Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

[sb_73]

Brilliant! It's Tory manifesto day! Due to the hugely positive response to my Labour summary, I'll do the same for the Tories, if I can be arsed.

Right to buy Housing Association homes the big trail, all the journos, including the entirely odious John 'It's all about me' Humphreys, tying themselves in knots about the minutiae of how it will be paid for etc., missing the central point that this is pure ideology, the Tories believe that owning property is a core part of the type of society they want to,er, 'conserve'. Fair enough, I'd like to see some more ideology from Labour too.

Affordable housing, either rented of for sale, is of course a massive issue. Companies are beginning to get involved in order to protect their workforce. Just discovered that my son has his name on the list for a room in one of his company's houses, which they have a couple of to help their lower paid staff (which he as a 19 year old is) survive. Good move if you want to retain people as you invest in them and they develop.

 

[Stroller]

It's here at last! The Labour manifesto! I know that there are literally some damp seats around the country such is the excitement!

But in case you don't have time to do your civic duty and read it cover to cover, here is a summary:

- it's 86 pages long
- there are some pictures
- it is divided into sections with some helpful summary bullet points at the end
- you can get it on pdf

I skimmed it of course. One thing that struck me was the promise to recruit 8,000 GPs, 20,000 nurses and 3,000 midwives. It takes a minimum of seven years to train a GP, so unless there are loads sitting around on the dole or working at B&Q waiting for a massive increase to GP contracts, or we prevent the existing ones from ever retiring, we'll have to get them from abroad. Perhaps this works by charging them to train here, which will contribute to offsetting the proposed reduction in tuition fees, and then not letting them leave.

Meanwhile, Sierra Leone with it's 6.1m population and an ebola epidemic (no longer news now we have an election) has a total of 136 doctors (less than 100 in the public sector), 0.03 per 1,000 population, compared to our 2.7 per 1,000, and nearly 6 in ....Cuba. Estonia and Bulgaria also have more than us.

Of course, this is an area where a bit of good old fashioned socialist central planning is needed - to make sure we have enough training and university places for the right specialities and there are some incentives in place for the places to be taken up. I haven't read the manifesto closely enough to see whether this is the idea, but somehow I doubt it.

I can barely wait for the other manifestsos to emerge.

Not sure I could be bothered to read the whole thing, but I heard Miliband's introductory speech yesterday, which was quite effective. Their problem, though, is that, given that they are desperate to demonstrate that everything is properly costed and funded, they can't pledge to match the Tories 'extra £8billion for the NHS' - which of course is not funded. He had a good line about the Tories' promises making the Greens look fiscally responsible, though.

 

[sb_73]

Just skimmed the Tory manifesto. Matches the labour one blow for blow with:
- 84 pages
- pictures
- downloadable pdf
- chapters (which quite cleverly have the summary at the beginning)

Actually there looks to be quite a lot more in it than the Labour one, smaller font and two columns of print per page. And it feels like more detail on the promises/aspirations, though I have only skimmed it.

Most arresting thing I spotted was the pledge to help business create 2 million new jobs (while at the same time it is to be assumed that the public sector will shed a few) to take us into 'full employment' - they use the phrase. I don't think we've had full employment since the 1960s, so it's a big target, unless we are all employed on zero hours contracts and not actually doing any work or earning any money, but are technically employed.

The welfare cuts seem to be more freezing everything except pensions and disability payments and reducing the cap on what a family can get from the state from £26k to £23k.

 

[sb_73]

You wait all week and two come at once! The Greens have also launched their manifesto coming in at an uncanny 84 pages, chapters, summary boxes etc but only one picture - of Nicola* Bennett. Hmm.

Really have given this not much more than a cursory glance, but it is worth much more. An entrancing mixture of environmental, PC and hard left policies. The chapter on Work and Tax is very interesting. Some huge numbers bandied around.

Mention of seizing control of the means of production (in reality the only way to deliver this agenda) would have made it compelling, with the environment and PC bits toned down. I think I need a 'Reds' party.

Every chapter starts with the word "Imagine". They should have started with "After the revolution".

Can't wait for UKIP! Though as Farage himself disowned the last Kippers manifesto, one wonders why they bother. Perhaps he'll read it before it's published this time.

Hustings. Now there's a word to savour and celebrate.

* My wife has just informed me her name is Natalie. Either I've not been paying attention or she hasn't made much of an impression.

 

[KooPeeArr]

I'm enjoying the manifesto summaries Stan.

I am a bit called by the combined 252 pages of the genuine articles though.

It takes me several weeks to read than many pages of a paperback and I have been known to abandon certain...um... match reviews due to time restraints.

If they can all combine them into a three part mini drama before the election, that'd be great.

Perhaps Dr Mephesto's manifesto fiasco could be a working title.

 

[sb_73]

I'm enjoying the manifesto summaries Stan.

I am a bit called by the combined 252 pages of the genuine articles though.

It takes me several weeks to read than many pages of a paperback and I have been known to abandon certain...um... match reviews due to time restraints.

If they can all combine them into a three part mini drama before the election, that'd be great.

Perhaps Dr Mephesto's manifesto fiasco could be a working title.

Thanks Matt, I'd like to say it's my civic duty, but worryingly this thread has led me to re-engage a bit with politics after a very long lay off. I'm enjoying it, and I genuinely still don't know who I will vote for (I'll take up a position on this thread because my Dad taught me to relish an argument - he was the type of bloke who would invite Jehovah's Witnesses into the house for a bit of fun - and I dislike trite, sound bite, anti- whoever they are stances).

Agree with the dramatisation, as long as Helen Mirren, Benedict Cummerbund and Joey Essex are involved.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

You wait all week and two come at once! The Greens have also launched their manifesto coming in at an uncanny 84 pages, chapters, summary boxes etc but only one picture - of Nicola* Bennett. Hmm.

Really have given this not much more than a cursory glance, but it is worth much more. An entrancing mixture of environmental, PC and hard left policies. The chapter on Work and Tax is very interesting. Some huge numbers bandied around.

Mention of seizing control of the means of production (in reality the only way to deliver this agenda) would have made it compelling, with the environment and PC bits toned down. I think I need a 'Reds' party.

Every chapter starts with the word "Imagine". They should have started with "After the revolution".

Can't wait for UKIP! Though as Farage himself disowned the last Kippers manifesto, one wonders why they bother. Perhaps he'll read it before it's published this time.

Hustings. Now there's a word to savour and celebrate.

* My wife has just informed me her name is Natalie. Either I've not been paying attention or she hasn't made much of an impression.

After her recent performances I thought it was Gordon.

 

[rangercol]

The Greens are stark raving bonkers!

 

[KooPeeArr]

Thanks Matt, I'd like to say it's my civic duty, but worryingly this thread has led me to re-engage a bit with politics after a very long lay off. I'm enjoying it, and I genuinely still don't know who I will vote for (I'll take up a position on this thread because my Dad taught me to relish an argument - he was the type of bloke who would invite Jehovah's Witnesses into the house for a bit of fun - and I dislike trite, sound bite, anti- whoever they are stances).

Agree with the dramatisation, as long as Helen Mirren, Benedict Cummerbund and Joey Essex are involved.

I must confess that I'm a bit more enthused by this one. I think the ineptitude of all the leaders and the assumption of a hung parliament/coalition will make the turnout higher and the results more arbitrary (in conventional terms). There's so little to choose that a tactical vote seems destined for someone equally bad.

I did awjm's anonymous policy thing and came out 40, 30, 20, 10 in favour of Lib, Lab, Green and Tory respectively and am still fairly undecided (and may yet spoil my ballot).

This thread has been wonderful though -,like a microcosm of our forum - lively debate, partisanship, humour and a bit of Sword fishing too.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

Taken from facebook.......

Dog Attacks Tory Councilor Through Letterbox
A Conservative councilor had three fingers shredded by dog on the campaign trial on Friday. Jane Chitty was attacked while pushing leaflets through letterboxes in Strood, Kent

If it had been Iain Duncan Smith, I'd give the mutt a medal for gallantry!!!!

 

[sb_73]

The Greens are stark raving bonkers!

Read the manifesto Col? They are the only party in England offering a real anti austerity approach. It's poorly thought through and you wouldn't trust the people involved to know where to start if given the chance to implement it, but they are the only party presenting an alternative, while the Tories pretend to be the party of the people and the Labour feel that they have to mimic the Tories in everything.

The Greens are only bonkers if you think that capitalism and slavery to international markets and 'confidence' (the same markets and confidence that gave us the crash) are inevitable and everlasting. I respect them for saying the deficit isn't everything.

I won't be voting for them but it's worth the effort of trying to understand what they are on about. I'll be extending UKIP the same courtesy.

 

[rangercol]

Read the manifesto Col? They are the only party in England offering a real anti austerity approach. It's poorly thought through and you wouldn't trust the people involved to know where to start if given the chance to implement it, but they are the only party presenting an alternative, while the Tories pretend to be the party of the people and the Labour feel that they have to mimic the Tories in everything.

The Greens are only bonkers if you think that capitalism and slavery to international markets and 'confidence' (the same markets and confidence that gave us the crash) are inevitable and everlasting. I respect them for saying the deficit isn't everything.

I won't be voting for them but it's worth the effort of trying to understand what they are on about. I'll be extending UKIP the same courtesy.

I haven't read their manifesto, but I have listened to Gordon Bennett, at length in interviews.
They want to turn our air bases into nature reserves. They are advocating "utopia" on an imaginary budget. They are talking about huge tax hikes.
Whilst trying to ignore your slightly condescending "it's worth the effort of trying to understand what they are on about" line, I will say that I certainly am not a massive fan of everlasting capitalism, but I find a far left approach like the one from the Greens tends to go against almost everything that I believe in.

The more I listened to Gordon Bennett on the Jeremy Vine show, the more I was convinced that she was indeed bonkers! (These parties can offer anything, without it being properly funded etc sound in the knowledge that they will never get the chance to implement anything). What worries me is that some of these extreme policies may get a look in if someone like the SNP holds the balance of power.

 

[Sooperhoop]

I'd have expected the Greens to possibly win a seat in Brighton as they already control the council there. They've made a complete bollox of it after three years and that may work against them. They can afford to promise the earth as they know they haven't a hope.

In fact all the parties can promise jam tomorrow as they know a coalition is almost certain and they can then blame their coalition partner for breaking their promise. On that score Ed Miliband is in a great position as the SNP will force him to agree the left-wing programme he would love himself but daren't offer, it will make Labour's manifesto look very austere...

 

[UTRs]

I'd have expected the Greens to possibly win a seat in Brighton as they already control the council there. They've made a complete bollox of it after three years and that may work against them. They can afford to promise the earth as they know they haven't a hope.

In fact all the parties can promise jam tomorrow as they know a coalition is almost certain and they can then blame their coalition partner for breaking their promise. On that score Ed Miliband is in a great position as the SNP will force him to agree the left-wing programme he would love himself but daren't offer, it will make Labour's manifesto look very austere...

Totally this!

Nail on the head Sooper!

 

[Stroller]

I'd much rather see the Greens pick up a seat of two than UKIP. One or two of their policies, such as re-nationalising the railways, could be vote winners for Labour if they had any bollocks (I nearly said Balls).

It seems to me that Labour have been outmanoeuvred by the Tories' unfunded manifesto promises, having themselves been desperate to convince voters that they were 'responsible' by not promising anything that wasn't funded. They have also let themselves down by not nailing the 'Labour's recession' lie.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I'd much rather see the Greens pick up a seat of two than UKIP. One or two of their policies, such as re-nationalising the railways, could be vote winners for Labour if they had any bollocks (I nearly said Balls).

It seems to me that Labour have been outmanoeuvred by the Tories' unfunded manifesto promises, having themselves been desperate to convince voters that they were 'responsible' by not promising anything that wasn't funded. They have also let themselves down by not nailing the 'Labour's recession' lie.

This is the second time you've made that remark, Strolls. I have no idea whether it's true or not. All I've heard is Labour's response to the Conservative manifesto which includes this unfunded accusation. Is this where you've acquired your opinion, or is it a fact that it's an unfunded promise? Just asking.

 

[Stroller]

This is the second time you've made that remark, Strolls. I have no idea whether it's true or not. All I've heard is Labour's response to the Conservative manifesto which includes this unfunded accusation. Is this where you've acquired your opinion, or is it a fact that it's an unfunded promise? Just asking.

They've consistently refused to say where they would get the extra £8 billion for the NHS that they keep banging on about, Uber. I heard one Tory on the radio at the weekend saying that it would come from 'a strong economy'. That spells unfunded to me.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

They've consistently refused to say where they would get the extra £8 billion for the NHS that they keep banging on about, Uber. I heard one Tory on the radio at the weekend saying that it would come from 'a strong economy'. That spells unfunded to me.

Ok, thanks. I would tend to agree with you. However, I don't think the principal of saying that increased tax revenues arising from a strong economy would be used to fund this or that as a priority is necessarily wrong. But, of course, this is only a heavily caveated pledge. The usual politician claptrap in which they refuse to spell it out honestly, isn't it?

 

[KooPeeArr]

This is the second time you've made that remark, Strolls. I have no idea whether it's true or not. All I've heard is Labour's response to the Conservative manifesto which includes this unfunded accusation. Is this where you've acquired your opinion, or is it a fact that it's an unfunded promise? Just asking.

I can't stand fundationless accusations - they spoil all the fund.

 

[Stroller]

Ok, thanks. I would tend to agree with you. However, I don't think the principal of saying that increased tax revenues arising from a strong economy would be used to fund this or that as a priority is necessarily wrong. But, of course, this is only a heavily caveated pledge. The usual politician claptrap in which they refuse to spell it out honestly, isn't it?

Yes. The point is that they ought to be able to demonstrate what levels of growth and tax revenues that they have factored into their manifesto. Labour, in their desperation to shake off the 'irresponsible' tag, offered to submit their plans to the OBR to be audited, but this was vetoed by Osborne.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ballss-plan-allow-obr-audit-labours-manifesto