Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #2

[sparey16]

whats the general jist of the lib dem then?

They wish to abolish student fees (albeit eventually, starting with those in final year)

/thread.

then they get my vote

[blandy]

whats the general jist of the lib dem then?

The parties, in word/history at least to me are a bit like this

Conservative - central controlling, look after people with money, help people who "help themselves" (in both senses of the words). Believe in the free market and big business as the engine of the economy. Anti European Union/EC.

Labour - central controlling, look after people struggling for money, help people who "are unable to help themselves". Believe in the free market, only to the point that the ordinary people who work in the economy need to be protected from being exploited.

Lib Dems - not centralist - devolve more power to local areas, help people in the same way as labour, historically "Green" and pro Europe. Want voting change to PR.

In reality Bicks and Chindie have it summed up rightly for me, in terms of what they've actually done, or would do.

There's not really that much difference in a lot of what they would do, or say they would do, on most things.

I think that a lot of people vote on almost single issue stuff in a negative way - eg. Iraq, Ashcroft, "immigration", whatever.

If you see a party that will do something for you or people like you, or soemthing you believe in strongly, then look at what the others would do for you and what they say about things you care about and make a decision.

[avfc89]

whats the general jist of the lib dem then?

The parties, in word/history at least to me are a bit like this

Conservative - central controlling, look after people with money, help people who "help themselves" (in both senses of the words). Believe in the free market and big business as the engine of the economy. Anti European Union/EC.

Labour - central controlling, look after people struggling for money, help people who "are unable to help themselves". Believe in the free market, only to the point that the ordinary people who work in the economy need to be protected from being exploited.

Lib Dems - not centralist - devolve more power to local areas, help people in the same way as labour, historically "Green" and pro Europe. Want voting change to PR.

In reality Bicks and Chindie have it summed up rightly for me, in terms of what they've actually done, or would do.

There's not really that much difference in a lot of what they would do, or say they would do, on most things.

I think that a lot of people vote on almost single issue stuff in a negative way - eg. Iraq, Ashcroft, "immigration", whatever.

If you see a party that will do something for you or people like you, or soemthing you believe in strongly, then look at what the others would do for you and what they say about things you care about and make a decision.

What about BNP?

[bickster]

What about BNP?

Racist bigoted c**ts would be the short answer

F**king racist bigoted c**nts would be the long version

[snowychap]

whats the general jist of the lib dem then?

"We're not Labour; we're not Conservative."

[mjmooney]

What about BNP?

Racist bigoted c**ts would be the short answer

F**king racist bigoted c**nts would be the long version

Far, far too kind to them.

[wiganvillain]

^^^^^^^^^^

Well, Bicks does like a bit of understatement unless talking about the Beatles :winkold:

[TheWalletInspector]

Hmmm, I was just reading this "BNP is free from a Ukip challenge in 80 per cent of the seats it is contesting, while Ukip has no BNP challenger in 85 per cent of the seats in which it is standing." Rather interesting.

[peterms]

... some policies are just ridiculous and would require bankrupting the country to fund them.

Which policies are you thinking of?

Green policy on Drugs I believe to be quite sensible, similar to the dutch model, but more support through NHS for hard drug addicts (e.g. Heroine addicts)

Their Energy policy is good in principle but would either not be different to what is being done already, OR will need a HUGE sum of money to get it done in a relatively quick time (30 years or so). They want pretty much 100% renewable energy, which can't be done, not until technology in renewables significantly makes them more efficient.

Drugs policy is an interesting area. If you approach it from an economic standpoint, I think it might be more cost-effective to have a policy based on treatment and intervention aimed at managing the problem, coupled with looking for alternatives for those using the stuff - which in turn gets into trying to understand why they are using. Is it a personal issue around addictive personality? A social thing about peer groups and lifestyle? Is it related to limited economic prospects?

In most cases, money spent on trying to understand and treat the issue would be more effective, and would produce a better quality of life for the rest of us, than an approach based on trying to catch them after their four hundredth burglary and bang them up for a few months, releasing them to go back to the same old thing.

But we seem to have a policy based a little more on the idea of punishment, and treatment as something which should play a minor role rather than the main plank of policy.

I reckon this more liberal policy wouldn't cost more, probably less, and would be more effective in curbing both drug use and the unpleasant impacts on the rest of us.

Energy - tough one. We've known since at least the 70's that our current energy policy can only lead to recurrent energy crises, economic destabilisation, and environmental catastrophe. We also know that there are alternative technologies which can help deal with a large part of the problem. We know that they require big investment to make them work, that the private sector won't lead the way, but that if there are enough tax penalties for bad energy use and rewards for good energy use, then people very quickly change their behaviour, firms (for example) start making windows and boilers with greater thermal efficiency, the costs fall because production is on a larger scale, and it all becomes a bit more affordable.

If you see a change in energy policy as something which must be wholly state-funded, then it's unaffordable without massive tax increases. If the government chooses to create costs and benefits to encourage and discourage certain behaviours, then it starts to look more affordable, as in Germany for example (they haven't got their energy policy sorted and foolproof, but they seem a bit further down the road than us).

But really, the question is not whether we need to invest much, much more in renewables. It's how, and how quickly, we can do so. Timid nods in the direction of a few wind farms while appeasing the oil companies really won't work.

In the same way, recognising that radical changes in energy policy are needed, while voting for people who won't make this change, won't work either.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Drugs (Marijuana) will not be legalised because it needs to be imported (if you want the good stuff, that is )and thus the taxes won't be as attractive to the government as would, say, increasing the price of alcohol.

Another reason is because there are a lot of dafties out there that believe it's actually dangerous, when every scientific fact and piece of evidence proves it is far from it, in fact they should all put down their espressos and opt for a safer start to the day like a big fat spliff.

It's something I feel strongly about and there needs to be an open debate. Seriously it is tiresome hearing **** run around saying 'people that smoke weed are imbeciles and complete rocket polishers' then go on a binge drinking session.

Grr.

[snowychap]

Drugs policy is an interesting area.

First thing would be to cut the umbilical cord between casual drug use and (potentially extreme) criminality.

It isn't the use of blow (or even his high retail footfall) that worries me about my neighbour dealing (though it does piss me off) - it is the possibility that his dealing might really piss somebody else off and that I or my brother or some other innocent will get caught up in the ensuing turf skirmish.

[peterms]

Drugs policy is an interesting area.

First thing would be to cut the umbilical cord between casual drug use and (potentially extreme) criminality.

It isn't the use of blow (or even his high retail footfall) that worries me about my neighbour dealing (though it does piss me off) - it is the possibility that his dealing might really piss somebody else off and that I or my brother or some other innocent will get caught up in the ensuing market skirmish.

There's an argument that decriminalising the soft stuff at the same time as being firmer on selling harder stuff would be helpful, exactly by cutting that connecting chain.

When it's easier to buy something hard than something softer, that's a clue that drugs policy isn't working.

[snowychap]

There's an argument that decriminalising the soft stuff at the same time as being firmer on selling harder stuff would be helpful, exactly by cutting that connecting chain.

I think it's a very good argument, Peter.

It is also an argument that addresses the move from selling the 'soft stuff' to mates to being pushed into selling harder stuff to a less matey clientele (that isn't to excuse those dealing but just to address the situation where it changes from a simple difficulty with the quantity of the footfall to a difficulty with the state of the bodies and minds above those feet).

[peterms]

There's an argument that decriminalising the soft stuff at the same time as being firmer on selling harder stuff would be helpful, exactly by cutting that connecting chain.

I think it's a very good argument, Peter.

It is also an argument that addresses the move from selling the 'soft stuff' to mates to being pushed into selling harder stuff to a less matey clientele (that isn't to excuse those dealing but just to address the situation where it changes from a simple difficulty with the quantity of the footfall to a difficulty with the state of the bodies and minds above those feet).

And on that point, I'm sure we would all prefer that people who need the harder stuff were able to turn up to a clinic in a controlled environment and be supplied with clean goods, administered in a way which didn't spread contamination, without ending up having to burgle and rob to pay for it, and without hanging round a dealer's house and intimidating neighbours who don't feel comfortable walking through groups of people who show little awareness of or sympathy with their fears.

But of course that would mean being soft on druggies, so that could never happen. Wash my mouth out.

[bickster]

Thats the trouble with you wishy washy liberal types, far too bloody sensible on drugs

[peterms]

Thats the trouble with you wishy washy liberal types, far too bloody sensible on drugs

Hey! I'm not on drugs. And I'm sensible anyway.

[snowychap]

And on that point, I'm sure we would all prefer that people who need the harder stuff were able to turn up to a clinic in a controlled environment and be supplied with clean goods, administered in a way which didn't spread contamination, without ending up having to burgle and rob to pay for it, and without hanging round a dealer's house and intimidating neighbours who don't feel comfortable walking through groups of people who show little awareness of or sympathy with their fears.

But of course that would mean being soft on druggies, so that could never happen. Wash my mouth out.

Not sure that you needed me to respond but, to fit in with the VT vogue, 'this'.

Edit: I hope and expect that you're quaffing a lubberly bottle of red - it's not liberals whom we need but liberal drinkers. :winkold:

[peterms]

And on that point, I'm sure we would all prefer that people who need the harder stuff were able to turn up to a clinic in a controlled environment and be supplied with clean goods, administered in a way which didn't spread contamination, without ending up having to burgle and rob to pay for it, and without hanging round a dealer's house and intimidating neighbours who don't feel comfortable walking through groups of people who show little awareness of or sympathy with their fears.

But of course that would mean being soft on druggies, so that could never happen. Wash my mouth out.

Not sure that you needed me to respond but, to fit in with the VT vogue, 'this'.

Ithankyew.

So with that one put to bed, it's on to energy policy...

[snowychap]

So with that one put to bed, it's on to energy policy...

Now that is difficult (and I'm struggling to slide in an anecdote relating to my neighbour(s)).

p.s. Beware the bear!!!!!

[Condimentalist]

Unfortunately sensible drug policy is also unelectable in this country. Sadly I can't see us making any serious progress on that front for a while.

Drugs are bad m'kay.