploit tabloid scaremongering, rely on short-termism in their policy-making, and base their entire careers on the need to be seen to do something rather than making any actual worthwhile changes.

Then, when they get near the end of their careers in Westminster, they get caught selling their contacts and influence to the highest corporate bidder.

Pond scum, the lot of them.

themagicwand wrote:It's funny, I've never really seen the Lib Dems as being more left-wing than labour but I guess they must be.

It's what I've always thought, but I could be wrong

Anyway, I've just found guardian.co.uk/politics which lets you search for your local candidates which has links to their websites, blogs and twitter feeds. Could be worth looking at

Hmmmm I've always thought of the Liberals as being straight down the middle too....

I must confess to really enjoying the chancellors debate on C4 and am looking forward to the upcoming leader's debates too. I thought Vince Cable came out on top of that particular debate.... however, I did get the impression that he was simply playing to the crowd a lot of the time.

And, let's face it, the Lib Dems are unlikely to win... so if I was Nick Clegg, I'd spend the entire election campaign just spouting ridculous manifesto policies.

"I will cut income tax for to ZERO for every working man who can perform a Hindu shuffle"

"Free Private healthcare for anyone who goes to work dressed as a gorilla every day for 12 months"

and the suchlike... it would certainly make the upcoming few weeks more entertaining

Traditionally:

Labour = left wing
Conservative = right-wing
Lib Dem = middle-ground

Since taking power in 1997, Tory Blair pushed 'New Labour' so far to the right, that it's pretty much carrying on from where John Major's tories left off. New Labour and old Tory are practically indistinguishable these days, and the Lib Dems have become the 'left-wing' option purely in comparative terms, having made no actual moves of its own in that direction.

There are still generations of 'dyed in the wool' voters who support 'their' party, the way in which people support their football team. They're disinterested enough in politics to be ignorant to the way in which the landscape has changed, and make voting part of their personal self-labelling, seeing it as a game as 'us' against 'them' without having a clue about policies and politicians.

Meanwhile, there are those around my age, who remember the last conservative government with a sense of disgust, and have no wish ever to go back there again (I grew up in the North East during the Eighties and saw the darkest side of Tory policy first-hand).

But on the other hand, see the current 'New Labour' government as being no different at all, are spitting mad over its track record regarding Iraq and its draconian proposals such as ID cards.

All hopes could rest with the Lib Dems, as there's so much disillusionment with the main two parties, but the Lib Dems have shown themselves to be unwilling to vote on sensitive issues when they disagree with the big boys.

So where does that leave us?

Pete

new labour = old tories
new tories = a dash of old labour, a pinch of lib dem to flavour the old tory
lib dems = whatever they think the public want to hear, they are the most wishy washy of the three, floating between the two and never really making much of a stand over anything...

it basically boils down to having three people outside your door, you have to let one in, they all have dog-s**t on their shoes, the question is - which one has the least?

I say vote the lib dems in and force them to get a clue, they cant do any worse than the other two and may yet surprise us all.
all I know is as a disabled carer then no party is going to give me a fair shake, minimum wage for carers would break the budjet, so would winter fuel allowence for the disabled.
I'd be more than happy to work for my benefits, wait a minuet I already do, but I'd prefer to be paid more than 80p an hour.