Thanks Gordy

[Looking for help]

At no point have I suggested a one party state, nor would I want that. We all have a choice, and that is a GOOD THING , I am merely responding to the very onesided views on here, as I cannot let them go unanswered. I'm not even suggesting that GB is the man for the job, just that the labour party to my mind have at least some of the answers. I think Gordon's days are numbered as PM whatever happens next Thursday, due to the nonsense yesterday as he should have known better.

My last point on the matter (must go and cook before the next debate) is that if we make this election about looks we really do deserve all we get

[T.i.p.s.y]

CM, I promise to vote the local Christian party or the Green party if you do the same! Haven't a clue what either stands for, mind you, apart from the obvious!

[mad?]

A few of many reasons for not voting labour:
labour has introduced new welfare benefits costing more than £8bn a year - that's equivalent to 2p on income tax! These include bus passes for all over 60s to baby bonds and free TV licenses for the over-75s.(

Not keen to enter this debate but I must say that whilst I think the welfare system needs reform the above are absolutely the things I would think should be kept. So, perhaps these are reasons to vote labour? God help our old people as no-one else will.

[Sassie'sDad]

GB actually created much of the problem himself. Labour really exploited the housing market boom. They didn't have a handle on how banks were exploiting those wishing to buy who did not have the capacity to repay. Anyone can keep everyone happy by living on credit. Anyone can use quantitative easing to make the impossible seem possible. Living on credit is easy: paying back credit is not; one can not do so without cutting current expenditure.
The British electorate is fickle. It wishes to be told the bald truth about the economy. However it will not welcome bad news.
My vote goes to Nigel Farage!

[Cats12]

O.K , life has moved on since Thatcher and yet you bring up the Labour Govt. prior to Thatcher.

Actually I didn't bring up the labour govt prior to thatcher, save the words "old labour". And I was referring to old labour sitting in the wings, now.
I agree that much that labour has done is laudable, it just isn't affordable. I don't believe in buy now pay later, and yet those words have become synonymous with labour and ingrained in our culture.
In theory many of labour's policies sound absolutely correct and morally right, but in the real world we have to pay for the things we want, and labour hasn't done that.
Sassie's dad you are right - Labour has over the years kept the economy going (i know you didn't say that bit), it has allowed cheap labour from abroad to aid business, consumer prices have been able to be kept low, and in turn interest rates have remained low - this helped create an unsustainable housing market boom. Helped of course by easy credit from the exploitative banks.

What has this got to do with funding the NHS and schools - labour has done so much good in these areas - yes it has, but it has implemented policies that we could only afford if the economy kept growing, and economies never do keep growing - markets feed on boom and bust. And labour did not maintain contingency funds for the 'bear' era.
One other way out of course is to tax more. Do you want to pay another 10p or so in the £ for years to come to offload our debts but maintain the current welfare state? That's the reality.

[sherry_d]

I know that if things stay as they are, perhaps in eight days' time David Cameron, perhaps supported by Nick Clegg, would be in office

Gordon Brown has given up

[Looking for help]

I know that if things stay as they are, perhaps in eight days' time David Cameron, perhaps supported by Nick Clegg, would be in office

Gordon Brown has given up

Gordon Brown may have given up, but if the prediction here is correct, we will be back at the polls in November, effectively making next Thursday a waste of time.

[SSM]

What saddens me is that the media along with DC and NC, and unfortunately allowed to by Labour, have turned this into a presidential election, because it is to their advantage.

We are meant to be going to the polls next week to elect the MP we want to represent us in Parliament, or at least that is what I thought our constitution was in this country, not to vote for who we want to be PM. The only people that can vote for DC, NC or GB are the people in their constituencies, so why is it that they have been rammed down our throats for the last 3 weeks.

People keep like to say that GB was not even voted in as PM. As far as I know no PM in this country has been voted in as PM, they have all been voted in as MPs for their constituencies.

[Chelmsford mum]

Cats12,
Were you not referring to the power cuts of the 1970s then? Most people remembering power cuts refer to the 1970s power cuts under the old labout Govt? You seemed to cite this as one of your reasons not to vote labour.Perhaps I misunderstood you?

Yes I would be more than happy to pay more tax if that will secure the future of the NHS, good state schooling and a fair,(it does need reform), Welfare State. The trouble is that the general public want these things but don't want to pay for them.I also believe that the very highest earners should be taxed more.
However no one wealthy need worry when the Tory Govt is elected next Thursday.One of David C's tax policies is to change the system of Inheritance tax to benefit the uber rich.This one policy alone will save the 18 shadow cabinet members £7.1 million pounds. I am sure Mrs T will raise a glass to that one.

Anyhow, as I said before, I am not sure my little rant on this thread will serve any purpose.It seems to me that those that post on threads like this, are the ones who are already decided.(like me ) So will duck out...

[Cats12]

Cats12,
Were you not referring to the power cuts of the 1970s then? Most people remembering power cuts refer to the 1970s power cuts under the old labout Govt? You seemed to cite this as one of your reasons not to vote labour.Perhaps I misunderstood you?

Ah, forgot i said that! I mentioned it in the same breath as the poll tax, ie saying i remember days of old but don't use it in current arguments - times have moved on, though I wouldn't deny parties of the 70s onwards have left lasting legacies (could go further and further back in history of course).
I think that many people would be willing to pay more but much of their money would be wasted. So much has been spent on eg. the NHS but so much of that money is being spent on managers, some of whom I know and I would not in a million years employ them.
As for inheritance tax, i disagree with cameron on that but the cash involved is a drop in the ocean in the great scheme of things.
I think people recognise need for change and that's why clegg has turned politics upside down via the TV - but if you vote for Clegg you're voting for the most radical party of the three and the least experienced.