Election Night 2015

[villa4europe]

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

[TOM_VILLA_SCO]

 

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

 

i voted SNP, because i want an independent Scotland, but if you remove this policy from the SNP, i would still vote for them, Labour are too left for england and not left enough for scotland, if they want any chance of going back into government they have to forget about scoland and focus on england and wales. They have become about as relevant and popular as the tories up here

[wazzap24]

 

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

 

 

Spot on. The Tories fought a far better campaign. 

 

But don't you agree that actually, they just did a better job of slagging off Labour, than Labour did to them? 

 

Their record on the Economy, Immigration and Welfare reforms were shocking in the past 5 years, but they have been re-elected again based on the Economy and Welfare reforms (with a side portion of fear over the SNP)! 

Edited May 10, 2015 by wazzap24

[snowychap]

I'm a self confessed floating voter, so I'll fully admit to not having spent hours pouring over every policy and outcome of voting for one party or the other.

But like CV suggests, you shouldn't have to. The suggestion that 40 million people should be completely up to date with absolutely everything about politics is absurd.

Why have you come up with this straw man? It may not be bitter or sanctimonious but it is bollocks.

It isn't about 'being completely up to date with absolutely everything about politics' or spending 'hours pouring over every policy'.

Actually, it's interesting that you have come up with this (and that you have repeated it) because that is rather how the political debate is framed (by wildly exaggerated claims or snippets taken out of proportion) and why people would have a difficult job of convincing an electorate when their minds are rather made up for them by oft repeated claptrap (by politicians themselves and the media when reporting about them and then the public because they've not heard anything else).

Edited May 10, 2015 by snowychap

[CVByrne]

 

 

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

 

 

Spot on. The Tories fought a far better campaign. 

 

But don't you agree that actually, they just did a better job of slagging off Labour, than Labour did to them? 

 

Their record on the Economy, Immigration and Welfare reforms were shocking in the past 5 years, but they have been re-elected again based on the Economy and Welfare reforms (with a side portion of fear over the SNP)! 

 

 

To call the Conservatives record on the Economy in the past 5 years "shocking" is a ridiculous statement. Shows clear bias. 

[wazzap24]

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

 

Spot on. The Tories fought a far better campaign. 

 

But don't you agree that actually, they just did a better job of slagging off Labour, than Labour did to them? 

 

Their record on the Economy, Immigration and Welfare reforms were shocking in the past 5 years, but they have been re-elected again based on the Economy and Welfare reforms (with a side portion of fear over the SNP)!

 

To call the Conservatives record on the Economy in the past 5 years "shocking" is a ridiculous statement. Shows clear bias.

Which bit is ridiculous CV? The fact that debt has risen from £811bn to £1,451bn in 5 years? That as a % of GDP it has now risen from under 50% to around 80% with more to come? That George has spent more in the past 5 years than Gordon did in the previous 10? That they missed all of their reduction targets in the previous Parliment?

Dave kept pulling out that bit of paper about there being 'no money left', so what did they do? They borrowed a load more. Which apparently is what got us into the mess in the first place, but as long as they are borrowing it and not Labour then it's more responsible?

Please.

[PompeyVillan]

But labour caused the international banking crisis!

Didn't they?

No?

Oh.

Hmm.

[andyjsg]

They failed miserably.

That's it for me, labour made a right mess of things, the main figures couldn't inspire confidence, they went far too offensive with telling me how bad the Tories were but did little to tell me why they were better

They simply didn't give me a reason to vote for them, I'd be interested to see if there was a way of telling how many of the votes labour got was purely for anti Tory reasons rather than pro labour

Spot on. The Tories fought a far better campaign.

But don't you agree that actually, they just did a better job of slagging off Labour, than Labour did to them?

Their record on the Economy, Immigration and Welfare reforms were shocking in the past 5 years, but they have been re-elected again based on the Economy and Welfare reforms (with a side portion of fear over the SNP)!

To call the Conservatives record on the Economy in the past 5 years "shocking" is a ridiculous statement. Shows clear bias.

Which bit is ridiculous CV? The fact that debt has risen from £811bn to £1,451bn in 5 years? That as a % of GDP it has now risen from under 50% to around 80% with more to come? That George has spent more in the past 5 years than Gordon did in the previous 10? That they missed all of their reduction targets in the previous Parliment?

Dave kept pulling out that bit of paper about there being 'no money left', so what did they do? They borrowed a load more. Which apparently is what got us into the mess in the first place, but as long as they are borrowing it and not Labour then it's more responsible?

Please.

You do realise they were tied to the previous spending commitments/contracts?

Its frustrating people comment when they truly dont understand something

[GeorgeVilla82]

But labour caused the international banking crisis!

Didn't they?

No?

Oh.

Hmm.

No, but what they did do is not recognise the boom and bust economic cycle (which happens anyway, banking crisis or not) and ran a deficit in the good times. Even Chuka Umunna today admitted that they should have been running a surplus pre-2008. For me, it was Miliband's failure to accept that the last Labour administration overspent which massively dented his credibility.

[wazzap24]

Ok Andy, but its forecast to keep rising in the next Parliment and the only way they can get it down is massively accelerated cuts and the HOPE that growth accelerates and consumer spending rises.

If they were already committed then why did they claim they could 'balance the books' in the last Parliment? Now they say it will be the end of this Parliment and then what?

Dave better get that note laminated, he will be relying on it again in 5 years!

Edited May 10, 2015 by wazzap24

[PompeyVillan]

George Osborne promised to match labour spending in 2007. So the conservatives would have 'overspent' as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

[GeorgeVilla82]

George Osborne promised to match labour spending in 2007. So the conservatives would have 'overspent' as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Labour governed from 1997, so we're talking about 13 years of over-spending not just the one year prior to the recession.

[Xela]

Let it go people, the evil Conservatives have won!

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by Xela

[Neil]

Let it go people, the evil Conservatives have won!

I know, tears and split milk come to mind.

P.s. does anyond know where I can spend my warning points before they expire again? I didn't get to spend them last time and I was most upset

[AVFCforever1991]

Whether the Tories won or Labour won, the people of Britain still would have lost...

Edited May 10, 2015 by AVFCforever1991

[blandy]

Let it go people, the evil Conservatives have won!

 

'cus of this?

[Xela]

I think it was down to lack of a realistic alternative as well. 

[snowychap]

George Osborne promised to match labour spending in 2007. So the conservatives would have 'overspent' as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Labour governed from 1997, so we're talking about 13 years of over-spending not just the one year prior to the recession.

There are several points to make (even ignoring how much control a government directly has over whether or not it runs a surplus/deficit):

There was a surplus between 1998 and 2001;

UK governments rarely run a budget surplus (only seven years out of the last 50, I think);

Between 2002 and 2007 (i.e. before the financial crisis) the UK government's deficit was between 2% and 3% (historically relatively low) and whilst there may have been some criticism of this (that policy was perhaps a little loose) from outside the political sphere, I don't remember much, if any, from the Tories (there were even commitments to match it all as per Pompey's post);

Lastly, a quote in the article I quoted a few pages back (and ignoring questions about the merits of an idea like the structural deficit for a mo), The elimination of the UK's structural deficit [under Labour before the recession] would not have been even a sticking plaster in the face of the haemorrhaging of the finance sector's jugular.

[wazzap24]

Labour overspent, there is no doubting that. They contributed to the problems and didn't do enough for the long term financial health of the country during the 'boom' times. I have more sympathy for the spending post 2008 financial crash, but we should have been starting on a much surer footing.

But the point is still that the Tories have faired no better in that regard (arguably worse and some economists point to their polices as the reason for sluggish growth and lower than expected tax receipts).

Again, if what Andy says is true and they were committed to almost doubling the debt and adding approx 30% to the debt/GDP ratio, then why claim you will be able to balance the books? It doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Political ideology aside, I actually think GO has some decent ideas. Creating a Northern Powerhouse and rebalancing the economy more towards manufacturing/technology/science etc makes a hell of a lot of sense. But it's small beer at the moment and this kind of change will require all parties to support it over a period of 15-20 years and sustained high investment in infrastructure, education etc etc.

In the immediate term (next five years) they need the financial sector to perform well (which it probably will) and a big increase in consumer spending. This alongside large real term cuts to public spending.

The problem with that is, 'austerity' can lead to weaker consumer confidence and lower spending (especially amongst 'average joes').

So if consumer spending doesn't increase (amongst the masses, not just the few at the top) and tax receipts don't increase, then they will either have to adjust/forget about the targets they have set or reduce public spending/borrowing even further to achieve a surplus.

[tonyh29]

 

 

A few questions for those who voted Tory. Regardless of whether you have, and believe you'll continue to have, a couple of extra quid in your own pocket a week under the Tories do you believe under them that the disabled will be better off? that the working poor will be better off? that low paid workers won't continue to be abused by big business in terms of contracted hours and their terms and conditions? that workers rights won't continue to be eroded? that the minimum wage will rise as quickly as it desperately needs to ? that our NHS will be in better shape in 5 years? that the rest of our public services will be in better condition than they are now?

In my opinion if you can answer yes to any of them you are either very naive or a liar.

Alas im not allowed to answer this as I didn't Vote Tory but if I was allowed to id say what a load of melodramatic bolloxs

Sorry Mark I know you mean well

 

 

 

Tony reading my post back then I can see that it does come across that way.

 

I do genuinely think though that some people are going to be shocked now that we have a Tory Government on their own at how destructive they will be, in terms of our public services, and how badly they will treat those already with the least. Their record in these areas with the Lib Dems keeping them in check was bad enough.

 

 

I suspect as you've touched on before , that a lot of people wont even notice it ..until they suddenly have an illness  or lose their job and so on and find themselves in that problem and even then it may be luck of the draw rather a blanket , "you're screwed "

 

 

One of my close friends developed cancer a few years back , his treatment and care has been top notch , alas I don't think he can survive long term as the cancer is on his lungs and can't currently be cured , but that hasn't stopped the NHS giving him every treatment and every chance they can ... even his employers , the DWP ironically enough ,stood by him during his treatment when he couldn't work and after about 8 months off work he is now back at work full time .....  

 

Another person in another city may not receive the same care / same luck  ?