[Archived] Election

[thenodrog]

There is an argument, which I find interesting, along the lines that the economic crisis has given the tories the chance to do something they have wanted to do for decades-demolish the welfare state.

On this basis, they won't limit themselves to doing the minimum to solve the problem, rather they will do the maximum possible to try and gain favour with certain elements within the tory party.

What a silly post. There is an argument which I find interesting that the earth is flat.

92er why hide behind stupid 3rd party rhetoric like that? Why not just come out with it and say that you hate the coalition with a vengeance cos everything is their fault and that includes that nice Gordy getting booted out of No10 when he was doing such a great job? Oh and I'll bet your Dad hates em too.

[berkshireblue]

There is an argument, which I find interesting, along the lines that the economic crisis has given the tories the chance to do something they have wanted to do for decades-demolish the welfare state.

On this basis, they won't limit themselves to doing the minimum to solve the problem, rather they will do the maximum possible to try and gain favour with certain elements within the tory party.

Deluded! Stuck in archaic 1970 political stereotype views

[92er]

What a silly post. There is an argument which I find interesting that the earth is flat.

92er why hide behind stupid 3rd party rhetoric like that? Why not just come out with it and say that you hate the coalition with a vengeance cos everything is their fault and that includes that nice Gordy getting booted out of No10 when he was doing such a great job? Oh and I'll bet your Dad hates em too.

Thanks for your comment.

I find it a very interesting argument-although your comment regarding the earth being flat is about 500 years out of date.

The concept of the coalition is also fascinating.

In many countries, having 2 parties working together means that the excesses of either party are avoided.

This is not happeneing here. I'm not sure if it's because the lib dems have been seduced by the reality of grabbing some power but for whatever reason the tories are being far more extreme than would have been expected with their share of the vote.

Your rather glib comments take no account of the economic argument that the coalition are cutting too much and not giving enough consideration to growth-with the potential to follow Ireland's disastrous path.

Brown's performance in No 10 show why Blair prevented him getting the job earlier.

And if you feel it appropriate to make comments about my father, you're probably totally misjudging my age.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Deluded! Stuck in archaic 1970 political stereotype views

That makes two deluded time travellers then.I'm with 92er on this one.

[Biddy]

Posh gits? Rather a loose generalistion there Biddy. Instead of 'posh gits' I think it would be more accurate to describe them as the kids who actually listened and acted on their teachers advice when the teachers said 'stop messing about, roll up your sleeves, get your head down, do your homework on time, pass your exams and you'll get a good well paid job'

After consideration you might now prefer to call them 'swots' but I think 'grafters' is far more accurate.

As I say on the last page, I meant the Tory government when I say "posh gits".

[jim mk2]

There is an argument, which I find interesting, along the lines that the economic crisis has given the tories the chance to do something they have wanted to do for decades-demolish the welfare state.

Precisely. The cuts are not being driven by necessity but by an idelogical desire to reduce the role of the state. Osborne and Cameron have been planning this for years if not decades, probably from their time as hooray henries in the Bullingdon club at Oxford. Fifty years ago, Tory ideological hatred of nationalised industries led to the destruction of vast swathes of the railway system with the Beeching cuts, 20 years later Thatcher's ideological and pathological hatred of trade unions led to the decimation of Britain's manufacturing capacity, and now here we are again, with another Tory government wreaking havoc on our once-great country with the wholesale slashing and burning of vital public services. Britain will be a colder, more cruel country as a result of these cuts, with the poor suffering the most, but then it has always been so with Tory governments. Cameron said on the eve of the genral election that: "There'll be no cuts to frontline services, we're not talking about swingeing cuts and all cuts will be fair". This spending review has exposed the prime minister and his chancellor as unashamed ideologues - and barefaced liars.

[RibbleValleyRover]

I don't buy into this ideological spiel that Labour and their supporters keep bringing up when it comes to the driving force behind these cuts. Do you honestly think if our finances were in order and the economy was booming that the Conservatives would be making cuts on this scale? Sure they overall believe that the state should be smaller and believe in lower taxation in order to stimulate economic growth but there is no way that they would make cuts on this scale is everything was rosy. The public would not accept it if the economy was fine.

I would also argue that historically pretty much every single time a Conservative government has come into power after a Labour administration the state of the finances have been in a complete mess. The Conservatives balance the books ready for the public mood to change and vote in Labour and so the cycle repeats. Ken Clarke left the books in a very, very good state in 1997 which laid the foundations for a period of strong economic growth. A strong economy that Brown squandered by using the proceeds of growth to borrow more but never thought about what would happen if the economy would contract. Brown said he abolished "Boom and Bust", well he must have been insane when he said that because that is what markets do, they boom and they bust its part of a cycle. What you can do however is prepare for the inevitable “rainy day” which allows you to react to economic downturns better and quicker, often reducing the amount of borrowing to try and stimulate growth. Germany’s books were in a far better state than ours and were able to come out of this recession quicker and stronger as evidenced by their strong growth.

The situation here is we have to get the books in order as soon as possible; countries across the world have shifted from a Keynesian spending spree approach to a period of austerity. The US is an exception but look how that is working for them, the US Economy is looking shaky and experts and the public are calling for there to be a radical policy change back to lower taxation and less spending to stimulate economic growth. Obama’s party is going to get hit very hard in the midterms coming up.

[thenodrog]

.... and now here we are again, with another Tory government wreaking havoc on our once-great country with the wholesale slashing and burning of vital public services....

Once great country??? When was that then? Apart from 39-45 when Churchill defied all the odds the only time that our country was great was way before Kier Hardy strode into the Palace of Westminster in his ekky thump cap with all guns blazing.

[LeChuck]

The bottom line is this.

The Tories come to power and give themselves a 5 year term. They decide to sort out the debt in 4 years. They realise that to win the next general election, that they must win back the middle classes, or middle England [as do all parties to be fair]. So they hit the poor quickly and hard, while leaving the middle classes [or middle earners] and the rich, relatively free from any kind of real hardship.

They have done this, not with the sole intention of reducing the debt, but in a claculated way that enhances their chances of re-election in 5 years time. They didn't have to hit the poorest people in society so hard, they could have used the tax system along with cuts, to spread the pain much more fairly.

They know exactly what they're doing and why.

All in my opinion, of course.

Also, part of the problem is that the middle classes have far more cards to play with if they're unhappy. The lower classes are an easy target.

Some were threatening to leave the country when they found out we'd all stop paying for their sprogs. Pathetic.

[thenodrog]

Also, part of the problem is that the middle classes have far more cards to play with if they're unhappy. The lower classes are an easy target.Some were threatening to leave the country when they found out we'd all stop paying for their sprogs. Pathetic.

Moot point but Den mentioned the poor he did not refer to them as the lower classes. There is a significant difference even if there is not a clear definition. Anybody can be poor, but only the lower classes can be lower classes.

You say threatening to leave the country because benefits are drying up is pathetic right? So what word(s) do you use to describe the millions of people who came here precisely because they can have access to our benefit system?

[LeChuck]

Moot point but Den mentioned the poor he did not refer to them as the lower classes. There is a significant difference even if there is not a clear definition. Anybody can be poor, but only the lower classes can be lower classes.

Maybe bad terminology, but I think you know I just generally meant people below the 'middle classes' Den was referring to.

You say threatening to leave the country because benefits are drying up is pathetic right? So what word(s) do you use to describe the millions of people who came here precisely because they can have access to our benefit system?

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm not touching that discussion with you.

[thenodrog]

Maybe bad terminology, but I think you know I just generally meant people below the 'middle classes' Den was referring to.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm not touching that discussion with you.

No to both.

[modes98]

Deluded! Stuck in archaic 1970 political stereotype views

So why were the Tory benches cheering when all the cuts were read out? Surely if they were a necessary evil they wouldn't be pleased to be making these cuts. The truth is many of them are overjoyed that Gordon Brown gave the Tories the excuse they have been waiting for to remove funding from public services and cut the state down.

I don't buy into this ideological spiel that Labour and their supporters keep bringing up when it comes to the driving force behind these cuts. Do you honestly think if our finances were in order and the economy was booming that the Conservatives would be making cuts on this scale? Sure they overall believe that the state should be smaller and believe in lower taxation in order to stimulate economic growth but there is no way that they would make cuts on this scale is everything was rosy.

Germany’s books were in a far better state than ours and were able to come out of this recession quicker and stronger as evidenced by their strong growth.

The situation here is we have to get the books in order as soon as possible; countries across the world have shifted from a Keynesian spending spree approach to a period of austerity.

You may not buy it but it is true, the tory party is built on the principle of a free economy whereby everyone fights for themselves with no help, mainly because they come from wealthy backgrounds, not to say that Labour and Liberals don't by the way. The problem is you end up like america, where there is little or no protection for the workforce and poor areas become crime ridden and you can't enter them without fear. I honestly believe that the Tory party would make cuts regardless of the economy but they have a good excuse to be brutal. The country has a problem in that the private sector is almost entirely service sector and that doesn't allow for that much felxibility when trying to avoid financial fluctuations.

Germany has a large public sector, superb protection for employees and a high industrial sector. Just looking at the economic figures and they make interesting reading:

National Debt Estimated in 2009 Germany national debt was 77% of GDP, the UK's 68%. I presume ours is higher and Germanys has decreased since those figures but I don't think Angela Merkel slashed public spending to get Germany out of recession. Niether did they panic, mind you Germans never panic you have seen them at penalty shootouts. Flicking through the countries there are some really bad %'s of debt out there, Belgium for example.

Ideas always shift but yet Keynesian theory remains the common theory taught and practised, because it is the basis of a sound economy.

My main objection to all of this process is the cuts were meant to be fair and had they been that I would not have objected. However those who can least afford to contribute are being asked to make the largest real terms contribution. The fairest way would have been through increased taxation and the less severe cutting of public sector budgets. If it works then brilliant but I just can't see it working without the increased funding for private sector growth. I just think there are some very hard times and bad PR images coming up for the government.

[jim mk2]

So why were the Tory benches cheering when all the cuts were read out?

They cheered because they are nasty and evil. Only Tories would rejoice at the prospect of 500,000 people being thrown on the scrapheap in the name of ideology.

[FourLaneBlue]

Also why do public sector workers only have to work till 60 but the private sector workers have to work till 66. This is totally unfair imo and it's about time the public sector live in the real work and work till 66 years old.

This is a very valid point.

Ideally, everybody would be able to retire at 60. However, there is no way, shape or form that public sector workers should be retiring 6 years before private sector workers.

[FourLaneBlue]

Who cares? Anyway this blokes probably worth more than any of them.... 'I am a socialist […because] it stands for equality'.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/celebrity/article.html?in_article_id=503845&in_page_id=181#ixzz12vej4HGU

Do you think he'll be 'pulling together' with anyone in these dark times?

Biggest joke of an article I have seen for a long time. Blair has socialist ideals, does he? Since bloody when exactly? Furthermore, I dislike the crappy, tired point the article tries to make. If you have money, you cannot agree with socialist principles or wish for society to be more equal. Why, exactly? Why do millionaires, or anyone for that matter, have to be selfish, free marketeers?

Regardless of that criticism of Teflon Tony, if he had stayed on and not stepped aside for Grodon Brown...would we have been in a better economic state come the May General Election?

[thenodrog]

Regardless of that criticism of Teflon Tony, if he had stayed on and not stepped aside for Grodon Brown...would we have been in a better economic state come the May General Election?

I doubt it. Blair would have shied away from unpopular measures. He desperately wanted everybody here and in the US to love him remember. His only chance would have been if he'd stayed on and stepped on Brown.... In fact 'stamped on' would have been even better.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Once great country??? When was that then? Apart from 39-45 when Churchill defied all the odds the only time that our country was great was way before Kier Hardy strode into the Palace of Westminster in his ekky thump cap with all guns blazing.

Mm,I wonder how we managed to pay the enormous cost for that one. Our export trade must have more or less ceased to exist and everybopdy and his dog who wasn't in the services was on war work. Did the economic sky fall in then ? Did we have to make massive cuts in public services ?

[92er]

So why were the Tory benches cheering when all the cuts were read out? Surely if they were a necessary evil they wouldn't be pleased to be making these cuts. The truth is many of them are overjoyed that Gordon Brown gave the Tories the excuse they have been waiting for to remove funding from public services and cut the state down.

Apparently they were cheering Osborne's "conjuring trick" of an average cut in departmental spending by 19% rather than the 20% implies in the Labour's deficit-reduction strategy. ( The Independent ).

[92er]

Apparently they were cheering Osborne's "conjuring trick" of an average cut in departmental spending by 19% rather than the 20% implies in the Labour's deficit-reduction strategy. ( The Independent ).

However, they will have the misfortunes to be remembered for cheering the cuts.

[den]

You're a good poster 92er.

[JAL]

One of the messages to come out of this coalition for the ordinary working man and woman under 50, is, to go out and enjoy yourselves NOW, as there wont be anything for you when you retire IF, you do manage to reach that age.

[Paul]

I've only seen the BBC news but wonder how people view the proposed pension increases? £7000 pa seems like a better starting point especially for couples who I guess will be treated as individuals?

On the other hand people with a full contribution record may feel less happy about those with a partial record being given the same pension? I'm not as I feel the state pension should be equal for all and provide a basis from which one can build.

Glad I contracted out years ago though.

[jim mk2]

The ConDem govt revealed today that the cost of winding down Regional Development Agencies including paying off staff, decommissioning buildings and completing current projects etc etc will be £1 BILLION. The RDAs are to be replaced over the next few years by Local Enterprise Partnerships, another body that will do the same job of promoting regional development. The govt have also admitted they do not know how much money they will save by closing or merging the various quangos (if they will save any money at all), but throwing away £1 billion to replace one organisation with another that will perform the same function is an extraordinary waste of money at a time of supposed national austerity. RDAs were widely regarded as a sucess in helping the regions and this seems to me to be a case of change for the sake of change, and at a phenomenal cost.

[Flopsy]

RDA's were not seen as a success by those who had to work with them Jim, over complicated, over cautious, fickle & wouldn't neccesserily invest in the infrastructure required but what was easy. Just like New Labour.