MG-Rover.org Forums banner

Would you vote for a party that 'said' it would save MGR?

  • Yes, MGR is the top of my agenda

    Votes: 40 37.4%
  • No, although I love MGR, the country comes first

    Votes: 19 17.8%
  • Not sure, depends what party says it would

    Votes: 16 15.0%
  • Politicians lie through there teeth so it wouldnt matter anyway!

    Votes: 32 29.9%
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If a party said they would save MG Rover, would it get your vote?
It would certainly get mine, unless Tory!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
mattie007 said:
If a party said they would save MG Rover, would it get your vote?
It would certainly get mine, unless Tory!
Well, that's just silly. The Lib Dems aren't gonna get into power, and as far as I know haven't taken an interest in MGR.

That leaves Labour vs. Tories and they have been quiet on the matter too. The annoying thing is many people have no confidence in this current Labour government yet are at a loss as to who could do the job less badly.

Keeping in mind that apparently it was a Labour MP who was blabbing to the press that has caused this recent load of press mis-information and has seriously hampered the efforts of MGR. Well done to that man, giving SAIC great bargaining power over both MGR and the government with the upcoming elections :doh: ...... if something isn't quite done and needs a helping hand trust government to wade in and get it completely wrong.

Forget the 100m loan, if there was real support there should be fleets of MGR's owned by government and the police.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
True, but as labour look as though they could give the 100m loan then that would boost my faith in them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
If a party said they would save MG Rover, would it get your vote?
It would certainly get mine, unless Tory!
I work in the aircraft industry. I would vote for a party that:-

  • Subsidised air travel.
  • Funded aircraft manufacture.
  • Built new airports and runways.
I am sure that all of you readers would have similar but different priorities. Why should the goverment step in to save one car company? If Rover fails it is the fault of Rover and no one else. Other car manufacturers within the UK manage to survive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
The Tories have also stated they would offer the same loan as its vital, and have also said on the record that 'no stone must be left unturned' to secure the future of MG-R. Thats a bit more than Labour have said.

No, hang on, actually Labour have talked a lot more about MG-R, only its in the form of off-the-record, made-up lies about the financial situation, leaked to the press in private briefings in a hope they can look like the architects of the deal and the firms saviours... Yeah, they'll get my vote...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
Copperleaf Fred said:
  • Subsidised air travel.
  • Funded aircraft manufacture.
  • Built new airports and runways.
I would vote for a party that aims to puts the publics health and global warming before big business. Unfortunately it doesnt exist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Im afraid i'm totally against air travel. It should be made very expensive as its one of the worlds biggest polluters. Then, only trips that NEED to be made will be made instead of getting everyone abroad for £2.50.I think the government should step in, afterall Im sure France and Germany would do the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,131 Posts
It should be made very expensive as its one of the worlds biggest polluters.

Bunk... it is quite often no more polluting than taking a car. Flying to Birmingham on a plane will ensure that 23 litres of kerosene is consumed in my name. Travelling by car would require at least three times that amount.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
JohnSwitzer said:
It should be made very expensive as its one of the worlds biggest polluters.

Bunk... it is quite often no more polluting than taking a car. Flying to Birmingham on a plane will ensure that 23 litres of kerosene is consumed in my name. Travelling by car would require at least three times that amount.

John
Slight difference being that the petrol once burnt in the engine would then have to pass through a catalytic converter to be cleaned and then sent back out into the atmosphere. Jet engines just dump kerosene into the middle of the jet engine and ignite it and it all comes flooding out of the back. Hardly environmentally minded.

Better still, if it was diesel car or lpg car, the emissions would be lower still.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,786 Posts
I seriously dont know who to vote for I agree with almost everything that the lib dems are saying in particular the local income tax. However do not agree with them wanting to scrap tuition fees.
No one party is offering me what I want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Copperleaf Fred said:
I work in the aircraft industry. I would vote for a party that:-

  • Subsidised air travel.
  • Funded aircraft manufacture.
  • Built new airports and runways.
Well, let's see now:

Subsidised air travel - it already is heavily subsidised via the fuel tax allowance.
Some Atlantic routes are still protected from competition.

Funded aircraft manufacturer - already heavily subsidised via huge up-front Government 'Research & Development' funding for Airbus which of course is 20% owned by BAE.

Build new airports and runways - erm, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead etc.

Only the Lib Dems are opposed to the above - so that still leaves you with the choice of Labour or Conservatives.

Incidentally, if you work for Hamble, you fall into one of the above categories.
:bigeyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
One question for the staunch labour supporters out there:

What has labour done that the vast majority would see as good for their community or the country as a whole??

I've been scratching my head on that one for ages and am at a loss as how to answer it. I'm admittedly not a fan of Blair, or my local labour councils antics, nor of the labour backed and managed (through Ken and his croanies) London assembly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Well, let's see now:

Subsidised air travel - it already is heavily subsidised via the fuel tax allowance.
Some Atlantic routes are still protected from competition.

Funded aircraft manufacturer - already heavily subsidised via huge up-front Government 'Research & Development' funding for Airbus which of course is 20% owned by BAE.

Build new airports and runways - erm, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead etc.

Only the Lib Dems are opposed to the above - so that still leaves you with the choice of Labour or Conservatives.

Incidentally, if you work for Hamble, you fall into one of the above categories.
I was being ironic, demonstrating that every individual has an agenda that they would like the goverment of the day to follow. I didn't mean it as serious suggestion....apart from the subsidies, new industry and new airports that is.
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Vincero said:
One question for the staunch labour supporters out there:

What has labour done that the vast majority would see as good for their community or the country as a whole??

I've been scratching my head on that one for ages and am at a loss as how to answer it. I'm admittedly not a fan of Blair, or my local labour councils antics, nor of the labour backed and managed (through Ken and his croanies) London assembly.
If the tories get in power they will cut public service jobs, this means at whitehall,the townhalls councils and dlo`s,this means unemployment up, and house repossesions, this means house price collapse, (is any of this sounding familiar yet, vincero?) lack of confidence in the economy then follows as overseas investors see rising unemployment,and a lack of investment in public sevices from the government as an indicator of a down turn in the economy(its all happened before vince) they decide to invest elswhere this causes the pound to fall and so interest rates have to rise to prevent the price of imports becoming too,expensive things such as oil are traded in dollars so if the pound falls petrol prices rise at the pumps.We would be looking at an economic nightmare just to save a few billionaires a few quid in tax who can afford to do with out. Actually I should point out I voted for maggie 3 times before I realised how the economy really works, I got made redundant five times under her governments due to boom bust policies.


IVAN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
I can't help but see that public spending has gone up and nothing has been gained from it. If anything councils seem to have more money than ever sitting around burning a hole in their pockets to spend on silly things.

But that didn't actually answer the question - that is more of a 'don't vote for them because....'

Hospitals have gone down, tuition fees for example were still introduced despite them saying they were against it and now there is top-up fees, immigration is a joke, they never give a straight answer and stick to it ('I don't do U-turn's'..... don't speak the truth either), and to top it off are wasting loads of money on a identity card system that will do little in terms of security (which is the main point they are pitching to people).

So, what is actually a positive???

PS. Anybody who says community support officers needs a slap
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
So your logic is this ...you dont deny what the economic outcome would be for voting tory but....you would rather see people losing there homes and economic degeneration such as that in the eighties....than vote labour and have a stable economy with which to try to improve services ,How old are you vincero? cant you remember the tory slogan for the 79 election a huge dole que 1.5million,and the words labour isnt working ,well by 1982 4.5 million werent working, thats a lot of dole money to find when you have seen the number of people paying tax fall by 16%,(approx) and those who are working paying less because you said you were going to cut taxes,cutting services is easy its called `nothing gets done because there is no money in the pot` but building something that works takes time talent and commitment.

IVAN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
I wouldn't vote for someone purely because of their attitude to MG-R (unless I worked there I suppose)...


However, I would never vote for the current lot in charge of Labour and would urge anyone else to avoid them too. You can debate the rights and wrongs of the NHS, spending plans, immigration, blah blah....

Britain is the oldest, true seat of democracy. We do not invade other countires in the modern age. I find it very hard to accept that the current Prime Minister has led this country to war under false pretences. Whether there were deliberate lies told (and I believe there were) or not, once upon a time if a Government had even accidentally mislead the people in such a way they would be called on to resign. The fact that they are still there having caused the deaths of several thousand people sickens me.

Saddam was not a nice man, but the UN is there to deal with his sort.
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Actually it was maggie who said she didnt do `u`turns `the ladies not for turning`was the comment, you ask for positives well it took the tories 17yrs to damage our coutry I am `positive` it will take longer to rebuild it (counting from 97) Iam positive maggie had some good points the unions needed dealing with but she promised us an economy like the yanks but wouldnt deliver,they have private health care over there,the tory idea was to pay for your own private health care but they still kept the taxes you pay into it??As for telling the truth what about the `belgrano`steaming out of the exclusion zone,what about the poll tax,what a fiasco that was,and talking about throwing money away what about norman lamont and john major throwing billions away shoring up the pound, how many hospitals would ten billion have bought at those days prices? I am positive I dont want any of that back.

IVAN
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Podders how can it be right to go towar with the serbs over kosovo when they had no weapons of mass destruction, because they were killing albanian kosovans but its wrong to go to war with saddam even though he is \was known to have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

IVAN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
IVAN, I'm not denying the past, but at the end of the day, its a different Labour, Tory, and Lib Dem party. Labour is nothing like the Labour that unsuccessfully campaigned through the 80's and mid-90's. The tories are nothing like the party they were during Thatcher's era. Actually I'd have to say that John Major's tory government didn't do too bad a job by the time they had finished. And the Lib Dem's change to suit the mood of the people of each time - they are real voter hunters - god forbid them getting into power.

It's just that, when someone says they are going to cut the money spent in some areas, some of the ones the tories have outlined (not all of them mind you) do kinda seem fair enough.

As for judging a party on a war, bad idea. Wars are never a good sign of anything, no matter how misguided (ok, maybe if completely misguided than yeah, government should pay for stupidity and labour and Iraq is about as close as you can get away with). Whoever is in power, some decisions are made purely for the right and wrong reasons.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top