Originally posted by finnegan
Well the point of my thread is to demonstrate that austerity does not work and is in fact harmful and you appear to accept this is the case. Seeing[b] the evidence that the initial two years of ConDem austerity screwed the economy and killed stone dead a recovery that was well underway thanks to Gordon Brown, you will be voting for a repeat performance ...[text shortened]... lerated. It helps that we have a local Labour candidate without a trace of New Labour about her.[/b]
Well the point of my thread is to demonstrate that austerity does not work and is in fact harmful and you appear to accept this is the case. Seeing the evidence that the initial two years of ConDem austerity screwed the economy and killed stone dead a recovery that was well underway thanks to Gordon Brown, you will be voting for a repeat performance. Wow.
Other issues were more important. If I was only voting on the economy I wouldn't have voted Tory.
I agree that elections are not about single issues. I disagree that the Tories are the party of civil liberties or non violence or ethical foreign policy. But I do agree that New Labour was rapidly losing its attraction and in an ideal world I would not vote in this election either for Labour's manifesto. I would probably find the Greens closest to my aspirations and values.
I have plenty of issues with the Tories on the civil liberties or foreign policy front.
They are however, not nearly so bad as labour [who I have vowed never to vote for].
Ideologically I am also probably closest to the Green party. [if you do one of those "answer these questions to
see where you lie on the political spectrum" tests, I come out nearest the greens http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ]
However, I then go and look at the Green party's policies on a whole bunch of issues and disagree with them.
And these are often issues that go to the heart of the problems they claim to want to solve.
So being ideologically similar doesn't seem to get me anywhere.
EDIT: My political compass
The idea that alternative energy policies are bad economically is absurd. They not only offer immense potential for economic benefit, but also recognise that in reality the fossil fuel reserves in our geology are of negative value and cannot safely be exploited. The case for nuclear energy is not simple - the problem is how to evaluate risks that may be rare but are of such enormous scale when they happen. It is also a problem to trust the people who operate them. Economically, the subsidy environment makes comparative costing pretty dishonest and I fear the numbers can be manipulated to fit any prior commitment.
You mistake me for someone else [an idiot apparently].
I am pro-environment, and strongly anti-fossil fuels. I am pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-geothermal, pro-hydro.... ect ect.
However I am also pro-nuclear. I understand all the arguments for and against, and the arguments for win out comfortably.
And I find that the side that lies about this issue is the 'pro-environment' 'green' side.
France has almost half the electricity costs of Germany, with vastly less CO2 [from power generation] because France
gets ~80% of it's power from nuclear power stations. German has invested vast sums of money in renewables, and made
little progress because they have scrapped their nuclear and replaced it with coal.
France didn't do anything magical, what they did can not just be replicated but improved upon.
We can power pretty much our entire country with ~60 buildings. How much land do we need to cover with solar panels
and wind turbines to get the same power... And if we build those power-stations next to cities we can heat millions of
homes and offices of off the 'waste' heat making them even more efficient.
And the high temperatures and energy output from a nuclear power plant are perfect for creating synthetic fuels.
Which we can use to power cars and planes to make them environmentally sustainable.
Which means that we can have holidays abroad, with all the cultural and economic benefits, without the environmental costs.
We can use GM to engineer our crops to all be nitrogen fixers, so that we can reduce, or stop using fertilisers at
a huge energy [and cost] saving AND stopping nitrogen run-off into the seas...
And yet the GREEN party is against all these things... It makes me want to cry, it really does.
Sometimes people forget that politics takes place within parties and not just between them. The Labour Party was diverted by Blair and can be redirected into more progressive policies. Instead of abandoning the party in search of new ones that are unpredictable, it is reasonable to work for change within Labour. Nothing is easy in politics.
What Tony Blair [and Gordon Brown] did verged on treason, and is unforgivable.
When the other [still serving] members of the party realised what he did they could have forced him out or left
the party. They did neither. That is also unforgivable. Therefore I cannot ever vote for them.
Anyway elections are not opinion polls. We are not asked to pick our ideal or favourite policy mix. We are facing an ugly contest and forced to choose the best realistic outcome in our grasp. That often requires tactical voting.
Yes. What makes you think I don't know this?
That is precisely why I voted the way I did.
In my case, I am voting for the only party that can get rid of the vile Esther McVey who worked so hard to make disabled people pay the cost of tax relief for the rich which is all the outgoing government was good for and which they propose to repeat if allowed. For me this is a single issue election and the treatment of the disabled has been a disgrace that must not be tolerated. It helps that we have a local Labour candidate without a trace of New Labour about her.
Well if you are going to boil it down to a single issue election...
Russia is helmed by a mad man who keeps threatening us with nuclear freaking bombers.
Anyone voting for getting rid of our nuclear deterrent needed to keep him, and any other nuclear armed maniac over the
next 40~60 years in check is naive or insane.
If we get this wrong and land up in a war with such a madman because they didn't believe that retribution would come
for their actions then the consequence's of that are worse than every other issue on the table.
I want a liberal, pro-science, pro-environment, rational party.
But I want one that realises that we live in a world where everyone does not play nice, and some of those people are insane
and have nuclear weapons. And that as a consequence we need to have the capability and will to defend ourselves against them
and thus to force them to talk with us, rather than invade us.
Until such a party exists, we are left with choosing the least bad alternative.