Forum menu
These fellas -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm seem to think it's a bit of a crap idea and they're not even all evil Tories as one of them is on "Mr Brown's Business Council for Britain" (BBC).
I like this. I like the fact they have sided with the Tories. I'm sure the public would really enjoy being spoken at by some self-interested businessmen who have rather large salaries and perks.
I think callmedave likes it too, Mandy didn't seem to though 🙁 <- sad smiley
Actually on the cokehead one - its really clear Cameron and Osborne were ( probably not are) cokeheads - I'd be surprised if they weren't - but I have respect for how he dealt with it - he didn't do the Clinton defence he basically said " we all do stupid stuff when we are young and stupid and I am saying nothing more" No hypocrisy, no false denial, no story for the press. I think Cameron and Mowlem are the only non hypocrites here
druidh - MemberWe should adopt fixed terms for governments. That way, we'd all know when to take our holidays.
Absolutely.
So - vote tory for Scottish independence?
According to you, "the election could have been called a couple of weeks ago". So you're criticising Gordon Brown for not having a general election a couple of weeks earlier ?
<sigh> Where do I say that an election 2 weeks earlier would have been a good thing (though he certainly could have done that if he'd wanted which is what I'm actually saying there)? A lot more than 2 weeks earlier (ie already done and dusted by now) might have been nice though. Do I have to spell it out for you, or do you deliberately misunderstand me for effect? Doubtless you'll come back with a smart-arse ad-hom though, as usual.
Absolutely
I agree too. The only problem occurs when there is a vote of no confidence in the government, or the government in some way doesn't have a working majority, or there is a national crises, or the government needs a fresh mandate, etc. Potentially then, in quite few possible and fairly common scenarios.
Although I do agree with the sentiments - an PM should not call an election purely to suit his own political party's' best interests. Of course Gordon Brown hasn't changed the rules - they have always existed, including during the long periods of Tory government rule.
Actually on the cokehead one - its really clear Cameron and Osborne were ( probably not are) cokeheads
So if you're prepared to admit they're not currently, then why the need for comments like "callmedave and his cokehead friends"? Or is it a case of cokehead once always a cokehead?
Doubtless you'll come back with a smart-arse ad-hom though, as usual.
No mate.........I can't be arsed with wasting any more time discussing nonsense with you - there isn't even a humorous angle to it.
aracer - MemberSo if you're prepared to admit they're not currently, then why the need for comments like "callmedave and his cokehead friends"? Or is it a case of cokehead once always a cokehead?
Read what I wrote. Try to understand. There is some humour in there. Some respect. Some taking the piss. I guess its a bit tricky for you and your inability to see shades of grey.
There is some humour in there. Some respect. Some taking the piss.
Oh yes of course "Oh - but I forgot - its all GBs fault in your blind eye and callmedave and his cokehead friends are the saviours" is quite clearly all a joke. Haha.
🙄
You also seem to be confusing me with somebody who's actually a fan of Cameron - I'd just as happily complain if you accused GB of being incapable because of his background.
Vote Quimby............
aracer - whats that whooshing noise? Something flew over your head?
I don't really care and don't think we have any real democracy at all, I'm with Dmitry Orlov on this topic -
'Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power?'
Who the **** is "Dmitry Orlov" ?
[i]I do[/i] care. I'm with Tony Benn on this topic :
[i]As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. [b]Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact[/b]. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum.[/i]
And I always cared enough to believe in the election of a Labour Government committed to securing power in the interests of ordinary working people.
Shame that they have never had the guts to do so, and shame that the Labour Party was eventually taken over by the stooges of the all-powerful industrialists and bankers.
Perhaps the real democracy is not just in the voting, but that citizens can become politicians and take power.
Presently we are fortunate to have politicians that are, by and large, moderate; but it makes voting seem a bit pointless. At some future election, voting may be all that keeps an extremist politician out of power - so I'll be voting to ensure that future elections continue to happen.
BTW. "Democracy is the worst form of govt, except all the others" WC
On "Question Time" this week, Ken Clarke and Richard Littlejohn both raised the old canard (also voiced at various stages by NewOldLabour) that the Liberals "can promise whatever they like because they know they'll never be in a position to have to deliver on their promises", or words to that effect.
Leaving aside the fact that we have had, in the past, a Liberal government and that there is every reason to think that some point in the future (possibly sooner than we might think) we may have one again, it occurred to me to point out that the Liberal Party DO actually want to be the government and are asking for your vote on the basis of their expressed policies.
What reason is there to suppose that they would not try to implement these policies if they were elected, is my question.
They may, at least, if this next election follows the polls, be in a position to argue a trade off and see some of them implemented.
What does the team think?
In the light of the fact that there seems to be a mere sliver of difference between Boring Frown and CallMeDave's respective gangs, am I wrong in suspecting that the Liberals are going to get their heftiest vote yet, and what does that say for their performance in future elections?
....am I wrong in suspecting that the Liberals are going to get their heftiest vote yet
Almost certainly, yes - you are wrong.
In the last general election the LibDems received over 22% of the vote. These days, they struggle in the opinion polls to achieve that level of support averaging somewhere in the region of 19%. Bearing in mind that LibDem support is often exaggerated in opinion polls (many people tend to claim to support them as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the two main parties but fail to vote for them on crunch day) it is highly likely that they will as a result, actually lose seats at the next general election.
This is despite the fact that the LibDems should quite frankly be raking in the votes right now, as more than ever, people are dissatisfied with both Labour and the Tories.
In my opinion the election of Nick Clegg as leader of the LibDems was the greatest disaster to strike British politics in recent years. Just as we saw the catastrophic result of years of neo-liberal policies, the LibDems under the stewardship of Nick Clegg, chose to turn up late to the free-market laissez-faire party/love in.
In the 1997, I canvassed for the LibDems (despite my abhorrence for the SDP) as it was the only one of the three major political parties which still retained a social-democratic agenda. And I wasn't the only one who turned to the LibDems as a result of disillusionment with New Labour.
However, now that the LibDems under Nick Clegg have enthusiastically embraced the neo-liberal economic policies of both the Tories and New Labour, there really isn't any logical reason to vote for them - you might as well vote for one of the more experienced big boys.
Having said that, I have no regrets at all for working to help Paul Burstow win Sutton in 1997 - he has proved to have been an excellent MP. As indeed are many other LibDem MPs and party members who have remained true to their social-democratic roots. Although that can also be said of many in the Labour Party.
Personally, I don't think Nick Clegg is interested in power or changing Britain, and is perfectly happy to continue with his stress-free "leader of an opposition party" hobby. If he had been, then I doubt whether he would have so comprehensively removed the LibDem's "raison d'etre".
Its disappointing the way the Liberals have lurched to the right.
A few years ago they were more progressive, more left wing than Labour and I had no problem in voting for them, not simply the usual tactical vote type reason.
not a chance now though...
ernie,
aren't Benn and Orlov saying the same thing?
[i]
If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is.[/i]
Hence, unless you can overthrow the system (not very likely for me to be able to do that) it's all window dressing and pointless to vote, it does nothing and changes nothing.
OTOH I may be totally wrong and my vote will change who is really in power and grant true democracy to the people.
Molgrips - As for the govt mis-handling the economy - tell me exactly why they have done wrong WITHOUT mentioning anything that would have happened anyway (ie credit crunch, recession etc etc) or where any other party would have done exactly the same.
1 - GB made the bank of england independent with a remit to use interest rates to keep inflation at a 2% target
2 - GB created the completely toothless FSA who were asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years
3 - GB in 2003 changed the inflation index for the BOE to target from RPI to CPI (which does not include housing costs) thus forcing the BOE to keep the base rate too low despite an obvious housing bubble that should have been allowed to correct.
4 - 2005 Labour stooges on the MPC outvote Mervyn King and drop the base rate, again allowing the housing bubble to inflate even further.
5 - GB despite being advised otherwise sold off half the country's holding of gold at a decades low price, and announced it well in advance thus driving the price even lower.
6 - GB actually BELIEVING that he had abolished the most basic of business cycles "no more boom and bust", and allowing the biggest bubble in the country's history to be blown up for political ends (cos the dullard UK public feel good when their house is going up in value and will vote for more of the same) despite a pledge not to ("I will not let house prices get out of control").
Sadly it will only be with a few years hindsight that most people will realise what an unmitigated disaster the man has been for the country's economy since the day he took office as chancellor.
In the mean time when he gets kicked out in a couple of months he will take his job at Goldman Sachs or wherever and stand on the sidelines claiming that the next government (who will need to make some tough decisions to start repairing the mess GB has made) are wrecking the recovery.
Well thats a nice list there biscuit. If you look back upon Tory Governments, I'm sure you can find lists of EQUAL "incompetence", and not just economic decisions either, it's the nature of short termist politics.
All political party's would view their decisions as good at the time, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Biscuit Powered - the Tory alternative to GB's mis-handling of the economy isn't exactly impressive.
[i]"GB made the bank of england independent with a remit to use interest rates to keep inflation at a 2% target"[/i]
Despite their initial strong opposition, the Tories now fully support the Bank of England's independence. And Tory governments have most definitely used interest rates to keep the "greatest evil of all" inflation, down. Is it not basic monetarist policy ?
[i]"GB created the completely toothless FSA who were asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years"[/i]
Well if they were "completely toothless" then presumably, it is the same as if he hadn't bothered creating them.
[i]".......an obvious housing bubble that should have been allowed to correct.......again allowing the housing bubble to inflate even further......allowing the biggest bubble in the country's history to be blown up"[/i]
When the housing bubble burst during the Tory recession of the early nineties and people were left for years with negative equity [u]if they were lucky[/u], homeless after their homes had been repossessed, if they were unlucky, the turn around in the construction industry from profit to loss, was the greatest of any industry, in British history.
The Tories and New Labour equal the same policies, and therefore, unsurprisingly, the same failures.
ernie_lynch..
Yes, I agree with most of that, and I wasn't clear, but I do also agree that making the Bank of england independent was a good thing - as long as you dont tie its hands, fudge indexes and move the goalposts to force them to do your bidding.
As for the bit about repos in the early 90s, well nobody likes to see somebody lose their house, but that's how a free market should work, which flushes out malinvestment and teaches people not to buy into bubbles.
Here's an extract from UKIP's budget manifesto. I'd vote for them if it wasn't just another wasted vote towards Labour getting back in:
10.4 Household borrowing
10.4.1 The other parties usually gloss over the third debt burden facing Britain’s households, even though it is larger than either of the other two items. “Total UK personal debt at the end of October 2009 stood at £1,458bn… Total secured lending on dwellings at the end of October 2009 stood at £1,230bn.”
10.4.2 In other words, the boom in house prices over the last ten years was matched with a corresponding increase in householder indebtedness. Neither of these has served to add to the total real wealth of UK households, but did help sustain an illusion of wealth, which enabled the Labour Party to win its second and third terms in office.
10.4.3 Conversely, the John Major government of 1990 to 1997 allowed the house price bubble of the late 1980s to burst with relatively little government intervention – the number of repossessions did not make for good headlines, but the economy soon shook itself out again and started growing again once prices had bottomed out. This Labour government has decided that the best way out of the recession is to try and keep the house price bubble inflated as long as possible – and there is no reason to assume that an incoming Tory government will behave any differently.
10.4.4 So the government is borrowing money – to be repaid by tomorrow’s taxpayers – at marginal interest rates in excess of five per cent, to inject new capital into banks on which it charges one or two per cent but which banks lend on at four or five per cent; to keep interest rates low via quantitative easing and to guarantee or underwrite around one quarter of all UK mortgage lending via the Special Liquidity Scheme and other measures, merely to prop up house prices.
10.4.5 This is a double deceit on today’s younger homebuyers, who will also be tomorrow’s taxpayers.
btw, I'm far from a Conservative supporter, they're all short-termists as El-bent rightly states
Biscuit Powered - listen mate, your credibility just went out of the window when you chose to confess to supporting UKIP. I don't think a political party which represents the BNP supporters who managed to make it to grammar school, is the answer to Britain's problems.
And I'm quite frankly shocked that you should say :
[i]" well nobody likes to see somebody lose their house, but that's how a free market should work, which flushes out malinvestment and teaches people not to buy into bubbles."[/i]
So the Tory government was simply just trying to teach the electorate a lesson they wouldn't forget ?
How kind of them.
But I'll remind you that people were constantly told for years to trust the market........the market is always right
.......[i]blah, blah, blah [/i]
And I take that your apparent belief in the "free-market" means that your solution to a government which "mismanages" the economy, is one which does not manage the economy at all !
Because according to you, there is no need for government intervention, the market always knows best, the economy can simply run on "auto-pilot" ........"laissez faire" is the solution.
😕
One thing that is clear to me is the fact that the Tories are full of uncosted policies and commitments.
No cuts in spending yet cuts in tax and reduction in government debt - its stupid and hopefully the country will not fall for it.
Browne is considered across the world as having an astute grasp of economics and his policies are widely followed - especially for his response to the global economic crisis. Of course that is unaffected by the pernicious propaganda from Murdoch which skews debate in the UK
>No cuts in spending yet cuts in tax
To clarify: They're not cutting an existing tax but proposing to not implement a Labour tax increase due in April 2011.
It still does not add up at all. They claim that they can get a quart out of a pint pot. Its either stupid or a lie (and believing that we are stupid)
No cuts in spending yet cuts in tax
Since when have the Tories said that they would not cut spending ? 😕
.
To clarify: They're not cutting an existing tax but proposing to not implement a Labour tax increase due in April 2011.
Just to clarify the clarification :
[i] Mr Cameron has shied away from reversing the increase in its entirety, at an estimated annual cost of about £10bn.[/i]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c61b95e-3aa5-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss
Thanks for the clarification of my clarification Gus, although your FT link requires FT website registration.
Ernie - they have pledged not to cut services. NHS / Education or military
TJ, Tories plan to cut spending by £6bn [u]more[/u] than Labour during 2010-11. That's hardly them claiming "no cuts in spending".
Biscuit Powered - listen mate, your credibility just went out of the window when you chose to confess to supporting UKIP. I don't think a political party which represents the BNP supporters who managed to make it to grammar school, is the answer to Britain's problems.
Er, I never said I 'support' UKIP. It's just that choosing who to vote for is like choosing which turd to eat.
So the Tory government was simply just trying to teach the electorate a lesson they wouldn't forget ?
I never said that either. The alternative is what we have now, which is incentivising and rewarding the wrong economic behaviour at the expense of the prudent.
Regardless of political stance - this will make you feel much much better[url= http://www.slapometer.com/ ]slapometer[/url]
Ernie - they claim to be able to cut the [b]spending[/b] without cuts in [b]services[/b] - I was not clear in my first post by putting spending where I should have put services.
This is the basis of their lie - they claim they can spend less but still have the same services
TJ - That's because there will be 'efficiency savings' across the board. Simples!
All of them are promising this as far as I can make out. Pie in the sky stuff.
I tried to find the NuLab approach and only managed to find the following:-
"When growth is secured, we will halve the deficit over four years and we will do it fairly."
Couldn't find any more info on how that fairness will manifest itself, can you help out here TJ ?
Er, I never said I 'support' UKIP.
You said, quote :
[b][i]"Here's an extract from UKIP's budget manifesto. I'd vote for them if it wasn't just another wasted vote towards Labour getting back in:"[/i][/b]
So you would vote for them, if it wasn't just another wasted vote towards Labour getting back in ?
To me, and I'm sure most other people who have a basic understanding of the English language, that says that you support UKIP, despite the fact that you might not [i]actually[/i] vote them.
.
I never said that either.
Again, you appear to have forgotten what you have said. Quote :
[b][i]"but that's how a free market should work, which flushes out malinvestment and teaches people not to buy into bubbles."[/i][/b]
So was nothing wrong then, and it "teaches people".
According to you when the property bubble burst in the early nineties, unlike now, it wasn't the fault of the government .....it was, quote : [b][i]"how a free market should work"[/i][/b]
Now however when the bubble bursts, it's all the fault of the government. Until presumably, when Tories get in. Then once again, it will be simply the free-market doing what it should be doing.
Can you spot the nonsense in all of that ?
And of course you have very conveniently forgotten to mention that the culture of very easy and risky credit, was brought in by the Tories - when they scrapped the previous Labour government's credit controls.
OK, assuming I'm going to vote at all, I have to pick someone. But I don't [i]want[/i] any of them. I have to grudgingly vote for one though. I suppose you'd have to say in that case that literally I [i]support[/i] whoever I vote for. Semantics really.
Now however when the bubble bursts, it's all the fault of the government. Until presumably, when Tories get in. Then once again, it will be simply the free-market doing what it should be doing.
No, I'm saying that the government are now doing everything they possibly can, throwing good money after bad (including my taxes and trying to inflate away savings) at the market in an attempt to [b]stop[/b] the market [b]correcting[/b]
I'd love to think the Tories would do the same as they did in the 90's and let it correct and get it out of the way so we can start to recover, but I don't believe they will. It'll be death by a thousand cuts, following the Japanese model for the next 10+ years.
As I said before, I'm no fan of the Tories, I've not 'conveniently forgotten' their part in all this.
OK all apart from the crap what are you all going to vote for!!!
Biscuit Powered - some reasonable arguments in there.
But what on earth gives you the idea that any other party would have done better?
My point is that so much goes on behind the scenes that you really can't make any kind of judgement on politicians. Most politicians genuinely are not stupid in my opinion. I am quite sure that when they do these things that look daft there must surely be reasons that we aren't aware of.
A radio programme I once heard made an interesting analogy for politics. It said, imagine being in a pub with two women. They ask you 'which one of us is most beautiful?' You'd find yourself a bit stuck; there's no winning that one.
So basically any politician is in a no-win situation. This is why we waste so much effort slagging them off viciously when it's never going to change anything. No-one is ever good at politics.
grantway - Member
OK all apart from the crap what are you all going to vote for!!!
I'd prefer to vote SNP, but can't see them swinging this seat. I might, therefore, vote for the Tories as there is a reasonable chance they could win the seat I'm in and the more Tories there are, the better the chance of Scottish Independence.
I'm saying that the government are now doing everything they possibly can,throwing good money after bad at the market in an attempt to stop the market correcting
So you would have done nothing then ?
An option which was completely unacceptable to the utterly committed free-market, neo-liberal, 'laissez faire', conservatives of the Bush administration ?
Well certainly sitting back and watching the inevitable collapse of the finance sector and it's catastrophic consequences for the whole economy, was an option. And one which would have laid the foundations for revolutionary change. But if your first priority is to protect and defend the capitalist system, then this was not an option.
The global financial crises of the last couple years was not simply as a result of the bubble bursting due to over inflated property prices, it's primary cause was the failure of unregulated lenders.
So the "doing nothing" option would not have simply left people with negative equity (if they were lucky) or homeless (if they less lucky) or jobless if they worked in any sector touched by that [i]"economic indicator"[/i] the construction industry, it would have precipitated the collapse of the finance sector.
Consequently, I can't help imagining that many people are rather happy that it was Alistair Darling who was chancellor at the time, and not you or any of your mates in UKIP.
Certainly the dramatic turn around in the fortunes of New Labour in the opinion polls since the shit first hit the fan, would appear to back that up.
Well certainly sitting back and watching the inevitable collapse of the finance sector and it's catastrophic consequences for the whole economy, was an option. And one which would have laid the foundations for revolutionary change. But if your first priority is to protect and defend the capitalist system, then this was not an option.
Capitalists only want us and themselves to play by their rules when the going is good.
LOL, listen to you two!
The whole reason we are where we are was because it was laissez faire anything goes free market on the way up! Lending to anything that moves. As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem that came from America, America did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans for every man and his dog.
Gordon Brown was so very proud of his 'light touch' regulation (and I use the word regulation in the loosest possible sense). Just have a look at his Mansion House speeches where he applauds the financial risk takers FFS!
Now on the way down the free market ideology is out the window and massive government intervention and market distortion is the name of the game! Which way do you want it?
As for the catastrophic financial apocalypse if banks were allowed to bust... the bankers told us this would happen if Lehmans were allowed to go down. It went down and the world kept turning.
As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem that came from America, America did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans for every man and his dog.
You really don't understand how a global economic system works do you?
Gordon Brown was so very proud of his 'light touch' regulation (and I use the word regulation in the loosest possible sense). Just have a look at his Mansion House speeches where he applauds the financial risk takers FFS!
Light touch regulation inherited from the Tories. How do you think Labour won the Election in 97? By being old Labour? This is not trying to blame the Tories as such, merely pointing out how money/self obsessed the electorate had become.
Now on the way down the free market ideology is out the window and massive government intervention and market distortion is the name of the game! Which way do you want it?
That should be which way does the free market want it? Here's a clue: Completely free with "light touch regulation" when the going is good and get the Governments of this World to intervene when the sh*t hits the fan.
As for the catastrophic financial apocalypse if banks were allowed to bust... the bankers told us this would happen if Lehmans were allowed to go down. It went down and the world kept turning.
You're not very good at this are you? Did you see the damage done when Lehman was allowed to go to the wall? Personally, I would have let more of them go to the wall, I don't like it when capitalists change their own rules when it comes to state intervention.
I wanted tough regulation of these institutions before the recession, what we are going to get in terms of regulation now doesn't come anywhere near. Have you noticed that the main parties are talking about cutting the deficit and very little being spoken about proper regulation to try and prevent this happening again?
I'm sure the backers of both parties have been "whispering" in their ears making sure nothing too draconian gets introduced.