-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Hmm.phisheep said:
Personally I'm hoping for enough pressure on those Lib Dem MPs who are willing to remember the reason they were elected to wreck the coalition; their popular support is dwindling. Fingers crossed we can get a new election and get these Tory twats out of office for another decade.
JonathanEx
Member
Anyone watching Daily Politics?
In short, guy fawkes etc etc
In short, guy fawkes etc etc
UnblessedSoul
Member
Judgement time is upon us dun dun dunnnn
Mr. Luchador
Member
I'm really enjoying comparing how pale Clegg looks compared to Cameron, who is seemingly radiant the more the cuts are announced. Clegg looks like he's going to 'whitey' at any time.
Lib-Dem party is dead in the water for any future elections now.
Lib-Dem party is dead in the water for any future elections now.
Osborne is rattling through this, hard to take any of it in. Will wait for the analysis of it, but it does seem more well-thought out and balanced than just slashing and burning.
To be honest it makes me feel better that a Government is doing something about it all sooner rather than later. Labour would have had to do these things as well, but they would have tried to have their cake and eat it too. I'd have had no confidence that they would had actually done what was required to sort the country out.
To be honest it makes me feel better that a Government is doing something about it all sooner rather than later. Labour would have had to do these things as well, but they would have tried to have their cake and eat it too. I'd have had no confidence that they would had actually done what was required to sort the country out.
Chriswok said:
I think opinion will return to a more balanced judgement in time, although much will hinge on the vote on AV and how tuition fees are handled. Tuition fees are a tricky one for them, something has to be done but mainly because of Labour shovelling everyone into University with no thought about how the system could sustain it.
From the way these cuts are being presented so far, you are still getting a moderated Tory party and depending on how the Government is perceived over the coming years if they continue to be seen as a moderated Tory party the Lib Dems will get the credit for that rather than the backlash for everything and anything at the moment.
I think the backlash against the Lib Dems is daft really, they did the only thing they could do. Any other variation of the outcome based on the votes would have been a complete mess for the country these last few months. I'd still vote the same way.
blazinglord
Member
That is a complete misrepresentation of my post. I strongly support closing the loopholes in the tax system. But I was merely highlighting the difference between reducing tax liabilities and actual tax evasion, the latter of which is illegal but the former isn't - just morally questionable.travisbickle said:
That's an interesting point about messages, once out there, start to gain traction. But I think misinformation on the part of the press has always existed since the very first newsprint, and we do have pretty tough libel laws in this country which is available for those who have the money and/or the time to use it. All newspapers have all been guilty at one time or another of conspiring to construct moral panics though. I think it is just an unfortunate side-effect of a free press and I certainly don't support strengthening libel laws or the overuse of super-injunctions to limit the press. Nor would I go far as saying that editorialised news is a threat to democracy and comparable to state propaganda. The press only has the written word at its disposal, the state has a range of powers at its disposal.radioheadrule83 said:
I agree that they are often run in a way that reflects the ideological beliefs of the people at the top of the company, which is why it is so important to have differing versions of the truth. In the case of Germany [entering Godwin's Law territory here], state propaganda crowded out dissenting opinions and opposition to the regime. Goebbels persecuted papers run by the SDP and the Communist Party, by closing them down through legal means or sending SA thugs to vandalise their offices. I don't really know much about America, but from what I do know (from the Playboy: Hugh Henfer biography
) is that the US post apparently had the right to censor anything that passed its mail service which suggests that censorship and the freedom of press is probably a recent rediscovery of American constitutional tradition. It is also worth noting that McCarthy was a US senator with state apparatuses at his disposal which made the anti-Red rhetoric all the more dangerous.So to answer your question, the self-interests and ideological backings of newspaper proprietors, whether its fascist sympathiser Lord Rothermere or neoconservative Rupert Murdoch alone doesn't scare me. The NSDAP newspaper alone didn't sweep their party to victory - in fact they never actually got an electoral victory, the most they got was the backing of a third of the electorate.
I don't hate the BBC. In fact, BBC news is vastly more superior to Sky news and definitely remains my choice of viewing. But it is undeniable that it has a left wing slant, which I am okay about. It is impossible to have completely bias-free reporting, and it does us credit as human beings that we are not mindless borgs going around without our own individuality and perspective affecting the things we do. Like they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
I loathe Bolton on sky news, but I do think people are reading a bit too much into his interruption of Clegg during the debates. I seriously doubt it was some vast right-wing conspiracy, Bolton most likely worked alone with his own prejudices influencing his line of questioning. On top of that, I'm pretty sure the character-assassination attempt made on Clegg was actually by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. I can remember reading an editorial in The Times about how it was distasteful to suggest that Clegg is anti-British and whatever nonsense the Daily Mail perpetuated. I'm sure if you look closely at anything long enough, you will find a conspiracy. But sometimes, the reality is far more boring and mundane that it first appears.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Meadows said:
Yes, but as the Argentinians showed us in 1982 we have to have the means to protect our people who live all over the world and not just in Europe. The only way to do that is to have an operational navy and air force. I would have got rid of our nuclear deterrance and kept a big navy, because if a country starts shit with us again what are we going to do? Post an empty threat to nuke them that will see us become an international
To be honest, I thought Osbourne did really well. Also I'm surprised stuff like the winter fuel allowance didn't get hit. The big name, headline grabbing grants and such remained mostly. I think social housing got a big hit but I don't understand that at the best of times.
Wow Johnson seems to be forgetting the defecit got so large under their watch. That's why the cuts are so savage.
Wow Johnson seems to be forgetting the defecit got so large under their watch. That's why the cuts are so savage.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Waging war is the only thing were good at anymore, defence is worth every fucking penny.
:lolblazinglord said:
No seriously, that entire organisation does this ALL THE TIME. Have you not heard the untold number of tales from old Fox News anchors about the editorial "guidance" they received?
RE: Lib Dem prospects;
They really are screwed. Clegg destroyed the party by siding with the devil and people won't so readily forgive them. Expect particularly bitter defeats in Scotland and Wales; where if any luck the SNP and PC will pick up the votes.
Good comment in the Guardian on that;Wes said:
"If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time?
"Could it be because things were not actually that bad? A quick look at the figures confirms that, until the crash hit in September 2008, the levels of red ink were manageably low. The budget of 2007 estimated Britain's structural deficit - that chunk of the debt that won't be mopped up by growth - at 3% of gross domestic product. At the time, the revered Institute for Fiscal Studies accepted that two-thirds of that sum comprised borrowing for investment, leaving a black hole of just 1% of GDP. If the structural deficit today has rocketed close to 8%, all that proves is that most of it was racked up dealing with the banking crisis and subsequent slump - with only a fraction the result of supposed Labour profligacy. After all, even the Tories would have had to pay out unemployment benefit."
travisbickle
Member
blazinglord said:
At a time when the current rhetoric is "we are all in it together", anything morally questionable should be pounced upon. Anyone saying, like yourself, "you'd do it if you were them" is going against the coalitions current stance.
Sir Fragula said:
It's referring to Labour's estimates, which were always wildly optimistic and worked backwards from how much they wanted to spend to then justify it.
Brown was a man in denial about everything, Darling inherited a mess and had to toe the line. The UK would have been up shit creek at some point anyway, with or without the banking crisis. The banking crisis just brought everything out into the open far quicker, far more dramatically and added another huge level of debt to deal with.
Other countries weathered the storm far better than we did, if you honestly believe Labour were running a tight ship then I'm amazed.
They're incredibly well documented.FabCam said:
A few did, many didn't. British GDP contraction in 2009 was on par with that in Germany, Italy, Japan, Denmark, Finland and Belgium. This kind of thinking is systemic of British society - we're either the best of the worst at something, when in reality we sat pretty firmly in the middle.
Of course there could have been improvements, but if there's one thing the Great Depression should have taught us it's that you don't cut your way to growth.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Sir Fragula said:
If the same numbers of people vote for Labour in next year's Scottish election as they did in this year's general election then they should have a majority easily. I figure they'll run on a "We're the only ones who can stand up to the Tories" platform, whilst at the same time getting their BBC and Daily Record allies to just focus on a "WE CANNAE AFFORD INDEPENDENCE" fear-mongering and full of FUD campaign to sap SNP votes.
As much as I want to see the SNP administration continue, I can't see them being in power in Scotland for much longer unless they're able to take a lot from the Liberal Democrats. I know for sure that I'll be voting SNP twice in my constituency. And before anyone asks, I like them because of their pro-education social democrat views, not because of the independence thing (which I would welcome, but I don't think Scots deserve it yet.)
Sir Fragula said:
Ask them why they took us to war in Iraq as well whilst you're at it.
blazinglord
Member
Er, what part of 'I strongly support closing the loopholes in the tax system' are you not understanding? I am not going against the coalition's stance at all. I was merely saying that the anger ought to be directed at previous Labour and Tory governments who have allowed these loopholes to remain rather than at people who employ accountants to reduce tax liabilities.travisbickle said:
When you order something over £18 from the United States and it slips through the customs without a charge, do you phone up HM Revenue and Customs and demand to be allowed to pay the charge, or do you count yourself lucky you've gotten out of paying an additional tax? This example is actually tax evasion, not reducing tax liabilities, but I am demonstrating that not everything is black and white. It is in human nature to use circumstances to one's own advantage and nobody wants to see less money in their wallet than they can. Therefore, I stand by my main point that any anger you might have should be directed at the loopholes left unclosed for years by the government, not viewing people who reduce their tax liabilities as committing a grave sin against society.
J Tourettes
Banned
Kentpaul said:
Do something worthwhile and vote SNP next time.
ghst said:
The Romans were jealous of our 'shitty' weather. And if we didn't have it, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.
I don't understand the deficit myself. It seemed fine up until a couple of years ago. How did it go so shitty, so fast? Its not even bank bailouts. Unemployment isn't that high so tax receipts shouldn't be too bad. I just don't understand..
mrklaw said:
- Recession which has decreased tax receipts for profits on business, sales of goods (VAT), income taxes, and most other taxes. Many people have gone down to part time employment, which moderately masks the loss of productivity within the economy
- Extra welfare spending due to increased unemployment
- Increased interest payment on the government bonds used to allow government to actually run a deficit, due to increased government debt levels.
radioheadrule83
Banned
DECK'ARD said:
Except that they're cutting benefits a lot more, and even cutting departments 1% less than Labour would have -- they're still cutting them by 19%. The people WILL notice any deterioration in public services... they seem to be banking on the idea that we know Labour wouldn't have cut them any less, and hoping we pat them on the back for saving money on the welfare state.
It seems like a gamble to me. Its almost like they're hoping those currently in receipt of benefits are too lazy to vote!
I actually think a lot of those changes were necessary and fair though. And I'm an ex-Labour card carrier..
I think the family stuff is touchy. For every family squeezing out kids, not working and claiming benefits, it will lure them back into the fold of work and society, but for those who have always worked hard, they may feel like they're being penalised.
radioheadrule83 said:
Yeah it's a gamble, and the proof will be in the pudding. But overall I think Osborne did well today, and it all seemed much more well-considered than just a general hack and slash. It's balanced out with some much needed changes, and it's definitely reassuring to see some actual action on things after Brown's endless "Everything will be fine, trust me". I think everyone had got tired of that, and knew what would be coming from whoever had got in. The constant scaremongering about the same old Tories from Labour has also effectively desensitized everyone.
It definitely seemed far less Tory today than I'd expected anyway. And Labour's response to it all was a joke, they don't seem like a credible opposition yet at all, I think Johnson was a very bad move. And Ed looked completely lost, like someone who'd just became leader by accident and was now realising what he has to deal with.
blazinglord
Member
While I agree that Ed Miliband was pretty much a car crash in PMQs today, completely out of his depth, I thought Alan Johnson's response was quite good. He made a number of good jokes, landed some blows on the Tories for 'looking too cheerful', and basically looked as though he was enjoying himself. There wasn't anything of real substance in his response, but he didn't really need to present a credible alternative. He just needed to boost the opposition's morale after an appalling PMQs and get them fired up for opposing the cuts, which he did successfully I thought.DECK'ARD said:
Don't get me wrong, I hate the thought of Johnson in control of the nation's finances, but he does have a lot of charisma which doesn't make me, as a Tory, instinctively dislike him.