What a horrible government we have now
nicely put.
Oh god. Not another historical political rant thread.....
Is there any thing worth writing which hasn't already been gone over 50 million times on STW already??
What a horrible government we have now. Much worse than the last one. At least the last one din't want to dismantle the NHS and education system to sell them off, and want to rip the guts oout of the very poor and most vulnerable peope in our society.
A horrible government, much worse than the last one? Just repeating it won't make it true.
The reform of the education system is following [url=
Browne Review[/url], as commissioned by Labour. Of course, that it was commissioned by Labour doesn't mean they would have followed it, but it does show that politicians across the spectrum see the need for reform.
Likewise the benefits system. Labour [url=
the need[/url] for a simpler benefits system and for changes to the work / benefits relationship... and a number of the Coalition proposals are seen as extensions (if not outright copies) of labour plans.
As for short termism - Labour's love of PFIs and Brown's asset price bubble surely merit mentions?
If you are really interested in this Surrounded By Zulus, then take a couple of minutes to read this :
It is Vince Cable (and other LibDems) speaking in the House of Commons in Feb 2009. They are arguing 100% for the complete opposite to what they are saying now. And it was on [u]that[/u] basis that they they received 22% of the vote last May.
For example Vince Cable states :
[b][i]"We are dealing with rapidly rising unemployment, much of it centred on the construction industry, and the situation is bitter and divisive. We shall try to suggest a positive approach to the problem through fiscal stimulus from capital spending"[/i]
[i]"like most western Governments, we believe in the need for a fiscal stimulus. Despite the severe financial constraints on the public sector, we believe that such a stimulus is right and necessary"[/i][/b]
So Vince Cable fully supported the government's fiscal stimulus through [u]capital spending[/u] in 2009. In fact he only criticised the New Labour government because he thought their spending didn't go far enough. For example, he said that they were wrong to cut taxes in the form of a cut in VAT and they should instead have used the money as part of government spending.
He also castigates the government for cuts in the college building programmes in his constituency - he is now responsible in part for the complete [u]scrapping[/u] of the Building Schools for the Future programme.
He then castigates the government for insufficient funding of social/affordable housing arguing that there should be no cap of council house building - it was all dependant on 'need'. This is what he said :
[b][i]"There are particular problems with social housing. In the past year, my colleagues and I have asked the Government about the obvious things they can do in the face of the collapsing housing market, such as investing in social housing,[/i]" [/b]
He is now responsible in part for a 60% [u]cut[/u] in government funding for social/affordable housing.
And so it goes on, with Vince Cable passionately arguing that the last New Labour government should have spent more on, quote : [b][i]"a series of public investment measures aimed at, for example, home insulation, social housing projects and public transport"[/i][/b] adding, [b][i]"We remain of the view that that would have been the correct way forward"[/i].[/b]
Furthermore, Vince Cable was fully aware that the fiscal stimulus was likely to cause a budget deficit, quote : [b][i]"we have growing budget deficits and growing public debt"[/i][/b], his only concern was that it [b][i]"may have the effect of squeezing out any future public investment, which will be crucial in providing a continued fiscal stimulus"[/i][/b] So more tax to pay for the fiscal stimulus then.
And Vince Cable [u]played down[/u] the size of the fiscal stimulus, quote :
[b][i]" Although £12 billion is a lot of money, the Government’s fiscal stimulus is not large in terms of the British economy. It is less than 1 per cent. of the economy, which is a much smaller proportion than in the United States."[/i][/b]
.
Now of course Vince Cable is perfectly entitled to completely change his mind concerning which economic policies he how supports.
But if he wants to do that, then he should resign his seat and stand again whilst arguing in favour of his new, completely different, policies.
The LibDems have no mandate. And they have made New Labour appear to be complete amateurs when it comes to lying to the British people.
The current situation is our fault - we caused this situation with our confused voting. What were the options:1. form an unworkable minority government with discredited, leaderless Labour leading to another election in months
2. another election
You forget the third alternative which is what I believe the Lib Dems should have done. negotiate with the tories for a queens speech they could support, let the tories govern as a minority government, vote each policy on a case by case basis.
this means no ministerial cars for the Lib Dems but they get to keep some integrity and stop the worst of the nonsense
Oh god. Not another historical political rant thread.....Is there any thing worth writing which hasn't already been gone over 50 million times on STW already??
That would mean no more "Trail centre or natural trails" threads, or no more "I really love my rigid SS 29er and anyone with a FS bike is a knob and crap at riding" threads. AND neither are those things ar likely to happen so why not have a politial argument every day or so?
For the record which tyres for dropping off the fun box at Glentress on a rigid SS 29er right onto Michael Gove's left testicle? Generic Chinless greedy self-serving Tory **** ruining peoples lives at a stroke of his pen without skipping a beat...
[i].For the record which tyres for dropping off the fun box at Glentress on a rigid SS 29er right onto Michael Gove's left testicle? Generic Chinless greedy self-serving Tory **** ruining peoples lives at a stroke of his pen without skipping a beat...[/i]
These
[IMG]
I937.PHOTOBUCKET.COM 'kinell - [url=
HERALDSCOTLAND.COM Is one of the reason why I hate politics[/url] and he happens to be a Scottish Lib Dem.
He was always a smug, self-serving, little git - perfect attributes for a politician. More annoying is I can't recall him doing anything I could sell to the press (unlike all my other mates of that era). Bloody career politicians 👿
The alternative, as Woody has said, is a dictatorship.North Korea, anyone?
We would have North Korea if the Lib Dems stuck to their principles 😯 Who knew that the way to not end up as a north Korean style dictatorship was to do the opposite of what you say you will do at an election.
I do fail to see how democracy has been served here by Lib Dem capitualation on a variety of critical issues. I can see that an argument for strong government, the financial markets , the IMF all being served but none of these vote.
They really should have bargained harder before entering into a coalition and been honourable and stuck to what they believed in. Power clealry does corrupt.
There is something about Gove that just repels me.
Just Gove? - I would put 1/2 the cabinet (and that's just the ones I can remember) in the same category.There is something about Gove that just repels me.
BTW - didn't we have a dictatorship not so long ago and look how that turned out
[img] 
[/img]
The Condemned coalition..... I break wind in their general direction, their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelled of elderberries! (with apologies to M Python.)
[img] 
[/img] Nuff said.
Don't start me on the reptile Gove.
NEWS.BBCIMG.CO.UK @elfinsafety - you're talking rubbish!
I never understood the logic behind the Milk-Snatching disaster of the early 70s: cut free school milk to save money and appease the voters, appear to be delivering on promises to cut spending. So, cut something which had been proven to have a clear and significant benefit to children's health.Fast forward 30-40 years. People with rotten teeth and poorer health = increased burden to NHS.
I was a 'victim' of this - I was 5 when it happened. I hated the yukky free school milk. I could not have been happier when it stopped arriving.
No fillings. Even today. Probably due to my mother's insistence on fluoride tablets.
So Zulu - what does that have to do with the fact that the Lib dems promised not to vote for increased university fees and now they will do so?
@elfinsafety - you're talking rubbish!
Please have a bit of a read of history, and the reasons and benefits of free school milk before you insult me.
I'm talking rubbish am I?
Milk is proven to be of tremendous nutritional benefit in the physical development of the young. The School Milk Act of 1946 had a significant impact on the health of young children. The act was brought in to benefit the very poor, who often suffered from malnutrition.
Of course, scientists, doctors and nutritional experts are wrong, and greedy self serving politicians are right. Of course. Because that's been proven, right?
Seriously, did you really think about what you posted, or are you more concerned with scoring points? I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but please don't tell me I'm 'talking rubbish', when I'm not.
I suggest doing a bit of research on this matter might educate and enlighten you.
It's a wonderful thing, education.
OT but Zulu here are some factors that will have led to that high deficit in 2009.
•Cyclical factors. In a recession tax revenues fall. People earn less so income tax receipts. People spend less so VAT revenues fall.
•Falling house prices particularly affect stamp duty.
•Income tax receipts have been hard hit by the fact the recession has hit the financial sector hardest. It is high paying city financers who pay a disproportionate amount of income tax.
•Bank bailouts are costing the government more than originally anticipated.
(Tax reciepts at one point were 25% down)
The condems are about to give us..
•As unemployment rises the government is forced to spend more on unemployment benefits.
I know it's OT but after a while people banging on about what a terrible state of affairs the 2009 deficit was, saying it's all to do with spending. It's pure BS.
Of course, scientists, doctors and nutritional experts are wrong, and greedy self serving politicians are right. Of course. Because that's been proven, right?
Like this lot??
Politics is just smoke and mirrors, wake up and stop analysing nonsense!
I keep saying this, but you don't listen? having returds (retarded turds) in charge of our resources, who have no ability to manage and govern resources can only have one outcome.
Fools in charge of the world, get used to the global sh1temare!
The Southern Yeti - Member•Bank bailouts are costing the government more than originally anticipated.
Once again - absolute drivel. The bank bailouts are costing a lot less than was anticipated. In fact, the UK government (the previous one) even got the EU bigwigs to retract one of their more preposterous projections.
Sorry Druidh that was a copy and paste from an article written at the beginning of 2009. The fact is...
In a normal year there are [b]no[/b] bank bailouts!
As unemployment rises the government is forced to spend more on unemployment benefits.
Sorry, but lets get UK unemployment in perspective:
[img]
We've got more than a little room to play with!
There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.
The Lib Dems are a proper political party (no laughing at the back!), they do not exist solely for the purpose of providing auxiliary top-up votes for under-performing Labour administrations.
To be quite honest, the Lib Dems would be far better off if all of the tribal Labour supporting pseudo-Liberals ****ed off out of the party for good.
A Lib/Lab coalition simply wasn't an issue. Labour didn't want it and the Liberals did not want to prop up the dreadful and utterly discredited Labour government.
I'm old enough to remember getting school milk, it was very welcome at the time as we weren't well off, and as home life was [i]Challenging[/i] due to family health issues we didn't get much else during the day, so for more disadvantaged kids school milk was not to be sniffed at, stopping it was short sighted imo
Z11 😆
Let's hope you don't sit in that couple of %, eh?
The Lib Dems are a proper political party
So are the BNP and UKIP. Still no good reason to vote for them though....
I like Zulu-11's graphs. They are meaningless, but I like the colours. 🙂
31.
Elfinsafety - MemberThe Lib Dems are a proper political party
So are the BNP and UKIP. Still no good reason to vote for them though....
You've invoked Godwin's Law by proxy.
THREAD CLOSED.
bravohotel9er - Member
There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.The Lib Dems are a proper political party (no laughing at the back!), they do not exist solely for the purpose of providing auxiliary top-up votes for under-performing Labour administrations.
To be quite honest, the Lib Dems would be far better off if all of the tribal Labour supporting pseudo-Liberals **** off out of the party for good.
A Lib/Lab coalition simply wasn't an issue. Labour didn't want it and the Liberals did not want to prop up the dreadful and utterly discredited Labour government.
Good post. However, they could have gone with supporting a minority government on a case-by-case basis (as TJ has already alluded to in this thread). That would have mitigated the worst of any Tory policies and, with a bit of negotiation, they would have been in a stronger position to get some of their policies in too.
You've invoked Godwin's Law by proxy.
Do what?
How d'you work that out then? Do you know what 'Godwin's Law' actually means?
Yes, although you appear not to!
The BNP are utterly irrelevant in all of this, introducing them to the debate serves absolutely no purpose, defies all logic (okay...so far, so STW!) is tantamount to comparison with the (neo)Nazis and generally just a hop, skip and a jump away from Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Oh right. So you [i]can[/i] use Google. 😉
I just used the BNP and UKIP as examples of parties run by lying self serving scum. I'm sure there are others. IE, parties with no real policies that would benefit Britain as a whole, just a bunch of scum who want things to favour themselves and stuff everyone else.
As the LibDems have proven themselves to be.
So your reference to Godwin is incorrect, in this particular case. Stick around though, 'cos I'm sure it'll come in handy at some stage in this thread...
The good thing is that the LibDems have now lost all political credibility, and have invalidated their position in British politics. Having betrayed all those who voted for them.
There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.
Actually that didn't happen, ie, Labour supporters didn't switch to the LibDems last May. That's why the LibDem vote in 2010 was basically the same as the LibDem vote on 2005.
I think you'll find that it was [i]"LibDem supporters"[/i] who voted LibDem last general election. Although I would hazard to guess that many no longer consider themselves to be LibDem supporters.
Ernie; do you like the colours in Z-11's graphs?
I'd like a graph with all the colours from both graphs in it.
Sort of like a Paul Smith stripey version of Europe... I'd have the pictures as cuff links. Thanks.
ernie_lynch - Member
Actually that didn't happen, ie, Labour supporters didn't switch to the LibDems last May. That's why the LibDem vote in 2010 was basically the same as the LibDem vote on 2005.
You miss the point.
My argument is not that a load of people who usually vote Labour made a sudden decision to vote Lib Dem, but that a lot of people who ALWAYS vote Lib Dem would actually rather vote Labour, but happen to live in constituencies where Labour are dead in the water. They vote Lib Dem solely to deny the Tories a seat and care little for the Lib Dems in any other respect.
If those people decide to storm off in a huff, so much the better.
Not my graphs my pretties, all down to your mates in the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. 😀
While I'm posting anyway Fred - got any peer reviewed evidence to back up your assertions on the importance of school milk?
A randomised controlled study was carried out of the effect on growth of the provision of free milk supplements to schoolchildren aged 7 and 8. In selecting children for this study, the aim was to identify those whose socioeconomic circumstances might place them at a disadvantage for growth. Five hundred and eighty-one-children were selected from schools where a high proportion of the pupils received free school meals, and from families with four or more children. The subjects were randomly allocated to receive a third of a pint (190 ml) of free milk daily for six school terms or to a control group. The mean difference in height gain at the end of twenty-one-and-a-half months was 3% or 2.93 mm (P less than 0.05) in favour of the children provided with free milk. The mean difference in weight gain was 130 g (P greater than 0.05) in their favour. [b]The height and weight gain associated with the provision of free mild was very small in the study population, and it is therefore likely that the benefit to growth of providing free milk for the whole unselected population of schoolchildren of these ages would be even smaller.[/b]
😆
I do like a nice graph. I used to enjoy doing them in school. Some are very pretty.
[img] 
[/img]
[img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Let's see yer favourite graphs! 🙂
So Fred, plenty of graphs but no evidence to back up your claims on milk?
Reckon you could do us a graph on the increased height and weight of children given free school milk?
sort of like this I guess:
.
.
.
.
.
X______________________________
Y
Z-11; your quote seems to back me up anyway, ta! 😀
[url=
MILK.CO.UK Benefits of Milk[/url]
Can't find any studies online, 'cos there don't seem to have been many studies done to evaluate the benefits, and quite frankly I can't be bothered arguing with you, as it's simply a waste of energy. I'm not going to change your opinion, as you are firmly entrenched in your right-wingness, and you seem to be quite happy in it. I feel any continuance of such an argument is therefore pointless. Sorry.
Do you have any proof that free school milk has no benefit at all? Bit of homework for you. 😉
Ah, a milk industry lobby site, good peer reviewed source that one Fred, very scientific 8)
So do you have any evidence to prove their claims wrong? 8)
(This is not 'arguing', this is just to show you that we could go on all night throwing figures and cries of 'prove it' all night long. You know as well as I do that milk is healthy and nutritious, and is good for young children. You're just responding to Criticism of your favourite Auntie, so I can't really be bothered)
What's yer favourite type of graph?
bravohotel9er - Member.......a lot of people who ALWAYS vote Lib Dem......
If those people decide to storm off in a huff, so much the better.
Ah, right, people who traditionally vote LibDem you mean.
Do you think the LibDem leadership shares your enthusiasm that these people will no longer be voting LibDem ? .....whether or not their natural home should be Labour.
The end result of this, is of course, very likely to be a massive drop in LibDem electoral support. When LibDem support is at 12-15% there is a much less chance of a hung parliament. Which greatly increases the possibility of Labour winning an outright majority next election.
And the LibDems having the door shut on their faces.
I see a flaw in your plan.
do you have any evidence to prove their claims wrong?
Sorry Fred, but your claim was [b]not[/b] "Do you have any proof that free school milk has no benefit at all"
it was, quite specifically:
So, cut something which had been proven to have a [b]clear and significant benefit[/b] to children's health
Milk is proven to be of [b]tremendous nutritional benefit[/b] in the physical development of the young.
So, its not for me to back up - once you've proven [u]your own[/u] initial statements/claims true, I'll happily deal with those of the dairy industry lobby site 😉
You know as well as I do that milk is healthy and nutritious, and is good for young children.
Prove it ! 😆 Although I'm sure you'd prefer to ignore it, gloss over it, change the subject and deny flatly that somebody has called you on the factual integrity of your claims... Typical leftie really 😉
I'm sure the Lib leadership are horrified at the thought of it, but they will be more aware than anyone that a significant minority of their support consists of negative votes.
Some of those people will vote Labour from now on (which will matter little in traditional Lib/Tory marginals) or just won't bother voting at all, I see little for Labour to get excited about.
I envisage the Libs splitting into two parties at some point, defections to Labour and possibly the Tories as this parliamentary term grinds on.