Gordon Brown.....

[Claw75]

I'm still undecided as to where my votes going, guess I'm a floater.

Do people vote for the person, or for the party.  In the States, people are definitely voting for the President as a person.  Jon touched on it earlier, but we aren't voting for a president.  But is it important to elect a statesman as well voting for the party who closest represents your views?  If that's the case the Tories and Labour have got it all wrong imo.

I'm pretty negative at the moment with regards to the whole election process.
Just feels like a pretty ineffective way to select the best group of people to run the country.

Lots of people voting for the same group they have always voted for, irrespective.
Some swayed by trivial factors such as whether they like the look of the leader of a party, whether he smiles / waves at the right time.
Some focus on a very small issue that is directly relevant to them, but ignoring lots of bigger factors......
Too much of a popularity contest, to ever be about forming a high achieving government.

I know this isn't anything new............I must just be getting old and grumpy.......

Maybe we should give people some credit. Most people wont really cast their vote based upon a wave and a smile, most people will want to learn more about policies. That's why these first election debates have been a real success; being an opportunity to engage more people in politics. Sure, the personality of the leader takes on greater importance as a trade off...so parties need to consider that when electing future leaders. Overall thou it's good to be engaging what was a lethargic and disillusioned electorate. Lots of people voting for the same party they always have? Lib Dem growth suggests not.

A wave and a smile is an obvious exaggeration..............

But look through this thread, many of the posts are from people arguing from a party perspective..........who are going to argue, and vote that way, no matter what.
The average IQ of people on a poker forum >> the average IQ of people.

If we cannot get more intelligent people to approach this with an open mind, then it is reasonable to assume these issues are more extreme in other 'groups'.

I cba to read over the thread again, but can't recall anyone saying they're voting for a particular party because they 'always have'. 

[nirvana]

People are so unfair on the Labour Party.

They have so many good ideas and policies to bring a brighter future to Britain yet voters seem determined to judge them on their last 13 years of government. 

For sure labour have done some decent stuff over the last 13 years, that said they do waste a lot of money, I see it in the NHS all the time and it pisses me off..........

Might be a useful reality check for me.

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens ( not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

[thetank]

Germany's probably a better example because they're a parliament responsible for a country in it's entirity rather than one that just deals with devoled issues.

Although there is something to be said for the, if it's possible to co-operate with Alex Salmond...

[Claw75]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

[jakally]

I cba to read over the thread again, but can't recall anyone saying they're voting for a particular party because they 'always have'.  

People don't have to say it, for it to be pretty obv. (IMO).

Out of the people I know who will auto-vote in every election, well over half will ALWAYS vote for the same party.
The problem with floating voters, is that they are more floating, than voters.

I tend to agree with Mantis' comments on people being more engaged this time round - which hopefully will be reflected in a decent turnout.

[Woodsey]

People are so unfair on the Labour Party.

They have so many good ideas and policies to bring a brighter future to Britain yet voters seem determined to judge them on their last 13 years of government.  

For sure labour have done some decent stuff over the last 13 years, that said they do waste a lot of money, I see it in the NHS all the time and it pisses me off..........

Might be a useful reality check for me.

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens ( not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

I am not a labour fan but here is 3 I can think of

1. They have done well with the NHS on the whole but they have wasted lots of money in the process.

2. Aside from the last couple of years that had fuck all to do with, them they have done pretty well with the economy. Low inflation, low interest rates, plenty of jobs, min wage etc

3. I guess public services as well

They really do waste a lot of money though in the process on bureaucracy. Specifically by employing an excessive amount of middle managers that are basically bean counters to try and implement their strategies and come up with facts and figures to say how well they have done. This applies across most of the major depts. This money would be better spent on the front line to improve stuff that directly affects us.

[Claw75]

I cba to read over the thread again, but can't recall anyone saying they're voting for a particular party because they 'always have'. 

Out of the people I know who will auto-vote in every election, well over half will ALWAYS vote for the same party.
The problem with floating voters, is that they are more floating, than voters.

Perhaps that just the mindset you've come to expect then.  I can only think of one person from my circle of friends that I've known through several elections that would always vote for the same party, come what may.  We all use our vote though.

[Woodsey]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

Because many of them are sponges and should get their fat arses off the couch and get a job.

[Bongo]

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

[Claw75]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

Because many of them are sponges and should get their fat arses off the couch and get a job.

not as many as the media would have us believe, imo

[Woodsey]

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

1. Bollocks, the NHS has got a lot better despite the waste, I see it every day.
2. Ok its argueable about who started the good economy, but they kept it good for 10 years. Anyone who thinks the bust is labours fault is just delusional
3. Ok fair enough I don't know enough about this to argue with you.

As before, I am not a labour fan and will vote conservative, but they have done some good stuff. If anyone doesn't agree with that then they are probably not capable of making an impartial decision.

[Woodsey]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

Because many of them are sponges and should get their fat arses off the couch and get a job.

not as many as the media would have us believe, imo

Still too many to the fkers for my liking, the problem with many is they just don't want to do the shit jobs. Its should be tough, have a choice of doing a shit available job or have their benefits cut off.......

[Bongo]

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

1. Bollocks, the NHS has got a lot better despite the waste, I see it every day.
2. Ok its argueable about who started the good economy, but they kept it good for 10 years. Anyone who thinks the bust is labours fault is just delusional
3. Ok fair enough I don't know enough about this to argue with you.

As before, I am not a labour fan and will vote conservative, but they have done some good stuff. If anyone doesn't agree with that then they are probably not capable of making an impartial decision.

Labour created the regulatory environment that enabled the boom and the bust. Given that the boom was funded by an excess of cheap credit and that also caused the bust I don't see how they can be directly responsible for the boom but have nothing to do with bust.

On the NHS my point was that it's easy to improve things just by spending more money but it usually isn't a sustainable solution. Productivity has fallen in the NHS too which means we're getting less value for money.

[rex008]

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

1. Bollocks, the NHS has got a lot better despite the waste, I see it every day.

Unarguable, but there really has been a VAST amount of money thrown at it. Do we think we're getting good value? Lots of non-clinical targets that no medical person thinks is a good idea, and lots of managers to make sure the targets are met by whatever means necessary. Given the amount of money spent, I think it could be even better, or as good for less money.

2. Ok its argueable about who started the good economy, but they kept it good for 10 years. Anyone who thinks the bust is labours fault is just delusional

The bust may not be Gordo's fault, but it's his fault there was nothing in the coffers when push came to shove. All the "end of boom and bust", and "golden rules" were just utter BS - despite collecting fairly huge sums during the good times post-1997, it was all spunked away, holding nothing in reserve. That's just bad management.

[Claw75]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

Because many of them are sponges and should get their fat arses off the couch and get a job.

not as many as the media would have us believe, imo

Still too many to the fkers for my liking, the problem with many is they just don't want to do the shit jobs. Its should be tough, have a choice of doing a shit available job or have their benefits cut off.......

Fair enough - I don't know how many people like that are really around to make a judgement.  What I do know is that living off benefits is definitely not a lifestyle choice, and a situation any of us can find ourselves in, however invincible we might think we are.  Was just curious to know why Glenn decided to apply the broadbrush.  Surely the social care system in this country is something we should be proud of?