Voting out of habit

[revolution saint]

Hands up - who does it?

 

Who, when push comes to shove, can't bring themselves to vote anything other than the party they've voted for all their life? And is there anything that would persuade you otherwise?

[benjii]

I would hope that no one votes out of habit but rather out of endorsement of the fundamental tenets, as they see them, of a particular party, irrespective of the contemporaneous political landscape.

 

Anyone who votes, literally, out of "habit" is clearly a bit special. It's once every five years or so FFS, it's not like your morning coffee or your evening ****.

[revolution saint]

I would hope that no one votes out of habit but rather out of endorsement of the fundamental tenets, as they see them, of a particular party, irrespective of the contemporaneous political landscape.

 

Anyone who votes, literally, out of "habit" is clearly a bit special. It's once every five years or so FFS, it's not like your morning coffee or your evening ****.

 

Hope all you like - it's why certain regions remain heartlands for certain parties. How else would you explain it?

 

Edit: Actually I see your point but parties change. Voting loyalty shouldn't be set in stone because of central tenets that a party once held, or should it?

Edited 8 April, 2010 by revolution saint

[Doctoroncall]

I would hope that no one votes out of habit but rather out of endorsement of the fundamental tenets, as they see them, of a particular party, irrespective of the contemporaneous political landscape.

 

Anyone who votes, literally, out of "habit" is clearly a bit special. It's once every five years or so FFS, it's not like your morning coffee or your evening ****.

 

Not when you count the numerous local and european elections. It seems there is around one every year!

[Gingeletiss]

Hands up - who does it?

 

Who, when push comes to shove, can't bring themselves to vote anything other than the party they've voted for all their life? And is there anything that would persuade you otherwise?

 

Many do. At our place, they will only vote Labour, because of 'that

bloody Thatcher woman'. Many have no concept of policys, and have no idea of the various manifestos. They vote labour because their mates/family do. My other half will not vote for GB or DC, because she doesn't like them.

 

What hope for a fair result!

[Barry the Badger]

My dad is "a card carrying member of the labour party", which I never really understood. He mostly seems to moan about them being sh*te but always votes labour.

[Ziggy]

That's what happens in a democracy. People can vote how they like with no need for justification.

[View From The Top]

Up until the last Euro elections I had only voted Labour but I voted Liberal.

 

I felt very strange afterwards, something akin to cheating on the missus I guess.

[Johnny Bognor]

Up until the last Euro elections I had only voted Labour but I voted Liberal.

 

I felt very strange afterwards, something akin to cheating on the missus I guess.

 

 

Well I guess the missus cheated on you first, so you could call it revenge.

[bridge too far]

The point about basic tenets is the valid one IMO.

 

After decades of (very active) membership of the Labour Party, I resigned over the Iraq war. I rejoined when GB became PM because I thought / hoped the Labour Party would get back to some of the fundamental principles.

 

It's getting closer to them but, in any event, I'll always vote Labour because, at the end of the day, and regardless of what the clever debaters on here might say, it's the best option and most likely to consider the needs of working people.

 

The other parties are either single issue, fence-sitters or, in the case of the Tories, really only looking after the privileged few (regardless of what the Eton Mess might say).

[niceandfriendly]

I would hope that no one votes out of habit but rather out of endorsement of the fundamental tenets, as they see them, of a particular party, irrespective of the contemporaneous political landscape.

 

Anyone who votes, literally, out of "habit" is clearly a bit special. It's once every five years or so FFS, it's not like your morning coffee or your evening ****.

 

I think you're wholeheartedly mistaken if you don't think that this happens all the time... everywhere.

 

It's like saying an MP will change his/her allegiance every so often depending on what a particular party does each week. No. A Conservative will 99.9% of the time remain a Conservative all his/her life no matter what the party does, and the same goes for the voters.

 

I'm not saying that this is what I do, but it happens.

Edited 9 April, 2010 by niceandfriendly

[benjii]

I think you're wholeheartedly mistaken if you don't think that this happens all the time... everywhere.

 

It's like saying an MP will change his/her allegiance every so often depending on what a particular party does each week. No. A Conservative will 99.9% of the time remain a Conservative all his/her life no matter what the party does, and the same goes for the voters.

 

I'm not saying that this is what I do, but it happens.

 

Yes, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that I hope people have a better reason for this allegiance than "habit" which is, IMO, a pathetic reason.

 

If by habit, one means a lasting support of the fundamental principles of what that party stands for, irrespective of the viccissitudes of life etc., then I have no problem with that. It does demand that one continues to assess whether the party still stands for what it used to, as per BTF's post above.

 

Personally, my ideology is probably most closely aligned with the Tories but I've never actually voted for them in an election. This year I will vote Lid Dem because it will be a battle between them and Labour where I live.

[sperm_john]

personally i think its necessary for the nuns to vote out of habit, it would be too costly to have polling stations in all the convents across the land..

[Gingeletiss]

The point about basic tenets is the valid one IMO.

 

After decades of (very active) membership of the Labour Party, I resigned over the Iraq war. I rejoined when GB became PM because I thought / hoped the Labour Party would get back to some of the fundamental principles.

 

It's getting closer to them but, in any event, I'll always vote Labour because, at the end of the day, and regardless of what the clever debaters on here might say, it's the best option and most likely to consider the needs of working people.

 

The other parties are either single issue, fence-sitters or, in the case of the Tories, really only looking after the privileged few (regardless of what the Eton Mess might say).

 

Both me and my partner work full time. We own our own house, so we must be classed Working people!. Labour since they have been in power, has seen to it, that in real terms, my back pocket money is on the decline. I assume you really meant, those that do F all, and expect the tax payers to pay for them to do F all.

[View From The Top]

Both me and my partner work full time. We own our own house, so we must be classed Working people!. Labour since they have been in power, has seen to it, that in real terms, my back pocket money is on the decline. I assume you really meant, those that do F all, and expect the tax payers to pay for them to do F all.

 

Thanks for that Mr Outraged of Tunbridge Wells.

 

I assume you are looking forward to interst rates going through the roof and a raft of home repossesions if Dave, the ordinary chap, gets in?

[Gingeletiss]

Thanks for that Mr Outraged of Tunbridge Wells.

 

I assume you are looking forward to interst rates going through the roof and a raft of home repossesions if Dave, the ordinary chap, gets in?

 

 

What, like under Labour you mean?

[View From The Top]

What, like under Labour you mean?

 

I'm going to assume that you are to young to remember the Major government otherwise I would suggest you re-evaluate your post as even the most ardent tory would see what a daft statement it is to make.

[Gingeletiss]

I'm going to assume that you are to young to remember the Major government otherwise I would suggest you re-evaluate your post as even the most ardent tory would see what a daft statement it is to make.

 

 

56, not that young, and in all my working life, I have faired better under the Conservatives. I guess it a matter of perceptions!.

[View From The Top]

56, not that young, and in all my working life, I have faired better under the Conservatives. I guess it a matter of perceptions!.

 

So you are saying, in the early 90s, under the tories, interest rates and home repossessions were lower than they were under Labour from 97 onwards?

 

Yes or no will do.

[bridge too far]

So you are saying, in the early 90s, under the tories, interest rates and home repossessions were lower than they were under Labour from 97 onwards?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

Spot on. I can remember the early 90s when some of my friends lost their houses when they lost their jobs. There weren't the safety nets in place that there are now.

 

I can also remember interest rates (and thereby mortgage rates) being in the order of 15% - hence the repossessions.

 

And there were swingeing cuts in the NHS leading to waiting lists sometimes years long - not like the few weeks now.

 

Heaven only help 'working people' if that were to happen again. The super-rich (Eton Mess's buddies) would be alright because they always are.

 

I don't like the phrase 'working people' because most of us 'work'. Equally I don't like the term 'ordinary people'. It's people like you and me I'm talking about.

[Gingeletiss]

So you are saying, in the early 90s, under the tories, interest rates and home repossessions were lower than they were under Labour from 97 onwards?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

 

It's not a yes or no question, I've have stated, that during my working life, I have been better off under the Tory's. If you feel that higher crime rates, the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, high immigration, high employment, high taxes, stealth taxes, a high level of yoof not able to read or write, child poverty on the increase, prisoners let out early to re-offend, due to lack of investment. But hey, you carry on and vote Labour again, give them more time to bankrupt this country, give what little control our government have left, over to socialist Europe...Gorden Brown, pride of the UK, the man who gave our gold away.

[MorningtonCrescent]

Spot on. I can remember the early 90s when some of my friends lost their houses when they lost their jobs. There weren't the safety nets in place that there are now.

 

I can also remember interest rates (and thereby mortgage rates) being in the order of 15% - hence the repossessions.

 

And there were swingeing cuts in the NHS leading to waiting lists sometimes years long - not like the few weeks now.

 

Heaven only help 'working people' if that were to happen again. The super-rich (Eton Mess's buddies) would be alright because they always are.

 

I don't like the phrase 'working people' because most of us 'work'. Equally I don't like the term 'ordinary people'. It's people like you and me I'm talking about.

 

People who cling to the old "under thatcher" and "in the 80's/90's" routine need to learn that things move on. The Labour Party "moved on" as "New Labour" and became acceptable again, after being un-electable for 18 years.

 

In the 80's/90's things were difficult for many. BUT, for those who had not "over-committed" financially it was manageable. A very similar situation to the one recently experienced. Banks lent to people they shouldn't have done. People taking mortgages that they would never afford to pay back if their personal situation changed or the financial outlook got more gloomy...... It's happened under govts of all persuasions, so people need to recognise that fact.

 

The thing that sticks in my throat is New Labour's claim to be able to avoid the "boom and bust" cycle and that they had managed the UK Economy so well that we wouldn't experience a "bust" again - quickly followed by a denial that we were heading into a recession (bust) and then the bold statements that the UK would suffer less than other nations and that we would recover more quickly "due to the strength of the UK Economy as a result of Gordon's prudent policies"....... All of which have been proven to be WRONG!

 

Unfortunately, all politicians (of all persuasions) have a tendency to look after their "own interests" first and foremost. People in power take the trappings and benefits of being in power. Even the most hardened Socialists have done so for generations, despite their "calling" to serve others. It seems to be in the human psyche that once in power people become "greedy". Look at the expenses scandal and you see exactly that. "Them is the rules, so why should we be penalised" is not an excuse to spend inordinate amounts of tax-payers money. This, again, applies to ALL PARTIES. The Labour party had more than the others put together, but then they have more MPs. The fact is, they were all caught with their noses in the trough, no matter what "colour" Red, Blue, Orange (?!) etc.....

 

But, we still have a duty to elect someone to represent us in Parliament and this naturally boils down to a small number of variables:

 

1) Who you (or your parents) have historically voted for

2) Which "creed" you tend to follow (capitalist, socialist, communist etc)

3) Who offers you, personally, the best looking deal for your pocket

 

So, people need to recognise that what "parties" did in the past may not actually be what they might do in the future.

 

Characters who were likes/disliked in the past, should not cloud judgement of who people should vote for now.

 

It is a difficult choice, and that is why there is a period of "electioneering" for those seeking to represent you put their case. Many people should open their minds to the options available and vote for the person they truly believe they can trust to represent them in London the best.

 

The UK needs a new generation of politician who is accessible, democratic and trustworthy. Party politics will always "spoil" the choices somewhat and Proportional Representation or Hung Parliaments are not the answer. Unfortunately, we don't have a system that allows for truly representational government. So, we have to make do with the system as it stands for now.

[View From The Top]

It's not a yes or no question, I've have stated, that during my working life, I have been better off under the Tory's. If you feel that higher crime rates, the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, high immigration, high employment, high taxes, stealth taxes, a high level of yoof not able to read or write, child poverty on the increase, prisoners let out early to re-offend, due to lack of investment. But hey, you carry on and vote Labour again, give them more time to bankrupt this country, give what little control our government have left, over to socialist Europe...Gorden Brown, pride of the UK, the man who gave our gold away.

 

 

Yes or no.

 

Have interest rates and home repossessions been lower between 1997 - 2010 then between 1979 - 1997?

 

It's not a hard question.

[bridge too far]

........

 

1) Who you (or your parents) have historically voted for

2) Which "creed" you tend to follow (capitalist, socialist, communist etc)

3) Who offers you, personally, the best looking deal for your pocket

 

 

I don't agree with your preamble but I absolutely agree with the above. And I vote according to 2.

 

I blush to recall that, as a child, I leafleted for an aunt who was a Conservative councillor on Southampton City Council.

 

Then I grew up and developed a conscience

[benjii]

I don't agree with your preamble but I absolutely agree with the above. And I vote according to 2.

 

I blush to recall that, as a child, I leafleted for an aunt who was a Conservative councillor on Southampton City Council.

 

Then I grew up and developed a conscience

 

Yes, woe betide fostering a culture that supports achievement and ambition rather than stealing from the succesful to support the weak.

[bridge too far]

Yes, woe betide fostering a culture that supports achievement and ambition rather than stealing from the succesful to support the weak.

 

Rather a culture that supports the weak to realise ambition and achievement.

 

Therein lies the rub.

[Gingeletiss]

Rather a culture that supports the weak to realise ambition and achievement.

 

Therein lies the rub.

 

BTF, it is clear where your loyalties lie, lets agree to disagree. You carry on believing that it's all right for those who work, pay their taxes etc, to be penalised by a Labour government, hell bent on re-creating a class system. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine. I know who is better for this country, the ones who end up paying all the loans back that your party of choice take out, to give you that gravy train you so love. Why, they're even after selling Dover harbour etc, to fund their shortfalls!

[bridge too far]

BTF, it is clear where your loyalties lie, lets agree to disagree. You carry on believing that it's all right for those who work, pay their taxes etc, to be penalised by a Labour government, hell bent on re-creating a class system. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine. I know who is better for this country, the ones who end up paying all the loans back that your party of choice take out, to give you that gravy train you so love. Why, they're even after selling Dover harbour etc, to fund their shortfalls!

 

I don't consider it a penalty, more of an obligation I'm happy to fulfil.

 

In the same way as I pay car insurance even though I've never had to 'benefit' from it. In the same way as I'll happily pay for the Fire Brigade even though I've never ever had to call them out.

 

Offering people the opportunity to fulfil their ambitions is hardly class-based. It's encouraging people to cross perceived boundaries.

 

And as for sell-offs. I didn't realise we had that much 'family silver' left to sell after the Thatcher era. British Gas, British Telecom, school playing fields anyone?

[View From The Top]

Yes or no.

 

Have interest rates and home repossessions been lower between 1997 - 2010 then between 1979 - 1997?

 

It's not a hard question.

 

Come on Ginge, answer the question or are you going to ignore it because you don't like the answer?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

And as for sell-offs. I didn't realise we had that much 'family silver' left to sell after the Thatcher era. British Gas, British Telecom, school playing fields anyone?

 

Labour have continued to sell off Playing fields and you seriously can't believe we should own BT and British Gas? Can you remember how long it used to take to get a phone installed?

[stevegrant]

Proportional Representation or Hung Parliaments are not the answer. Unfortunately, we don't have a system that allows for truly representational government.

Agree with most of what you put above this bit, but am intrigued as to what system *would* allow for truly representational government. I don't have an answer myself, btw.

[bridge too far]

Labour have continued to sell off Playing fields and you seriously can't believe we should own BT and British Gas? Can you remember how long it used to take to get a phone installed?

 

Given this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263511/Gas-fat-cat-pockets-28m-year-pensioners-struggle-pay-bills.html

 

I rather think we'd be better off if 'we' did still own it!

 

(shock horror this was in the Mail!)

[Lord Duckhunter]

Given this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263511/Gas-fat-cat-pockets-28m-year-pensioners-struggle-pay-bills.html

 

I rather think we'd be better off if 'we' did still own it!

 

(shock horror this was in the Mail!)

 

Well Labour have had 13 years to renationalise, but haven't.

[bridge too far]

Well Labour have had 13 years to renationalise, but haven't.

 

Weak riposte if I might say so

[benjii]

Given this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263511/Gas-fat-cat-pockets-28m-year-pensioners-struggle-pay-bills.html

 

I rather think we'd be better off if 'we' did still own it!

 

(shock horror this was in the Mail!)

 

Why?

 

The public sector can't run a **** up in a brewery.

 

This is the sad jealousy of the Labour supporters. Someone earnt loads of money therefore it must be bad and some of it should have gone to some little oik somewhere. It is a complete drop in the ocean of the amount of money wasted on stupid and poorly executed plans by the public sector year on year.

[bridge too far]

Why?

 

The public sector can't run a **** up in a brewery.

 

This is the sad jealousy of the Labour supporters. Someone earnt loads of money therefore it must be bad and some of it should have gone to some little oik somewhere. It is a complete drop in the ocean of the amount of money wasted on stupid and poorly executed plans by the public sector year on year.

 

That's the argument used in support of the bankers, isn't it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Weak riposte if I might say so

 

You seem to want to hark back to the 70's, where we owned airlines and car companies, where the working man paid 33% income tax. The argument over state ownership is over, the Tory's won that one. Labour abandoned clause 4 and no serious party would ever go into an election with a policy of renationalisation.

[benjii]

That's the argument used in support of the bankers, isn't it?

 

I've no idea. Most "bankers" don't need supporting.

 

I presume you have a counter-argument then or would you just prefer to say something glib about Thatcher or some other by-gone age?

[bridge too far]

You seem to want to hark back to the 70's, where we owned airlines and car companies, where the working man paid 33% income tax. The argument over state ownership is over, the Tory's won that one. Labour abandoned clause 4 and no serious party would ever go into an election with a policy of renationalisation.

 

Although, ironically, the majority of rail travellers wish the railways were renationalised and the virtual renationalisation of the banks has proved to be a wise move that saved our collective bacon.

[bridge too far]

I've no idea. Most "bankers" don't need supporting.

 

I presume you have a counter-argument then or would you just prefer to say something glib about Thatcher or some other by-gone age?

 

I've been a Labour supporter since way before Thatcher, and I therefore have the advantage of remembering what life was like before, during and after her reign.

 

This recollection reinforces my long-held political views.

[View From The Top]

Why?

 

The public sector can't run a **** up in a brewery.

This is the sad jealousy of the Labour supporters. Someone earnt loads of money therefore it must be bad and some of it should have gone to some little oik somewhere. It is a complete drop in the ocean of the amount of money wasted on stupid and poorly executed plans by the public sector year on year.

 

Pathetic.

[View From The Top]

You seem to want to hark back to the 70's, where we owned airlines and car companies, where the working man paid 33% income tax. The argument over state ownership is over, the Tory's won that one. Labour abandoned clause 4 and no serious party would ever go into an election with a policy of renationalisation.

 

Railtrack was effectively renationalised IIRC but it could be argued that the railways were a nationalisation too far anyway.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've been a Labour supporter since way before Thatcher, and I therefore have the advantage of remembering what life was like before, during and after her reign.

 

This recollection reinforces my long-held political views.

 

I can also remember before her reign. Income tax at a basic rate of 33%, Healy getting the IMF to bail us out and sandwiches and beer for the unions at number 10.

 

The Labour party pre Mrs Thatcher was a completely different party than the one Gordon Brown runs.Widely held principles have been abandoned in a grab for power.

 

If your beliefs have stayed the same since pre Thatcher , then I presume you'll be voting against Labour, the party of Id Cards, The Iraq War, cash for Honours and Lord Mandleson?

[bridge too far]

I can also remember before her reign. Income tax at a basic rate of 33%, Healy getting the IMF to bail us out and sandwiches and beer for the unions at number 10.

 

The Labour party pre Mrs Thatcher was a completely different party than the one Gordon Brown runs.Widely held principles have been abandoned in a grab for power.

 

If your beliefs have stayed the same since pre Thatcher , then I presume you'll be voting against Labour, the party of Id Cards, The Iraq War, cash for Honours and Lord Mandleson?

 

Then you presume wrong.

 

I'll be voting Labour because it's the closest to my long-held beliefs than any other party that stands a chance of government.

 

As I wrote earlier, I resigned after decades of active membership over Iraq. I also don't hold with ID cards. Cash for honours? I don't think ANY of the mainstream parties can claim innocence over that. Mandelson? I don't have to like or dislike a particular MP or Minister but I do recognise his ability (he's done a lot to our advantage in Europe) and his family history.

 

As I've intimated - it's a pragmatic vote on my part. Anything has got to be better than the Eton Mess.

[Johnny Bognor]

So you are saying, in the early 90s, under the tories, interest rates and home repossessions were lower than they were under Labour from 97 onwards?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

They were only low from 1997 onwards because of the golden economic legacy handed over to Clown and Co. As it happens, Clown copied Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, so up until 1999 (and thrown in a couple of years to allow for lag) / 2001, things were relatively good......because of the tories.

 

 

I can also remember interest rates (and thereby mortgage rates) being in the order of 15% - hence the repossessions.

 

Why do the lefties only highlight the interest rates in the last Tory administation, when they were even higher in the previous economic mess created by the Unions and Socialist Labour in the late 70's.

 

You could argue that the reason why interest rates were low and stable during the 2000's was because of the rejection of socialism by the Labour party. Well that's what the lefties on here have been saying for a while.

 

 

Yes or no.

 

Have interest rates and home repossessions been lower between 1997 - 2010 then between 1979 - 1997?

 

It's not a hard question.

 

Comrade, again, what happened pre-1979???????

Edited 9 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Lord Duckhunter]

Then you presume wrong.

 

I'll be voting Labour because it's the closest to my long-held beliefs than any other party that stands a chance of government.

 

As I wrote earlier, I resigned after decades of active membership over Iraq. I also don't hold with ID cards. Cash for honours? I don't think ANY of the mainstream parties can claim innocence over that. Mandelson? I don't have to like or dislike a particular MP or Minister but I do recognise his ability (he's done a lot to our advantage in Europe) and his family history.

 

As I've intimated - it's a pragmatic vote on my part. Anything has got to be better than the Eton Mess.

 

"he's done a lot to our advantage in Europe"

 

Is that the same Europe that the Labour party wanted to withdraw from, although when that "belief" was rejected by the British people, they swiftly did an about turn.

 

As for the "Eton Mess", this is what gets me about the Party of Ed Balls, Harriot Harmen, Peter Hain, Alistar Darling and Tony Blair, all of who went to fee paying schools. The party of Dianne Abbot that great leftie who sent her son to a fee paying school. They have sly little digs, and play the class warriors, but it's just another example of Labour's hypocrisy .

[View From The Top]

They were only low from 1997 onwards because of the golden economic legacy handed over to Clown and Co. As it happens, Clown copied Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, so up until 1999 (and thrown in a couple of years to allow for lag) / 2001, things were relatively good......because of the tories.

 

 

 

 

Why do the lefties only highlight the interest rates in the last Tory administation, when they were even higher in the previous economic mess created by the Unions and Socialist Labour in the late 70's.

 

You could argue that the reason why interest rates were low and stable during the 2000's was because of the rejection of socialism by the Labour party. Well that's what the lefties on here have been saying for a while.

 

 

 

 

Comrade, again, what happened pre-1979???????

 

Comrade Bogner, if you look at the question I pose to our ginger friend it was a direct challenge to his statement about high interest rates and home repossessions since 1997.

 

Now we both know that during the Major years both interest rates and home repossessions went through the roof and for our ginger friend to suggest similar post 97 is wrong and plain daft.

 

Just accept the fact that up to the banking crisis (which I believe we agree upon) that interest rates and inflation were under control by a Labour government. The continual denial of the fact makes you all look a tad daft.

 

As for pre '79 I really can't comment as I was only a nipper but I accept that it was generally cr@p and the unions were way to powerful.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Just accept the fact that up to the banking crisis (which I believe we agree upon) that interest rates and inflation were under control by a Labour government. The continual denial of the fact makes you all look a tad daft.

 

As for pre '79 I really can't comment as I was only a nipper but I accept that it was generally cr@p and the unions were way to powerful.

 

Interest rates are set by an independent BoE, not the Labour Govt.

 

In fact this was the only decent thing Brown did as CoE. It was a move considered by Maggie Thatcher, but rejected as too right wing.

 

It's funny how according to Labour, every Labour recession is a global one, whereas the 80's and 90's were Tory one's, and that after giving the BoE independence to set interest rates, they have kept them down .When interest rates go up, as they will need to in the next Parliament, they'll blame the Tory's if they're in power or if by some miracle Labour are still in, they'll say that the BoE sets them and not Govt.

 

Which ever way you look at it, this Labour Govt has put tax up and run out of money. Same as every Labour Govt always does.

[Johnny Bognor]

Comrade Bogner, if you look at the question I pose to our ginger friend it was a direct challenge to his statement about high interest rates and home repossessions since 1997.

 

Now we both know that during the Major years both interest rates and home repossessions went through the roof and for our ginger friend to suggest similar post 97 is wrong and plain daft.

 

Just accept the fact that up to the banking crisis (which I believe we agree upon) that interest rates and inflation were under control by a Labour government. The continual denial of the fact makes you all look a tad daft.

 

As for pre '79 I really can't comment as I was only a nipper but I accept that it was generally cr@p and the unions were way to powerful.

 

 

Comrade VFTT,

 

Low and steady interest rates started under Ken Clarke in March 1993. Here are the quarterly average interest rates since then.....

 

 

31-Mar-93 = 6.13

30-Jun-93 = 5.88

30-Sep-93 = 5.88

31-Dec-93 = 5.66

31-Mar-94 = 5.22

30-Jun-94 = 5.13

30-Sep-94 = 5.24

31-Dec-94 = 5.75

31-Mar-95 = 6.45

30-Jun-95 = 6.63

30-Sep-95 = 6.63

31-Dec-95 = 6.58

31-Mar-96 = 6.13

30-Jun-96 = 5.87

30-Sep-96 = 5.69

31-Dec-96 = 5.86

31-Mar-97 = 5.94

30-Jun-97 = 6.2

30-Sep-97 = 6.87

31-Dec-97 = 7.15

31-Mar-98 = 7.25

30-Jun-98 = 7.33

30-Sep-98 = 7.5

31-Dec-98 = 6.86

31-Mar-99 = 5.69

30-Jun-99 = 5.2

30-Sep-99 = 5.07

31-Dec-99 = 5.4

31-Mar-00 = 5.87

30-Jun-00 = 6

30-Sep-00 = 6

31-Dec-00 = 6

31-Mar-01 = 5.86

30-Jun-01 = 5.36

30-Sep-01 = 5.05

31-Dec-01 = 4.23

31-Mar-02 = 4

30-Jun-02 = 4

30-Sep-02 = 4

31-Dec-02 = 4

31-Mar-03 = 3.85

30-Jun-03 = 3.75

30-Sep-03 = 3.53

31-Dec-03 = 3.65

31-Mar-04 = 3.91

30-Jun-04 = 4.22

30-Sep-04 = 4.65

31-Dec-04 = 4.75

31-Mar-05 = 4.75

30-Jun-05 = 4.75

30-Sep-05 = 4.59

31-Dec-05 = 4.5

31-Mar-06 = 4.5

30-Jun-06 = 4.5

30-Sep-06 = 4.66

31-Dec-06 = 4.89

31-Mar-07 = 5.22

30-Jun-07 = 5.4

30-Sep-07 = 5.74

31-Dec-07 = 5.69

31-Mar-08 = 5.35

30-Jun-08 = 5.03

30-Sep-08 = 5

31-Dec-08 = 3.37

31-Mar-09 = 1.07

 

You don't need to be a statistician to see that the trend for low and steady interest rates started under the tories. Coupled with the fact that the BOE took over control of interest rates means that Labour never got the chance to **** them up again.

 

.... and to settle your curiousity, here are average quarterly interest rates prior to Thatcher coming to power.

 

31-Mar-75 = 10.26

30-Jun-75 = 9.96

30-Sep-75 = 10.71

31-Dec-75 = 11.74

31-Mar-76 = 9.82

30-Jun-76 = 10.57

30-Sep-76 = 11.82

31-Dec-76 = 14.72

31-Mar-77 = 12.23

30-Jun-77 = 8.39

30-Sep-77 = 7.25

31-Dec-77 = 5.85

31-Mar-78 = 6.53

30-Jun-78 = 8.57

30-Sep-78 = 10

31-Dec-78 = 11.39

31-Mar-79 = 13.02

30-Jun-79 = 12.48

 

First of all, it is funny how the lefties conveniently forget the decade of high interest rates previous to Thatcher, as if high rates were all her fault. As it happens, interest rates didn't get much worse under Thatcher than they were under previous labour governments.

 

However, under Ken Clarke interest rates started off on a steady low run (with his economic policies running until 1999). So we have the tories to thank for finally bringing interest rates under control after decades of unrest.

 

So comrade, keep reading socialist worker, it's a good read, but sadly lacking in facts - they're great on philosophy though, but lacking in reality so alas this means that I would make a crap communist.

Edited 9 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[benjii]

Pathetic.

 

Your comment certainly is.

 

Explain the logic then:

 

Chief Exec made loads of money > we should renationalise the gas industry.

 

I can't see the jump myself.