Election And Stuff.

[IBM]

'Nuther Lib Dem vote. Ming's a gimp, but I'd rather vote for him than any of the alternatives...They've got some sound policies, and it's about time they got a chance.

It is almost a wasted vote, but every general election they come closer to being one of three competing parties, rather than two big and one small.

[dannyboy83]

oh yeah... great reasoning that.

Under Labor we have had insane increases in house prices. So if you want to look at the election of a new government from an individual point of view why don't you consider the fact that you won't be owning your own home until your 40. Also consider the fact that your the chances of you ever getting a council house to live in are nil because of depleted housing stock not being replaced.

I'm 24 and own my own home. 40 is a bit of an exaggeration. Plus they throw mortgages at you these days!

Red Gord for me.

[dannyboy83]

...so while Ming seems like a weakish leader (and come on, who the flock pronounces 'menzies' 'ming'?),

'tis a Scottish thing.

see http://www.johnmenziesplc.com/about-...nunciation.php as in John Menzies, newspaper distribution, used to won shops and aviation stuff now.

I would make the point that while the rise in house prices is not directly down to Labor, the complete and total lack of help for first time buyers is. The only thing they have done is this housing assosication thing where the govt buys half the house and you can buy it later, great idea however only available to those who earn pretty much nowt (I know and looked into it), and therefore if your in that middle ground where you earn a decent wage but can't stretch to buying a house your screwed. .

Did Labour not increase the threshold for stamp duty? Correct me if I'm wrong. And to be fair, the increase in house prices probably causes the increae in the threshold to be meaningless...

[pollaxe]

If there's an election and if I vote it will probably be Tory (God forgive me.)

I'm not really a Tory by inclination, it's more a tactical local thing.

[G4Z]

Did Labour not increase the threshold for stamp duty? Correct me if I'm wrong. And to be fair, the increase in house prices probably causes the increae in the threshold to be meaningless...

Right, they did do that... eventualy.

The threshold was at £60k for nearly all of the time labour was in power, they changed it in 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4353609.stm

Funnily enough they held the 2005 election just 3 months later. So in fact even though house prices were already way high within labors first term it took them until 3 months before the end of the second term before they did anything. The level stamp duty kicks in now is £120k, I live in the north east where prices are relitively low and there are very very few properties that are under £120k. So really the threshold makes little difference and the treasury is still raking it in.

You may have bought your house by the age of 24, well done, but what about all of the other FTB's? I don't know the circumstances of your home ownership so I am certainly not going to take that as evidence that any FTB can buy a house at 24. The average age of a FTB now is 34, so my estimate of 40 is probably optimistic.

[Brucelles]

Good to see that there are lots here who feel the way I do. The Tories had their chance and bolloxed it up so completely that I fled the country again. Lying Toady dragged us into participating in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis so that we can get a tiny hare of the oil America is poised to nick.

The rocketing house price thing was typically asinine economics. Gordon could easily have removed the loopholes that allowed housing to be such a great investment that few ordinary people could buy a house as they were being snapped up by speculators. 30% of London property is held by investors. Why is that good? Why did Gordy allow it? A simple change in the capital gains tax bit of a restraining hand for second homes would have kept prices in line with inflation. Maybe Labour didn't cause it, but they encouraged it.

So I'm going to do what I did last time and vote for a Lib Dem. I like Lembit, and what's wrong with dating a girl anyway? It's more than most Lib Dems are prone to do. I actually liked Charles K. too, shame he couldn't keep it down to a single pint on the way home. I don't really care though. It's bad form to reward incompetence, lying, deceit and mass murder, so I have to vote for a party that hasn't done any of those things yet.

[G4Z]

You all seem to be forgetting that when you vote - you are not voting for which party you would like to see in government but which candidate becomes your local MP. In my constituency the Labour are the party that never get in, it's always between the Tories and Lib Dems. The leader of the governing party is then chosen deomcratically by the party.

Quite right, and its imho stupid voters who for example vote labor because the percive themselves to be working class or vote tory because they percieve themselves as middle class. Stupid because both parties only pay lip service to these 'base voters' and then concentrate on the swing voters or base of the other party. Consequently we see a lot of policy from labor that appeals to the middle class and vice versa. In my area its dominated by labor, but I will not let that stop me voting otherwise. A vote for labor is a vote for stealth taxes, war crime, lies and ID cards. I can't vote for that, and I certainly can't vote for the Tories as I see them both as pretty mucht he same 'centre right' party. We should just rename the whole lot Laborcon, I think it has a ring to it.

[dannyboy83]

You may have bought your house by the age of 24, well done, but what about all of the other FTB's? I don't know the circumstances of your home ownership so I am certainly not going to take that as evidence that any FTB can buy a house at 24. The average age of a FTB now is 34, so my estimate of 40 is probably optimistic.

Fair enough - I bought mine in November 2005, just after the change. And I agree with what your saying - you talk a lot of sense - I think for any single person, it'd be a real struggle to buy a house now - most of my mates are still living with their parents. I live with my gf so split the cost.

From what you were saying though, it sounded as if it was IMPOSSIBLE for regular folk to buy a house in their twenties or thirties. Depends on location and circumstances.

[iranu]

Anything but Labour.

[G4Z]

From what you were saying though, it sounded as if it was IMPOSSIBLE for regular folk to buy a house in their twenties or thirties. Depends on location and circumstances.

I do agree it is not impossible, however I get the feeling you would agree its more difficult. I live with my girlfriend myself and we are thinking about buying, the trouble is we just don't have any capital and the cost of living keeps going up. Fortunately she has not got a better job that means she now earns somewhere in the realm of what I earn so maybe in a year or two we *might* be in a position to start looking. From a personal (and selfish) point of view I really hope Rave is right about his house crash predictions, I don't intend to spend stupid money on a house and tie myself to a mountain of a mortgage so I might just either A) hold out or B) move abroad somwhere cheaper like Australia.

[dannyboy83]

If I had the balls and not the family ties, I'd love to go somewhere sunnier. Fair play mate

[No.72]

TORY FTW!

[Lucio]

Personally, I'll be voting Tory for two main reasons, 1) my local MP is Tory and has been quite helpful on clearing up a couple of policy issues for me and 2) I believe that hte problem with the Labour government is quite frankly, they've gotten too comfortable.

A party with a small margin has to listen to a much wider range of viewpoints because they have to get the opposition to vote for them. With Labours massive majority, many MP's will simply agree with the policies put before them because they daren't fight against the party.

[Saracen]

Gordon the Brave or Chameleon Dave?

The Chameleon.

Why? Well, monkey is as monkey do.

I'm pretty sure what to expect from Brown, because his 10-year track record is a pretty good hint and while a leopard may employ a good PR firm or hide in long grass for a while, he can't change his spots.

Will Cameron be any better? Dunno. But when he gets going, he talks a pretty good game and if he means and does even half of it, it'll be an improvement over the incumbent.

Given my ideal situation, I wouldn't (as the old joke goes) start from here. I have little or no faith in either the basic political system in this country, or in the current breed of zero-conviction professional politicians we currently have. I yearn for the good old days where at least you got the sense that politicians stood for what they believed in, not believed in what they need to to get elected.

If politicians REALLY want to engage with the public, then a good place to start would be to work out why an increasing and EXTREMELY large part of the population don't bother to vote, and FIX IT!!!

Hint - start by firing all the spin doctors, giving a straight-forward and honest answer to a straight question (and the media need to help by quitting with the loaded 'damned either way' questions) and taking responsibility and admitting it when you screw up. Personally, I'm not of the camp that feels a politician needs to resign every time something goes wrong or they make a mistake, but far worse than that is Labour's current predilection for Ministers never willingly taking responsibility for anything unless absolutely forced to.


Anyway, this is starting to sort-of drift off-track, but the basic point is that I don't trust either Brown or Cameron very far (about as far as I could throw Westminster Abbey), and I'm not at all convinced it'll really make a jot of real difference who wins. Either way, we're presented with a loaded question and naff-all real choice, yet whoever wins will treat it as a mandate to do whatever the hell he thinks he can sneak past us without too much trouble, regardless of whether it means doing something he said he wouldn't, or not doing something he said he would.

Do I care who wins? I care more about who wins the 3:15 at Kempston ...... and I don't even know if there is a 3:15 at Kempston or not! And even f there is, I've never bet on a horse in my life, and don't intend to start now.


Disillusioned with politics? Wot, me? Surely not.

[Lanky123]

If the result between Labour and the Tories is close enough (if neither have a majority of the seats), one of them will have to attempt to form a coalition (presumably with the Lib Dems) or a re-election will be called. Consequently I certainly dont think a Lib Dem vote is wasted at all as Labour/Cons begging them to form a government will give them an awful lot of bargaining power.

More Lib Dem seats means fewer for Labour/Cons and therefore more chance of neither getting half+ of the seats, so a greater chance of coalition. It also means less seats for extreme parties so itll be difficult for Labour/Cons to form a coalition with UKIP/Greens/BNP etc to get over the 50% of seats mark.

Ideologically Im not really a Lib Dem, but IMHO they are the only remotely major party that have a bit of principle rather than a 'just say what the voters want to hear and screw them later' stategy. Ill be going to uni next year so I definitely do like their no top up fees policy.

Having said all that Im not 18 till mid November so hopefully the election will be after that if there is one.

[Lee H]

and Lembit Opik is having sexual intercourse with one half of the Cheeky Girls.

You bring that topic up one hell of a lot there Stewart.

Have you got a tad bit of envy here for him seeing as he's clearly nearly double her age?

I'm siding with saracen on this one. I'm too disillusioned with them all to both with all the hassle.