the senoir posts will be going to a bunch of old etonians and an old eatonian is a toff.

So you're prepared to be prejudiced against someone on the basis of their background and education ?

If it's OK to call public school educated people 'toffs', how would you feel if state school educated people started to become widely known as 'scum' – derogative terms are unacceptable no matter which social group the refer to.

Personally speaking I enjoyed a totally grant funded university education, my highest standard of living, and best employment opportunities under the (hated) Fatcher years – by contrast the subsequent labour governments have provided nothing but muddled (public opinion led) policies, the subsidy of inefficient industries and the squandering of national resources.

On the army my point was not underfunded but overextended. Its only a smidge away from yours. I think the Armed forces are massively overfunded in that we spend far too much on them – but I would reduce the scope of what I want them to do massively. No adventuring overseas and so on thus no need for an new aircraft carrier or two and of course no nukes.

There simply is not teh scope for cuts of the size Osbourne wants out of waste. Waste is there but A is hard to eliminate completely and indeed it can cost to do so and B) is simply not on the scale of the cuts wanted.

Good point stoner.

Hilldodger. You see I believe in public service and I have watched public servicess get damaged under tory governments and healed under labour ones since the 70s.

The improvement in the NHS under labour is huge and obvious and contrast greatly with the damage under tory ones. Nurse are better off under labour. Its only in the last couple of years that Nurses spending power has caught up with its pre thatcher levels.

by contrast the subsequent labour governments have provided ……….the squandering of national resources.

Thanks for adjusting my poor memory, I thought it was Thatcher that had sold off the Nationalised industries.

In essence, it will be a Conservative government in power.

So you don't think there will be any sort of change then?

I must admit I am incredulous about the Conservatives plans for education say that teaching

And to put teaching on the same footing as high-status professions like doctors and lawyers we are introducing a new Licence to Practise with a right for all teachers to get ongoing training and career development. It's time the Tories backed these reforms.

When all through the '80s they did their level best to degrade the profession.

There are things that Labour have done that have been for the good, but to paraphrase CF "they haven't been perfect"

Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe this.

There is a vast amount of waste in the public sector at the moment which leaves a large amount of scope for making cuts while still retaining the essential services which prevent those same deaths you claim will be caused.

No political party has ever managed to deliver on those sort of cuts. All large organisation, public or otherwise, have waste associated with them and it is almost impossible to eliminate.

To be honest my biggest fear is that this country once again gets another elected dictatorship, that is a government with a huge majority and an ineffective opposition. This is essentially what we've had since 1978 (possibly earlier) and it never seems to do much other than harm.

The improvement in the NHS under labour is huge and obvious….

Not to me, neither as an employee nor 'client'…..

>Policy statements to illustrate that, if you please.

Yeah, like a policy statement is a good indicator of what any future government will do ! – past record is probably as reliable..my concern in the case of the Conservatives is the old (or even new) dinosaurs in the party, in the same way there are in the Labour party, but at least we've seen the Labour party's recent record, some good, some bad.

Vote for who you like, it'll just be a different shade of shite, they'll just bugger up different bits, and the difference is whether they bugger up the bit you're concerned about, irrevocably.

(Personal faves that come to mind – Conservatives privatising the rail network, particularly in such a screwed up fashion, and the 70's labour party/Birmingham council for turning a bunch of smaller grammars comprehensive as part of their political mantra – all it did was turn some excellent schools into mediocre ones, and it was generally working-class kids like myself that attended them anyway !)

The argument for waste saving is simply the rhetoric any party uses to avoid use of the word cuts.

Gordon is using it probably moreso than Osborne.

There are policy statements from Osborne which do touch on the idea of cuts rather than attacking the ephemeral Whitehall waste: taking child benefit and child investment certificate grants away from higher earners and (FFS I get given money for Stoner Jr. It's daft). Thats a cut not a waste saving.

But I agree, there's no way to couch deficit reduction honestly without talking about taking big chunks out of budgets – and here I dont believe there's any sacred cows either. Cameron has really bolloxed that up by standing by NHS spending pledges – purely to prevent Gordon using it as a massive stick to beat him with in the GE.

How to start a guaranteed 100-post thread…

The one with God on their side will win.

Hilldodger. do you remember the NHS as it was? I do. Waiting lists – massively down. Survival rates up. More treatments funded, outcomes are better. All measured and measurable nd true. Its a simple fact that the NHS is better for the fact that it has more money

Who will win the upcoming General Election?

Just interested in your thoughts and if anyone has any strong opinions on which party will best serve the country.

Two very different questions. A year ago I would have said that the Tories were absolutely certain to win the next general election – specially when they had 20% plus leads in the opinion polls.

However things have now changed (people seem reasonably happy with the way the government has dealt with the global recession) and the Tory lead is now about half what it was. So there is now a slim possibility that Labour will scrap in.

Interestingly enough, during the 'party conference season' back in October, the Tory lead was down to single figures, which suggests that when people look at politics in an in-depth manner, the Tories are at a disadvantage. I suspect this is because it quickly becomes apparent to people that the Tories have no credible alternative policies.

As we enter the general election campaign, I expect this Achilles heel of the Tory Party, to further eat away at their lead. Although I'm fairly confident that just "not being the government" will be sufficient for the Tories to win.

Although only a fool would attempt to predict with any accuracy, the likely political repercussions after the next general election, I personally believe that we are going to enter a fairly exciting period of political turmoil. I have absolutely no doubt that Cameron and Osborne will prove to be utterly incompetent, and the field will be left wide open for any opposition which manages to establish itself.

IMO much will depend how badly Labour does. If the Tories manage to get a huge majority (which doesn't seem likely now) then I fully expect civil war to break out within the Tory Party – Dan Hannan and Ken Clark have almost nothing in common. If Labour are found to be too weak to mount an effective opposition, then I suspect that the unions, amongst others, will look for alternatives. I also expect support for the BNP to grow substantially.

I reckon we are entering interesting times.

elected politicians will be the major winners, and all the unelected shit and hangers on thay they fund will do pretty well I would think. I also see senior public/civil servants as likely to be nicely pensioned/paid off.

whoever gets in the voters will lose.

We'll be taxed till we bleed one way or the other.

This short termist set up penalises politicians who think beyond the next election, long term we always lose.

Democracy isn't the best system, it's the least worst system.

It's quite obvious really! TJ for Prime Minister. You'd get my vote mate!
Unfortunately you are very wrong about the NHS. It is a complete joke and all the decent Doctors, nurses and midwifes have emigrated to Australia. The labour government has spent more on talentless management than frontline healthcare. The conservatives needed to improve, but they would not have put the country in it's present position if they had won the previous general elections. (IMO)

TJ, i was wrong! having read all the thread, your a confirmed pacifist and shouldn't be Prime Minister after all, sorry 😥

It really doesn't matter who wins does it. He who pays the piper calls the tune and they're all paid by the same interests these days. Gone are the days when the trade unions funded Labour and Thatcher sold the arms of the manufacturers that funded her.

Oh and absolutely wrong about the armed forces.
No more humanitarian missions, peace keeping etc?
Before Iraq/afg, there was a lot of this going on and a lot of good being done (sierra leone, bosnia, pakistan, nicaragua, kosovo etc etc). Just because Labour wanted to fight some wars; don't let this tarnish the good name of our forces. I think that we should pretend we bought the nukes and save the money!

The future of the armed forces is really a different thread.

quickly put I would like a defence force for these islands and a decent amount of manpower in a true independent peacekeeping force. spend less money than now and spend it far more wisely. No nukes and no big ships.

OK, while we're at it, here's your savings;

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Aid-Statistics/Statistical-release—Statistics-on-International-Development-2009/

TJ, I'm afraid what you have just described is what we actually have at present.

spend less money than now and spend it far more wisely

This is what I think about the NHS.

A couple of nuclear-armed submarines is a lot cheaper and more effective than a conventional army and air force TG.

Very difficult to predict. A quick poll amongst my friends, middle class, middles aged, mostly quite well off have the majority of votes to Tories with a healthy few for the bnp.
I expect if I lived on a council estate or up north most of them would be labour votes.
I think it will be hung, but hopefully labour will be utterly destroyed.

Nope!
Nowhere near and gives no room for anything other than absolute destruction.

Backhander 0.4% of GDP on overseas aid IIRC Going to make a huge difference.

As for the NHS – what do you want to cut? I tell you what I would cut from the forces budgets – the big capital projects for which we have no need in the opinion of very many folk including senior military people.

It depends if you're interested in defence or attack. You only need a conventional army to attack, nukes do all the defending you need, especially as you live on an island.

I suggest voting for change. Vote for the candiate who has never been an MP. If you want real change, you must change the people.

"Set one foot on our island and we blow your capital city up" as your main tactic? Not very flexible but I see your point. Not my chosen tactic tho.

OK TJ, i was wrong, your not a pacifist! send me £10,000,000 in used notes and i'll start you election campaign 😆

Oh I am a lifelong pacifist and have not hit anyone since I was 7. I am however a realist and understand that true peace can only be an eventual aim and until we reach there I need some form of force to protect me.

Do we look like we can afford to give away £7.2 Billion a year?
I will concede that MOD capital projects are massively wasteful due to Civil servant project managers who are without skill or accountability.

Look at how British military might has been used over the last 10 years. In the interests of right and good or even defence? Not a chance: murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies.

Really Edukator. Our national defence should be a Tactical nuclear strike? Sounds like a trip back to the Cold war to me. Wise up.

Edukator, yeah you're right we should have nuked them all.
read my earlier post and learn something.

Deterrance has worked, works and will go on working. No nuclear-armed state has been invaded and won't be. The threat is enough. You won't see the Yanks in Korea and it's probably to late for them to invade Iran and that despite the fact we know the Yanks are prepared to use nukes offensively as they've already done it twice – but only because they weren't afraid of retaliation. Deterrance works.

Educator the wise.

…….hopefully labour will be utterly destroyed.

It is an unwritten, and yet inescapable rule, in all parliamentary democracies the world over, that there is never less than two political parties vying for power. So if Labour are "utterly destroyed", then another party will simply emerge to fill the vacuum.

Since the Labour Party is considerably to the right of almost all comparable parties in the Western democracies, and considerably more right-wing than at any other time in it's entire history, it would be fair to assume that any new party to emerge would be substantially more left-wing. And specially if it occurred after a catastrophic failure of a right-wing leadership which had left the old party "utterly destroyed".

A development which I would very much welcome. Others however, might not……..careful what you wish for 💡

I did read your earlier posts backhander, what should I have learned?

You clearly did not read mine as I've said nothing remotely close to:

Edukator, yeah you're right we should have nuked them all.

Nice one Edukator, problem solved. Lets just nuke the Middle east and bring all the troops home. Job done. anyway this is way off post now. Start a new one if you want a dog fight!!

Before Iraq/afg, there was a lot of this going on and a lot of good being done (sierra leone, bosnia, pakistan, nicaragua, kosovo etc etc). Just because Labour wanted to fight some wars; don't let this tarnish the good name of our forces

Not

murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies

Which totally untrue and sounds like rambling TBH.

Defence does not include nuking the middle east because we need their oil or we don't like their boss. I haven't seen Iraqui or Afghan troops climbing the white cliffs.

Oh, and if Saddam really had had WMDs he could have deployed in 45mins Blair would not have attacked. Interstingly Blair made the 45mins claim the day after Hans Blix had been on European TV channels saying he had visited all the sites on his list and had found nothing – an interview not shown on the BBC as I flicked through the channnels. Blair attacked on the basis there were no WMDs under the pretext there were.

Your examples go back to the 90s backhander, before the murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies started.