Forum menu
jambalaya - Member
There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.So he signed the Lisbon Treaty enabling ever closer Union and an effective EU constitution in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU. Democracy eh ?
Yep. Representative parliamentary democracy. Preferable to a bipolar referendum that splits the country. IMO of course.
If you don't like it you are welcome to move. I believe Switzerland has lots of things with a referendum (that they then weasel past when the result isn't right) 😉
On Peter Hennessey's Reflections Nigel Lawson said that regulations he'd put in places would have prevented the crash and New Labour removed them.I've no idea if that's true but I think politicians are typically honest when they go on Reflections.
Given that there is a counter-argument that it was the Tory banking deregulation that created the space for that crash, I think a pinch of salt is in order.
He may be telling the truth, he may be deluded but truthful, or he may be ducking responsibility - I do not know.
However I do recall that Brown got the economy back into growth before he left, which Cameron and Osborne unfortunately turned around into a second slump.
Whilst I accept there is a general perception that the tories do better on the economy
The party of business implementing brexit=does not compute.
He may be telling the truth, he may be deluded but truthful, or he may be ducking responsibility - I do not know.
Can't believe I'm wasting my life googling this. The Banking Act 1987 was under his tenure as CofExc. So I guess that what he's talking about. No idea if he had a point or not.
OOB - nor do I. Some have said the problems date back to then, but everyone with an opinion and knowledge has a vested interest and I tend not to trust anyone either way.
The brutal reality of austerity, poverty and the heartless tory party...
People vote Tory as they are the party that's for some reason still able to convince people they are good at the economy and business, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary
FIFY
Lack of regulation of the banks and more importantly consumer lending was the primary issue imo. It was that regulations where not properly applied rather than regulations where removed per-se. Labour and Brown as Chancellor certainly could have done more to minimise the impact of the US lead 2007/8 crises but their big crime was failing to react appropriately, basically imo Brown knew the election was coming in 2010 and he tried to bluff through without reigning in spending.
if he was a tory, he would have done less.
And we have to remember that Brown got growth back into the economy that the Tories then killed.
"but their big crime was failing to react appropriately, basically imo Brown knew the election was coming in 2010 and he tried to bluff through without reigning in spending."
IIRC Blair explicitly states in his book that they couldn't cut spending early in the term because Brown was going to take over and was considering an early election.
Basically if you have one eye on an election for a whole term it's pretty hard to get a grip on spending - there's never a right time.
Nothing any other party does with the economy can possibly compete with the disaster for business that is Brexit.
People vote Tory as they are the party that's good for the economy and business.
In your head
Corbyn would be a disaster for the Middle Class.
Better for the middle classes to suffer a bit than the poor and disabled though isn't it. The middle classes are only middle class/well-off by luck, they could have been born to an alcoholic single mother. People need to remember that and be a bit more generous with their lucky positions.
To understand that requires empathy and the last I heard the tories were trying to make the word illegal.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible ****ing ****s out there.
@Kerley. Can you explain to me how damaging the middle classes will help social mobility?
Or are you happy for the poor to stay poor, but with a few more scraps of handouts?
I'm happy to pay more taxes to be clear, but i don't see it achieving much more than applying a slightly bigger plaster and not actually solving the problems i want to see fixed.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible * * out there.
They've been told by the daily fail they all frauds and con artists duping hard working families out of their cash and jumping queues with bogus blue badges. You only have to read the comments on the recent [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39575293 ]Motorbility story on the beeb[/url] it's very depressing
Piemonster - it seems to work in most european countries where income tax on the middle classes is much higher ( remember they pay for their healthcare on top of tax)
It works in some European countries, I'm happy for you to evidence whether it's most.
And to be fair, it's not what I'm really getting at. If you want more tax income don't start with punishing the middle classes, look at how you grow the middle classes then tax accordingly.
Ideally I don't want people in full time work to be reliant on the state. They're working, pay them enough to live on rather than state top ups.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible * * out there.
Ring fencing the NHS budget is is popular, if the NHS gets more, everyone else has to get less. So taking from the disabled is a vote winner, just in a round about way.
And we have to remember that Brown [s]got growth back into the[/s] [b]was lucky enough to ride the worldwide economic boom that was starting in 1997[/b] that the Tories then killed.
I'm no fan of Tories or Labour, but the China and credit driven boom of the early noughties could have been a success for any chancellor in power at the time.
How you then deal with the risks and opportunities that boom offers a government/country in the medium to long term is how the economic management should be judged.
And while the seeds of the banking collapse may have been sown by Tory deregulation, by the time it happened in 2008, Brown and Bliar had been in position to address the issues for 10 years, if they were as canny as some like to think they were*. Turns out they only had eyes on extending their reign of power, not doing what was best for the country. Same as the bastard Tories before them.
*Fair play, he kept us out of the Euro.
Ideally I don't want people in full time work to be reliant on the state. They're working, pay them enough to live on rather than state top ups.
This +1000. Madness that a family in full time work needs benefits to get by.
Combined with a policy of affordable rented social housing on brownfield sites. Initial cost would be saved by long term savings our of the housing benefits budget.
Tories will struggle to get a majority IMO for a number of reasons
- the new expenses story will break
- young people will vote en masse this time around and won't be voting Tory
- Remainers will vote en masse for labour or lib dem; there will be record turnout
I think we could be looking at another Tory-Lib Dem coalition, or even a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
Interesing times...
@MoreCash agreed with everything in your post
Ring fencing the NHS budget is is popular, if the NHS gets more, everyone else has to get less. So taking from the disabled is a vote winner, just in a round about way.
This. Ditto education.
BTW I will give Brown credit for keeping us out of the euro
Basically if you have one eye on an election for a whole term it's pretty hard to get a grip on spending - there's never a right time.
Short-termism. Sums up the mess of our political system.
@badnewz the "expenses story" is simply about left and right pocket election spending, whether it was locally raised money or central funds. There are different pots / limits for each. Obviously lying on an official document is fraud so its serious but nothing like the nonsense which went on before.
Morecash - I was referring to the fact that Brown got us back into growth after the bankers crash and prior to the 2010 election (and growth actually fell when the Tories got in).
jambalaya - Member
@badnewz the "expenses story" is simply about left and right pocket election spending, whether it was locally raised money or central funds. There are different pots / limits for each. Obviously lying on an official document is fraud so its serious but nothing like the nonsense which went on before.
indeed, you absolutely must not mention Tory Sleaze!
tbf the Tories were running scared of the kippers at the time , they had to pull out all the stops and integrity and probity really is secondary to being in power
😉
@Kerley. Can you explain to me how damaging the middle classes will help social mobility?
Damaging? What by having to buy the next level of Audi down than they actually wanted? Or having one less holiday a year. Get some perspective.
There are more elderly people, more people in general and services simply need to be given the money to grow. If that means taxing middle classes and above then that is the way to do it. It doesn't stop anyone becoming middle class and has no effect on social mobility.
If you want more tax income don't start with punishing the middle classes, look at how you grow the middle classes then tax accordingly.
Wasn't that the idea behind increasing the numbers going to university? Worked out well didn't it?
Article here giving insight into the election expenses "scandal"
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
Wasn't that the idea behind increasing the numbers going to university? Worked out well didn't it?
That's not really a reason to not try and lift people out of being poor. The tactic may have failed but that doesn't devalue the objective.
Rules shouldn't be broken, obviously, but basing your vote solely on whether a party has overspent and lied about their own campaign funding seems a bit stupid to me.
Given that there are so many better reasons to not vote Tory!
was it really about lifting folk out of poverty? Genuine question as i never really understood why Blair wanted 50% to go to uni - though i did not really listen that well to what he said.
The only ones who got rich were the providers of degrees and colleges ..its a boom industry for the factories that produce qualifications [ society has little use for]
4000 plus reasons not to vote Tory on http://calumslist.org damaging the middle class? Get bent
What by having to buy the next level of Audi down than they actually wanted?
As much as i enjoy demonising Audi drivers i don't believe what you are suggesting will deliver the results when not performed in conjunction with wider policies.
All forms of revenue generating activities need to be addressed. Not just Audi drivers. And those that are in work need to be paid enough.
Middle class here. Might even be rich by Corbyn's definition.
I don't have a Audi. Couldn't afford it / don't really like it.
But then I try not to live on credit.
was it really about lifting folk out of poverty?
That's a good question, I'm off for a Google.
I'm not sure what I'd be classed at, income is well below average but i listen to Radio 3.
As much as i enjoy demonising Audi drivers i don't believe what you are suggesting will deliver the results when not performed in conjunction with wider policies.All forms of revenue generating activities need to be addressed. Not just Audi drivers. And those that are in work need to be paid enough.
Wasn't demonising Audi drivers. Was just an example of a car and the fact a lesser model may have to be purchased. i.e. hardly harming anyone.
Yes, all revenue generating actives need to be looked at - the point is that someone should be trying and starting at the top and middle not at the bottom.
Middle class here. Might even be rich by Corbyn's definition.
Where I think this @us and them' might trip up is the middle, where I think the majority of people actually are.
I'm struggling to tell if I'm part of Corbyn's problem or in need of his help...
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
This.
Agreed Jamba. But we should still jail the fraudsters and ban the party concerned from contesting those seats. Harsh punishment is the only sort they'll listen to. A short sharp shock.
Make sense?
[quote=jambalaya ]
Most voters aren't really concerned about who paid for the ridiculous battle bus. Central office will offer a sacrifice, pay the fines and it'll all go away.
This.
Rules exist to make elections fair and they were broken and therefore the results were unfair
Anyone who is not partisan or who has honour and principles will care hence
Imagine that remain and labour won by cheating.....still saying the same thing?
I am you are not
That's not really a reason to not try and lift people out of being poor. The tactic may have failed but that doesn't devalue the objective.
I'm all in favour of raising people above being in poverty or being poor, but that's not the same as increasing the numbers of the middle classes.
Agreed Jamba. But we should still jail the fraudsters and ban the party concerned from contesting those seats. Harsh punishment is the only sort they'll listen to. A short sharp shock.
Make sense?
None at all really. If you try to put forward ridiculous over the top sanctions for what seems like an accounting cock up you just come across as hysterical and tend to loose all credibility 🙁
If you talk about fraud and jailing people the public assume your talking about people lining their own pockets. This isn't the case here.
I completely understand political opponents of the Tories trying to make something of it though. I'm sure they would do the same, thats politic for you.
what seems like an accounting cock up
[img] 
[/img]