Support NeoGAF

[Nicktendo86]

Heeeeyyyo, labour's 4th largest donor is a hedge fund backer who they have tried to keep secret for weeks while attacking hedge funds? My hypocrisy alarm is going off. What an absolute joke of a party.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/579005739102011393

 

[kitch9]

Heeeeyyyo, labour's 4th largest donor is a hedge fund backer who they have tried to keep secret for weeks while attacking hedge funds? My hypocrisy alarm is going off. What an absolute joke of a party.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/579005739102011393

Ah well, he can always just bang on about the Bullingdon club.

That'll work.

 

[kitch9]

Indeed. £8 should be the minimum, by 2020 we should be looking at an annual minimum wage of £16,000 (£8.80/h) for a full time employee so a couple both earning the minimum wage won't be living in poverty and won't require state subsidies in the form of in-work welfare/credits to be able to live comfortably. Work should always pay people enough so they can pa for the basics and a few extras without having to go cap in hand to the government for credits. If companies don't like it they can lump it, for too long the taxpayer has subsidised low wages for the benefit of corporate profits.

SMEs make up the bulk of employment across the UK though, not corporations.

I'm assuming that the government would have the data on how many don't make a vast amount of profit and would get in distress if they were forced to pay much more in wages.

There's a reason it hasn't been done so far.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Typical labour hypocritical socialist
http://order-order.com/2014/11/24/lady-nugees-walled-garden/

 

[Psychotext]

I'm getting the inkling that you aren't a fan of Labour Nicktendo.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I'm getting the inkling that you aren't a fan of Labour Nicktendo.

Hey, any member of any political party left of Attila the Hun should take a vow of poverty!

 

[Nicktendo86]

I'm getting the inkling that you aren't a fan of Labour Nicktendo.

I'm not but it is their startling hypocrisy that is getting my goat. They have nothing constructive to say on the economy, policing, welfare, housing, health, nothing so just spout a load of nonsense. Ed accuses the Tories of being friendly to tax avoidance, he helped his mum avoid tax. Attack the Tories for accepting donations from hedge funds and not being clear about their donations, labour accepted £600,000 from a hedge fund bloke and tried to hide it. Say they will have a positive campaign and knock negative campaigning, first poster they bring out is a scaremongering nonsense about cuts to the NHS.

Don't get me wrong, the Tories are utter twats as well but labour are clearly nowhere near being ready to govern.

Take this for example,I have no idea how anyone can take labour seriously

Mr Miliband has repeatedly attacked the Conservative Party for accepting large sums of money from the City, and, in particular, “Mayfair hedge funds”.
Indeed, it was a central charge of Mr Miliband’s response to George Osborne’s Budget. He told the Commons that the “stinking rich” Tories had refused to “act on hedge funds” because “they bankroll the Tory Party.”
“He can’t act because they own him, lock, stock and barrel,” he added.
The apparent reluctance of Labour to confirm Mr Taylor’s identity will fuel concerns about the transparency of the party around private donors.
Under a system set up in the wake of Chequers lobbying row, the Conservatives release the names of major donors who attend ‘Leader’s Club’ dinners with Mr Cameron every quarter.
The lists include details of whether they have occurred at Chequers, his grace-and-favour mansion.
Similar disclosures of meetings with the Labour leader, by contrast, are far less frequent, with the most recent available covering the year up to December 2013.

 

[Psychotext]

I was wondering what the problem with the hedge fund investor was, but yeah, that makes it pretty hypocritical.

...and yes, Milliband is a joke, They should have got rid of him a long time ago.

 

[Jezbollah]

And that's pretty much the core of the reason why I could never vote for Labour as it stands. Does anyone actually think they're going to offer anything in Government, when they cant in opposition?

 

[Empty]

on facebook i have a friend who is like nicktendo but only posts about tories. tories this, tories that (lot of ukip too). let's turn the site into an rss feed for shitty pandering left wing sites that if i wanted to read i would. ugh the hypocrisy. they're so dirty. how can anyone vote for them? god how disgusting they are. they just care about the rich. nasty, greedy, elitist.

reality: politics in the media age is about selling your message. hammering home a few points. it's relationship to the truth is the same as in advertising or branding. most people don't care about the nitty gritty. doing this is effective, especially in a system that rewards focusing on a few key marginals (and arguably a few key demographics in said marginals) instead of creating a broad coalition, but leads to zero integrity and lots of dishonesty.

i feel like barely anyone took cameron seriously before he was prime minister because being in opposition means it's very hard to establish credibility. yet he's actually pretty good at his job, objectively, obviously people will object to his agenda or love it. but just in terms of being a credible prime minister, very solid imo.

now you can still criticize but i feel like it's not like there's one party offering vision and integrity and one offering scare-mongering and hypocrisy, they're both notably very negative, very laser focused cynical campaigns, lacking any attempt to use politics to inspire the population, create public discourse, acting like two rival mobile phone service providers. the only real difference is that david cameron is literally the prime minister so actually runs the country and has done for five years so is more serious, whereas miliband has to start from scratch. i don't think there's a particular difference between tory and labour mp's, or tory and labour party members, there's a big mixture in both and lots of bad stuff across the board, a peak into private eye at whsmiths will show you that.

which is not to say that there's not a choice, some mobile phone providers really do offer better deals than others. run a better service.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32001383

TV "debates" have been finalised:

26 March: Live question and answer programme on Channel 4 and Sky News featuring David Cameron and Ed Miliband, presented by Jeremy Paxman and Kay Burley

2 April: Debate with seven party leaders on ITV, moderated by Julie Etchingham

16 April: Debate between five opposition party leaders on the BBC, moderated by David Dimbleby

30 April: BBC Question Time programme with David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, presented by David Dimbleby

So, no "empty chairing", and the programs on 26th March and 30th April will be separate sessions with no leaders going face to face. I have to think this is a big win for the Tories after all the saga of the past few weeks.

 

[JonathanEx]

Well, while I wanted a proper empty chair and the broadcasters to stand their ground more, it's probably for the best in terms of good debates and programming. Yes, there's only one debate, but Cameron is now turning up to three major broadcasts rather than just one.

As long as there's repeated comments about Cameron refusing to go head to head, I'm happy.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I guess Cameron gets his wish to not give miliband any chance whatsoever to look prime ministerial (being in a 1 on 1 format would automatically help a bit with that even he did terribly).

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The Tories have absolutely run rings around the broadcasters and Labour over the debates. Crosby and Cameron have scored the victory they needed. The only time Ed and Dave are in the same room together Nick Clegg and a host of others are there to split Labour's vote and Farage only gets one go at Dave.

Edit: Oh my lord, Ed is going to be in the five way debate. What a complete and utter chump. All that will turn into is:

1. PC hitting him on the appaling state of the Welsh NHS.
2. SNP hitting him on allying with the Tories in the independence debate.
3. The Greens attacking him from the left flank.
4. UKIP hitting him with working class concerns and Farage doing his cheeky chappie in a pub routine vs weird Ed.

I have literally no idea why Labour would sign Ed up to this debate without Nick Clegg being there at least so Dave looks bad for not turning up.

 

[JonathanEx]

Also importantly - it demotes Farage a little bit. He's in the mass debate (or electoral orgy, if you will), the challengers debate but importantly not the Question Time threeway... And rightly so, I think.


Edit: Yeah the 'Challengers' debate is interesting. Basically - Cameron blocked Clegg from being on it as they're a party of government. Clegg can't be happy with that.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It literally makes no sense to me. Ed is lending Labour's credibility to the debate so people will take it seriously but he is opening himself up to be attacked from the left by 3 of the 4 parties there and Farage will destroy him on working class concerns. All the while both Nick and Dave are safe sitting at home chortling while Ed defends the New Labour record against the leftist parties and tries to appeal to the working classes better than Nige.

Lucy Powell is seriously thick. Crosby has absolutely destroyed her over the debates. Completely run rings around her.

 

[nib95]

Labour's first election poster filled with positive messages as Ed promised. Oh wait, not it isn't, it is a negative poster based on the NHS with no basis in reality. As Isabelle points out in his interview today, Ed Balls says voters will come to the conclusion the Tories plan to cut the NHS, doesn't actually say they will as he well knows they plan to ringfence it. This attack like of scary cuts to come, or alluding to, is scaremongering nonsense.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/labour-launches-scary-nhs-attack-poster/

Edit:
1. Ed Miliband in January 2015. 2. Labour poster March 2015. http://t.co/LygPZro4M1

The graph in the article you linked to, does show that there has been a huge drop in NHS spending increase under the new Tory government. Just because spending has still gone up (which is expected as the rate of inflation, general costs and populace goes up) it doesn't mean the rate of spending increase has not markedly slowed down. Based on that graph, it looks like under the recent Tory government, the rate of NHS spending increase has more than halved, compared to rate of increase typical in the decade prior.

 

[Uzzy]

The debates program is pretty rubbish, so that's a big win for Cameron. I'm expecting the DUP and other Northern Irish parties to issue a legal challenge over their exclusion too, which will probably mess up the timetable even more.

 

[kharma45]

The debates program is pretty rubbish, so that's a big win for Cameron. I'm expecting the DUP and other Northern Irish parties to issue a legal challenge over their exclusion too, which will probably mess up the timetable even more.

The DUP will, I don't think the rest will bother.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The graph in the article you linked to, does show that there has been a huge drop in NHS spending increase under the new Tory government. Just because spending has still gone up (which is expected as the rate of inflation, general costs and populace goes up) it doesn't mean the rate of spending increase has not markedly slowed down. Based on that graph, it looks like under the recent Tory government, the rate of NHS spending increase has more than halved, compared to rate of increase typical in the decade prior.

Yeah but... So? That makes it better off than basically every other government department in the last 5 years. The Tories came to government promising austerity and to protect the NHS budget, and that's what they did (kinda - the austerity has been significantly less profound than they originally suggested) which is what makes the Labour poster such a load of old balls.

 

[Ding-Ding]

It literally makes no sense to me. Ed is lending Labour's credibility to the debate so people will take it seriously but he is opening himself up to be attacked from the left by 3 of the 4 parties there and Farage will destroy him on working class concerns. All the while both Nick and Dave are safe sitting at home chortling while Ed defends the New Labour record against the leftist parties and tries to appeal to the working classes better than Nige.

Lucy Powell is seriously thick. Crosby has absolutely destroyed her over the debates. Completely run rings around her.

There is little doubt that the tories are having a celebration tonight. Labour really have been outsmarted on these debates.

I bet you the one they are enjoying the most is Miliband vs Dimbleby right before the election. Ed has never been good in those situations. Hell, he even struggled like hell when Myleene Klass went after his policies. So right at a time Ed needs to look statesmanlike, instead he will most likely look inept.

 

[Wrestlemania]

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32005848

Wow.

A Conservative candidate at the general election has been suspended over allegations he schemed with the English Defence League to win votes.
The Mail on Sunday reported Afzal Amin plotted to persuade the EDL to announce a march against a new "mega-mosque" in the marginal seat of Dudley North.
The paper said Mr Amin planned for the march to be scrapped so he could take credit for defusing the situation.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

This could be one of the most interesting elections in a long time, especially up here where the SNP look like they're going to clean house, while neither Labour nor the Conservatives are willing to form a coalition with them...

 

[Protome]

This could be one of the most interesting elections in a long time, especially up here where the SNP look like they're going to clean house, while neither Labour nor the Conservatives are willing to form a coalition with them...

They don't really need to, SNP don't vote on things that don't involve Scotland and with more Devolution on the way that basically makes SNP useless as a coalition ally.

 

[Jezbollah]

Given that the first 'debate' happens this Thursday, is that, rather than the dissolving of parliament, time for the election OT to go up?

 

[JonathanEx]

Dan27: Seems fair. I think I read that parliamentary business ends on Thursday daytime anyway, even if the dissolving of it doesn't take place until Friday.

New thread title idea in honour of the debates: It's okay if it's in a seven way

 

[Jezbollah]

I like that thread title

 

[kmag]

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32005848

Wow.

Yeah, it's like something out of a bad (is there any other kind) Jeffery Archer novel.


Looks like the budget hasn't really made any difference in the polls, early days but 3 of the 4 today have small Labour leads.

 

[Nicktendo86]

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32005848

Wow.

Links to that expletive Warsi. Awful stuff.

 

[pulsemyne]

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32005848

Wow.

As low as you can possibly sink, this man went lower.

 

[nib95]

Yeah but... So? That makes it better off than basically every other government department in the last 5 years. The Tories came to government promising austerity and to protect the NHS budget, and that's what they did (kinda - the austerity has been significantly less profound than they originally suggested) which is what makes the Labour poster such a load of old balls.

So? Really? How does that make the NHS better? All it does it cut them off at the knees and put even greater pressure and difficulty on them whilst they are already struggling with the budget and increasing load. Of all the shit we spend our money on, the NHS is one I think deserves it most. You can demand more efficiency sure, but recent studies already found the NHS to be among the best health care systems in the world, but the Tories are apparently not content with that and just want to further fuck it up. I still think selling off Royal Mail, especially at the price we did, was a poor idea, crippling the NHS is far worse.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

So? Really? How does that make the NHS better? All it does it cut them off at the knees and put even greater pressure and difficulty on them whilst they are already struggling with the budget and increasing load. Of all the shit we spend our money on, the NHS is one I think deserves it most. You can demand more efficiency sure, but recent studies already found the NHS to be among the best health care systems in the world, but the Tories are apparently not content with that and just want to further fuck it up. I still think selling off Royal Mail, especially at the price we did, was a poor idea, crippling the NHS is far worse.

Just an FYI, Labour went into the election with a £20bn per year cut planned for the NHS. If a real terms spending rise is cutting it off at it's knees, then what the hell is a £20bn spending cut?

 

[Lego Boss]

Just an FYI, Labour went into the election with a £20bn per year cut planned for the NHS. If a real terms spending rise is cutting it off at it's knees, then what the hell is a £20bn spending cut?

Source? That sounds like bollocks seeing as the NHS has a £120bn budget, meaning by the end of the parliament the NHS would have a budget of . . . £0.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Source? That sounds like bollocks seeing as the NHS has a £120bn budget, meaning by the end of the parliament the NHS would have a budget of . . . £0.

Here you go. Goes to show how total bollocks their current attacks are.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/16/andy-burnham-nhs-spending-health

During the last general election Labour said it would increase spending on front-line services in the NHS only in line with inflation. In addition, the Labour government proposed finding £15bn-£20bn in efficiency savings to try to relieve the extra pressure on the NHS.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Source? That sounds like bollocks seeing as the NHS has a £120bn budget, meaning by the end of the parliament the NHS would have a budget of . . . £0.

Sorry, I worded that badly. By the end of the spending period the NHS would have a budget £20bn lower than today under Labour's plan.

 

[Lego Boss]

Sorry, I worded that badly. By the end of the spending period the NHS would have a budget £20bn lower than today under Labour's plan.

Makes more sense now. Not really reassuring is it? Kind of puts these 'ideological cuts' attacks in context.

Part of me doesn't want to vote as it's all such a mess, but l know that is precisely the disengagement politcians in managed capitalist societies desire.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Regarding the Farage thing today by the way, no matter what you think of him and his party (I for one detest them) but I don't know how anyone can think they can behave like those people did today. Despicable.

 

[kitch9]

Regarding the Farage thing today by the way, no matter what you think of him and his party (I for one detest them) but I don't know how anyone can think they can behave like those people did today. Despicable.

What is with Lefties thinking that throwing stuff and shouting is how to make a point?

They have probably achieved the opposite of what they wanted as people will now feel sympathy for Farage.

I don't understand why having a problem with high uncontrolled immigration automatically makes someone racist either?

 

[nib95]

Just an FYI, Labour went into the election with a £20bn per year cut planned for the NHS. If a real terms spending rise is cutting it off at it's knees, then what the hell is a £20bn spending cut?

Here you go. Goes to show how total bollocks their current attacks are.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/16/andy-burnham-nhs-spending-health

That is not the same thing at all. They're saying they would try to find £15b-20b in increased efficiency savings to help the NHS, not that they would cut spending by £15b to £20b a year. Talk about a completely exaggerated and false skewing of the facts.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That is not the same thing at all. They're saying they would try to find £15b-20b in increased efficiency savings to help the NHS, not that they would cut spending by £15b to £20b a year. Talk about a completely exaggerated and false skewing of the facts.

What do you think efficiency savings are if not cuts? Also, the NHS has literally never received as much money as it does now so when you say the Tories want to "further fuck it up", I don't know what you're talking about and can only assume you're being nakedly partisan.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

That is not the same thing at all. They're saying they would try to find £15b-20b in increased efficiency savings to help the NHS, not that they would cut spending by £15b to £20b a year. Talk about a completely exaggerated and false skewing of the facts.

No they said they would only have spending rises in line with inflation, not at above the rate of inflation like the current government, as a result of the compounded rises it adds up to about £20bn less in today's money by now in terms of the budget and more than that in absolute money terms over the 5 year spending period.

Labour proposed a real terms freeze which would have required severe cuts compared to the course taken by the government given how quickly health costs are rising.

On the NHS Labour are responsible for more privatisation, countless failures including Mid Staffs and others and they started the whole process of marketisation and created the PCT structure that allowed competition between hospitals and trusts for service provision paving the way for private sector providers to enter the market.

There is no single party in this country that is against privatisation of NHS provision and now that UKIP have stated it, there is also no party in this country who would introduce any fees for receiving NHS services. The differences between any party on the NHS are vanishingly small now that UKIP have canned their Swiss insurance style policy.

Also given that the Tories are highly likely to commit to another 5 years of real terms spending rises for the NHS as will Labour the differences between the two major parties will remain vanishingly small going into the election. The poster is literally scaremongering lies as would any attack by the Tories.

As an aside, Labour went through with their plans for a real terms freeze with the NHS in Wales where they have complete control of the health budget and it has been an unmitigated disaster and the Welsh NHS performs worse on every single measure.

 

[nib95]

No they said they would only have spending rises in line with inflation, not at above the rate of inflation like the current government, as a result of the compounded rises it adds up to about £20bn less in today's money by now in terms of the budget and more than that in absolute money terms over the 5 year spending period.

Labour proposed a real terms freeze which would have required severe cuts compared to the course taken by the government given how quickly health costs are rising.

On the NHS Labour are responsible for more privatisation, countless failures including Mid Staffs and others and they started the whole process of marketisation and created the PCT structure that allowed competition between hospitals and trusts for service provision paving the way for private sector providers to enter the market.

There is no single party in this country that is against privatisation of NHS provision and now that UKIP have stated it, there is also no party in this country who would introduce any fees for receiving NHS services. The differences between any party on the NHS are vanishingly small now that UKIP have canned their Swiss insurance style policy.

Also given that the Tories are highly likely to commit to another 5 years of real terms spending rises for the NHS as will Labour the differences between the two major parties will remain vanishingly small going into the election. The poster is literally scaremongering lies as would any attack by the Tories.

As an aside, Labour went through with their plans for a real terms freeze with the NHS in Wales where they have complete control of the health budget and it has been an unmitigated disaster and the Welsh NHS performs worse on every single measure.

If you find ways to save on costs in efficiency savings, that is not the same as a spending cut the way the Conservative government has been doing things, as the real world effects are exactly the same despite the drop in budget. This is not what has been happening under the current government. There's been a stark decline in spending increase, but not because of efficiency savings, rather austerity measures.

Also you quite clearly said Labour proposed a £15b to £20b a year spending cut in the NHS budget, which is patently false.

And you can talk shit about labour and it's impacts to the NHS, but the NHS has been found to be one of the best health institutions in the world partly because of the way Labour has been running things.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

If you find ways to save on costs in efficiency savings, that is not the same as a spending cut, as the real world effects are exactly the same despite the drop in budget. This is not what has been happening under the current government. There's been a stark decline in spending increase, but not because of efficiency savings, rather austerity measures.

Also you quite clearly said Labour proposed a £15b to £20b a year spending cut, which is patently false.

I don't think you get it. Labour proposed a real terms spending freeze for the NHS. That means no new money at all. The current government has increased spending in real terms by over £20bn over the 5 year spending period that Labour would not have funded because they said they would only guarantee a spending freeze. The efficiency savings are neither here nor there. What matters is that Labour only guaranteed a real terms freeze in the NHS budget and the current government increased spending in real terms. That difference is now about £20bn per year.

Edit: Lol, a true Labour defender has appeared. Clearly you don't care about the facts and you just want to make a partisan point. No point in even bothering with this conversation now. Labour privatisation = good, Tory privatisation = bad. Four legs = good, two legs = better.

 

[nib95]

I don't think you get it. Labour proposed a real terms spending freeze for the NHS. That means no new money at all. The current government has increased spending in real terms by over £20bn over the 5 year spending period that Labour would not have funded because they said they would only guarantee a spending freeze. The efficiency savings are neither here nor there. What matters is that Labour only guaranteed a real terms freeze in the NHS budget and the current government increased spending in real terms. That difference is now about £20bn per year.

Presumably you are talking about post recession, not plans regarding the future, which is ultimately what matters. Do you have a link that offers details of the proposed spending freeze, for how long they intended it to last etc?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Presumably you are talking about post recession, not plans regarding the future, which is ultimately what matters. Do you have a link that offers details of the proposed spending freeze, for how long they intended it to last etc?

It was in Labour's comprehensive spending plan for the period of 2010/11-2014/15. They only guaranteed a real terms spending freeze for the NHS to ease the cuts that would have to fall elsewhere. The Tories seized on that and guaranteed a real terms spending rise for the NHS and cut more in defence, education and the home office to pay for it. It was a massively political move by Dave/George that probably won them the election (in a roundabout way).

 

[Psychotext]

Ministers block move to lift Official Secrets Act for Child Sex Abuse scandal

He tried to introduce the amendment to the Serious Crime Bill as it was going through Parliament, and would have created a defence to a charge under the OSA for anyone who had supplied material to an official investigation or inquiry into child sex abuse.

The amendment was defeated by 295 MPs to 233. The move was opposed by 254 Conservatives and 40 Liberal Democrats, suggesting a whipped vote. But Mann’s proposal was supported by 233 MPs in the 9.15pm vote on February 23, including 207 from Labour, as well as 8 Conservatives and 3 Liberal Democrats.

 

[31GhostsIV]

Ministers block move to lift Official Secrets Act for Child Sex Abuse scandal

So, Psychotext, are you trying to tell me that the majority of our current Tory/Lib Dem coalition government, the same government that likes to erode our privacy rights in the name of 'protecting children', just voted to basically protect an (alleged) Paedophile ring in Westminster?

I don't believe you! Next you'll be telling me a Tory MP tried to pull a scam involving the English Defence League to trick his constituents!

 

[Psychotext]

No commentary, people will make their own minds up as to why there was the need to make this a whipped vote. I'm sure there's some obscure reasoning as to why we need to keep the status quo.

 

[Jezbollah]

No commentary, people will make their own minds up as to why there was the need to make this a whipped vote. I'm sure there's some obscure reasoning as to why we need to keep the status quo.

There has got to be a major national security dynamic behind this to warrant such an obviously whipped vote - it would be for the best interests of all if this was explained asap.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Regarding the Farage thing today by the way, no matter what you think of him and his party (I for one detest them) but I don't know how anyone can think they can behave like those people did today. Despicable.

Maybe he took a leaf out of the Tories book and organised it himself!