Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Okay, so I've gotten into politics and I'm interested in the next election. I'm probably going to get a lot of conflicting replies but I'd like to know more about politics! :confused:

My heart says "Labour" but my head says "Conservative/possibly Lib Dems". Being from a poorer background, I'd like the poor to get more money and I think that the NHS and education are priorities. I am inclined towards Labour but I fear that they may not manage the economy that well. I feel that an economic crisis is far less likely if Conservative were in power, but I don't like many of their ideas.

So I was thinking, how about a Labour-Lib Dem government? Maybe that way, Labour's ideas would come into effect but the Lib Dems would reduce the likelihood of an economic crisis and stop Labour being so 'extreme'(?) I know there was the Lib-Lab pact in the 70s, and it wasn't too good, but what do you think? I probably sound stupid to you all, but thank you to anyone who replies

In a nutshell:
What do you think of a Lib-Lab coalition?
Positives/negatives of a Lib-Lab government?
Does your heart/head have conflicting opinions?

Thanks!
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
What do I think?
Naw

Negatives: Lab
Positives: At least the libs might keep a bit of sensibility in the mix

conflicting opinions? Of course not.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I don't see how the Orange Bookers could possibly be reconciled to a born-again doctrinaire Marxist political party.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
I always found it was the more educated left wing electorate who leaned towards the liberals while the rest leaned towards Labour.

I think a Lib-Lab coalition would be a disaster for the economy and country, but I believe it would be stable in terms of government having a single political view point, mainly being left wing ideology.

My head simply says this sort of coalition would be all about the social policies and nothing effective regarding the economic policies.

When it comes to lib-Con I think at least they are all on the same wavelength regardless of how they choose their priorities. Problem is working with Labour is the fact they are intellectually less capable and for lib or con it would be like working with a classroom of kids.
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What do I think?
Naw

Negatives: Lab
Positives: At least the libs might keep a bit of sensibility in the mix

conflicting opinions? Of course not.
Lol

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by The Dictator)
I don't see how the Orange Bookers could possibly be reconciled to a born-again doctrinaire Marxist political party.
I like your choice of words there. What's the main issue that makes this coalition so impossible?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
Haha, if Labour were to come into power, I would fear for the economy; I like their social ideas/the NHS etc...but are we really going to be able to pay for all of this funding by simply charging excessive amounts of tax to the rich? Would Labour borrow too much? It feels as though people are going to be voting for the lesser of the two evils, not necessarily the 'best' party Then again, I guess that's politics (?) Lol

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Haha, if Labour were to come into power, I would fear for the economy; I like their social ideas/the NHS etc...but are we really going to be able to pay for all of this funding by simply charging excessive amounts of tax to the rich? Would Labour borrow too much? It feels as though people are going to be voting for the lesser of the two evils, not necessarily the 'best' party Then again, I guess that's politics (?) Lol

Posted from TSR Mobile
(Original post by The two eds)
I always found it was the more educated left wing electorate who leaned towards the liberals while the rest leaned towards Labour.

I think a Lib-Lab coalition would be a disaster for the economy and country, but I believe it would be stable in terms of government having a single political view point, mainly being left wing ideology.

My head simply says this sort of coalition would be all about the social policies and nothing effective regarding the economic policies.

When it comes to lib-Con I think at least they are all on the same wavelength regardless of how they choose their priorities. Problem is working with Labour is the fact they are intellectually less capable and for lib or con it would be like working with a classroom of kids.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply.

Posted from TSR Mobile
That's first past the post system for ya.

UKIP are trailing on average 16% but will be lucky to get 4 seats. Greens on 6% but will be lucky to get a seat, while the SNP will get 2-3% of the vote and potentially have 45 seats. That is apparently what you call democracy.

Problem is people like the fact first past the post system gets you a clear cut winner.

Look at the last general election. Labour achieved 8.6 million total votes and gained 258 seats. Lib dems achieved a total of 6.8 million votes making them around 1.8 million shy of Labour. So in proportion to the electorate that is not a big difference. However get this, Lib dems managed only 57 seats, just over 201 less than Labour. Does that seem fair to you?

There is a lot of criticism with first past the post system and I personally can understand why
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
whoever wins, the children lose
0
reply
BristolStudent96
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
I think a Lib-Lab coalition would be even worse than a majority Labour government. The reason being, in return for supporting Labour, the Libs would demand PR for Commons elections and Miliband would likely give it. That would be a boon to populist parties like Ukip and the Greens, and it would drag Labour and the Conservatives away from the centre ground.

Elections would no longer be decided at the ballot box, but instead in the backroom, with support offered in exchange for pork or extreme policy positions. Any political moderate should be terrified.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Okay, so I've gotten into politics and I'm interested in the next election. I'm probably going to get a lot of conflicting replies but I'd like to know more about politics! :confused:

My heart says "Labour" but my head says "Conservative/possibly Lib Dems". Being from a poorer background, I'd like the poor to get more money and I think that the NHS and education are priorities. I am inclined towards Labour but I fear that they may not manage the economy that well. I feel that an economic crisis is far less likely if Conservative were in power, but I don't like many of their ideas.

So I was thinking, how about a Labour-Lib Dem government? Maybe that way, Labour's ideas would come into effect but the Lib Dems would reduce the likelihood of an economic crisis and stop Labour being so 'extreme'(?) I know there was the Lib-Lab pact in the 70s, and it wasn't too good, but what do you think? I probably sound stupid to you all, but thank you to anyone who replies

In a nutshell:
What do you think of a Lib-Lab coalition?
Positives/negatives of a Lib-Lab government?
Does your heart/head have conflicting opinions?

Thanks!
Do you want the poor to get more money from lower taxes or increased welfare? Both parties are throwing money at the NHS but Labour would stop further outsourcing to the private sector. Tory education policy is broadly an evolution of Labour education policy and so Labour education policy now is broadly accepting of Tory education policy - to cut a long story short, they are nearly identical on the broad strokes of education.

What do you think of a Lib-Lab coalition?

Would happen if Labour were around 300 seats (is possible), the left of the Lib Dems agree with many things that Labour want (indeed a couple of things Labour have stolen like the mansion tax and lords reform - not as bad as it sounds, the 07 Autumn statement was basically a carbon copy of the Tory conference economic policy and that's when they were in government, parties do it to each other).

Positives/negatives of a Lib-Lab government?

Positive is that they'd shrink the size of the Lords and implement an elected federal senate, that i like. They'd stop filling prisons with druggies which i also like albeit i don't want them legal. They'd carry on with education policy which i like the consensus and they'd have kicked IDS out of the welfare department.

Negative is that they both wish to maintain a capital deficit rather than actually pay down the debt. They'd raise taxes. They'd cut the public sector much less. They'd be less likely to put boots on the ground in the Middle East. They plan to cut defense even more than the Tories would. They want to freeze energy prices, a socialist market intervention.

Does your heart/head have conflicting opinions?

Nope. I'm fairly decided that i want a Tory rather than Labour government. I await the manifesto's though.

(Original post by Hewitt)
I think a Lib-Lab coalition would be even worse than a majority Labour government. The reason being, in return for supporting Labour, the Libs would demand PR for Commons elections and Miliband would likely give it. That would be a boon to populist parties like Ukip and the Greens, and it would drag Labour and the Conservatives away from the centre ground.

Elections would no longer be decided at the ballot box, but instead in the backroom, with support offered in exchange for pork or extreme policy positions. Any political moderate should be terrified.
This is true. I supported PR for years but having seen Ukip and the Greens i'm damn well wedded to FPTP now.
0
reply
username1422303
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Okay, so I've gotten into politics and I'm interested in the next election. I'm probably going to get a lot of conflicting replies but I'd like to know more about politics! :confused:

My heart says "Labour" but my head says "Conservative/possibly Lib Dems". Being from a poorer background, I'd like the poor to get more money and I think that the NHS and education are priorities. I am inclined towards Labour but I fear that they may not manage the economy that well. I feel that an economic crisis is far less likely if Conservative were in power, but I don't like many of their ideas.

So I was thinking, how about a Labour-Lib Dem government? Maybe that way, Labour's ideas would come into effect but the Lib Dems would reduce the likelihood of an economic crisis and stop Labour being so 'extreme'(?) I know there was the Lib-Lab pact in the 70s, and it wasn't too good, but what do you think? I probably sound stupid to you all, but thank you to anyone who replies

In a nutshell:
What do you think of a Lib-Lab coalition?
Positives/negatives of a Lib-Lab government?
Does your heart/head have conflicting opinions?

Thanks!
You vote for the party that will benefit you the most, never got my head around why anyone from a poor background would vote tory, they're all for business fair enough but Thatcher had unemployment rocketing and now during the so called "recovery" you have people struggling on zero hour contracts, loads of people on part time work and still too many people on the minimum wage, if the NHS is your priority you have to vote Labour they're the ones who will keep it safe and away from being privatised

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
whoever wins, the children lose
They already lose

Nuclear Weapons
Global Warming

Gf kids, u wished u 1v1ed me on rust
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by WilJones138)
You vote for the party that will benefit you the most, never got my head around why anyone from a poor background would vote tory, they're all for business fair enough but Thatcher had unemployment rocketing and now during the so called "recovery" you have people struggling on zero hour contracts, loads of people on part time work and still too many people on the minimum wage, if the NHS is your priority you have to vote Labour they're the ones who will keep it safe and away from being privatised

Posted from TSR Mobile
Well as a poor person myself i'd say that Labour are clearly better for the unemployed but for the working poor they are not substantially superior to the Tory offer (trade increased tax credits for lower taxes) and for most people earning above say £1500 per month, your probably gaining nothing from Labour that the Tories won't give you. Not only that but some of those who are poor believe in aspiration, the dream of a property and share owning democracy and right now (since no party proposes a social housing programme) there's no superior offer from Labour.

As for your Thatcher point that was 30 years ago and followed by the Lawson boom and then the Major government who oversaw the first half of the 93-03 period which i consider the last time we had a near perfect economy.

Your point about zero hours is again lacking. The number of zero hour contracts has increased by 600,000 over 5 years while the number of full time jobs has increased by 1.4 million (480,000 in 2014 alone) so it's not like everybody is getting shafted.

I think your being a tad negative personally. The Tories are far from perfect but their not bad.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Haha, if Labour were to come into power, I would fear for the economy; I like their social ideas/the NHS etc...but are we really going to be able to pay for all of this funding by simply charging excessive amounts of tax to the rich? Would Labour borrow too much? It feels as though people are going to be voting for the lesser of the two evils, not necessarily the 'best' party Then again, I guess that's politics (?) Lol
Labour aren't really promising a lot of public spending, they are talking about cutting public spending, capping welfare etc. The Conservatives are throwing around stuff like Labour will have to borrow to fund all their high reckless spending pledges, but what pledges are these? The Conservatives are making spending pledges, tax cuts and NHS funding, so it's a bit rich to start claiming Labour are going to be throwing money around.

I don't think there is really much difference between the spending implications of electing a Labour or Conservative government. It's key to the Conservative strategy to make people think that Labour will ruin the economy so they keep reinforcing that. The main difference in spending plans last time round was Labour's plan was to halve the deficit over five years and the Conservative plan was to eliminate the deficit in five years. Osborne said Labour weren't credible because only aiming to halve it was not going far enough and he warned that the UK faced losing its triple A credit rating on international markets. Well as it happened, the UK lost its triple A credit rating a couple of years later on Osborne's watch, and he ended up halving the deficit not eliminating it completely, which is basically what Labour's spending plans were. So in the end people voted for a Conservative government but they ended up just meeting Labour's target that they were so critical of!
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Aye to the above.

There's nothing really from Labour that will suddenly cause the economy to crash (the recovery should be self sustaining). The main difference in spending plans are two fold..

1) Labour will only reduce the deficit to the point at which growth exceeds the deficit as a percentage of GDP (around 2%), from there they will maintain a small deficit for capital spending. The Tories wish to move to an absolute surplus so that while both parties will see the debt fall as a percentage of GDP, the Tories will pay down some of the nominal debt which would rise under Labour still and also stop selling new GILTS (bar refinancing), reducing debt interest payments in the long term (but at the cost of an increased social cost from additional austerity).

2) Both parties need to find an additional £30bn (around £10bn per year) in order to simply meet the Labour target by April 2019. The Tories will do this via cuts, Labour by a mixture of cuts and tax rises.

It's the biggest difference since 92 but there's no real reason to expect a massive change on output from either plan.
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Labour aren't really promising a lot of public spending, they are talking about cutting public spending, capping welfare etc. The Conservatives are throwing around stuff like Labour will have to borrow to fund all their high reckless spending pledges, but what pledges are these? The Conservatives are making spending pledges, tax cuts and NHS funding, so it's a bit rich to start claiming Labour are going to be throwing money around.

I don't think there is really much difference between the spending implications of electing a Labour or Conservative government. It's key to the Conservative strategy to make people think that Labour will ruin the economy so they keep reinforcing that. The main difference in spending plans last time round was Labour's plan was to halve the deficit over five years and the Conservative plan was to eliminate the deficit in five years. Osborne said Labour weren't credible because only aiming to halve it was not going far enough and he warned that the UK faced losing its triple A credit rating on international markets. Well as it happened, the UK lost its triple A credit rating a couple of years later on Osborne's watch, and he ended up halving the deficit not eliminating it completely, which is basically what Labour's spending plans were. So in the end people voted for a Conservative government but they ended up just meeting Labour's target that they were so critical of!
Oh wow, thanks - that's quite ironic! I didn't mean to sound critical (if I did) & I'm a bit confused by the first sentence? Which areas are they going to be cutting in? (Labour) :confused:

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Lauren-x-
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Rakas21)
Aye to the above.

There's nothing really from Labour that will suddenly cause the economy to crash (the recovery should be self sustaining). The main difference in spending plans are two fold..

1) Labour will only reduce the deficit to the point at which growth exceeds the deficit as a percentage of GDP (around 2%), from there they will maintain a small deficit for capital spending. The Tories wish to move to an absolute surplus so that while both parties will see the debt fall as a percentage of GDP, the Tories will pay down some of the nominal debt which would rise under Labour still and also stop selling new GILTS (bar refinancing), reducing debt interest payments in the long term (but at the cost of an increased social cost from additional austerity).

2) Both parties need to find an additional £30bn (around £10bn per year) in order to simply meet the Labour target by April 2019. The Tories will do this via cuts, Labour by a mixture of cuts and tax rises.

It's the biggest difference since 92 but there's no real reason to expect a massive change on output from either plan.
Oh right, I must've been influenced by some biased opinions! That was a great explanation, thank you. So it's very unlikely for the economy to 'collapse' under Labour? What would be the effect of an increasing nominal debt?
Thanks again!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Lauren-x-)
Oh right, I must've been influenced by some biased opinions! That was a great explanation, thank you. So it's very unlikely for the economy to 'collapse' under Labour? What would be the effect of an increasing nominal debt?
Thanks again!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Unlikely. Well if nominal debt increases your still paying debt interest which is money that could have gone elsewhere. There's no major effect bar that though since it's affordability that matters most and that would still be increasing.

To put it in more simple terms. Your earn £30k and are going to get a 10% pay rise next year (economic growth) but have £20k of debt, Labour want to spend that pay rise on the credit card to add to the pile so that your wage is £33k and your debt £22k while the Tories want to pay off the credit card... but, that spending could be useful (pay for an extension (pay for infrastructure) and increase the value of your home (the economy) in the long term. However, your being charged increased interest on your debt pile under Labour's plans while the Tories have paid the debt so that interest falls.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you feel if uni students needed to be double vaccinated to start in Autumn?

I'd feel reassured about my own health (33)
15%
I'd feel reassured my learning may be less disrupted by isolations/lockdowns (68)
30.91%
I'd feel less anxious about being around large groups (26)
11.82%
I don't mind if others are vaccinated or not (18)
8.18%
I'm concerned it may disadvantage some students (12)
5.45%
I think it's an unfair expectation (60)
27.27%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (3)
1.36%

Watched Threads

View All