Support NeoGAF

[industrian]

No SNP in the OP? Fuck all of yoose. Show the great honourable Chairman Salmond some respect.

I stopped supporting the LibDems when Sir Ming stepped down. He was a true visionary.

The way they treated him was pretty fucked up and completely corrupted my view of the Lib Dems. "Oh hey, we're the most progressive party in the country. But fuck that guy, he's too old for us." The entire merry-go-round with Kennedy and Campbell showed that the leaders of the LD were just a bunch of backstabbers.

 

[jas0nuk]

Because rather Labour than the fucking Toffs? And no matter how bad its been at times lately, it's still better than the last time the Toffs were in?

Few points here. As someone from a poor family myself, I have no issue with voting for "toffs". Reasons why:
1) Labour has just as many "toffs" - people from wealthy and middleclass backgrounds who went to fancy schools such as Eton, and then onto Oxford and Cambridge, then straight into politics as advisors, then overpromoted to high office where their incompetence finally became apparent
2) I'd rather have "toffs" in charge who can afford to be in politics without just being in it for the money. Labour MPs and ministers have done VERY well for themselves over the past 13 years.
3) It doesn't matter what your social background is, it matters how well educated you are and how balanced your world view is.
4) It's not better than the last time the "toffs" were in power. We have a £90 billion structural deficit (this is when you ignore the bank bailouts and currently high unemployment payments due to the recession), and a public debt nearing ONE TRILLION POUNDS. In 1997 when the Conservatives left office they left behind a budget surplus and a booming economy. Labour has created a client state of public sector workers and people totally reliant on the benefits system.

Do you have any valid points to make other than class warfare?

 

[Zutroy]

I would also like people who intend to vote Labour to explain why, after 13 years of a government that has overtaxed and overspent with little to show for it and in some cases a worsening of the state of the country, they still want to give them another chance.

Because they don't have David Cameron running the party.

 

[jas0nuk]

Because they don't have David Cameron running the party.

Is this another spiteful anti-upperclass argument? If so, see post above. Otherwise, I'm sure you can come up with a valid reason.

There is overwhelming evidence Gordon Brown is incompetent: http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/06/gordons-10-worst-financial-gaffs.html
a liar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/gordon-brown-defence-spending-mistake
and a ditherer: http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/10/gordon-browns-top-ten-dithers.html

He is also unwilling to accept mistakes and is reluctant to face questions from REAL members of the public (not people handpicked by Downing Street), unlike Cameron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzENO3QF9ng
Imagine Brown doing that? He'd shit his pants.

He is probably our least respected and politically useless prime minister in recent memory.

Apart from that, do you not have any policy related points to make? You only want to discuss personalities?

 

[defel]

None of those characteristics imply incompetence on the part of Gordon Brown, they imply incompetence on the part of politicians. It is because Gordon Brown is a politician that he cannot admit mistakes, that he cannot say what he really thinks and that he must strictly adhere to the rules of the media. Cameron will be no different, Clegg will be no different. There is a deeper underlying problem with British politics and Brown is not the problem.

Ill add that people are idots. People dont dislike Brown and Labour because of the recession, they dislike Brown and Labour because they are bored, they want a new face, a new colour, a new government. In ten years time the public will be bored again and no doubt vote in a new government. In a way I blame the British people more than the politicians.

 

[Zutroy]

I'm not exactly a big fan of Brown either, however to me Cameron comes across as a spineless, fake, dishonest twat. Something about the sight of him makes my skin crawl. For that reason, I will not be able to put an X beside his name.



[E]
Why must you taunt me Google Ads!

 

[industrian]

There is a deeper underlying problem with British politics and Brown is not the problem.

Pretty much.

Which reminds me, I've got to set up a postal vote for this year.

 

[jas0nuk]

It is because Gordon Brown is a politician that he cannot admit mistakes, that he cannot say what he really thinks and that he must strictly adhere to the rules of the media. Cameron will be no different, Clegg will be no different. There is a deeper underlying problem with British politics and Brown is not the problem.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...Married-Couples/Article/201001115516126?f=rss

Although I agree there is an underlying problem with British politics but it is actually a vicious cycle.

People complain that politicians won't tell them the truth --> politicians tell the truth --> public doesn't like to hear the truth because it will affect their income --> people stop voting for those politicians --> politicians start lying again --> back to step 1.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I am voting Labour or Liberal Democrat at the 2010 election

Its not easy being green
- prior to Cameron's "vote blue to go green" conversion of the Conservative party, where he rode around on his bicycle with a limo following behind with his brief case - he considered wind farms as nothing better than "giant bird blenders"

Rail vs Terminal 6
- one of his green ideas was to expand and improve rail links into London rather than build a new terminal 6 at Heathrow. They privatised UK rail and made it the expensive, horrible, corporate mess it is today and we're supposed to trust them on rail improvements? Not to mention very generous estimates suggest that even if everyone took up rail for short-haul domestic flights, the plan would only be equivalent to 30% of the potential locked up in Terminal 6 -- which will boost an ailing domestic airline industry (See BA in the news recently) and create 60,000 jobs.

Lord Ashcroft - a tip of the iceberg on corporate interests enjoying non-dom, non-tax-paying status? Would a conservative government do anything to reform the Lords or crack down on Tax-Exiles?
- Lord Ashcroft. When he was nominated to the Lords by William Hague in 2000 he gave assurances that he would become a permanent resident of Britain... he never. For 10 years he asserted influence from his privileged position of power - in the uppermost chamber of British politics while engaging in what for all intents and purposes was tax avoidance! Had Hague and Cameron after him held Lord Ashcroft to his promise, he would have paid £127 million into the public purse, but instead they covered for him and protected both him and his private interests with a wall of obfuscation. Tax exiles tend to be those with the affluence and riches to be taxed a significant amount. They cost the UK economy billions, as unlike the USA - the UK doesn't give an ultimatum of tax-payer status or non-citizen. With the tory party being the party of the few and not for the many, I wouldn't expect any of this to improve under their reign. As if that wasn't bad enough we welcome tax exiles from other countries basically because we want their money and influence here rather than elsewhere. The IMF classed the UK as a tax-haven up until 2008... here's an idea - before we start freezing and cutting the wages of hard working public servants, why don't we rake back some cash from the individuals and businesses who have benefitted from our nation as customer, and from our services such as policing, healthcare and defence?

Parliamentary reform
- No party has introduced more parliamentary reform than New Labour. Only Labour and (moreso) the Liberal Democrats are interested in Electoral Reform to fairer represent the wishes of the population. Only these parties have shown a genuine interest in ending hereditary peerage and making the House of Lords a chamber of elected representatives.

Liam Fox vs Civil Servants, misleading the country on civil service bonuses
- Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary has engaged in cynical ploys to whip up public support with nothing but lies and misrepresentations. He has attacked hard working MOD civil servants, claiming that they are signing up projects too close to a general election, and complaining about their numbers - while his party simultaneously chastises the government for not doing enough to support the Army... PUS, Chief of Defence Materiel and other military staff have routinely written to civil servants to let them know that despite the toxic bullshit Tory's like Fox are pumping into the atmosphere - that the work they do is valuable and helping troops on the front line. He falsely asserted that in the wake of damaging reports such as the one into the Nimrod disaster that the government had awarded civil servants £42 million in bonuses. This made its way across all the media, and was painted in much the same way as bankers bonuses. Unlike bank bonuses however, the money for bonuses has to be granted by parliament in a vote every few years - so in a sense it was a figure he already endorsed - and the 'bonuses' aren't actually bonuses at all: the money DOESN'T come out of any other budget (for helicopters and shit), it is a performance management incentivisation that is budgetted for long before payments are given out. Many civil servants actually find the system divisive and flawed and would prefer fair pay. Liam Fox lost an appeal into repaying £24000+ in the expenses scandal, and incidentally, this is around £10k more than the large swathes of low rank civil servants make in a year -- JUST ON EXPENSES FOR HIS HOUSE.

Didn't like the Iraq War? Don't like Afghanistan? Don't like how hard we've been hit by the financial crisis?
- do you REALLY think a conservative government would have avoided any of the above? They hardly would have enforced tighter regulation on the banks, as thats just against the whole conservative ethos, and along with the wars - thats pretty much how we got into this mess. Don't believe me?

The public defecit - lets shatter a few myths!
I hate spongers and the 'work-shy' dolite as much as any neo-con... but they are a drop in the ocean compared to the problem of tax avoidance on the part of rich and wealthy individuals and corporations. Welfare in general is a drop in the ocean in comparison... a lot of the cost to this economy is perpetrated not by the jobless and insecure, but by the over-priveleged over-class, many of whom for some reason will be more inclined to vote Tory! We're the fifth biggest spender in the world on defence. A number that has only risen since the Iraq war started in 2003... a war which only the Lib Dems would have opposed. These are annual costs... I've bolded the big boys - I hope this breaks a few misconceptions:
• Job Seekers allowance costs an annual £2.3 bln
• Housing benefit: £4.1 bln
• Income Support: £6.5 bln
• Child benefit: £8.8 bln
• Benefits for disabled: £10.8 bln
• Contribution-based pensions: £42.1
• Corporate tax avoidance: £85 bln
• Business fraud: £14 bln
• Government fraud in Whitehall: £5 bln
• Tobacco smuggling: £3.5 bln
• VAT fraud on mobile phones: £2.5 bln
• Total welfare fraud: £2 bln
• Jobseekers Allowance fraud: £ 0.19 bln
• Bulldozer smuggling: £ 0.15 bln
• Military Spending: £38 bln
For contrast purposes:
• Cost of the UK Banks Bailout: £810 bln -- caveat, UK government(s) are likely to see a return on this 'investment' eventually. Provided we don't enter full on nuclear worldwide collapse.

Age of Austerity - its coming no matter who wins - but does that mean all parties are equal on this matter? Hell no.
- The conservatives want to cut inheritance tax for millionaires, abolish stamp duty on shares and introduce a traditionalist marriage-based tax incentive that would penalize the single, those escaping domestic violence and even widows. Meanwhile, they'd be putting the squeeze on you and me. They'd also be up for abolishing OFCOM, and taking a look at the BBC / license-fee -- all of which must be music to Rupert Murdoch's ears. This is the fucking party that opposed minimum wage.


This post is only half finished, I hadn't even begun. But its half 1 in the morning so I'm not going to continue this post right now...

If you own a large estate in the country and like shooting foxes, if you're the kind of person who totally digs politicians who have their own fucking moat, or if you generally have a lot of money you'd like to see protected - then I can see why you'd want to vote Tory. If you're among the vast majority of Britons who aren't at all affluent, have suffered in this last year, and are likely to suffer in this one -- if you'd like to see the top earners pay their way too -- then I don't see why you would. If you just REALLY REALLY hate Labour, then I would urge you to vote Liberal Democrat instead.

 

[Salazar]

If you own a large estate in the country and like shooting foxes, if you're the kind of person who totally digs politicians who have their own fucking moat, or if you generally have a lot of money you'd like to see protected - then I can see why you'd want to vote Tory.

I vaguely liked your post and respected your opinion until you suddenly slammed on the brakes and reversed at full speed. Incidentally, I find Mandelson at least as repugnant and devoted to coterie interests as Ashcroft. When you speak of the exertion of malign influence from a privileged position, his name slithers to mind.

 

[jas0nuk]

radioheadrule83,

Your section about the deficit is complete nonsense. The deficit is the gap between what is spent and what comes in from tax. Things such as corporate tax avoidance are nothing to do with that. The majority of public spending is defence, health, pensions, public sector wages, welfare/benefits and day-to-day government spending.

See here: http://ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_pie_ukgs.php

By the way, PFI (private finance initiatives) are not included in any government spending figures. PFI is basically the loaned money used to build schools and hospitals over the past 13 years which will cost billions to repay.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ojects-to-rise-to-16310bn-a-year-1674151.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/pfi-construction-bid-rigging

You also got the figure for tax avoidance wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance
It is between 3.7 and 13 billion, not your ridiculous figure of 85 billion.

I also see that you would vote for a Labour party heavily bankrolled by the Unite union with over 100 MPs in the upcoming election having been handpicked by Unite themselves? They are clearly influencing and affecting the ability of the Labour government to be independent. It took 3 days for Gordon Brown to come out and speak up against the BA strike and he refused to back workers who would cross the picket line in order to keep BA's day to day operations running in PMQs on Wednesday.

Lord Ashcroft, on the other hand, does not influence Conservative policies.

Labour also have their own vast selection of non-doms whom they have taken over £10 million from:

• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street.

 

[industrian]

Didn't like the Iraq War? Don't like Afghanistan? Don't like how hard we've been hit by the financial crisis?
- do you REALLY think a conservative government would have avoided any of the above? They hardly would have enforced tighter regulation on the banks, as thats just against the whole conservative ethos, and along with the wars - thats pretty much how we got into this mess. Don't believe me?

Most people forget that it was the Conservative votes that took us to war.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118

 

[jas0nuk]

Most people forget that it was the Conservative votes that took us to war.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118

And you have forgotten that it was the claim of "45 minute WMDs" that convinced most of the House of Commons to vote for the war. A claim made by Tony Blair in the dossier giving the case for war which turned out to be a lie.

 

[ghst]

• Job Seekers allowance costs an annual £2.3 bln
• Housing benefit: £4.1 bln
• Income Support: £6.5 bln
• Child benefit: £8.8 bln
• Benefits for disabled: £10.8 bln
• Contribution-based pensions: £42.1
• Corporate tax avoidance: £85 bln
• Business fraud: £14 bln
• Government fraud in Whitehall: £5 bln
• Tobacco smuggling: £3.5 bln
• VAT fraud on mobile phones: £2.5 bln
• Total welfare fraud: £2 bln
• Jobseekers Allowance fraud: £ 0.19 bln
• Bulldozer smuggling: £ 0.15 bln
• Military Spending: £38 bln
For contrast purposes:
• Cost of the UK Banks Bailout: £810 bln -- caveat, UK government(s) are likely to see a return on this 'investment' eventually. Provided we don't enter full on nuclear worldwide collapse.

can you source these?

 

[industrian]

And you have forgotten that it was the claim of "45 minute WMDs" that convinced most of the House of Commons to vote for the war. A claim made by Tony Blair in the dossier giving the case for war which turned out to be a lie.

Your insinuation that I've forgotten such an outlandish claim as the "45 minutes" one is quite insulting.

 

[jas0nuk]

I apologise if you are offended that I implied you had forgotten about the 45 minute claim, but you surely accept that all MPs, Labour and Conservative, voted for the war on the merits of the "sexed up dossier" which painted Iraq as a huge threat to the welfare of the UK. The real question is why high-ranking Cabinet figures such as Jack Straw, who knew that the legality of the war was questionable, did not speak up. I suspect it is because he was more interested in his career - he would have had to resign if he went against Blair.

 

[radioheadrule83]

radioheadrule83, you would vote for a party heavily bankrolled by the Unite union with over 100 MPs in the upcoming election having been handpicked by Unite themselves? They are clearly influencing and affecting the ability of the Labour government to be independent. It took 3 days for Gordon Brown to come out and speak up against the BA strike and he refused to back workers who would cross the picket line in order to keep BA's day to day operations running in PMQs on Wednesday.

Labour was formed by the unions and the party's closeness with the TUC and its members is of no particular surprise. The aims and objectives of said unions are more attuned to those of the 'common-man' than those of any lobbyists and donors currently supporting the Conservative party... the unions serve primarily to protect members terms and conditions and lobby for fairness in pay, they don't have anywhere near the power they used to before Maggie got to them... who's supporting the Tory's lately?

According to the FT, 'City' donations to the Conservative party have quadrupled under David Cameron's leadership. Up to £16 million since 2006, compared to less than £4 million for the three previous tory leaders. This, in a time when the financial sector has brought world economies to near total collapse. Do I really want to vote for the party that those guys endorse?

You'll note that the £16 million figure dwarfs those non-dom donations you just pointed out... much in the same way that Lord Ashcroft's wealth dwarfs those of the donors you listed. He makes £55 million a year, has evaded ~£127m in tax per year, while holding sway over the very legislation this country makes. His donations likely funelled straight through to his own staff that he has in marginal seats around the country, more or less paying for local election campaigns directly. That situation is NOTHING like that of a normal donor.

And I don't think its the Prime Ministers place to side in a battle between a corporation like BA and its workers. The only reason he HAS done so in any way, shape or form at all is because the kind of middle-class person who can actually afford a package holiday this Easter is fucking horrified at the thought of having their flight cancelled and WANTS him to sort it out... to hell with the possibility that BA cabin crew MIGHT actually be getting treated like shit. If Brown actually fought the unions like the Torys would, things would go to hell in a handbasket a lot quicker than they already are -- what needs to happen is people need to get around the negotiating table. But when you're dealing with arrogance the likes of which BA and Royal Mail throw around, they know that the public relies on their services so much that they can treat people like shit and have the public on their side the moment their underlings try to kick up a fuss. BA touting themselves as an 'iconic' British brand makes me fucking sick. Not going on holiday this Easter? Here's a cynical ploy to appeal to your patriotism to get you on our side!

Lord Ashcroft, on the other hand, does not influence Conservative policies.

No, he sits in the upper chamber of British parliament - the very purpose of which is to allow, amend or strike down legislation passed up to it from the lower chamber. If anything its even worse than influencing conservative policies, he has sat in a position of inscrutable power wielding influence over the country's legislation itself without paying tax like the rest of us. Tax that goes into our public services like healthcare and defence.

I vaguely liked your post and respected your opinion until you suddenly slammed on the brakes and reversed at full speed. Incidentally, I find Mandelson at least as repugnant and devoted to coterie interests as Ashcroft. When you speak of the exertion of malign influence from a privileged position, his name slithers to mind.

Mandy is indeed a snake. One of the many reasons I do lean more toward Lib Dem at the moment than Labour.

 

[SecretBonusPoint]

Few points here. As someone from a poor family myself, I have no issue with voting for "toffs". Reasons why:
1) Labour has just as many "toffs" - people from wealthy and middleclass backgrounds who went to fancy schools such as Eton, and then onto Oxford and Cambridge, then straight into politics as advisors, then overpromoted to high office where their incompetence finally became apparent
2) I'd rather have "toffs" in charge who can afford to be in politics without just being in it for the money. Labour MPs and ministers have done VERY well for themselves over the past 13 years.
3) It doesn't matter what your social background is, it matters how well educated you are and how balanced your world view is.
4) It's not better than the last time the "toffs" were in power. We have a £90 billion structural deficit (this is when you ignore the bank bailouts and currently high unemployment payments due to the recession), and a public debt nearing ONE TRILLION POUNDS. In 1997 when the Conservatives left office they left behind a budget surplus and a booming economy. Labour has created a client state of public sector workers and people totally reliant on the benefits system.

Do you have any valid points to make other than class warfare?

Oh its you, the resident Tory apologist. Lets take you to task:

1) Labour does not have anywhere near as many "toffs" as the Torys, thats just misdirection on your part. The Conservatives have the old guard still in their ranks who are made exclusively from that blue blood of ye olde politics.
2) The 'Toffs' had a monopoly on British politics because they were the only ones that COULD afford to run the country before Labour made those changes to the system and MP's became paid. And I am completely fine with the people running the country doing alright for themselves when some chav footballer will earn more in a month than they ever will. This also seems like youve been reading the latest Daily Mail "OMG BLAIR IS RAKING IT IN" non-news, stretching back as far as 2007 events to invoke outrage.
3) Yes. Balance. Perhaps now we raise the "mates with homophobic organisation leaders" issue, yeah?
4) I'm not sure what picture of the last Toff's run at the country, but it seems to be a deluded one. Britain experienced its own entirely localised recession simply due to their mis-steps and had insane unemployment in the 80's. The recession we are currently experiencing is a GLOBAL one. You can't just lay all that at Labours feet, whereas the previous one you can certainly fling at the Tory's. Not of course that Cameron and co had any better idea on what to do in these times with them floundering as per usual and would have even had us further fucked by letting banks do what they wanted.

The Torys are an awful fit for running the country. Theyre just as clueless as theyve ever been, theyre not putting forward any bold new ideas or anything that isnt empty "WE'LL DO IT DIFFERENT TO BROWN" rhetoric.

 

[radioheadrule83]

can you source these?

The stats on tax avoidance are mainly sourced from the Grabiner report: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_grabiner_report.htm

Other figures were revealed via the Guardian, BBC 'Today' programme and other sources. All of the costs were summarised here: http://www.mediahell.org/costofthings.htm

 

[Salazar]

1) Labour does not have anywhere near as many "toffs" as the Torys, thats just misdirection on your part. The Conservatives have the old guard still in their ranks who are made exclusively from that blue blood of ye olde politics.

If you're saying that there's something intrinsically wrong with being upper-class or having inherited wealth, you're talking offensive rot and need only invert the presumption to see it.

 

[SecretBonusPoint]

Of course I'm not saying something as stupid as "all upper class is evil", I'm simply taking to task blatant misdirection on his part. But as above, the House of Lords are 'blue' and you shouldnt simply be "born" into politics, which is what a lot of the old guard consists of.

 

[radioheadrule83]

jas0nuk, you snuck some more stuff in with an edit so I'll respond to that too...

radioheadrule83,

Your section about the deficit is complete nonsense. The deficit is the gap between what is spent and what comes in from tax. Things such as corporate tax avoidance are nothing to do with that. The majority of public spending is defence, health, pensions, public sector wages, welfare/benefits and day-to-day government spending.

What I was saying is that the things people believe are the biggest drain on public resources are insignificant when weighed to the exploitation of this country and its people (as customer) via things like corporate tax avoidance. I wasn't saying money we don't collect accounts for our huge public defecit, that would be absurd...

By the way, PFI (private finance initiatives) are not included in any government spending figures. PFI is basically the loaned money used to build schools and hospitals over the past 13 years which will cost billions to repay.

And rightly so. Rightly so that the money was invested in such a way, and rightly so that it doesn't appear on the accounts. If its not government finance bankrolling a project then it shouldn't appear on accounts in the same way. Do you have anything against PFIs? John Major was the first to use them in this country and they're not entirely a bad thing. Its finance for part-privitisation, companies are lured by the promise of material gain and must compete with one another as tenders to become contract winners... in certain scenarios it strikes me as a very reasonable way to avoid using the public purse... a very conservative thing almost. Probably something traditional labour supporters wouldn't like very much.

You also got the figure for tax avoidance wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance
It is between 3.7 and 13 billion, not your ridiculous figure of 85 billion.

I believe that might be a typo on my part... the figure is 8.5 billion (commons p. acc committee)... big difference I concede :lol, but still a fuck tonne of money. We lose four times as much potential tax as we spend on job seekers allowance. At least job seekers allowance makes otherwise non-economically active people economically active!

 

[jas0nuk]

The House of Lords has been unable to strike down legislation from the Commons since 1911. They can only delay it - admittedly, by up to a year.

I'm an apologist? Actually I was just trying to determine what was behind his "they're fucking toffs" with no reason given as to why being born into a wealthy family is such a bad thing. It isn't their fault, just as it isn't a child's fault that he/she has been born into poverty.

edit: radiohead, thanks for replying to the other bits.

Yeah PFI has allowed a lot of "investment" into schools and hospitals, but now we have brand-spanking new schools with kids leaving them unable to read or write...

I see that the "85 billion" error is actually on your source, I wonder what else he got wrong.

EDIT: I'm going to bed, I look forward to coming back to this topic tomorrow evening. Maybe we can turn it into the official UK General Election Age 2010 topic.

 

[Salazar]

the House of Lords are 'blue'

You are free to deplore this fact, but you can hardly be surprised by it or attribute it to specific, deliberate manipulation by the Conservatives. As a stick to beat them with, it's fairly slender.

 

[industrian]

I apologise if you are offended that I implied you had forgotten about the 45 minute claim, but you surely accept that all MPs, Labour and Conservative, voted for the war on the merits of the "sexed up dossier" which painted Iraq as a huge threat to the welfare of the UK. The real question is why high-ranking Cabinet figures such as Jack Straw, who knew that the legality of the war was questionable, did not speak up. I suspect it is because he was more interested in his career - he would have had to resign if he went against Blair.

They're all onboard the gravy train, whatever their political affiliation may be. But regardless of that: 85 Labour MPs rebelled against what they saw was a blatant lie. Only 3 Tories did. I'm sure those rebels have paid for that with their careers.

Seeing as you're 19 you weren't around with Thatcher. I mean no offence to you as you seem to have done at least 10 minutes research on the issue, but it's your generation that will fuck us over in this election. Because you guys don't remember what it was like before Tony Blair took power.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

If you're saying that there's something intrinsically wrong with being upper-class or having inherited wealth, you're talking offensive rot and need only invert the presumption to see it.

There is something intrinsically wrong about being born into enough political and legal influence to effect the passage of legislation and preside over a court of last resort. Of course, that has been severely limited over the past decade or so, and in the latter case, completely shut.

 

[radioheadrule83]

The House of Lords has been unable to strike down legislation from the Commons since 1911. They can only delay it - admittedly, by up to a year.

Is that not bad enough? That is enough to affect a change in how parliament conducts its legislation, as governments do not want such black eyes from the upper house

I'm an apologist? Actually I was just trying to determine what was behind his "they're fucking toffs" with no reason given as to why being born into a wealthy family is such a bad thing. It isn't their fault, just as it isn't a child's fault that he/she has been born into poverty.

Class warfare on that level isn't constructive and its wrong, but I believe it is a fundamental truth that the conservative party cares more for how this country runs as a fiscal entity than whether it should care for the people who allow it to run as such. 'Social Conservatism' is a smokescreen.

Compared to the other two parties, it is relatively dispassionate about the uneven distribution of wealth, for the circa 25% of the population on low incomes and the vast majority on middle of the road incomes. Its not a party that is interested in fairer, proportional representation of the electorate - because it knows that it would be less popular! The conservative party is not a party that gives tax breaks to the everyman, its the kind of party that gives incentives to the top percentile while it expects the benefits to trickle down. If people have learnt nothing from the gambling and greed that allowed the global financial crisis to precipitate and they decide to entrust their welfare to the party that the financial sector is currently bankrolling - then fair play to them. Whatever happens, this country will get the government it deserves.

I just believe, strongly, that a lot of the things people take for granted - particularly young people - just wouldn't have taken the same shape if we'd had a Conservative government. Would their schools and hospitals have received the same record investment? Would thousands of homes have been lifted out of abject poverty? Would young people have been paid a minimum wage or would they have enjoyed less than £3 an hour at their first job in McDonalds? I'd like to have seen them afford a fucking iPhone or whatever then! Would people have been able to sustain themselves and their families properly if they'd been unfortunate enough to become unemployed?

If there is criticism I have of Labour and the welfare state - its that it does go too far. But I hardly consider that a bad thing compared to what I feel would be a dispassionate alternative.

 

[Salazar]

Seeing as you're 19 you weren't around with Thatcher. I mean no offence to you as you seem to have done at least 10 minutes research on the issue, but it's your generation that will fuck us over in this election. Because you guys don't remember what it was like before Tony Blair took power.

Indeed, if GAF were of an older vintage, my Alan Clark avatar would perhaps have been (unkindly) remarked upon. Now there's a specimen from the depths and the past, the like of which we rarely see.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

For as much good as Labor have done with trying to get people back into work, their endorsement of Work Agency (aka Slavers) is terrible. They've (Labor) been dragging their heels for years now on passing a bill that would allow equal workers rights (basic worker rights: Sick Pay, Job Protection, etc) for Agency Staff.

I spent a few months as an Agency Worker between jobs working for BT. It was terrible. I had no rights. If I was ill, I wasn't paid, and when the global recession hit Agency Workers were the first to go, no questions asked.

I was sitting next to BT Staff, doing the same job I was (some of them doing it worse), yet I was paid 1/3 of what they were getting, with the Agency picking up the rest. So if you've ever had to deal with British Telecom support and wondered why it was so bad, it was probably a pissed off low moral Agency Worker you go through to.

I guess thats another mark against Labor for me, or possibly just 'Manpower'.

Looks like I'm going Lib Dem with every passing week. :lol

 

[industrian]

For as much good as Labor have done with trying to get people back into work, their endorsement of Work Agency (aka Slavers) is terrible. They've (Labor) been dragging their heels for years now on passing a bill that would allow equal workers rights (basic worker rights: Sick Pay, Job Protection, etc) for Agency Staff.

I spent a few months as an Agency Worker between jobs working for BT. It was terrible. I had no rights. If I was ill, I wasn't paid, and when the global recession hit Agency Workers were the first to go, no questions asked.

I was sitting next to BT Staff, doing the same job I was (some of them doing it worse), yet I was paid 1/3 of what they were getting, with the Agency picking up the rest. So if you've ever had to deal with British Telecom support and wondered why it was so bad, it was probably a pissed off low moral Agency Worker you go through to.

I guess thats another mark against Labor for me, or possibly just 'Manpower'.

Looks like I'm going Lib Dem with every passing week. :lol

Are you American or do you have your browser's spell checker set to American English?

And that's Manpower. I worked for my local government before moving to Korea, and I knew a bunch of clericals who were contracted to us by them. All the smart ones negotiated proper contracts with the government once they had proven themselves.

 

[McBacon]

So Greggs sausage rolls eh? Yum!

 

[killer_clank]

So Greggs sausage rolls eh? Yum!

Steak Bakes FTW.

 

[SmokyDave]

In memory of SmokeyDave

Rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Great thread, Duck!

 

[industrian]

If someone wants to airmail me a Greggs' Scotch Pie and Cornish Pasty I'll be grateful.

 

[Ad Infinitum]

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

 

[J Tourettes]

jas0nuk, you snuck some more stuff in with an edit so I'll respond to that too...



What I was saying is that the things people believe are the biggest drain on public resources are insignificant when weighed to the exploitation of this country and its people (as customer) via things like corporate tax avoidance. I wasn't saying money we don't collect accounts for our huge public defecit, that would be absurd...



And rightly so. Rightly so that the money was invested in such a way, and rightly so that it doesn't appear on the accounts. If its not government finance bankrolling a project then it shouldn't appear on accounts in the same way. Do you have anything against PFIs? John Major was the first to use them in this country and they're not entirely a bad thing. Its finance for part-privitisation, companies are lured by the promise of material gain and must compete with one another as tenders to become contract winners... in certain scenarios it strikes me as a very reasonable way to avoid using the public purse... a very conservative thing almost. Probably something traditional labour supporters wouldn't like very much.



I believe that might be a typo on my part... the figure is 8.5 billion (commons p. acc committee)... big difference I concede :lol, but still a fuck tonne of money. We lose four times as much potential tax as we spend on job seekers allowance. At least job seekers allowance makes otherwise non-economically active people economically active!

I have a problem with PFI's and whilst they were bought in by a tory government, it was new Labour that truly embraced them.

 

[Chinner]

So Greggs sausage rolls eh? Yum!

so good.

 

[Prine]

I had a BNP pamphlet posted through my letter box couple of days ago, read like an Al-Quida mandate.

Did they know we're ethnics ? And still posted it? :lol

Filth belongs in the bin, and thats where it ended up.

 

[SmokyDave]

Did they know we we're ethnics ? And still posted it? :lol

Well, it'd be discrimination otherwise and that's not how they roll

On the subject of Greggs, they need to do a Cheese, Bacon & Bean bake. Until then, I can't take them seriously as a political party or as a savoury snack outlet.

 

[killer_clank]

Well, it'd be discrimination otherwise and that's not how they roll

On the subject of Greggs, they need to do a Cheese, Bacon & Bean bake. Until then, I can't take them seriously as a political party or as a savoury snack outlet.

I could have sworn I'd seen something like that in there. Oh man, just thinking about Greggs is making me really hungry. Might have to pop in there today for lunch.

 

[industrian]

I could have sworn I'd seen something like that in there. Oh man, just thinking about Greggs is making me really hungry. Might have to pop in there today for lunch.

Well whoopie fucking doo motherfucker. You lucky fucking motherfucker I'm over 5000 miles from my nearest Greggs motherfucker. I really want a fucking Scotch Pie and a Cornish Pasty motherfucker so fuck this motherfucking shit motherfucker I WANT MY MOTHERFUCKING SCOTCH PIE.

 

[Prine]

Im up for some Greggs too, some chocolate eclairs ..mmm

 

[J Tourettes]

Think I'm going to get a Gregs chicken pasty for lunch now. I'm starving as I forgot to have breakfast this morning.

 

[moojito]

Came for the politics, stayed for the Gregg's sausage rolls.

Anyhoo, speaking as someone almost entirely ignorant of politics (but with a growing interest), I've always found this PM-sharing thing Brown and Blair have going on a bit dodgy. They say it was always their plan to have a go each, how is it ok to have a PM noone voted for? You would think if a current PM steps down there should be a new election right away. Apparently this is the 6th time this has happened, as well. Not cool!

 

[killer_clank]

Came for the politics, stayed for the Gregg's sausage rolls.

Anyhoo, speaking as someone almost entirely ignorant of politics (but with a growing interest), I've always found this PM-sharing thing Brown and Blair have going on a bit dodgy. They say it was always their plan to have a go each, how is it ok to have a PM noone voted for? You would think if a current PM steps down there should be a new election right away. Apparently this is the 6th time this has happened, as well. Not cool!

Technically though, in the UK you vote for your local MP, and not a person to become Prime Minister. The person who becomes that is simply just the leader of the biggest party. Of course, a rather large number of people will obviously think about how their voting actions could affect the leader in that sense.

I really don't have all that much of a problem with it, although I definitely would be in favour of fixed terms that would mean a defined date for every general election rather than the fannying about by Labour over the date we have now.

When is the last date that the election can be called anyway? It has to be soon, surely?

 

[J Tourettes]

Technically though, in the UK you vote for your local MP, and not a person to become Prime Minister. The person who becomes that is simply just the leader of the biggest party. Of course, a rather large number of people will obviously think about how their voting actions could affect the leader in that sense.

I really don't have all that much of a problem with it, although I definitely would be in favour of fixed terms that would mean a defined date for every general election rather than the fannying about by Labour over the date we have now.

When is the last date that the election can be called anyway? It has to be soon, surely?

I think it's within a couple of weeks.

 

[Empty]

Voting Lib Dem. I'm pretty left wing, so some of their economic policies worry me ideologically, but think looking just pragmatically Vince Cable is the most convincing man in politics on dealing with the economy, saving money by scrapping trident and id cards appeals, their plans to change the voting system to STV is very encouraging, they are pro-science, pro getting rid of bullshit stuff like the dna database and the anti-terror legislation, bringing the poorest parts of society out of taxation is good and they have been the most transparent about the cuts that they are bringing to the table. I don't hate Labour, but i think they have screwed up too many times and i'm not fond of voting tactically just because the tories suck, not that it would matter though; i live in a Labour safe seat.

 

[Slightly Live]

Another recommendation for Private Eye here. If you have even the smallest bit of doubt regarding squeaky clean politics, it's a real eye opener.

 

[PJV3]

Here in Kingston ,a Labour vote is a wasted vote so i will be voting Lib Dem.
Being 40 yrs old i remember the Tory years from the beginning to the end and i can't be going through that shit again.

 

[Walshicus]

Forget Greggs, go to Marks and Spencers and buy their Sweet Chilli Chicken with Firebang Rice.