The tories' post recessional economic policy is an absolute joke, Labour have it pretty spot on. I'm sure if the tories had handled the recession we'd be in a much worse state right now. Labour need to nick some of these nationalised bank profits back though. Unfortunatley people like a change when something bad has happened and that works for the tories hopefully Labour and the Lib dems will show how helpful-policy-devoid they are.
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.
How incredibly depressing.
Kosovo and Bosnia went into the 2000's (2002/3?), Sierra leone was 2001ish and ****stan (earthquake relief) was 2002/3.
As stated this was
Before Iraq/afg,
Edukator I completely agree with your ideas on defence.
Wouldn't go down well at labour HQ, would it mafiafish?
I mean, how would labour have invaded 2 countries without ground troops?
Kosovo and Bosnia were legitimate wars, saving people from genocide, as Rawanda should have been. And disater relief hardly counts.
Currently impossible to vote labour with a clear conscience.
They precided over an illegal war, though to be fair I think only one or two knew the truth at the time.
Also Gordon has squandered so much money, its embarrasing.
During his time in government he has wasted our gold, presided over a multitude of bad contracts, increase bureacracy and now can't even be straight with the electorate and announce cuts.
The sooner we are rid of him the better.
Personally I would like a hung parliament, but 4 years of Tory rule to prune the "state" would be welcome also.
So we agree when the murder, pillage and turning friends into enemies started backhander. Military actions started over 10 years ago might reasonably be placed in the right and good category. Since then Britain has acquired a reputation for murder and pillage, and abuse of its military might.
How incredibly depressing.
And yet, how incredibly predictable.
Well I guess it wouldn't but I'll wait till after the inquiry is finnished to see whether it was a government that went to war or Blair colluding with the Cheney warmonger crew.
disater relief hardly counts.
Counts as what? legitamate use of troops? who else would have done it? and what about sierra leone?
legitimate wars? do you not know we were peacekeeping not warfighting?
If you want a defence force then fair enough but you cannot expect them to participate in anything (disaster relief, peacekeeping etc) other than UK defence training if you want a tangible financial saving.
My prediction.......
A hung parliament. Tories to be the largest party.
The SNP will offer to support Cameron short term in exchange for an independence referendum.
Cameron will agree as he will realise that getting rid of 30 or so Labour MPs in Scotland will give him an overall majority in Westminster. He will get some concessions on North Sea Oil revenues as he needs this to get the rest of the UK out of hock.
A small number of Labour MPs will vote for this, realising that a "socialist" Scotland is an achievable target.
The Scots will vote for independence rather than suffer a Tory government (potentially no Tory MPs in Scotland anyway).
By 2012, the UK will have fractured. Demands for Welsh independence will be ignored at Westminster.
In 2014, the people of Northumberland will look across the border to a prosperous, energy-rich northern neighbour. They will initiate talks with the Scottish Government about moving the border south.
David Cameron, worried about his prospects in the 2015 elections, will agree, sacrificing some Labour voters in order to ensure a majority based around the SE of England.
Since then Britain has acquired a reputation for murder and pillage, and abuse of its military might.
I don't personally agree with that senitment edukator, however I can see how some might view it this way. Our forces deserve and are capable of better IMHO. We have performed justified and good ops more recent than 10 years ago though.
Onion - I tend to agree with you. A tory victory brings Scottish independence closer.
CHB - MemberCurrently impossible to vote labour with a clear conscience.
They precided over an illegal war, though to be fair I think only one or two knew the truth at the time.
I am sure that most of the country and the world knew the truth. There waer Nno wmd and that the invasion was all about oil security and profits for the USA. It was clear to me after Blix reported
Since the Labour Party is considerably to the right of almost all comparable parties in the Western democracies ... any new party to emerge would be substantially more left-wing. "A development which I would very much welcome. Others however, might not........careful what you wish for
I would genuinely welcome the return of a proper left wing party. Not because they could be even remotely electable to government but because they could provide the most effective opposition. Good government is only as good as strong and effective opposition. I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.
A tory victory brings Scottish independence closer.
In which case a Tory victory might also bring a resolution to the Midlothian question closer too. Dont underestimate how that grates the English as much as Tory rule might get the Scots back up.
I don't think Afghan is good ops, foot patrols walking straight into IEDs and ambushes seems pretty stupid to me and I've seen some talks by returing officers and left thinking WTF were they thinking.
I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.
Totally agree.
<sighs>
Who said afghan was a "good" op?
British forces are capable of very good things and are indeed still engaged in missions that are objectively beneficial on a local and international level. A much smaller conventional force would be quite adequate to sustain and even extend that effort.
However, since Labour went on a crusade in the Middle East the vaste amjority of British troops have been engaged in actions that were predictably murderous failures with true objectives that have not got beyond pillage. Dominique de Villepin predicted exactly what would happen at the UN. While I'm at it, why does Britain still have the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4094818.stm ]majority of its troops occupying Germany?[/url] Now if that's not a waste of money.
I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.
Not again, this is pathetic. How can you blame someone else for labours sh1t policy? "it's your fault you didn't stop us"
FFS
Edit; edukator, they're coming back slowly but tentatively. Mother russia keeps gobbing off. I'm very pleased that you took the time to see what our forces are doing and found that it's not all doom and gloom.
[i]Midlothian question[/i] - I think it was the West Lothian Question - posed by Tam Dalyell but named by Enoch Powell.
And I don't think a Tory victory will help resolve it anyway.
tiggs - spot on, it was Dalyells question on West Lothian. But Im a few pints over the yard arm so I plead the sixth.
Not because they could be even remotely electable to government but because......
You have ignored the other unwritten, and yet inescapable rule Stoner : In all parliamentary democracies the world over, no one party stays in power for ever. Eventually, the governing party will give way to the official opposition. That's what happened in 1997. Don't believe the New Labour spin that it was only because Blair had made Labour "business friendly".
Although undoubtedly the scale of the victory in 97, was down to the fact that traditional Tories rushed in their droves to vote for the new Thatcherite party.
bh - over the course of the last 12 years there's barely a square punch landed by the opposition despite the government introducing appallingly ill-thought out legislation. Most of the damage suffered by the government has come from the few people on their own benches who have a spine like Frank Field. If you think Im letting Labour off by sharing the blame out your sadly mistaken. I think much of their policies and legislative approach has been a casebook in how to stifle the individual with a statist approach.*
A weak majority might encourage a better form of government. I think a hung parliament would be a tragedy. But as Gus says, the next few years of f***ing about in the stinky pit of flat-lining Labour movement and a flimsy tory alternative could make for some entertainment.
* A lovely example of the two schools of politics on approach in the Guardian the other day.
Ed Balls:
"I've talked to the Royal College of Midwives and what they've said is that we haven't done enough in the past to support dads and their role in childbirth in the months and weeks beforehand, even though we know this is the most vulnerable time for a couple. If dads aren't engaged and involved that can be the time when they walk away … This will mean, for 800,000 dads this year, when a child is born they will get information and support as well as the mother."
So, Herr Balls would rather announce another policy of "educating" the individual in the state's view of the cure to his ills compared to, in the same piece, a direct policy from the Torys which would create a market to [i]encourage[/i] a higher quality candidate in teaching (I know there's some in here who are going to disagree with the method but that's not the essence of my point):
" We should be equally bold here. So we will end the current system where people with third-class degrees can get taxpayers' money to enter postgraduate teacher training."With our plans, if you want to become a teacher – and get funding for it – you need a 2:2 or higher. And we will also make sure we get some of the best graduates into teaching by offering to pay off their student loan. As long as you've got a first or 2:1 in maths or a rigorous science subject from a good university, you can apply."
The former method takes away the individual's ability to act with reason, the latter relies upon it.
Don't believe the New Labour spin that it was only because Blair had made Labour "business friendly"
Labour had made themselves middle-class friendly. A far more powerful college to woo. 😉
Not again, this is pathetic. How can you blame someone else for labours sh1t policy? "it's your fault you didn't stop us"
FFS
If you'd been paying attention you might have noticed that Stoner isn't a Labour supporter.
I know that Grum but I also know that some didn't take that comment in the way stoner meant it.
"2:1 in maths or a rigorous science subject from a good university, you can apply." Exactly what one would expect the tories to say, you need to go to a 'prestigous' university for it to count even if you put in more effort than someone at a 'good' uni. Surely taking the people that have done best with less resources/lower quality of teaching will be better suited and expected to excel further given support?
labour have spent the last 3 terms or whatever its been simply continuing thatcherite business ploicy
ie financial deregulation, eroding the unions, 'liberating' pension funds, sucking up to america, privatising & selling off everything that isnt bolted down, council house sell-offs, pushing big business above all else as the trickledown effect will solve all ills,
the only difference is labour have thrown money at the nhs, were willing to negotiate in NI, brought in the minimum wage and generally given cash to those who needed it, oaps etc
all i can think of is a conversation i saw in a historical drama once
Mrs Miggins
So, who are they electing when they have these elections?
Edmund Blackadder
Ah, the same old fat tory landowners who get made MPs when
they reach a certain weight; raving revolutionaries who think that just
because they do a day's work that somehow gives them the right to get
paid... Basically, it's a right old mess. Toffs at the top, plebs at the
bottom, and me in the middle making a fat pile of cash out of both of them.
What a w****r Balls is. Who decides what's a "good" uni?
But there's no need for higher quality teachers, all that's needed is higher quality kids from higher quality parents and a legal system that backs up teachers rather than victimising them.
You can employ the best teachers on the planet and 1/ they'll realise that they are powerless in the classroom 2/ the kids aren't worth their time 3/ the parents are the enemy rather than allies in education 4/ they can earn more money with less stress doing almost anything else and take their skills elsewhere.
mafiafish - taking your argument at its extreme then (from the SFB school of online debating. Sorry) you would happily have, say, teacher A, a 50% quality teacher educate your child because they had come up from 20% capability through, say, Middlesex Poly rather than Teacher B a 90% quality teacher who had come up from a 70% ability via Birmingham University?
What a w****r Balls is. Who decides what's a "good" uni?
bh - while I agree with your sentiments in the first, I think you might have misread my post in the last.
I shall go and edit to make it clearer 🙂
Whoever wins, it's all Thatcher's fault.
Oh whoops! 😳
Balls is still a w*r but so is Cameron. Politicians in "w*r" shocker!
its OK bh. You probably went to one of those "not-good" unis 😉
I've known a hell of a lot of teachers and the vast majority are/were competent, excellent even. My own teachers were good and some of those didn't have a degree at all. The problem isn't the teachers, it's the conditions they're expected to work in. A series of test cases in which the law has proved itself to be a total ass has handed classroom power in British schools to the disobedient thugs.
A British teacher will get suspended for self defence in exactly the same set of circumstances that would result in instant exclusion of the pupil over the channel. Teachers are suspended and stigmatised on the whim of the parents of lying little toads.
How right you are....
My favourite piece of Tory nonsense is the wish to repeal the human rights act. firstly they cannot do this in Scotland as it would take the consent of the Scottish Parliament which they won't get. Secondly so long as we are in the EU then we will still be bound by the same rights under the various European treaties. Teh only difference incorporating the declaration of human rights into UK law was that we can now use it in appeals in the UK rather than having to go to Strasbourg.
Cameron says he is going to repeal the human rights act he is either showing how stupid he is by not realising this or he is showing what a liar he is as he knows he cannot do so without leaving the EU and he can only do so for England and Wales not Scotland.
So here is a perfect example of the way that he is either a liar or thick or indeed probably both.
I wasn't going to bother responding but when this turned up:
I would genuinely welcome the return of a proper left wing party. Not because they could be even remotely electable to government but because they could provide the most effective opposition. Good government is only as good as strong and effective opposition. I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.
Surely the work of a comedy genius. I salute you Stoner.
So who will win the next election? A tory party. obviously.
nonono I mean if two candidates are of the same quality the one which has had the better education/ better resources may not excel as much as the person who has made it to the same standard with a poor education. A lot of people who are at good unis have had the benefit of private education and know how to ace exams but in my experience many lack common sense/ compassion for anything other than money and barbour or an appreciation of the real world and its problems.
As for children being a bit naff these last few years I have to agree that the standard of parenting seems to have gone down and so has the desire to do well at school. I went to a great school (NHGS for the calderdale people) and always felt supported to do well without needing too much of a stick I think enthusiastic and understanding teachers are what makes a school, not its discipline. It's certainly not about throwing money at schools it's about getting better teachers who can inspire rather than tell/reguritate from a text book.
Whoever wins, it's all Thatcher's fault.
Agree it's a no brain face kick if I ever meet her.
Whoever wins, it's all Thatcher's fault.
You may say this in jest, but considering the type of issues being discussed here, you are more right than you think.
Mr Cameron made clear he was not proposing to withdraw from the convention or stop people pursuing cases at the European Court of Human Rights.But he said a panel of lawyers and constitutional experts would be set up to examine the issue to ascertain whether a bill of rights could be given legal status instead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5114102.stm
hows the frothing coming along TJ?
Surely the work of a comedy genius. I salute you Stoner.So who will win the next election? A tory party. obviously.
go on El-Bent.
Your irony is obviously lost on me and I havent managed to identify the salient point in your argument against my post....
Personally I can only hope that Brown is sent packing at the next election. Almost single handedly the biggest disaster to have hit this country. It's getting to the point where his own party don't want him - not exactly a strong mandate for "strong leadership". Nick Clegg would have done better keeping his mouth closed as the more he speaks these days the more the public will feel they have been saved from making a poor decision in voting for the Lib Dems. And shiny Dave has lost his way a little recently. So, all in all, not a huge choice. The sad reality is that whoever wins the election we are going to be in for a pretty grim few years trying to pay off the humungous debt we are being saddled with. 😯
Before you can even tell/regurgitate from a text book you need an attentive audience. I suggest walking into a inner city classroom and finding a subject other than drugs, sex, prostitution, theft and thugery to inspire them.
Yep Reganomics, Thatcherite economics or more consisely neoliberal economics is the root of a lot of evil in the world as are the IMF WTO and NAFTA.
With the best intentions of course
finding a subject other than drugs, sex, prostitution, theft and thugery to inspire them.
isnt that the line "hip" teachers use to get rowdy kids to read MacBeth or something? 😉
Good night, and don't forget, a population generally gets the government it deserves.
There's ****-all to choose between any of 'em.
As an NHS grunt, one of my biggest bugbears is the insane amount of money wasted on PFI projects. Widespread opposition to this ludicrous white elephant was ignored in favour of silver tongued bollox from the CBI, with the likes of [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/NHS-Plc-Privatisation-Health-Care/dp/1844670112 ]Allyson Pollock[/url] being dismissed as a Union shill (despite being largely correct in her predictions). Now, PFI (and its [url= http://www.partnershipsuk.org.uk/ ]pimpmaster[/url]) was originally a Tory baby, but el Gordo ran with it to disastrous effect. So, you choose.
And as for the NHS itself - money has been spent badly (PFI, management consultants, ridiculous pseudo-market policies), but, frankly, that pales in comparison to the succour we the taxpayer have given to the square mile.
I would genuinely welcome the return of a proper left wing party. Not because they could be even remotely electable to government but because they could provide the most effective opposition.
You would genuinely welcome a proper left wing party, because they would be unelectable and as such treated as an ineffective opposition, an opposition not in tune with the UK political climate.
Before you can even tell/regurgitate from a text book you need an attentive audience. I suggest walking into a inner city classroom and finding a subject other than drugs, sex, prostitution, theft and thugery to inspire them.
F*ck me, have I accidentally logged on to the Daily mail website?
Stoner - precisely the nonsense I was talking about. Incorporating the European directive on human rights into UK law has changed nothing so neither will his proposed changes and he cannot change the status of the human rights act in Scotland. Even if he is the UK prime minister he cannot do anything with the incorporation of the human rights act in Scottish law as it is a part of the Scotland act which can only be altered with the consent of both Holyrood and Westminster.
In an interview for BBC One's Sunday AM, Mr Cameron said the Act hindered the fight on crime and terrorism.
an outright lie and it is not within his power to change it unless we England leaves the UK and the EC.
he shows how thick he is and what a liar he is. Pandering to people by telling them what they want to hear no matter how nonsensical it is.
backhander - Member[b]I believe one of the reasons that government has got into the pickle it has has been that the opposition have not managed to protect the primacy of the parliament and hold the government more aggressively to account.[/b]
Not again, this is pathetic. How can you blame someone else for labours sh1t policy? "it's your fault you didn't stop us"
Are you aware backhander, that it is the official role of the opposition to oppose the government, aren't you ?
They are not simply "the losers" in the equation, that's why they are officially called : "[i]Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition[/i]".
And that's why the Leader of the Opposition receives an enhanced salary - for all the hard work he is expected to do "opposing" the government.
E-b
A socialist voice is a screechy grating one. It is also loud and it has an identifiable popular support, usually in the unions (despite how neutered they have become) or from state employees, and of sufficient volume to be respected. That voice has an impact in the chamber when a right wing government is at work - despite what Thatcher did to the unions, she did it when the opposition could not stop her. By the time the opposition got its act together I think it got far more punches landed.
The Tories on the other hand have little structured electorate to represent in opposition*: take, for example the rural population. Its vast and completely unrepresented. It has no identifiable lobbying body - or at least didnt until the Countryside Alliance was created - so has no political weight to influence parliament through the opposition system.
*especially while the left are wooing the middle classes.
The Conservatives have long-pledged to look at the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
From the Beeb - also wrong. The act refferd to incorporated it into English law. It was already incorporated into scottish law under the Scotland act.
He also refers to a British bill of rights. Excluding northern Ireland then and the other various islands?
Stoner - CBI ' taxpayers alliance/ murdoch press all strong tory supporters
Taxpayers alliance only existed from a few years ago.
Murdoch supported Labour until only a few months ago.
Labour government in place. c.12 years
Also, neither represent any non-labour constituency. They have their own very small interests that do not stretch out to the electorate.
From the Beeb - also wrong.
Since I havent studied constitutional law since my first year at University, you'll have to forgive me for taking things as they are. You are far better read up on the subject than me. As it happens it's not a policy on my radar, although I do hope Kier Starmer has a good pension plan in place because his approach to the Tory rhetoric isnt going to keep him in a job past May 😉
I'm rather suspicious of the CA. Their concern seems to extend no further than a chocolate box vision of rural England (hunting being an obvious touchstone), together with the usual big landowner stuff. The farming wing of the Noteeth clan were very much old "county" Tories (chairing the local NFU, running the village fete) - and those that survive find little in common with either rentagob Dan Hannan or weekending bankers prancing around their estates.
Stoner - by that logic Labour have no support either - Unions do not slavishly follow labour policy nor do public servants.
By the time the opposition got its act together I think it got far more punches landed.
By becoming politically conservative.
Murdoch supported Labour until only a few months ago.
You obviously don't read the Sun very often.
The Sun has consistently slagged off Labour since day one. Despite the fact that in 1997, 2001, and 2005, it officially endorsed Blair.
And not only has the Sun criticised Labour on a day to day basis for years through it's general articles and editorials, but it has also paid vast amounts of money to an army of rabid right-wing rabble rousing columnists, to attack the slightest hint of civilised behaviour from a Labour government.
And yet New Labour valued more highly support from Rupert Murdoch, and what the obnoxious non-voting foreigner had to say, than the opinions of traditional Labour voters.
Prediction
Hung parliament - tories most voites very slight majority but not workable Lib dems hold both lab/tories to ransom for PR + Ulster unionist hold tories to ransom and possibly euro scpetic wing do as well - not sure who cracks first, Brown sacked/resigns and possible second election before the Crown [Liz] picks one?
The only thing worse than the Tories winning the next general election would be Labour winning it or, God forbid, a hung parliament with the turncoat scum (based on what happened in Scotland) that are the Liberals getting an undeserved taste of power.
And yet New Labour valued more highly support from Rupert Murdoch, and what the obnoxious non-voting foreigner had to say, than the opinions of traditional Labour voters.
My argument was about support whilst in opposition not support while in power. In opposition the Labour and Union movement generally speaking (once theyve had the kind of stand up bitchy argument any married couple must) talk with a common voice on behalf of an identifiable constituency in opposition to a Tory government.
Do any of you identify with any of the party manifestos? None of them have propositions come even close to my own ideals which include:
a fair progressive tax system that taxes both wealth and income based on ability to pay.
Equality in education and health.
The taxation of profit rather than work. High company tax on profits, low NI and taxes on reinvestment. Reduce the cost of opperating in Britain to reverse the job exporting trend.
The polluter pays and a carbon tax. A housing tax based on thermal performance and surface area, super taxes on the most polluting vehicles (anything beyond a basic Golf). Super taxes on the most polluting luxury goods such as flowers flown in from Africa.
Price fixing and margin capping on monopoly service providers
Drastic cutting of things local councils are allowed to do and spend money on. If it doesn't fall into education, health and essential infrastructure it doesn't get any money.
Reducing MP pay to the same level as priamry school teachers with the same rules for claiming expenses. MPs must have no other professional occupation or interests.
Making companies pay tax on profits at the point the profit is made - not in Ireland or other place that have 0% company tax.
Joining the Euro
a fair progressive tax system that taxes both wealth and income based on ability to pay.
Why does it have to be progressive? If you earn more you pay more tax with a flat rate system - surely that's fair?
High company tax on profits, low NI and taxes on reinvestment. Reduce the cost of opperating in Britain to reverse the job exporting trend.
Increasing tax on company profits isn't going to reverse jobs going out of the country.
Nope because the richer you are the more disposable income you have beyond income needed to pay for necessities. The pain of taxation should be shared fairly. Taking 40% of rich man's 500 000 is much less painful for him that taking 5% from someone with an income of 20 000 and essential expenditure of 18 500.
Punishing success. Cunning.
[img] 
[/img]
You can tax a company in two ways:
Tax their activity through NI, property taxes, service taxes and taxes on the goods and services they use in their activity. All these taxes increase the risk the company takes and form part of the costs it uses to compare the cost of goods sold at any production site.
Tax the profit. This in no way discourages investment, employing more people, expanding the site etc., and has no incidence on the cost of goods sold. It simply taxes profit when it is made.
Punishing success.
You only consider it being punished if you are selfish and money obsessed. Most well-balanced people would just be happy to be comfortably off and contributing to society.
[i]Punishing success. Cunning. [/i]
The alternative is creating a poverty trap and no incentive to work at all.
Tax the profit. This in no way discourages investment, employing more people
What it does is discourage where these things happen - i.e. it'll be done somewhere other than the UK.
There are arguments to tax business less, encourage them to move to the UK and therefore generate more jobs etc. and therefore more income tax from employed people.
Your proposals regarding personal and business taxation would be fine if people didn't have a choice where to place themselves and their businesses - if you move them and the jobs they create out of the UK then everyone suffers.
To answer the OP - I would have thought the Tories have it
but .........
I remember the 1992 general election when the fortunes of the two parties were pretty much reversed from what they are today
The incumbent Tory party were deeply unpopular as a government & had [if you believed the polls] no chance of hanging on & winning
They did though
You only consider it being punished if you are selfish and money obsessed. Most well-balanced people would just be happy to be comfortably off and contributing to society.
No, most well-balanced people would simply move their companies to a country where they're not punished.
can you give an example of mass emigration of well balanced people due to "punishing "tax laws?No, most well-balanced people would simply move to a country where they're not punished
Did they all leave when it was 95% ?
EDIT: NICE EDIT 5th 🙄