General Election 2010 Thread

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Miners were the highest paid manual workers for a reason - it was DANGEROUS job.

Mining communities were particularly close for the very reason that the man they lived next door to, went to the pub with, even went on holiday with, and worked with, was the person who might be saving their life on the next shift.

What I do recall of the so-called 'wonderful' Tory Government Years was that when they left power we had more than 3 million unemployed, high interest rates and inflation wildly out of control. Whilst the gap between rich and poor widening in the intervening Labour years is indeed an indictment of the way that has been allowed to spiral out of control, I would still maintain that the privatisation of the utility companies, railways, telecomms etc etc are largely to blame for that. Most of the people heading those organisations now earn a ridiculously inflated sum of money that their predecessors (pre-privatisation) earned only a tiny fraction of. That's where the gap has increased. But we are not the only country where that has happened.

Anyway, if you read my previous post, I was not defending the Labour Government, merely pointing out that they are as bad as the previous 13 years of Tory officialdom. I don't want either of them in power.

It's a matter of perpsective from where you live / which part of society you come from. But the Tory party would never get my vote no matter what they said as they are only in it for the affluent in this society.

Labour was originally set up to protect the interests of the working man and they are far from the same party now.

As for your comments on Vince Cable, are you seriously suggesting George Osborne is any better ? For all his supposed education, his maths are appalling !!


And yes, I do know how long ago it was that the Tories were in power. It will be forever etched in my mind going to School each morning passing the lines of pickets outside the local mine. As it will be forever etched in my mind the hardship they went through. Whilst I didn't agree with what Scargill did, he was absolutely spot on with what was going to happen.

Feelings still run very high here in South Wales in regard to what the Tories did when they were in power and Wales will not help put another Tory government in power. In fact, were the Tories to get in power again then it would, in my view, merely strengthen the argument of the Nationalists for Wales to have it's own parliament and eventual separation from the UK.

Nonsense. Mining during the 1980’s was safer than driving and there were countless other occupations that were considerably more dangerous. Miners barely made it into the top ten most dangerous jobs and then only because historically and in developing countries it was still considered hazardous.

Being a soldier during the 1980’s was considerably more dangerous than being a miner and they were paid noticeably less also.

Miners came out on strike because the NUM under Scargill chose to hold the country to ransom every winter, when we could least afford it. They chose to do this over pay and were driven by greed and a vain attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Government of the day. They did it to Heath in the previous decade and Scargill’s “suicidal vanity” (Lord Kinnock’s words last year, not mine) along with his cowardice and betrayal of his members led to his downfall and that of the NUM. It was Mr Scargill's ruthless intransigence - always opposed to a national ballot, never conceding that there could ever be anything described as an uneconomic pit - which prevented the dispute from ending on any terms that compromised his revolutionary purity and which guaranteed that Mrs Thatcher's victory would be total.

As for the comments regarding “fatcat bankers” this is plainly ridiculous. Gordon Brown has admitted that he failed to regulate them. They got fat on his watch, nobody else’s and certainly the last thirteen years where they have done as they wished has nothing to do with the previous Conservative administration. In addition, I refer you again to the facts. These are from the Government’s own research and they show that the richest have got richer under thirteen years of Labour Government. In addition and in the interest of balance, Nick Clegg has stated that the poorest 20% of Britons now pay an average of £4,302 in tax – compared to £2,760 in 1997. Furthermore, those on the lowest salaries are also paying proportionally almost 1% more in tax now than they were when Labour came to power. Nick Clegg went on to say that "On the day Labour launches its manifesto, this is damning evidence that after 13 years they have failed to deliver fair taxes. Despite everything they said in 1997, life has got harder for people at the bottom and easier for people at the top.”

Anyone who cannot see what Labour and in particular Gordon Brown have done to this country is fit to be tied and if you consider voting for Labour, in the face of what you can see around you, then I would suggest that the cheese has slid off your cracker.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Then we come to the military. Brown lied to the Chilcot inquiry when he stated that defence spending had increased every year. This was not true. Gordon Brown lied to and misled the British people, Parliament and the Iraq Inquiry. Despite what his PR minder has advised him to say, he does not care for soldiers, or their lives, or what the often brutal ending of those lives means for the families left behind.

Cet, I think the last part you have said is slightly harsh on Gordon Brown. Would you say that a hand written letter of condolence is an uncaring attitude after the fact? Considering that he could simply get a secretary to type a templated letter and then just simply sign it, I do think that you may have overslated GB(misspelling intentional) but only slightly.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Do you really think so?

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who led the Armed Forces from 1997 to 2001, told The Times recently; “Not fully funding the Army in the way they had asked . . . undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers. He should be asked why he was so unsympathetic towards defence and so sympathetic to other departments.” In addition, the Chilcot inquiry has heard that defence chiefs threatened to resign after Mr Brown ordered defence cuts six years ago while troops were fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also emerged that Lieutenant General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former head of the Special Forces, said that the SAS had been denied even Vietnam-era equipment that could have saved lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is well known that soldiers are reduced to buying their own equipment. Standard issue boots melt in the heat, there are too few sets of body armour to go around, they do not get issued blast-goggles and they need to buy their own life insurance

The truth is that Labour has never had a tradition of supporting the military and to a bean counter like Brown soldiers are worthless and dead ones, inconsequential.

Consider Help4Heroes. This is an appropriate condemnation of Brown and the Government he leads. That this amazing organisation (and many others like it) even exists should be a source of eternal shame. A charity for aiding the medical recuperation of soldiers? A charity for crying out loud! If anything deserves guaranteed and unquestioned funding, it is the medical care of soldiers!

At the outset of the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher formed a small war cabinet consisting of various ministers from certain Government departments. Apparently the treasury asked for a seat on this and were snubbed by Willie Whitelaw a Normandy veteran, who retorted, “When you're sending men off to die, it's no time to be worrying about the cost of cannon-balls."

Finally, let me address the letter. Do you mean the one sent to Mrs Janes? The one she had condemned as a "hastily scrawled insult" - claiming to have counted one spelling mistake after another, not to mention the misspelling of her son's name. Or do you mean the undated one that was sent to Mr Sadler on the 17th November 2009 perhaps? Trooper Jack Sadler was killed in Afghanistan on 4th December 2007. Mr Sadler was told that an 'administrative error' was responsible for the delay. Mr Sadler has received another letter, apologising, but not from Gordon Brown, but rather Jeremy Heywood - his permanent secretary.

Gordon Brown is not doing anything special because hand writing notes to the families of fallen Forces personnel is a tradition for all Prime Ministers.

[EXC]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

This must be the most ridiculous headline of the election campaign so far - from The Times:

Nick Clegg nearly as popular as Winston Churchill - Times Online

Personally I think Private Eye have got it more in perspective:

[orc]

Let me make this as clear as possible.

............................ then don’t bother voting at all, because none of the others can get in, you will simply dilute the remaining votes .

Everyone should vote and no-one should follow this ridiculous advice, absolutely no-one. Make sure you vote and never don't vote- vote tactically if you want to, but vote. Change takes time, but is worth the effort.

The conservatives are hoping people will not vote. Traditionally it would be the apathy of labour voters that would let the conservatives win more seats. Conservatives depend on that. (Don't vote for tories, ever. They only look after their own. )

It is also interesting that arguments to date have centered on a English perspective of the UK. Do that at your peril or you will see an independent Scotland, with Wales to follow, but perhaps you're not to bothered. That's part of the problem and the driving force behind independence.

Everyone should actively campaign to highlight the dangers of voting for the disgusting BNP and their likes, they are a festering sore in this country. The UKIP are not much better. Tories follow soon after, if given half a chance (they would still have your kids up a chimney or down the pits).

A labour government with liberal dem coalition is a possible and likely scenario, with close working on the economy in particular. Hopefully that would see reform of the electoral system, an end to first past the post, which is not as democratic as it should be.

We need an end to the HoL, not reform. End to peerages and titles even hereditary. If thats not possible introduce a tax on peers or make them undertake work for the public good at weekends and on public holidays! Take titles off convicted peers etc.

Troops out of Afganistan and elsewhere. Cease lap dog mentality to USA. No trident nuclear weapon replacement. Future peace role only. We should never have been involved in the Falklands war- as someone glowingly referred to in an earlier post.

Tight and tighter regulation of financial institutions. Hammer insider dealing etc.

Tighter rules on tax avoidance.

Reduce expenditure on Royals and restrict to immediate family only. Referendum on Royal abolition. Cease sale of cheap Royal tat which folk give as presents.

Continue to devolve power in NI and ensure peace process developed.

Introduce elected regional assemblies in England. Half number of councils across UK. Cease unelected quangos.

Increase investment in green technologies and become centre of green development and green industrial excellence. Work to ensure longer term reduced dependence of eastern gas and oil/ coal.

Find resources for nuclear power stations and investment in power infrastruture.

Tighter regulation of power prices, with penalties by regulator. Ban use of those HD tong things.

Increase social rented housing provision.

Mandatory renewable heating sources in all new buildings- domestic, retail, commerce, etc. End VAT on building refurbishments.

Increase stamp duty threshold. Double on higher value buildings. Ban use of clashing ornaments in gardens ie concrete gnomes with classical busts, trellises etc- you get the idea.

Cessation of lottery grants to private schools. Introduce tax on them. Maximum lottery win of £5m. Don't let convicts get prizes.

Pull out of hosting Olympics. Don't bid for World Cup, unless its hosted by 4 home nations.

Abolish sugar daddies for football clubs. Introduce terracing again. Sky football investment spread across all UK football clubs.

Ban on repeats of Wembley '66.

Ban farting in public or confined spaces, consider same for burping and talking with mouth fool.

Sort litter problem and dog s***, and WAGS and celebs.

Free personal care for elderly below a set threshold. Right to dignity death.

Introduction of childrens panels across UK.

Increase alcohol and tobacco taxation- double the rate.

Referendum on capital punishment.

Drug dealers- increase penalties. All proceeds seized and reinvested for public good. Stamp something on their foreheads. Heroin on prescription for addicts.

Reduce voting age to 16. (people die for their country at that age). End the right to vote at 65 or so.

Ban on annoying mobile phone ring tones. Ban on folk using them.......only after warning.

Ban flairs and those kipper ties- hated them and don't want reminded at some point in near future.

Ban electric doughnut makers, ice cream makers, yogurt makers etc. No-one needs or uses them anyway

Ban the Daily Mail, or at least restrict it to top shelf.

Ban Boris.

Oh, and refund all historic bank charges with damages and 8% interest.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Everyone should vote and no-one should follow this ridiculous advice, absolutely no-one. Make sure you vote and never don't vote- vote tactically if you want to, but vote. Change takes time, but is worth the effort.

The conservatives are hoping people will not vote. Traditionally it would be the apathy of labour voters that would let the conservatives win more seats. Conservatives depend on that.

It is also interesting that arguments to date have centered on a English perspective of the UK. Do that at your peril or you will see an independent Scotland, with Wales to follow, but perhaps you're not to bothered. That's part of the problem and the driving force behind independence.

Everyone should actively campaign to highlight the dangers of voting for the disgusting BNP and their likes, they are a festering sore in this country. The UKIP are not much better.

A labour government with liberal dem coalition is a possible and likely scenario, with close working on the economy in particular. Hopefully that would see reform of the electoral system, an end to first past the post, which is not as democratic as it should be.

We need an end to the HoL, not reform. End to peerages and titles even hereditary.
At this point I was almost with you and then I read the rest.
Troops out of Afganistan. Cease lap dog mentality to USA. No trident nuclear weapon replacement. Future peace role only. We should never have been involved in the Falklands war- as someone referred to in an earlier post.
The Falklands Islands was part of UK Sovereignty so to say we should never have been involved in the Falklands War is quite frankly rubbish.
Tight and tighter regulation of financial institutions. Hammer insider dealing etc.

Reduce expenditure on Royals and restrict to immediate family only.
They are doing this already and it is reduced to this level.
Continue to devolve power in NI and ensure peace process developed.

Introduce elected regional assemblies in England. Half number of councils across UK. Cease unelected quangos.

Increase investment in green technologies and become centre of green development and green industrial excellence. Work to ensure longer term reduced dependence of eastern gas and oil/ coal.

Referendum on capital punishment.
I would vote NO by the way on Capital Punishment(referendums spend our taxpayer money as well remember)
Drug dealers- increase penalties.

Reduce voting age to 16. (people die for their country at that age)

I don't agree with you on reducing the voting age to 16. You reach majority at 18 years of age so 18 is the right age.

[EXC]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Everyone should vote and no-one should follow this ridiculous advice, absolutely no-one. Make sure you vote and never don't vote- vote tactically if you want to, but vote.

People have an unchallegable right not to vote - and that right is a cornerstone of a true democracy which is exercised by appx half the elligable population.

A lot of people don't think there is a party worth voting for - why should they have to vote someone they don't believe deserves their vote?

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

People have an unchallegable right not to vote - and that right is a cornerstone of a true democracy which is exercised by appx half the elligable population.

A lot of people don't think there is a party worth voting for - why should they have to vote someone they don't believe deserves their vote?

(Apologies to EXC and Nattie as I was in middle of editing post when they responded).

Yes, you have a valid point EXC.

I get fed up with the 2 parties as well, and think that stifles creativity throughout the UK. Some of the other parties- liberals, greens, Scot Nats, socialists have some valid points to make, and some of the tory policies have attractions.

Tactical voting can be used as can voting for a single issue candidate or someone focusing on local regional issues. Or vote for a smaller party, but please vote. I don't like folk not voting. That can also be dangerous and allows right wing extremists a route in.

However, there has been a dumbing down over the years and the move to centralism is negative.

The right can however, be enforced by making it compulsory to vote. Some democratic countries do this- I think Australia is one.

Half the folk complaining about the labour government never even voted, some folk have never voted. Yet they are the ones that whinge the most.

I mentioned electoral reform and I see that as a possible way forward. First past the post encourages the stance you state. So change to proportional representation as for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and councils. Voters will soon get used to it and it increases tactical voting. 100 years of domination by Scottish Labour party was ended by introduction of proportional representation in Scotland for the Parliament.

Age of majority can easily be changed to 16, Nattie. 16 means folk can work and die for country, wed and have sex.

Capial punishment- I used to be very against this. My view changed as a parent, perhaps selfishly. If someone did something to my children, I would find it hard not to punish them personally. I don't like that part of me, but can't help it. As its illegal for me to take action, hopefully the state would.

[Amy]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I have a 16 year old son and it's all he can do to remember to brush his teeth. Allowing him to vote would be reckless and futile and would achieve precisely nothing.

He would not have a clue who to vote for much less any interest in the outcome and would simply ask me who he should vote for, which kind of defeats the object.

If he remembered to vote at all it would be a miracle, so I would be dead against lowering the age for voting.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I'm glad to see that hysterical gibberish is the order of the day again orc, welcome back.

Demanding that everyone votes is about as anti-democratic as it gets. Forcing people to choose between the lesser of two evils and negating the opinion of anyone who chooses not to vote is plain wrong. Rights are ours to execute, or not. A free country with a compulsory vote is a contradiction in terms.

We were involved in the Falklands war, so quite what your comment was intended to convey is not clear. At that time, the Guatemalans were threatening to make moves on Belize and there was a rumour that the Spanish were rattling sabres towards Gibraltar, which they wanted back. We had to send a message to the world making it clear that, although a shadow of our former might, we were not ready to let the hyenas tear us apart just yet. Not to mention that those in the Falklands were and are British citizens.

I agree with you regarding ending the war in Afghanistan but that is as far as it goes. We cannot have a "future peace role only" for our military because the world simply does not work that way. You may believe that the meek shall inherit the earth, but just how long do you think they will keep it? Weakness is provocative. Nations perceived as weak are more likely to be attacked or have their interests threatened. Either you are willing to fight for your own freedom or you are prepared to be a slave. Individuals can afford to be pacifists and not fight only because they have soldiers willing to do it for them. Freedom and in particular freedom is speech is expensive, but don't worry, the Military will pay your share.

The Government interfere in our lives enough already, yet you are advocating more state control, of things that the state have no business getting involved in.

[Amy]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Ban Boris.

I love Boris Becker, I know he's got a bit of ginger going on, but hey, we can't have everything.

[Sapphire]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I love Boris Becker, I know he's got a bit of ginger going on, but hey, we can't have everything.

PMSL nothing wrong with Ginger, speaking as a redhead myself.

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Cetelco

You seem to have a bit of a thing about the armed forces.

Firstly, my behaviour to the site has been excellent for a considerable time. This is a thread in the Lamp Post and its about polital views and banter.

Half of my original post was an attempt at humour akin to the grumpy old git concept, but I stand by the sincerity of my political views, which you won't change. I don't ask you to change yours. You are welcome to the regimentation of yours, which appear limited to strictly within the box.

You are welcome to your views on not voting, thats fine. Lots of folk have that opinion. I happen to believe that its important people vote, contribute to society and don't opt out of their responsibilities to society. The government do not have a monopoly on responsibility for society, everyone has a role, as everyone is a member of society.

It might help this thread if you gave your opinions rather than knocking peoples contributions. It is after all a bit of fun.

You very often find, thats a generalisation based on observation, that its the 30- 40% that don't vote who moan and groan about politics, about public services or whatever. Well, they have no right to moan, if you don't vote, don't moan about trains, prices, petrol, council taxes, bank charges, roads, anti social behaviour, NHS or whatever. BTW, I'm assuming that you always vote- is that the case?

I made other references to how people might feel more engaged in the election process and PR was suggested. Are you against that? Do you think it satisfactory that so many people don't vote? Would you just leave things as they are?

Re Falklands War and Maggie



What I said was we should never have been involved in the Falklands war. It was said that way on purpose as I had read your previous posts in which you made your feelings clear.

Yes, the Falklands were invaded and yes it was sovereign territory, but Thatcher escalated the Falklands war and deliberately ignored concerted attempts at mediation before our troops arrived there. OK, the place was invaded but she used that for political purposes and she was responsible for the deaths there, she revelled in it and manipulated the situation. The deaths need not have happened, she sent the troops to their death and she has blood on her hands. The sinking of the Belgrano was shameful as it was outside the area of exclusion and sailing from the zone.

Our intelligence knew of the invasion before the Argentinians landed.

Her actions were designed to ignite English patriotic jingoism and folk followed her like sheep, Thatcher having an eye on the opinion polls. ( The Argentine Generals intention in invading the Falklands had much the same intention. So there was no real difference between him and Thacher, except he was later tried for war crimes). You will note the deliberate emphasis on England as the Falklands war had far less support in Scotland.

The reasons for her actions were firstly her own selfish political opportunism
and secondly the believe that the Falklands would mean revenue from future oil exploration. No-one can dispute that.

At the risk of escalating this further, and where would the fun be if I didn't, I am of the view that we should leave the Falklands to the folk in the Falklands, if they wish to remain. They could govern themselves and become a protectorate of the UN.

(It would actually be cheaper to put them all up in the Ritz full board and give them £0.5m each compensation- there are only 3,000 folk there). Same applies to Gibraltar (and our continued possession of it has less relevance within EU) and all other territories and Belize. There is a precedent- look at Hong Kong. The world has moved on and so should we.

Lets leave our imperial past where it belongs- firmly in the past. I accept however, that people with a right wing view don't agree with that and love to look at pre war maps of the world with lots of parts shaded pink, particularly certain folk on the right of the tory party. Recent Falklands exploration has shown that the prospect of economic oil extraction is low in any case, there is a higher prospect of oil off the west coast of Scotland. It costs us a fortune to retain a force there.

Its no wonder that the USA and her allies are desparately hated in parts of the world. What do you think is the reason for that??

I am fed up with the UK being a poodle of the USA. There's nothing meek or weak about that. Lets develop our role and interests within the European Community and elsewhere.

The USA hides behind a mask of defenders of the free world- don't make me laugh as there is very little free about it and the real motive behind their foreign policy is economic greed.

Re Afganistan. Brown made a fatal mistake in not removing our troops shortly after he took power. Had he done so, things would have been markedly different for him now. I'm glad there is a consensus on that between us, but I am unclear on your motives in wanting that. Perhaps you can expand please.

Amy, thats your views about your child. How would you feel about him as a 16 year old joining the army and being sent to Afganistan and not coming back? Its young working class folk that are targetted in recruitment campaigns, not the children of the wealthy. I would move heaven and earth to stop my children joining, as they would just be cannon fodder.

Young folk develop at different speed and I know plenty of young folk with more developed views on current affairs than some adults.

The reason I mentioned the vote at 16 and the reference to dieing for your country is that I would also advocate young folk not joining the army until they are 18, if they can't vote till then- why die before voting. Increasing the age qualification for the army would be a suitable compromise. Whats your thoughts on that Cetelco?


Nattie, you mentioned the age of majority:

FYI, the age of majority in Scotland is 16, not 18, as remainder of UK.

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

There will not be a hung Parliament.

Don't bet on it. It looks quite likely and has done for a while.

The polls are wrong, just like they always are.

They may have been wrong in the past, but always?? Surely not.

What is the factual basis for your statement?

What past polls have been wrong?

Any prediction that places votes in the Labour camp is wildly optimistic and based on forecasts that fail to take into account the fact that England, with the vast majority of Westminster seats, will see a much greater overall swing to the Tories than Scotland.

What prediction is this? There does not appear to be any current swing to the Tories. Folk appear to be swinging away from them in droves- if you believe the polls that is.

Tories will do nothing in Scotland, again. You keep forgetting that Scotland is quite distinct from England, that's something you need to focus on. Once we got the vote in Scotland we knew what side our bread was buttered on.

Everything has changed since Phony Tony won yet the BBC and Sky and even the Tories prefer the “Hung Parliament” line because it makes for a good story for the former and compels the wavering voters to vote Tory to be sure that the despised Brown and the hated Labour Party are thrown out decisively, for the latter.

That all depends really. The polls seem fairly consistent which contradicts your view. You seem to have anti Labour sentiments.

Labour, particular under Hash Brown have comprehensively ruined any chances of being re-elected for a fourth term.

Not necessarily true, despite your wishes. Prepare to be surprised.

I agree mistakes have been made, but an awful lot of people don't trust the conservatives and the image of Blair presented by Cameron- reference phoney Tony.. (thats a bit of a back handed compliment by the tories to Blair, trying to copy his style)

The Government is a sad, exhausted has-been, staggering around the ring and praying for the bell.

Perhaps, but have you heard of a technical knock out.


Labour will be obliterated and no Government has ever deserved it so much.

See above. You're saying the polls are wrong, which is arrogant.

The Thatcher and Major governments come immediately to the fore- as they were covered in sleaze, crime, corruption and in fighting. Remember black Wednesday, sleaze, Europe division, and "back to basics" (that was a good one!) etc, etc, etc.

As for the Liberals holding the balance of power, don't hold your breath. The last time they even came close was a coalition government in 1918 which they subsequently lost control of just four years later and there has not been anything since - there is a reason for that.

The current first past post system is past its sell by date and will hopefully change.

Its surely time it was changed as it has for the Scottish Government elections. It can't be right that they have 20+% of the poll but get 60 seats or so.

The liberals have held the balance of power and there have been pacts before. There is a high chance of this again, with Labour. They, the Liberals, won't do that with the Conservatives.

The last time it was particularly close was actually with the SDP/ Liberal alliance, or had you forgotten that. Am I correct?? At times they held 40% of the polls leading to the election, once close to 50%.

Of course, Maggies mad march to the malvinas saw her re-elected. Or am I being cynical??




For those folk who think they might not vote.

If you want to keep the tories out, vote for anyone you want, but vote. Its the Tories that don't want you to vote as that helps them into power. It also helps the BNP.

[Jester]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Nonsense. Mining during the 1980’s was safer than driving and there were countless other occupations that were considerably more dangerous. Miners barely made it into the top ten most dangerous jobs and then only because historically and in developing countries it was still considered hazardous.

Being a soldier during the 1980’s was considerably more dangerous than being a miner and they were paid noticeably less also.

Miners came out on strike because the NUM under Scargill chose to hold the country to ransom every winter, when we could least afford it. They chose to do this over pay and were driven by greed and a vain attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Government of the day. They did it to Heath in the previous decade and Scargill’s “suicidal vanity” (Lord Kinnock’s words last year, not mine) along with his cowardice and betrayal of his members led to his downfall and that of the NUM. It was Mr Scargill's ruthless intransigence - always opposed to a national ballot, never conceding that there could ever be anything described as an uneconomic pit - which prevented the dispute from ending on any terms that compromised his revolutionary purity and which guaranteed that Mrs Thatcher's victory would be total.

As for the comments regarding “fatcat bankers” this is plainly ridiculous. Gordon Brown has admitted that he failed to regulate them. They got fat on his watch, nobody else’s and certainly the last thirteen years where they have done as they wished has nothing to do with the previous Conservative administration. In addition, I refer you again to the facts. These are from the Government’s own research and they show that the richest have got richer under thirteen years of Labour Government. In addition and in the interest of balance, Nick Clegg has stated that the poorest 20% of Britons now pay an average of £4,302 in tax – compared to £2,760 in 1997. Furthermore, those on the lowest salaries are also paying proportionally almost 1% more in tax now than they were when Labour came to power. Nick Clegg went on to say that "On the day Labour launches its manifesto, this is damning evidence that after 13 years they have failed to deliver fair taxes. Despite everything they said in 1997, life has got harder for people at the bottom and easier for people at the top.”

Anyone who cannot see what Labour and in particular Gordon Brown have done to this country is fit to be tied and if you consider voting for Labour, in the face of what you can see around you, then I would suggest that the cheese has slid off your cracker.

Mining safer than driving ?

You've obviously never been anywhere near a pit, let alone down one. If you walked into the village where I grew up and spoke to the (remaining) people who worked down those mines and told them that the pits were safer than driving, you'd fail to get out of the place in one piece.

ALL of the miners have stories of numerous 'accidents' down the pits that often cost their colleagues serious injury, or worse, death. One of my schoolboy friends was such a 'lucky' man who survived these 'safe' conditions when the roof of a shaft caved in. He was 'lucky' because he was pulled out alive unlike his two colleagues. However, 'lucky' is a relative term considering he has been in a wheelchair ever since that accident as he broke his spine (he was 19 by the way). You can hear many other stories of such happenings from anyone who has worked underground. Problem is that there are fewer and fewer of them left thses days because they are all dying off one by one due to the illnesses they are all gradually succumbing to as a result of the conditions in which they worked underground (emphysemia etc). I've lost 9 family members in the last 10 years myself as a result of diseases they contracted that are directly attributed to the conditions under which they worked down in the pits.

Like you, I'm lucky enough never to have worked down a pit either. However, unlike you, I am well aware of what the conditions were like in the pits because I lived in amongst these people.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on Scargill (as do a surprising number of former miners). However, what nobody can argue with is that Scargill's apocryphal vision of the future of the pits was shown to be very accurate. Just a shame that he thought the miners were his own private army with which to hit out at authority.

Also, I'd agree wih you regarding the soldiers. But I would temper that by reminding you that people know what they are getting themselves into when they join the armed forces. They are aware that the pay may not be that great and that they may be required to go to war. Also, that many of the people who do sign up to join the armed forces are youngsters who simply have no other option open to them. It's either join the armed forces and learn a trade (because it's about the only place that offers to teach you a trade since the Tories sold off all our industry), or spend their lives on the dole and all that comes with it. The Tory boys who join up simply buy themslevs a commission.

What I won't agree with you on is that the Tories are any better than Labour. You can bring up figures and statistics all you want, it proves nothing because there are always other figures produced to show the opposites.

As the quote goes, 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'.

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. You see Labour as a dangerous threat to this country and the Tories as the saviours. I see both as a threat to the economic stability of this country, but I see the Tories are the bigger threat. The Tories are the party of social injustice, but Labour are too far in the opposite direction.

Having been unemployed in recent years, I could go into as huge long rant about what is wrong in this country. Mnay of it brought about by this Labour Government, but even more of brought about through systems brought in by the previous Tory Government that have not, or cannot be replaced.

Ah yes, I remember the last time the Tories were in power. Constant strikes by just about every union out there, poll tax riots, civil unrest in the inner cities like Liverpool, Manchester, London etc etc. What a great time that was PMSL

As Orc and several others have pointed out to you, a Tory Government will merely speed and strengthen the arguments and the case for Nationalists in Scotland and Wales that the time is right to break up the UK and go it alone. Under the Tories, we will return to a very Divided Kingdom.