Forum menu
What was the size of the national debt just prior to the creation of the NHS, etc? What was it afterward?
And you know what happened to produce that don't you. The official term is not stealing, but that is in effect what happened and what is happening now too.
Pink ties, blue ties??? They are wearing purple ones these days - and no this is not for Lent. I am surprised JHJ hasn't picked up on it!!!
Mind you, haven't labour said that they'd not entertain a coalition with them anyway now?
Yes, and the SNP said the same thing ages ago, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Labour would be a minority government, relying on the SNP's help on a case-by-case basis.
Or there's the other logical conclusion - a Labour-Tory coalition.
1) There's been a failure to provide social housing to replace those lost to Right to Buy in the 1980s.
And the Tories want to extend right to buy to housing association tenants. Genius. Apparently, selling off gold at below market rates is bad, but selling off houses cheaply is good (because they then get sold to your private landlord mates who rake in the housing benefits).
[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/only-greens-will-tackle-britain-housing-crisis ]We need to build more houses, and we need more social housing[/url].
Voting SNP will deliver a Tory government.
Only in Dave's dreams, I'm afraid. I think this may be where he was getting confused. The whole Father Dougal dreams/reality thing.
It simply means more unpredictability, and even less likelihood of an overall majority for either of the 2 main parties. From what Salmond has said, theres no way on earth Dave stands to gain electorally whatever our friends north of the Border decide. And clueless Ed won't be getting a coalition either. So thats both the main parties screwed! Unless, as someone crazily suggested earlier, they start coming up with some policies that might convince more people to actually vote for them. Not that theres much chance of that happening.
I'd like to float the idea of the SNP putting up some MP's for election in the north of England. I reckon they'd have a similar share of the vote to the one they're presently getting north of the border
The national debt will never be paid off, it's impossible. It will like all previous debts be inflated away, that's how the system works,
Hmm, at 0% inflation that may take a while!!!
that's what central banks are for.
Where is stealing and deliberately mis-picking low risk assets mentioned in their mandate?
So....are the tories the most likely to win a majority if labour have lost voters to SNP? Or have UKIP taken a decent sized bite out of them?
So....are the tories the most likely to win a majority if labour have lost voters to SNP? Or have UKIP taken a decent sized bite out of them?
Labour and the Tories seem pretty much even - that's including the big bite taken out of Labour by the SNP, and the much smaller bite taken out of the Tories by UKIP.
There's no way, based on current polls, that the Tories get a majority. And there's no coalition they can form that'll keep them in power, because the Lib Dems are ****ed electorally.
UKIP are a problem for labour in their northern 'heartlands' jut as much as they are in Daves Southern Shandyshires. They took a massive chunk of labours vote at last years [url= http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/labour-win-heywood-middleton-by-election-7913084 ]Midddleton by-election[/url], and came within a whisker of wiping out a rock solid labour majority.
And since Ed has subsequently done absolutely nothing to increase his appeal (such as it is) to the core northern working class voters the labour party has taken for granted for decades, they are in for one hell of a rude awakening from Nigel and chums too, in May
My thinking is...
Tory minority govt, won't last long, labour has the chance to get rid of Ed/Ed and put Burnham/Cooper in charge, and then win new election when the tories are booted out mid-term.
or,
Labour minority govt, Miliband is the disaster everyone predicts he will be, which gives the tories the chance to put Johnson/Osborne in place for the inevitable snap election, labour is then screwed for another 5 years or longer.
It pains me to say it, as I never thought I'd ever see a bright side to the tories winning, but the 1st option is looking the best from where I'm standing.
Know that feeling where you absolutely hate Alex Salmond and the SNP's guts but can do **** all about it because you live in England and your votes don't make a difference to how many SNP MPs there are?
That feeling where they are going to be influencing how the country is run and you'll be affected by their decisions?
That's how it feels to be a tory-hating Scot.
Welcome to being Better Together.
Why all the fuss over state pensions, surely everyone can see that it's demise is inevitable with an ageing population.
Do people not have private pensions?
If I lived in Scotland I vote SNP.
Ya, I like independent country. 😀
labour has the chance to get rid of Ed/Ed and put [andy] Burnham/Cooper in charge
Is that the same Andy Burnham who presided over a significant uplift in private sector involvement in the NHS, the Andy Burnham who oversaw £00s of £billions in poor value LFI deals or the Andy Burnham that spent years telling us there wasn't a problem and refusing to meet relatives of the hundreds of people killed by the NHS at Mid Staffs and who with Alan Johnson refused 81 requests for a public inquiry?
Or is it the Andy Burnham that is in fact all of the above Andy Burnhams but who now tells us he has always been against private sector involvement in the NHS and has also always been passionate about patients receiving safe care?
It's little wonder that Labour will almost certainly form the next government when their past misdemeanours appear to slip from public consciousness so quickly.
Latest poll has Lab squeaking ahead 35-34 but as before nothing in it.
I am not a fan of coalitions but think that this one has made an ok fist of it (V Cable - remember him - apart).
First goal would be much smaller government though and sadly there isn't a Turkeys for Christmas box to tick.
Do people not have private pensions?
No, millions of people don't have a private pension, many of those are struggling to get by in their day to day lives so saving for a future which may never happen might seem a bit of a luxury to them. Also many people that do have a pension will only get enough from it that it works as a top up to the state pension. In those instances either state or private pension on their own would make for a difficult retirement.
Is that the same Andy Burnham who presided over...
I'm not suggesting he's some leftwing messiah sent to save us from the evils of the market, just a bit better than the walking caricature that is Ed Miliband, and a whole lot better than any tory. There's not exactly much to choose from.
Can you name 20 people on both front benches?
@ben was that a serious question re SNP delivering a Tory government ? Labour seem likely to lose 40 seats to the SNP, those 40 seats could have contributed to a Labour win or Labour led coalition. The way the UK parliament works os the prior government / largest party gets to try and form a coalition, so the Tories will get to do this even if Labour+SNP could provide a vote by vote majority.
IMO the SNP will spend the next 5 years complaining about how unfair it is that the Westminster government is a Tory led coalition and how Scotland hasn't got the government it voted for. This plays into the SNPs hands to cement its support and to hope to force another referendum or failing that tighten its grip on the Scottish parliament.
Can you name 20 people on both front benches?
Only the very dullest of people could do such a thing tmh
IMO the SNP will spend the next 5 years complaining about how unfair it is that the Westminster government is a Tory led coalition
In coalition with who? The 4 lib dems left after the massacre? or the 2 UKIP MP's. Theres considerably more chance of a minority labour government being propped up by the SNP, who will wring concession after concession out of a clueless Millibean
Salmond has been running rings around Westminster for years. I bet they're all bricking it about him strutting around the place in person, as the king-maker. It'll be a fairly unedifying spectacle whatever your political leanings
so the Tories will get to do this even if Labour+SNP could provide a vote by vote majority.
Would they though? I don't think any party in that position would want to be in government knowing that they couldn't actually do anything for fear of being booted out in a confidence vote. You can't govern if you can't get a majority to get bills through.
Do people not have private pensions?
A prize for the most clueless STWer post of the day?
Labour seem likely to lose 40 seats to the SNP, those 40 seats could have contributed to a Labour win or Labour led coalition. The way the UK parliament works os the prior government / largest party gets to try and form a coalition, so the Tories will get to do this even if Labour+SNP could provide a vote by vote majority.
And we're back to the old thing of it being Scotland's fault for not voting Labour. What about all the people in England who aren't voting Labour? What about the fact that it's Labour who screwed it up for themselves?
If the Tories try to form a coalition it'll be a minority one, and as soon as there's a Budget or a Queen's Speech then Labour and the SNP will vote against them, and the government will collapse. Unless Labour refuse to do that, in which case it'll be Labour propping up a Tory government.
miketually - MemberDo people not have private pensions?
A prize for the most clueless STWer post of the day?
Pi%% take aside, its probably the most astute. Relying on the state to look after you in old age is even more of a gamble than voting SNP/UKIP etc
Ben, have you not learned that its never a good idea to take Salmond at face value?
The election maps are always interesting as a visual (if nothing else)
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/
Pi%% take aside, its probably the most astute. Relying on the state to look after you in old age is even more of a gamble than voting SNP/UKIP etc
Low pay and zero hour contracts mean that many are relying on the state to support then throughout their working life.
Indeed and that is a very nasty position to be in when the Ponzi scheme falls over (as it will)
@ben, it's no ones "fault" but if Scotland chose to vote SNP when Salmond has ruled out any deal with the Tories then they have to accept they may find themselves in a wasteland. Traditionally that's why Scotland voted Labour in the GE and more towards SNP for Holyrood. As you say (and we have discussed before) Labour generally need to win in England if they are to form a Westminster government.
@binners, I have a feeling the Tories are going to strengthen further into the GE and that the Lib Dems won't do as badly as is suggested as in the seats they currently hold.
Indeed and that is a very nasty position to be in when the Ponzi scheme falls over (as it will)
All the more reason to vote for a party who will raise the minimum wage.
Indeed and that is a very nasty position to be in when the Ponzi scheme falls over (as it will)
When that happens we're all f*****. Unless you've got your pension invested in gold, guns, tinned food and bottled water stored in the shed.
Much better to vote for the party that is honest about it....I will leave that one with you!
Not at all - it will happen. Preparation is what is required and a hint of honesty would help the medicine go down
@binners, I have a feeling the Tories are going to strengthen further into the GE and that the Lib Dems won't do as badly as is suggested as in the seats they currently hold.
Lynton Crosby has ben telling Dave and George this for months. The problem is that the polls aren't budging. As for the lib dems, you may well be right. I don't think anyone can predict the freak results that the UKIP vote is going to deliver in all kinds of different constituencies. They won't win any seats, but they're going to reek havoc on complacent sitting MP's in previously 'safe' seats, never mind marginals
One things of sure, it won't be the wo main parties who benefit. The lib dems might fluke a few seats as a result though
A prize for the most clueless STWer post of the day?
It was a bit of a pisstake; lost on you by the looks of things.
My point was exactly as teamhurtmore outlined above.
So you want increased minimum wage, improved NHS and a free meal for an aging society.
Fair enough, where are you intending to fund it? Tax the higher earners because they bothered to work hard/get an education?
Fair enough, where are you intending to fund it? Tax the higher earners because they bothered to work hard/get an education?
You're assuming people on low pay are lazy and ill-educated and the well off are deserving?
Nope, that's wasn't mentioned. I'm from a working class family of life-long labour supporters, so I would disagree with your comment.
Nope, that's wasn't mentioned.
Yes it was. You said : [i]"the higher earners because they bothered to work hard".[/i]
The term "hard" is relative, so your inference is very clear - that higher earners work hard relative to others in society. Or in other words that lower wage earners are lazy in comparison.
You might be choosing to backtrack now but were very clearly suggesting that higher earners work harder relative to lower wage earners.
BTW I come from a working class family of lifelong Labour supporters, which presumably means that I am right.
I'd not like to see our election process or democratic system change particulatly .
However a compulsion to vote, just might stimulate a better appreciation of just how many folk might vote in favour of some of the 'no hope' options and perhaps bring an end to the huge amount of apathy we hear with regard politics .
I know which way my vote will go.
Despite being sick of the media war and almost childlike bull.... we see being traded across the commons.
More now than ever, much of this causes me to vote for what might benefit me the most.
All the major parties are just as likely to ensure that the country goes round in circles. All of them can and will only rob Peter to pay Paul.
We don't have much of a pot and it's already been pi.... in .
I now have a vehemence toward the centre left, since a change in policy by Mr. Brown's government directly caused me to barely keep my home, cost me my marriage, yet , ironically also gave me the circumstance to renew my interest in mountain biking .
Random ( slightly tainted by bitterness) ramblings from me once more. 😉
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32094423 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32094423[/url]
I feel I have a dilema. I thought Sturgeon gave a good speech at the SNP conference and I agree with much of what she says. The question I have is can I forgive her being two faced and the fact that those present should hold their heads in shame and beg for forgiveness rather than self congratulate themselves prior to becoming the party for all of the UK's dissaffected?
I think that a low turnout indicates that the country, and democracy, is in a pretty good state.
Because if there was an emerging party which had genuinely better solution to many of the problems that are supposed to be facing the country, and was radically different to the present parties there would be a much bigger swing towards it.
Imagine if there were proper free and fair elections (with no fear of victimisation and a real prospect of change) in some of the most oppressive and dysfunctional countries in the world, everybody would go out to vote.
I'm excluding North Korea, where the turnout is already up to 120%.
There is still absolutely no point in me voting, for the Tory always gets in. I've always voted in the past, when I've been home, this time I see no reason to bother.
If mass apathy demonstrates a fatigue with the posturing in Parliament and the increasing distance between the main parties and the electorate, then some good may come of it.
'Don't vote, it only encourages them' comes around again.
For me, the general election will be about poking the liblabcon in the eye with my ukip vote.
The thought of it gives me a very small buzz.
I know it's not a popular viewpoint on this forum, but there you go.
[quote=slowoldgit ]There is still absolutely no point in me voting, for the Tory always gets in. And if you carry on with that sort of short-term thinking, it will never change.
Do people not have private pensions?
Obviously not, but even more worrying is that of the minority who do, the mean total fund is only £25k ish, which will buy a pension worth £1250 a year!
As Nick Clegg said on the last leg, not voting is like going into Nandos, letting someone else order and then complaining that you haven't been given what you wanted.
However, when I've ordered chicken at Nando's, at least I've always been given chicken. They didn't substitute pork once I'd paid.
[i]And if you carry on with that sort of short-term thinking, it will never change.[/i]
But if none of the candidates support PR...
With luck, I'll be voting with my feet sometime.