Who will you be voting for, and why?

[Legaleagle]

Moi?

It's Conservative.

Pourquoi?

I don't think that spending vast amounts of borrowed money on salaries for state employees is going to stimulate a recovery in the UK economy. I think the state needs to live within its means and we need policies which will encourage private enterprise; tax breaks and deregulation.

[bindeweede]

I suppose it is slightly different but hasn't the Govt. been forced to borrow huge amounts of money to prevent Northern Rock, RBS, LLoydsTSB, and HBOS from collapsing, thus saving thousands of private sector jobs, mortgages, and the savings of tens of thousands of people?

As far as banks are concerned, MORE regulation please.

Sorry, to answer the question - I've had the vote for almost 40 years. Never voted Conservative and never will. The sitting Conservative MP has a comfortable majority, and while I would vote for the "Home Rule for Timbuktu" party if I thought it could unseat him, I probably won't vote, as my vote would be totally unrepresented.

[DrS]

Moi?

It's Conservative.

Pourquoi?

I don't think that spending vast amounts of borrowed money on salaries for state employees is going to stimulate a recovery in the UK economy. I think the state needs to live within its means and we need policies which will encourage private enterprise; tax breaks and deregulation.

I don't know how old you are, but to me, this all sounds very 1979, before the railways, the mines, the unions, and local authorities were made "profitable".

[Legaleagle]

Ahhh, responses from people of my generation only, so far. What do voters born in the 80s and 90s think?

Dr S. I see that you are poking your nose out of the closet somewhat and sniffing the wind about <certain> privatisation deals that were done in the 1980s. How do you feel about the current "Socialist" government's actions re: the Royal Mail? Can you offer a justification for the dealings in re: "private finance initiatives" in the NHS and others?

Bindeweede: Look at the amount that the public has spent on local and central government employees since 1997 and tell me that the bank bailout isn't a drop in the ocean. The fact is, that the government will sell its shares in Lloyds and RBS in a couple of years time at a profit and the whole "bailout" business will be done with and paid off. How will it be able to justify its own salary bill over the same period?

Actually, if a proper Tory govenrment was in charge in 2008, it is debatable whether we would even have bothered to bail the banks out in the first place. Can you imagine Maggie doing it? No, only an interventionist socialilist government would have done that. Bush allowed Lehman brothers to go down the tubes "pour encourage les autres" , Why couldn't the British government have done the same. So, sorry, your problem with the banks has more to do with the socialist interventionism of the present govt. than with a future tory government which might take a more pragmatic and capitalist approach. you are actually arguing against yourself.

[bindeweede]

Actually, if a proper Tory govenrment was in charge in 2008, it is debatable whether we would even have bothered to bail the banks out in the first place.

WE? You aren't the idiot Osborne, are you?

[Legaleagle]

Strange response.

No, I am not George Osborne.

I must admit to having been to a public school and, by the way, my suits are made by the same tailor as Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson. I have read that book "Economics for Dummies" Perhaps you could also have a browse so we could establish a starting point for the debate.

Having actually run a business throughout the recession which this Labour government has presided over, I feel qualified to comment on how the government has handled this crisis. Perhaps some of the socialist pensioners and placemen who comment on this board might feel that the requirements of empiricism demand that they actually take notice of the experience of people who work in the private sector from day to day.

Nahh, why bother it's more fun to engage the class warfare gear and put the pedal down.

I note that you have not addressed the point about government debt and spending on public salaries... I presume a vested interest is involved?

[Pebble]

The non interventionalist US may have allowed Lehman's go to the wall, but the Republicans then pumped nearly a trillion into the economy, including bailing out the motor industry. The only historical lesson of comparable magnitude I am aware of is the great depression, which was one could argued turned around by govt. intervention, although possibly to a greater extent by the second world war.
The issue of private companies is not comparable. If a company goes under, so be it - if a country goes under - what do we do? hand it over to a more successful govt? merge with the Germans?
The legacy of the last conservative govt was evisceration of the industrial base of Britian and a third world health service. The stupid Germans insisted on protecting their industrial base while modernising it, we can see how badly they fared as a consequence of not relying on the service sector to power their economy.
If the conservatives were arguing that they would cut public sector wages (to match what has happened in the private sector) while preserving jobs, you might actually believe they had a plan. Cutting the NI increase is simply saying - jobs (public sector) must go if necessary but we mustn't upset private industry. Hardly evidence of a group that will seriously overhaul banking regulation.

I agree that the rail workers and postal workers unions are an anachronism - but BA has fared little better in sorting out militant unions.

[polomint38]

Moi?

It's Conservative.

Easter Egg Chocolate. Utterly horrible, as I can tesify. Having devoured 3 of the kids' specemins of same within the last few days, I am completely nauseous

Just like a Tory, taking chocolate from children.

[chaggle]

I don't know how old you are, but to me, this all sounds very 1979, before the railways, the mines, the unions, and local authorities were made "profitable".

The parallels with 1979 are quite apt I think. It was labour that screwed up then as now, there were strikes then as now. It is likely to be a conservative government which has to sort out the mess now as then.

I would vote conservative if I could be bothered to sort out a way to do it.

[smudge]

The parallels with 1979 are quite apt I think. It was labour that screwed up then as now, there were strikes then as now. It is likely to be a conservative government which has to sort out the mess now as then.

I would vote conservative if I could be bothered to sort out a way to do it.

No industrial unrest under the Tories then?!
They certainly "sorted" those mining communities. "Sorted" good and proper! And heck, who needed a job in the 80's anyway?
And the railways...Anyone tried to make a long train journey lately? Really "sorted" that out....

Am not sure who I'll vote for. It certainly wont ever be the Tories.

[Harryprice]

Does it matter that much WHO wins the general election? Many of the things that have happened to this country in recent years were part of larger changes in the world. For instance, the coal industry went because gas was cheaper. Manufacturing jobs went because labour is cheaper in the Far East. One of the few growth areas in the UK economy has been financial services but that went bad because of people doing silly things all over the world, particularly in the US. Much of our recent legislation has come about because of our membership of the EU. I really wonder if ANY UK government could have affected these trends much at all. Are we not now at the mercy of the global economy?

[chaggle]

Does it matter that much WHO wins the general election? Many of the things that have happened to this country in recent years were part of larger changes in the world. For instance, the coal industry went because gas was cheaper. Manufacturing jobs went because labour is cheaper in the Far East. One of the few growth areas in the UK economy has been financial services but that went bad because of people doing silly things all over the world, particularly in the US. Much of our recent legislation has come about because of our membership of the EU. I really wonder if ANY UK government could have affected these trends much at all. Are we not now at the mercy of the global economy?

I agree with much of that. I would add that the other reason that it doesn't matter too much who wins the election is that the main parties are now virtually indistinguishable anyway. When the unions were decimated by the Thatcher government (rightly in my opinion) Old Labour became unelectable so Bliar created New Labour - a slightly right-of-centre party - exactly where the Conservatives aspired to be when the draconian Thatcherite measures were no longer needed. Although having always been a Conservative, I might have actually voted for New Labour at that time. After the illegal war I certainly wouldn't now.

@smudge

What would you have done, continued to run the mines as a kind of charity?

[Croydon Bob]

Dr S. I see that you are poking your nose out of the closet somewhat and sniffing the wind about <certain> privatisation deals that were done in the 1980s. How do you feel about the current "Socialist" government's actions re: the Royal Mail? Can you offer a justification for the dealings in re: "private finance initiatives" in the NHS and others?

No, of course not. The problem has been that this "socialist" government has been indistiguishable from a Tory government. You are arguing against yourself here. There is clearly no difference of substance between the two main UK parties anymore.

Bindeweede: Look at the amount that the public has spent on local and central government employees since 1997 and tell me that the bank bailout isn't a drop in the ocean.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are arguing that the Govt doesn't need employees then you are mad. if you are saying that there was a big leap in costs after 1997 then you are wrong. No such event occured. New Labour carried on pretty much identically to the previous administration; privatising, cutting posts and failing to keep salaries up with inflation. The only really big boom in Civil Service numbers and salaries in my lifetime came in 1979 to 1981 under Thatcher. The UK is in massive debt now because of the bank bailouts, exacerbated by the massive spending in Iraq and Afganistan, not because of some mythical increase in money spent on public sector employees.

Actually, if a proper Tory govenrment was in charge in 2008, it is debatable whether we would even have bothered to bail the banks out in the first place. Can you imagine Maggie doing it? No, only an interventionist socialilist government would have done that. Bush allowed Lehman brothers to go down the tubes "pour encourage les autres" , Why couldn't the British government have done the same. So, sorry, your problem with the banks has more to do with the socialist interventionism of the present govt. than with a future tory government which might take a more pragmatic and capitalist approach. you are actually arguing against yourself.

Are you joking? Every captaliist Govt in the world bailed its banks out. Bush included. The more socialist and interventionist governments didn't need to because their banks didn't collapse like the unregulated UK banks did. Your comments are nonsense, it is pure fantasy to imagine that a Conservative leadership of the recent past or future would have done anything different to the New Labour Party; Osborne and Cameron haven't even claimed any such thing. Thatcher and Major poured tax payers money into private pockets without any qualms whatsover, the current leadership would happily do the same.

[Croydon Bob]

The parallels with 1979 are quite apt I think. It was labour that screwed up then as now, there were strikes then as now. It is likely to be a conservative government which has to sort out the mess now as then.

Although there are some parallels, in other ways the situation is quite different.

Labour clearly had screwed up in 1978/79; but how much? How seriously? What did Thatcher actually need to sort out when she took over? I don't remember her sorting anything out, just crashed the economy, made millions unemployed, increased taxes to pay for expensive privatisations that shifted even more money out of our pockets and into her millonaire non-dom friends pockets. The economy, and average standard of living, were worse in the 1980s than in the 1970s.

The latest economic collapse has been worldwide, and worst in the most unregulated free-market capitalist countries. So if Brown and his crooked chums are to blame, then it is because they behaved like Conservatives and not like socialists. Replacing them with the real Conservative party is hardly likely to solve problems.

The strikes are also because Labour are behaving like the Conservative Party and are trying to be tough with Unions. What alternative approach is available to Cameron? On election day 1979 the Civil Service were on strike against a Labour Govt. Thatcher ended the dispute by giving the Unions everything that they had asked for, and continued to reward the Civil Service for several years.

[Harryprice]

Much of the increase in spending on the civil service is not waste or innefficiency at all (though failed computer schemes and constant departmental reorganisations ARE wasteful). This government has created new laws in record numbers. Someone has to administer those laws. There aren't as many 'silly' jobs in the civil service as tabloid readers imagine. The MPs who pass all those laws then accuse the civil service of becoming bloated even though THEY are themselves responsible for it! To save money perhaps we should have a programme of streamlining or simplifying legislation.