General Discussion
For all you pensioners and carers out there who think the Conservative Party is wonderful. How will you feel IF the Conservative Party gets elected and you suddenly find yourselves without care because the Conservatives WILL be reducing eligibility for the carers’ allowance among other extreme cuts. Benefits do not ONLY mean job seekers allowance ... the cover all areas of welfare, including disability living allowance (now PIP), carers allowance, child benefit, working tax credit, housing benefit ... the list is endless and the target for their cuts is huge
At least you 2 are consistant in your fawning of "Call me Dave"I am sure Labour followers are expecting interest rates to go back up to double figures again where they used to be, petrol going up, higher tax on your wages.
On the Sunday Politics Labour could not give any figures.
At least Labour have admitted they will make cuts and have to put tax up to pay for it.
Hey ho so it's Labour to win then! .
On the BBC News Tories twisting figures again to slag off Labour. Neither Party is giving much away wondering
wondering Was it not in the heady day's of the Thatcher era that intertest rates where in double figures and since when have any goverment had anything to do with oil prices maybe you could tell us all how they do. It's possibly the jargon coming from the tories on how we are all better of with the reduction in oil price that has nothing at all to do with any political party but we could thank the friendly Arabs from the Middle East.
Hit 15% in 1976 Labour, befiore Thatcher, then went up and down with both until its now NIL.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/repo.asp
Ahh. M Thatcher. Wasn't the slogan used by the Cons 'Labour isn't working' then after she got in unemployment rocketed.
Put up the GB for Sale signs and now what do ALL of you do, complain about the sky high price of Gas, Electricity, Water, the state of the Railways, and so on etc.
Sold off thousands of council houses without building new ones.
Yes, the good old tory party, has the people of Britain at heart, but only if they are rich.
Sold off council houses that are now in the hands of wealthy tory voters (a lot of them are MPs)to charge high rents to make them richer. Yes good old tories
.Bang on about owning your own house which is impossibe for some people and a lot who did were forced into negative equity in that bloody womens era, and several others have been put into debt and in some cases homeless because of it. Bedroom Tax = the worse persecution of the hard working poor I could go on and on good old tories
and then of course there is all that housing benefit money (tax payer money) going to the private sector landlords.
Have I got this right? Private landlords buy private property (which overtime will accrue in value = capital gain) meantime the property (ies) are a revenue stream which, if the tenants, need to claim housing benefit in order to pay the rent then we, the taxpayers, are giving public money to private landlords by way of HB.
Good eh? What ragged trousered philanthropists so many of us are!
Oh and don't forget. Private sector rents are market level rents so are more than 'affordable' rents (about 80% of market rents) and social rents (about 60% of market rents).
Now, before anyone gets their wotsits in a wotsit and I get accused of being anti private rental sector. I am not. There is a need for the private rental sector but there is also a need for housing that people can afford to buy if they so wish and housing that people can afford to rent (without having to claim HB).
The housing market isn't right at the moment.
I will cast my vote at the due time, but now more than ever in the past it is more to do with disagreeing with one party than approving with the others. After all it seems to me that the only reason thy are/want to be MPs is for themselfs and what they can get out of it.
The years before Thatcher took power, unemployment was a steady 1.3 - 1.5 million. Four years after she took power, over 3, YES, 3 million unemployed for 4 years, then stayed over 2 million for the next 7 years. So much for Labour not working.
As for inflation, it went UP after she came into power and although went down again briefly to about 8%, rose to 15% later on.
But at least we have good employment rates now. Let's face it who couldn't manage comfortably on short hour contracts, zero hour contracts and short term contracts.
But what you have wrong wondering is that interest rates are no longer in the hand's of any goverment they are set by the Bank of England but of course Mr Cameron makes headlines with the drop in inflation due in the main to low oil prices that again have nothing to do with goverment it's all smoke and mirrors.
If you didn't see the Sunday Polotics...watch this for a clear account of how Labour will fund their planned spend....
wondering I watched it and saw nothing untoward that would affect the vast majority of people unless they are rich and earning vast amounts of money. A lot of what was said made sense but the poor woman couldnt get her point over so you could hear with his barracking of her
this is why I hate the tories and will never ever vote for them. This bunch of rich boys have totally decimated the ordinary people in this country for their own ends. Cameron, Osborne and IDS are guilty of crimes against the most vunerable people in society
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/31/cameron-workers-shirkers-tory-law-benefit-cuts-deserving-poor?CMP=fb_guAnd Gordon Brown was responsible for decimating the pensions of millions of people. The collapse of final salary pension schemes in the private sector can be directly attributed to his actions in 1997.
Whilst I am not impressed with Cameron and his party in particular Ian Duncan Smith just one of many, I cannot believe that Ed Milliband has the arrogance to state he will not allow a EU referendum.
Ed maybe the leader of Labour but nowhere near a leader compared to Tony Blair,
I agrre User he should give the country a referendum...but hey that decision maybe his downfall.
Guess we could have five years of Labour 'spend spend', giveaways through high taxes on wages as long as the Tories are prepared to put it all straight again in 2020!
This low pay issue = smaller income tax receipts for HM Treasury alongside, in 2014, a combined bill of £30billion for payment of Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits. (But I think we all have a good idea of how a certain political party would cut back on that WTC and CTC expenditure don't we? (and I don't think it would be way of promoting wage increases!)).
Employers were responsible for the closure of final salary pensions, not Browns actions of 1997/98.
What a moronic comment. Do you actually understand what Brown did to decimate the pensions?
Yes Bernard I do understand what happened in the budgets of 97 and 98. This pretty little head of mine is capable of understanding finance, you condescending saddo. I'm not going to argue with you as you're beneath contempt.
Now then. I'm going to talk about decent levels of benefits (across the board) but I'm going to look at this in a different way.
Points most of us agree on:
1. Only people requiring/needing benefits should get them.
2. Not enough money is going into the system to do that.
But that has to be linked to how our system is paid for i.e. primarily National Insurance - and if not enough money is paid into that where is the money going to come from?
With the best will in the world; the truth is that NET immigration into the UK currently is AT LEAST 290,000 people annually. Which means that the UK needs to build a town/city bigger than Milton Keynes every year to support that. We're not just talking houses but all the infrastructure that goes with it i.e. Schools, Roads, Hospitals, Surgeries, Leisure, Transport, Social Security etc. Is there any Nation on this planet that can afford to do this? And more importantly, can the UK? If not, then our benefits have to be cut - there is no way around that. Additionally, our school class sizes have to get bigger, as does our hospital use and the number of people using our surgeries etc, etc. Put me right if I'm wrong here.
I used to be pro-EU but, if you remember, last year the EU decided that the UK economy had done better than they had forecast so another £1 billion plus was demanded from us. That essentially means that UK workers put their noses to the grindstone, increased productivity, whilst at the same time suffering our austerity measures only to have that taken from this country to go into the coffers of the EU, many of whose members work less hours than us and pay less tax than us. If that continues, how can we possibly work our way out of the National Debt? And how can we possibly support a Social Security system now being used by many people from those very EU countries? This just doesn't add up!
I'm undecided who I'm voting for this time. I work in an industry looking after older people. It needs A LOT more money - which has been chopped by both Local Authorities in the last 2 years. They seem to be able to do it in Scotland so why can't we?
I'm going to be looking at these party manifestoes very closely!!!
Well done Burneside, this could have been a constructive debate until you turned it nasty with your comment.
As it happens I agree that Brown getting rid of tax relief on pension dividends had the effect of decimating them but the same happened before that when the Tories taxed pension funds surplus - many funds were voluntarily frozen to sidestep the tax and when the bubble burst there was no buffer to see them through it.
There's a lot of competition but the UKIP candidate in Milton Keynes North standing down due to 'overseas work commitments' is my favourite.
Why Scotland can spend more on social care than we can is because per head of population they have more money to spend than we do. Money from our taxes.
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland, 3.1 million (growth of 0.27%) in Wales and 1.8 million (growth of 0.33%) in Northern Ireland.
and then there's the controversial matter of The Barnett Formula
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/1580787/How-the-Barnett-formula-works.html
Good coverage from Dawlish of the fight for a Westminster seat between local contestants, Anne Marie Morris and Richard Younger-Ross, on last night's BBC Spotlight. Only 1 percentage point between them at the last election (43%/42%) one of the closest in the South West.
Has AMM done enough as MP to keep her in the post - or will the prospect of deeper (unspecified) Tory cuts deliver a knock-out blow to her well-funded campaign?
Nailing your flag firmly to the mast there eh SoD... Though clearly you LibDems are hoping that the electorate will forget your lots complicity in the savage cuts inflicted on the working class.
Winding back the reckless overspend that Labour left us with was never going to be easy. No, I don't think the electorate will forget the difficult decisions taken by the Lib Dems in coalition - but most do understand that without the moderating influence of the party on the Tories, the cuts would have been far worse.
Say no more. No wonder your lot are going to be annihilated at the polls. You slag off Labour, but you'd jump into bed with them if the chance arose after this election. Complete and utter bandwagon-jumping chancers, the lot of you.
Why is it that no one remembers the mess laft in the form of a WORLD wide recession not by a Labour goverment but the BANKS and the danger is they have learned nothing from there mistakes.
I take it Mrs C that there would be no point in the Lib Dems knocking on your door in the next five weeks? You can advocate spend, spend, spend if you want to - one day the national debt run up by Gordon Brown will have to be paid off. Happy to pass that burden on to future generations?
Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for.
Finance markets have got the jitters, the boat is already rocking for fear Labour that their 'spend spend and tax everyone' philospthy may be on it's way back again! .
@wondering stop livingin the past get with now and the future, read all the parties policies !!
The Tories are going to impose more cuts on the less well off, but in your eyes thats ok then, you must be very rich !!
In this constituency, like quite a few others in the south west, it is, if we are honest, a two horse race between the Tories and the Lib Dems.
However, for the Lib Dems to have any chance of winning those seats they need those who are anti-Tory to vote Lib Dem irrespective of those voters true political allegiance. In other words non tories need to vote tactically (ie Lib Dem) to stop the Tories from winning seats.
I am afraid that for many who have voted Lib Dem, tactically, in the past, voting Lib Dem will be a hard thing to do this time around. Not to say they won't do it, just that it will be incredibly difficult to put that X by that Lib Dem name on the ballot paper.
I have often thought to myself over the past five years that the Lib Dems would pay dearly in the south west for all their anti Labour party rhetoric but did think that they might have the political nous to keep this anti Labour party rhetoric toned down, even if only for pragmatic reasons, during the run up to the General Election.
Seems I was wrong.
Have you seen this?
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Con-Lib-Dem-battleground-June-2014.pdf
As far as I know, this is the last time Ashcroft polled in Newton Abbot. It's obviously old data now, so the question may be how far people's intentions are likely to have changed since then?
We live in curious times
Someone once said that a week was a long time in politics. So who knows how much may change in the next 5 weeks.
But at least that Ashcroft data is more up to date than data that is 5 years old and that is being hiked about by some......
PS Wasn't Ashcroft nicknamed Cashcrop by some politicos 5 years or so ago because of how much he had bankrolled the Conservative party's 2010 election campaign?
Roberta ...er do you not keep harping on about Thatcher?
in your words............
'stop livingin the past get with now and the future'
Lynne, everyone wants their views represented in government, but in a 'first-past-the-post' system there have traditionally been only winners and losers. However, with the polls pointing once more to a second coalition (UKIP/Tory, Tory/Lib, Lib/Lab, Lab/SNP - pick your favourite colour) there is another opportunity for a large body of British voters to select a party which will best represent their views, given an understanding of the political landscape of their constituency.
I believe this will happen in our Westminster seat, Newton Abbot. where the choice could not be more clear. A vote for the divisive policies of the Tory party - or a vote for the more inclusive, socially responsible policies offered by the Lib Dems.
Boom and bust? Not today, thank you.
A suggestion to the Lib Dems.
Stop p****** off Labour voters. You need our votes now just as much as you always have done to get elected in the south west. Whether or not you'll get 'em though..........
Lynne, you will not hear the famous words "Go back to your constituencies - and prepare for government!" being uttered by a Lib Dem leader again any time soon - however I think none of the major parties would be so bold this time around.
As I am sure you appreciate, the Lib Dems offer a 'broad-church' of social and economic policies with wide-ranging appeal. That some 75% of these policies came through the cut-and-thrust of coalition politics is testament to the character and tenacity of its MPs.
I hope it will be these positives that the electorate will remember of the party in its term in shared office. I also fervently hope that in any coalition the national electorate choses via the ballot box, the moderating influence of the Lib Dems that has helped get our coutry back on its feet (whoever or whatever it was that knocked it down in the first place) would be felt once more to good effect.
The electorate does not have the option of choosing a coalition. Do you want this type of coalition or that type of coalition is not on the ballot paper.
It all depends on how things pan out. Once the number of seats per party is known I doubt very much that we, the people, will have much say as to which parties form a coalition and, more to the point, which policies they trade off with each other.
I'm sure plenty of you will have two words for me, but I've got two words for SoD. Tuition Fees.
Your party will be annhilated because of Clegg's non-inclusive and socially irresponsible deception.
It was naive of Nick Clegg, Mrs C, to have assumed he would get that policy past the Tories. It was a tough lesson in what can and cannot be acheived as a coalition junior partner. But who would argue (other than David Cameron, who in 2010 said the country could not afford it) that the raising of the threshhold for tax to £10,000 was not a Lib Dem policy success to be applauded?
Or vote for the only real alternative - the Green party - if you want to bring about political and economic change thta benefits the community and lays the foundation for a better world for future generations.
In theoy neilh but they've still got too much to prove. Unfortunately they've not done a very good job in Brighton where I am guessing it was theirs to lose.
Lynne, it was we, the people, who gave the mandate through the ballot box to those with the most votes to do the right thing by the electorate and form a representative and (as it turned out) stable government. The mix of coalition policies that subsequently came forward was, to a considerable degree, the reason that our country currently enjoys a economic growth rate amongst the highest in the western world. Surely we can all (opposition parties and voters included) take some comfort in our role in that achievement?
My point though is that it would be a great shame if the Tory party alone was allowed to be credited for the economic turnaround. There is also much work that remains to be done.
Would it not be better therefore to feather the throttle and steady the course, rather than hit the accelerator or swerve from side to side?
Happy Easter, all.
Sod: So, if the people this time around give, say, the Labour party more seats than than the Tories and the Lib Dems have enough seats to form a government with Labour would a Lab/Lib coalition be on the cards as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/general-election-2015
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/05/after-election-lib-dems-turn-left-right
Send all the people who want Labour to the northern half of the country and all the people who want the Tories to the southern half.
Split the country into two separate countries.
Within a few years everyone in the south would have a great life and the country would be thriving while the north would be in a real mess with mass unemployment.
Everyone knows this to be true, as this is what actually happens.
and there was I thinking that the south west is, on the whole, a low pay/high cost housing part of the country.
Lynne, thanks for the press cuttings. I am not normally a Guardian reader however it would seem perfectly clear from the article that there are two options for the Tories if they are the largest party but do not hold a majority.
Do a deal with the right wing parties and take us out of Europe - or grit their teeth and offer the olive branch once more to the Lib Dems, which would give the country a more balanced position in any reclamation of European powers negotiations.
For Labour in a similar position the choices seem less clear - although a Lab/SNP deal would surely start the clock (if it is not already once more ticking) for the breaking up of our historic Union. Very sad.
If the numbers add up for a Lab/Lib deal in order to help steer the country to calmer waters, then I believe that would be an acceptable option for many.
Our electoral system may yet throw up surprises - but I wouldn't rule out one of the big two deciding to shoulder on as a minority government for some months and then (heaven help us) there will be a second election in search of a more conclusive result.
But Michael, you have said you may be spoiling your ballot paper in May. Is that any way to contribute to a conclusive result?
@Soul - of course if the Lib Dems were to hitch up with the tories again what an interesting situation that would be. The Tories with their 2017 EU in/out referendum and you lot being so pro Europe.
"The issue of Europe looms like a nightmare for many Lib Dems. They fear their party could be about to give the Tories permission to hold a vote by the end of 2017 which might lead to the UK’s exit from the EU. “To say that would be a disastrous legacy for a pro-European party like ours is the understatement of the century,” says one Lib Dem minister."
This letter is in today's Observer. I put it here for Labour voters who read this website and who live in this constituency (which is a Lib Dem/Conservative marginal) to have a read of and a think about especially if they have yet to decide what to do with their vote (to go with head? or to go with heart?).
"I sympathise with Philip Wood (“Election 2015: we need progressive politics, not mean, arid accountancy”, Big Issue), living as I do in the same constituency, a Tory/Lib Dem marginal. I have made my own compromise by reckoning that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against the Conservatives, increasing the odds of one fewer Conservative seat, and reducing the likelihood of a repeat of the coalition.
Whatever appetite my Lib Dem candidate has for a coalition will be beside the point when it comes to doing the maths after the election – though I would have preferred more of a distancing from what I believe will damage the Lib Dems nationally.
Parties that might more accurately reflect my views have no hope of winning here (I realise this argument is self-fulfilling), but I calculate that a vote for my principles is effectively a vote that won’t count and will help to return the sitting MP. This way, my vote may count.
So, having factored in all those compromises, I find myself – somewhat reluctantly – displaying a Lib Dem poster and aware this is a sign of more commitment than I really feel. On the other hand, to do nothing is not to remain neutral, and in this constituency is a granting of permission for more and unspecified cuts, sanctioning and starving the unemployed, and perpetual facing both ways over our future in Europe. Unprincipled? I hope not. Less principled than I’d like to be? Definitely. But those who decline to vote out of principle, or refuse to consider a tactical vote, do not necessarily emerge with cleaner hands."
Judging by this photo taken today at Eastdon, perhaps Farmer Weeks feels the same as that letter writer? Or maybe there's a more financially beneficial reason why the LibDems started that petition to support his cause? Or maybe I'm way too cynical about politicians?
Oh and I think you'll find that the person who started the petition last year is unaligned to any party. 4500 signatures to date, I understand.
So no political reason then why your lot jumped on the bandwagon on behalf of your supporter / party member? No, of course not. Smoke and mirrors - you're all the same and as bad as each other.
UKIP will steal votes from both the Tories and LibDems which might just allow one of the others to sneak in to this constituency.
I think it's as wide open down here as anywhere else this time.
I think UKIP will steal some Labour votes as well.
Also let's not forget inward migration (from other parts of the UK to this part). What political allegiances might those people have brought with them?
@Mrs C, It would seem that the more you comment, the more you underline the fact that you are indeed - as you have suggested - way too cynical. Peel back any political layering as you wish, the fact remains that Warren Farm farmer, Richard Weeks, is being abominably treated by Teignbridge through the threat of compulsory purchase - and only a change to the balance of power within our District Council is likely to lift that threat.
The fight to save Warren Farm was joined in 2013 (when the matter first came to public attention) but it is Teignbridge District Council's intransigence in the face of public opprobrium that has forced the 'Party card' to be played.
I do not expect for one moment to bring you and your opinions in from the 'dark side' - but thanks all the same for posting the first LIb Dem poster that I have seen in this election run-up.
I wonder why you've seen none of your posters anywhere?? Annihilation beckons for you SoD and your fellow political bandwagon-jumpers. No matter what gloss you put on it, that's what you're doing in this case for your fellow party supporter/member.
Right then, all non Conservative voters listen up (except those thinking of voting UKIP that is).
The more I think about the argument in that letter that I posted above the more I see its logic (that's the head speaking). And I say that knowing full well that many of us would love to give the Lib Dems a good thrashing at the polls as a 'thank you' for the tuition fees debacle, the bedroom tax and countless other policies that we did, and still do not, like and that they supported and helped vote through during the past 5 years (that's the heart speaking).
I appreciate the irony of what I have just said with what I am about to say. Which is:
If we do not want even more cuts to the public sector we must bite the bullet and all gang around the candidate most likely to offer a realistic, non right wing (so that rules out UKIP) challenge to the Conservative candidate. The fewer Conservative MPs elected the less likely the Conservatives can form a government outright.
My blood runs cold when I think of the public sector cuts that will be imposed on this nation should the Conservatives win.
So, all we non Conservative voters have to do now is decide who it is in this constituency that we will support. And difficult as it will be to resist the urge to 'punish' the Lib Dems we need to use our heads and vote logically and not emotionally.
And thems my thoughts.
and mine Lynne I will be voting for Lib Dem in this region as I do not want another 5yrs of the tories. But Labour is who I hope win the overall country vote
My worry is what happened 5 years ago . If we had a LibDem MP we'd still have had the past 5 years. Nothing would have been achieved. Vote LibDem and get Cameron Osbourne would have been the outcome.
If we are to live in an age of Coalition we need more information up front from the parties about what they will be doing on May 8th. The Lib Dems have been a party of government for 5 years. They've seen the books and must be honest about their plans for welfare cuts, and will they stop the Tories putting our economy at risk for two years with uncertainty about our place in Europe? How much ground will they cede to the Tories in a coalition deal?
We must have guarantees on this, otherwise it matters little whether our MP on May 8th is called Richard or Anne Marie.
@Michael Clayson, tosh and nonsense, grow up and get real! When have we ever had guarantees from any party before an election? Promises yes but almost always broken.
Yes, they'll say anything to get voted in but what they deliver is entirely different to the empty rhetoric of their promises. They'll even stab their colleagues in the front as well as the back. If only national politics was a honourable as local politics.
If it helps, substitute the word promise for guarantee. The point remains valid that in an age of coalition we need to have more information from parties than their own policies, we need to understand where the points of difference will sit in coalition negotiations if we are to exercise any democratic control over the formation of a government.
Mrjrcrp..........get real as well pleaseeeeee! You think local politics are any better? Then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm guessing Mcjpc's comment was ironic and directed at you Margaret...if only you were bright enough to understand it! Now hush your fishwife mouth.
Thanks Margaret. We're thinking of starting a band. What shall we call it? Oh I know, Culture Club. You can join it too if you don't think it's beneath you.
@Mrs C .........do you get pissed regualrly? i only ask as this seems to be your default position when criticising other peole! It used to be aimed at those of us who posted late at night but now it seems to be anybody who posts anything that is not in agreement with your views!
I hear all that you say Michael (your 2x posts dated 6th April). Thoughts along those lines have been going around and around in my head for the past 4 years or so. I had hoped that events might have eased how I vote this time (our having a PR system of voting perhaps?) but I am still having a huge head/heart fight and with the general election looming ever nearer I, and many other non Conservatives, have to make some difficult and some might say 'nose holding' decisions.
We are where we are. We are still in a first past the post system in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal seat and where the national polls are saying that we are probably looking at another hung parliament and therefore, quite likely, another coalition.
So, the question is do we (that's us non Tory voters) want to help vote in a Tory MP for this constituency or not. And if the answer is not then how is the most pragmatic way of doing that?
Should someone, anyone, have any ideas on how to achieve that other than by the way I have already suggested do please post your suggestion(s) on here 'cos me and quite a number of others need to have a think about them before May 7th.
Thanks.
I wonder how they handle this in countries like Germany where post election deal making is part of the ordinary fabric of democracy?
How much information do voters get before hand about what sort of compromises might be offered in the negotiation room?
If I get time, I will investigate - perhaps you might feel like doing the same, given your interest in the topic.
If we ever did switch to PR for westminster this would be even more of an issue as "First past the post" may yet mean a return to single party governments in the future.
I have no idea how they handle this in Germany or anywhere else where coalition governments are the norm rather than the exception. But I'll have a search off and on over the next few days though to see if I can glean anything.
With regard to our political parties letting the electorate know what policies they would negotiate on and what not. I think we are all whistling in the wind if we think we will get given that information. They might slip out a bit of info there and a bit of info here but only if they think it politically expedient to do so. Why let us and therefore the other political parties know their hand? Never, not in a million years. They are all playing a game of bluff and counterbluff not only with each other but with us as well.
Thanks Lynne - it will be interesting to see
As for the bulk of your post - if true, isn't that more of a reason to not support any of them? If we can't expect truth then is it really a democracy or just a game of bluff for oligarchs? It's very dis-spiriting.
And for those Labour voters here who are thinking of not voting because 'they are all the same anyway' or words and thoughts to that effect, ask yourselves if you lived in Sheffeld Hallam constituency, and even if you still had those same beliefs, whether you might not only vote, but vote Labour and more than that be out canvassing etc. After all, you could vote for the party you really want to vote for, which has a possibility of gaining the seat and which if it did would claim a big Lib Dem scalp!
And if the answer to those questions I pose above is a big YES then perhaps you should question your 'they are all the same anway', etc arguments for your not voting in our constituency which is a Lib Dem/Conservative marginal.
This is an interesting read.
Who'd've thunk that the Labour Party was more to the right than the BNP!!!?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
Blair is a liability, wheeling him out to support Milibean has probably cost Labour a shedload of votes.
Thanks for the link Huw. Looking at it I see that it shows the Lib Dems to the right of the Labour party.