Labour Gains At Local Elections

[Reck B]

Often the same mid-term though, innit. People feel like giving the current lot a good kicking.

You can't translate this to a general election - for all the talk of thick sheeple people do know the difference between local and general.

For a start, even a low GE turnout would be a lot more than the 30% they're talking about in many areas.

From this result, the electorate are saying to the coalition;

"Stop arsing about, you bunch of paralised, pussy politicians & make some real chuffing cuts or this will happen in the general election"

This is my optimistic review of the results. and not that the electorate are a bunch of forgetful, financial fúcktards.

Apologies for the profanities.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Reck B

[aa3]

I don't vote, and I don't even believe in democracy. Democracy is sort of like communism, it sounds good on paper(if you don't think about it too much).

In practice democracy is Tony Blair and David Cameron. All democracies go the same way, whether we are talking about Spain or the UK or New Zealand. A giant unworkable nanny state.

Some people in Spain are waking up. As the problems there are more advanced. A older Spaniard was telling me, he was one of the young and idealistic who opposed Franco. Thought the man was just terrible you know political prisoners, corruption, supression of speech etc... But he says looking back, there were actually jobs under Franco.. real jobs a man could support a family on. An average man in an average job could do unimaginable things back then, like own a home, have the wife at home, have children.

People in Britain are still under the sad delusion that if they just find the perfect politician and vote the other party in, that finally we will be able to live in the socialist democratic utopia we always dreamed of.

[Gone baby gone]

People in Britain are still under the sad delusion that if they just find the perfect politician and vote the other party in, that finally we will be able to live in the socialist democratic utopia we always dreamed of.

The problem is not politicians per se, it's parties.

If you banned political parties and made each candidate stand on their own personal policies, the outcomes would be better.

It's the old punch and judy show of party politics, with it's whips and party lines that means you never get anything approaching democracy.

[TulipBubble]

Isnt the country effectively insovlent regardless of who is in power? Atleast under labour the realisation that the UKs economy of middle men is never going to pay back the mountains of debt we have accumulated will become obvious alot sooner. My only real concern is labour are more likely to turn the country into a police state when they finally realise that their keynesian economic nonsense isnt going to fix things.

[billybong]

Labour leader Ed Miliband: "Labour can change Britain for the better"

That's what they all say.

Edited May 4, 2012 by billybong

[Democorruptcy]

If we have another big dip in the S+P, I don't think the dollar strengthening effect will be as dramatic this time, too many people will be playing it.

Norwegian Krone has weakened 10% against sterling in the last 180 days, it now looks to have topped out.

Possibly heading back to the 8.80-8.90 region.

KRONE /STERLING CHART

If we have another crash scenario and oil goes down again could that take NOK lower?

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

I can see Labour winning the general election in 2015.

The sheeple never learn do they.

[Bruce Banner]

I can see Labour winning the general election in 2015.

The sheeple never learn do they.

Things can only get better.....

[Executive Sadman]

Labour canvassers latest approach: Threaten to beat up other parties canvassers.

Works a charm, too.

Police outside a Tower Hamlets polling station called reinforcements today after a candidate alleged that he had been threatened by activists from rival parties.

Chris Smith, standing for the Greens in the London Assembly elections, claimed that one activist threatened to “punch his lights out” when he complained about the crowd handing out Respect and Labour leaflets outside St Matthias Primary, off Brick Lane.

It was feared today that activists were “harassing” potential voters. Mr Smith said: “I came down here at about 10am and there were at least 20 Labour and Respect activists handing out leaflets just outside. Election rules state very clearly that each party is only allowed one teller outside each polling station, the rest must be a safe distance away.

“I complained to the official inside and when I came back out the Respect guy started mouthing off to me. When I told him what they were doing is not allowed, he threatened to punch my lights out.

Caroline Kerswell, the Tory candidate in the Weaver ward’s by-election, witnessed the altercation. She said: “We were standing here discussing electoral rules with them, then one guy threatened to punch his lights out.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/mayor/police-call-for-reinforcements-at-tower-hamlets-polling-station-fracas-7711502.html

Police officers are to be stationed at every polling station in Tower Hamlets after the Met launched an official investigation into allegations of electoral fraud.

Officers will man all 70 polling locations in the borough on Thursday alongside borough enforcement officers to prevent voter intimidation.

The measures come as the Met launched an investigation into “unprecedented” evidence of voter fraud in the key London borough less than 48 hours before the mayoral polls open.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/police-to-guard-voting-booths-at-tower-hamlets-7703158.html

Couldnt they direct their anger at the banksters? Canary wharf is only just up the road.

[Saver]

We had a vote on that last year and while the vast majority couldn't be bothered to turn up, of those who did most decided they prefer having only the two choices of Labour or Conservative.

You can take a horse to water.

Even worse I know of people who would like voting reform, but voted against to give "clegg a bloody nose". Spiteful idiots - because I doubt we will never be allowed a vote on reform again because they will say the electorate does not want it. But all they can see is "tories bad" so they "vote labour or anything that hurts the tories and clegg for supporting them".

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Still a lot of people on here that do not understand (or do not want to accept) that labour and conservative (and lib dems) are all different groups within the same party controlled by elite interests, and although the colour changes, the agenda does not.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Lewis Gordon Pugh

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

One of the many ironies being it was the "Respect" activist who made the threats

Edited May 4, 2012 by SeeYouNextTuesday

[Saver]

The problem is not politicians per se, it's parties.

If you banned political parties and made each candidate stand on their own personal policies, the outcomes would be better.

But soon a group of say 10 people would realise if they voted on bloc they could get stuff done. Maybe a few years later those 10 realise forming an alliance with another 20 man bloc gets them even further with some policies. Before you know it we are back where we started.

[Gone baby gone]

But soon a group of say 10 people would realise if they voted on bloc they could get stuff done. Maybe a few years later those 10 realise forming an alliance with another 20 man bloc gets them even further with some policies. Before you know it we are back where we started.

Of course blocs would form, relationships would be built, but it's the formalisation of these structures that causes the problems.

Right now, if you want to "nobble" politics in Britain, you simply need to have one man in your pocket. Once you've got influence at the top of the party, the instructions filter down and OK there will be the odd bit of dissent, but largely your directions will be followed in parliamentary votes, etc. Similarly, someone who is a lifelong Tory, cannot vote against one part of core Tory policy without severely limiting their future in the party (and therefore their electability).

If the blocs were informal, people would be able to vote with their conscience or - heaven forbid - in the interests of their constituents.

People vote for and identify with the parties, often for historical or misguided reasons. In doing so, they often overlook the policies. The party gives the individual MPs a get out clause... well, I only voted for that because it was party policy.... look at the support for the second Iraq war for example.

[zebbedee]

I see all my Facebook friends are have voted Labour and have been encouraging people to vote Labour. Tories are nasty for their cuts and jobs losses. In fact the recession was the Torie's fault.

There you go. Perhaps not the answer HPCers are looking for.

Print some more money. Please print more money. I give up.

This is doing my nut in, the condems have screwed up big time they said they were going to cut but haven't cut sh!t but everyone thinks they have and are blaming them for the sh!t we're in. There seems nowhere to turn-the condems are as clueless as labour-why the fvck couldn't they see they had the oportunity to make slashing cuts when they first got in and the major pain would be behind us, we'd actually be recovering and in a couple of years people would be saying how it hurt at the time but was the right thing to do. Instead in a couple of years nothing'll have changed, we'll still have a zombie economy and labour will get in just in time to make it all much worse!!!!

[Oh Well :(]

This is doing my nut in, the condems have screwed up big time they said they were going to cut but haven't cut sh!t but everyone thinks they have and are blaming them for the sh!t we're in. There seems nowhere to turn-the condems are as clueless as labour-why the fvck couldn't they see they had the oportunity to make slashing cuts when they first got in and the major pain would be behind us, we'd actually be recovering and in a couple of years people would be saying how it hurt at the time but was the right thing to do. Instead in a couple of years nothing'll have changed, we'll still have a zombie economy and labour will get in just in time to make it all much worse!!!!

+1

[Saver]

Of course blocs would form, relationships would be built, but it's the formalisation of these structures that causes the problems.

Right now, if you want to "nobble" politics in Britain, you simply need to have one man in your pocket. Once you've got influence at the top of the party, the instructions filter down and OK there will be the odd bit of dissent, but largely your directions will be followed in parliamentary votes, etc. Similarly, someone who is a lifelong Tory, cannot vote against one part of core Tory policy without severely limiting their future in the party (and therefore their electability).

If the blocs were informal, people would be able to vote with their conscience or - heaven forbid - in the interests of their constituents.

People vote for and identify with the parties, often for historical or misguided reasons. In doing so, they often overlook the policies. The party gives the individual MPs a get out clause... well, I only voted for that because it was party policy.... look at the support for the second Iraq war for example.

but what I mean is won't these blocs get bigger and bigger and once past a threshold would need a "leader". This sounds almost like a party to me - then you bung money to the leader to fund the organisation of this large bloc and get the policy implemented.

You would have to ban partys in a very descriptive, specific way to stop this happening. How would you decide a bloc is too big and no longer allowed for example? Even if not allowed what happens when politicians just decide to change the law to allow larger blocs?

[Snafu]

This is doing my nut in, the condems have screwed up big time they said they were going to cut but haven't cut sh!t but everyone thinks they have and are blaming them for the sh!t we're in. There seems nowhere to turn-the condems are as clueless as labour-why the fvck couldn't they see they had the oportunity to make slashing cuts when they first got in and the major pain would be behind us, we'd actually be recovering and in a couple of years people would be saying how it hurt at the time but was the right thing to do. Instead in a couple of years nothing'll have changed, we'll still have a zombie economy and labour will get in just in time to make it all much worse!!!!

Yepp. Agreed.

[Gone baby gone]

You would have to ban partys in a very descriptive, specific way to stop this happening. How would you decide a bloc is too big and no longer allowed for example? Even if not allowed what happens when politicians just decide to change the law to allow larger blocs?

If you want to have laws that politicians can't change, it's easy, you have a constitution which is only changeable by a referendum.

As for leaders - as I said, informally fine, it's the way humans generally self-organise. Formally, no, banned. I can't believe I'm the only person in the UK who's interests and beliefs are not perfectly aligned with any of the parties.

Sure, there are areas of overlap, but the idea of electing someone who belongs to a party - many of whose policies I disagree with - fills me with dread. Which is why I only vote for independent candidates when I like their policies these days.

Until the concept of the party is taken out of the picture, we won't have a functioning democracy.

Incidentally, do you know that the first democracy elected people using a lottery system... I find it amusing that if you were being tried for a serious offence you would be highly disturbed to find that the jury was elected, but people generally recoil from the idea of decision makers in government being selected using the same system.

[fluffy666]

Still a lot of people on here that do not understand (or do not want to accept) that labour and conservative (and lib dems) are all different groups within the same party controlled by elite interests, and although the colour changes, the agenda does not.

Or at least all of our politicians inhabit the same world of PR spin, lobbying and self reference, where huge areas of debate are simply closed off; voters are simply not allowed to vote on things like NHS (or police!) privatization, EU membership, what to do with nationalised banks, Student tuition fees, etc..

It's like the way that Austerity is presented as The Only Solution (no write-offs, no debt jubilee, certainly no taxes on the rich).

[Jack's Creation]

If we have another crash scenario and oil goes down again could that take NOK lower?

It did in 08-09 (though not for long-it depends whether you are looking for a mid-long term safety trade). I also think It depends on what sort of crash we have.

I suspect people will be assessing fundamental Sovereign viability this time, not just economic vulnerability and trading accordingly.

Here's a crude Euro /Nok chart that covers the period of the last oil dip.

euro / Nok

[libspero]

It's like the way that Austerity is presented as The Only Solution (no write-offs, no debt jubilee, certainly no taxes on the rich).

I never had you down as being particularly pro QE.. setting the printing presses to full blast again is certainly another option.

[Dorkins]

I can't believe I'm the only person in the UK who's interests and beliefs are not perfectly aligned with any of the parties.

My ideal voting system for general elections would be a single list for the entire country which anybody could put themselves on for free. There would be no official constituencies.

Every voter would have one vote to give to the candidate who they feel best represents their views. It would be the responsibility of voters to do their own research and figure out who this is.

Candidates would upload manifestos to the list so that voters could see what they stand for. Candidates would be free to claim to represent a certain geographical area, ethnicity, religion, political party, age group, profession, economic philosophy, or anything they want.

At the end of the election the 500 candidates with the most votes would form the next Parliament.

In parliamentary votes, each MP would cast a number of votes equal to the number of votes they received in the general election.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Dorkins

[Jack's Creation]

Or at least all of our politicians inhabit the same world of PR spin, lobbying and self reference, where huge areas of debate are simply closed off; voters are simply not allowed to vote on things like NHS (or police!) privatization, EU membership, what to do with nationalised banks, Student tuition fees, etc..

It's like the way that Austerity is presented as The Only Solution (no write-offs, no debt jubilee, certainly no taxes on the rich).

Problem with write-offs and a debt jubile, aside from the moral hazard-is it will fundamentally alter the valuation and viability of the banks. As they are the biggest buyers of Govt Debt, it's quite clear that all Govt's that run a deficit would rather this didn't happen.

And, if the cost of credit isn't allowed to reflect the increased risk of non repayment; then like all price controls, it will lead to shortages; credit is no different from any other commodity.

The problem with increasing the Taxes for the rich is it would only raise enough to cover about a sixth of the current annual deficit. Plus you'd only get maximum about 18 months blood out of that particular stone before they rearranged their affairs and the intake would start to drop off (and possibly reverse).

Far easier from a technical perspective (though not political) to cut.

The imbalance is structural (both demographic and financial), it doesn't matter how the deck-chairs are rearranged. The last 30 years of credit expansion has disguised the reality.

The same expansion of the credit market ( by deregulation and Central bank interest rate setting) has allowed more Govt debt to be issued and traded, which has also lead to a massive expansion of the State in deficit spending democracies over the same period.

Credit contractions are feared most by Governments as it they ultimately will lead to State contractions.

There is no other outcome.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Jack's Creation

[Gone baby gone]

My ideal voting system for general elections would be a single list for the entire country which anybody could put themselves on for free. There would be no official constituencies.

Every voter would have one vote to give to the candidate who they feel best represents their views. It would be the responsibility of voters to do their own research and figure out who this is.

Candidates would upload manifestos to the list so that voters could see what they stand for. Candidates would be free to claim to represent a certain geographical area, ethnicity, religion, political party, age group, profession, economic philosophy, or anything they want.

At the end of the election the 500 candidates with the most votes would form the next Parliament.

In parliamentary votes, each MP would cast a number of votes equal to the number of votes they received in the general election.

I like it, certainly better than the tribal system weighed down with historic rivalries we are currently living under.