General Election 2010

[Christmas Tree 4709]

Thing I find funny is all the Tory haters hoping yes hoping the country goes to shit just because the Tories are in power.

 

Happy to be made homeless and jobless to prove a point

 

Believe me, I truly want to be proved wrong. No offense, but I think you have to be a litte bit more sympathetic towards a total lack of trust towards the Tories up here after what went on the last time. Especially when our new PM let slip the North East's economy was 'unsustainable' and then didn't bother to come anywhere near here during the whole campaign. Hardly installs confidence does it?

 

I'm not a stubborn twat though, I'm just a cynical bastard who would take a lot of convincing. A hell of a lot of convincing.

 

how many on here actually know much about the decline of industry during the 80's ( not that I'm claiming too). But didn't they start with trying to modernise the coal mining industry but were fought tooth and nail by the unions?

 

Was it just the nasty Tories or the fact that coal and shipbuilding was so much cheaper elsewhere.

 

Maybe a good discussion which deserves it's own thread.

 

Anyway off into the zoo so bye bye

[Renton 21392]

Thing I find funny is all the Tory haters hoping yes hoping the country goes to shit just because the Tories are in power.

 

Happy to be made homeless and jobless to prove a point

 

Believe me, I truly want to be proved wrong. No offense, but I think you have to be a litte bit more sympathetic towards a total lack of trust towards the Tories up here after what went on the last time. Especially when our new PM let slip the North East's economy was 'unsustainable' and then didn't bother to come anywhere near here during the whole campaign. Hardly installs confidence does it?

 

I'm not a stubborn twat though, I'm just a cynical bastard who would take a lot of convincing. A hell of a lot of convincing.

 

I can imagine that that Daily Mail article that you metioned is a prevalent view amongst the right wingers of the tory party. Remember there was recently a tory think tank that repeated Tebbit's mantra of 'get on your bike'. Add that to the fact that the tories and Lib Dems have been almost completely wiped out in the North East then all in all only an idiot wouldn't be concerned.

 

It's not just public sector workers either. There will be a huge knock on effect to the private sector, many of which are at least semi-dependent on government contracts (I fall into that category). And with rising levels of unemployment we will inevitably have more social unrest and an increase in crime. Even taxi drivers will be affected ultimately.

 

Do I hope this happens to prove a point? Of course not, and only a complete idiot would say so.

[Dr Gloom 21846]

It was funny during the press conference when a journo told clegg that during the build up to the election, cameron had being asked what his favourite joke was he replied "nick clegg".

 

Clegg started to walk away from the podium saying "right, I'm off", to which Cameron shouted "come back".

 

Clegg knew about the comment, that bit of pantomime was rehersed as was nearly the whole Press Conferance with pre-identifyied journalist only allowed to ask questions.

 

Aye, it was truely side-splitting stuff.

 

the stufff about them both getting up to take 3am calls and doing joint press conferences was funny. they both looked genuinely uncomfortable and not sure what to say. it was funny how the coaltion was spun as some kind of grand plan.

 

i enjoyed the after you claude moment when they entered no 10 after the joint photo shoot but it struck me that cameron didn't really try to show thorugh body language that he was in charge.

[Happy Face 29]

Thing I find funny is all the Tory haters hoping yes hoping the country goes to shit just because the Tories are in power.

 

Happy to be made homeless and jobless to prove a point

 

I said earlier I wish them the best and i agree some of the bitterness towards the coalition is a bit strong.

 

Not sure about your second sentence like. People expect it more than being happy about it.

 

 

Poetic licence

 

Wummery like that when peoples livlihood is at stake isn't really on. It's not like backing Ashley which people can laugh off a bit more easily.

[Dr Gloom 21846]

this cabinet has brought new levels of diveristy to british politics - at least 20% of the front bench ministers didn't go to oxbridge

[Happy Face 29]

Parts of the North and Scotland now resemble the sclerotic regimes of the old Soviet bloc, so great is the dominance of the state. In the Labour stronghold of the North East, 66.4 per cent of the economy is dependent on the government, compared with just 33 per cent in the South East, while the public sector dominates the workforce.

 

In this area, no fewer than 13,400 people are employed in the Department of Work and Pensions alone. It is the same story in Scotland, where a third of all workers are employed by the state, with the Ministry of the Defence and the NHS the two biggest employers.

 

 

33 per cent clearly far more acceptable than a third for Leo and his editor.

 

[Renton 21392]

I have less of a problem with Oxbridge per se and more of a problem with 30K a year boarding schools and Bullingdon clubs. Bridget went to Oxford after all.

[Gemmill 44491]

Someone's written about how the country is now being governed by characters from a Richard Curtis film, which summed up the gayness of the "I'm off...come back!" moment.

[NJS 4375]

Already both sides have conceeded on serveral issues - I can't speak for others but I for one am surprised at the way it is gone so far.

 

What do you think the Tories have conceded?

 

The inheritance tax change is still there but postponed so apart from the cabinet positions and a commitment to a referendum on PR which as far as I can see isn't binding in implementation terms I don't see how the Tories have been "moderated".

[NJS 4375]

how many on here actually know much about the decline of industry during the 80's ( not that I'm claiming too). But didn't they start with trying to modernise the coal mining industry but were fought tooth and nail by the unions?

 

Was it just the nasty Tories or the fact that coal and shipbuilding was so much cheaper elsewhere.

 

Maybe a good discussion which deserves it's own thread.

 

Maybe for another thread but you're wrong - modernisation was never fought especially in new areas like Selby.

 

Other countries (Germany and Norway for example) took the view that subsidising "uncompeitive" industries was actually beneficial overall when communities and related economies were included. Thatcher's view was not only to destroy them without considering that view, but to not give a seconds thought for what would replace them apart from a "the market will provide" line.

 

As HF said earlier its a lot harder for places with a history of over-reliance on concentrated economic providers to change overnight compared with an are like the SE which has always mainly worked on a more individual economic basis.

 

I would add that even those who can be convinced of the long term benefits of the closures in hindsight cannot forgive the absolute relish the bitch and her cohorts exhibitited as they did it.

[Happy Face 29]

What do you think the Tories have conceded?

 

Economy

Pretty much a Conservative clean sweep on economic policy, although they have agreed to delay plans to raise the inheritance tax thresholds to £1m and work towards Lib Dem plans to take low earners out of the tax system.

 

Education

A score draw here. The Lib Dems get their cherished "pupil premium", the Tories keep "free schools".

 

Political Reform

The biggest Lib Dem coup. The Tories are against changing the voting system and are likely to campaign against it in a referendum. There was already broad agreement on most of the other measures.

 

Foreign Policy

The Tories get their way here. Trident renewal is a major concession for the Lib Dems and one which will not go down at all well with their grassroots members. Europe also remains a thorny issue.

 

Health

Another Tory win. Vince Cable argued passionately during the general election campaign that NHS spending should not be ringfenced.

 

Civil Liberties

No real disagreements here.

 

Pensions and Welfare

Not much disagreement. The Lib Dems get their "triple guarantee" that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5% but there has been no mention of their plan for a Citizens Pension, based on residence not contribution history.

 

Immigration

Tory clean sweep, with the Lib Dems forced to ditch one of their flagship policies, earned citizenship for illegal migrants, and sign up to an annual cap. They have extracted an agreement to end the detention of children in immigration centres, however.

 

Environment

Broad agreement - but Lib Dem activists will not be happy with commitment to nuclear power. Lib Dem MPs can abstain in any Commons votes but under their agreement they will not be able to bring down the government over it in a confidence vote.

 

Families

Another Tory win (tax break), although full details of the coalition's family policies have yet to be spelled out.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politic...010/8677088.stm

[Craig 6682]

Already both sides have conceeded on serveral issues - I can't speak for others but I for one am surprised at the way it is gone so far.

 

What do you think the Tories have conceded?

 

The inheritance tax change is still there but postponed so apart from the cabinet positions and a commitment to a referendum on PR which as far as I can see isn't binding in implementation terms I don't see how the Tories have been "moderated".

 

I think some see it as a bit of a gimmick and something that they did in an "oh shit" moment, but for them to even consider a referendum on electoral reform is a massive step back from them.

 

I agree that they've won their case on other issues particularly trident and immigration but I for one was struggling to agree with the Lib Dems on those anyway.

[Dr Gloom 21846]

Already both sides have conceeded on serveral issues - I can't speak for others but I for one am surprised at the way it is gone so far.

 

What do you think the Tories have conceded?

 

The inheritance tax change is still there but postponed so apart from the cabinet positions and a commitment to a referendum on PR which as far as I can see isn't binding in implementation terms I don't see how the Tories have been "moderated".

 

 

id cards, repatriating powers from brussels, fixed terms and like you said, inheritance tax and electoral reform

 

the libdems have also had to concede ground, most notably on immigration, nuclear weapons and the timing of the cuts

[Craig 6682]

Since when were the Tories in favour of ID cards?

[Gemmill 44491]

How are they getting away with raising the threshold on a no confidence vote to 55% (the Tories conveniently have 47%). And why are the Lib Dems going along with it?

[Dr Gloom 21846]

yeah, i got that one wrong.

 

bizarre that the right are more in touch with civil liberties than the "left"

[NJS 4375]

How are they getting away with raising the threshold on a no confidence vote to 55% (the Tories conveniently have 47%). And why are the Lib Dems going along with it?

 

Good point - I think they think it guarantees them 5 years of "working thing out" rather than snap votes thereatening everything every month

[Craig 6682]

yeah, i got that one wrong.

 

bizarre that the right are more in touch with civil liberties than the "left"

 

We can thank David Davis for that - one of the few 'good guys' IMO and I was amazed he didn't get the post of Home Secretary.

 

Cameron evidently still pissed off about him resigning out of protest over civil liberties a couple of years ago.

[Craig 6682]

How are they getting away with raising the threshold on a no confidence vote to 55% (the Tories conveniently have 47%). And why are the Lib Dems going along with it?

 

Ensuring continuity is my guess...

[ChezGiven 0]

On the subject of the economy, public spending cuts and the views of economists, i was reminded by the New Statesman about the 20 economists who wrote to The Times in Feb supporting spending cuts as essential to reducing the deficit. This was seized upon by the Tories and their supporters. What was less well publicised in the Tory press was the response by 67 economists in the FT calling them idiots and saying that the way to sort out the deficit was with expansionary policies that grow the economy. The debate boils down to whether the cuts will stifle the economic recovery.

 

The FT letter strongly advised not to cut spending since with interest rates so low and growth so poor, private investment was not going to build a recovery and that public spending cuts would throttle the economy and mean the deficit would remain an issue. Of the 20 who wrote to The Times, only Roger Bootle was of note (head of a private economics consultancy). Of the 67 who wrote to the FT in response, Joseph Stiglitz was a key signatory.

 

Importantly, the FT agreed with the Letter and supported it in their editorial. Apparently the FT have supported Labour since 1992, which might surprise a few people.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...s-deficit-times

[spongebob toonpants 3956]

yeah, i got that one wrong.

 

bizarre that the right are more in touch with civil liberties than the "left"

 

Not that bizzarre - Conservatives are supposedly broadly libetarian and beleive in a smalll sate - no nanny govt etc.

 

Apart from drugs of course when they can ride around on their moral high horse

[Park Life 71]

On the subject of the economy, public spending cuts and the views of economists, i was reminded by the New Statesman about the 20 economists who wrote to The Times in Feb supporting spending cuts as essential to reducing the deficit. This was seized upon by the Tories and their supporters. What was less well publicised in the Tory press was the response by 67 economists in the FT calling them idiots and saying that the way to sort out the deficit was with expansionary policies that grow the economy. The debate boils down to whether the cuts will stifle the economic recovery.

 

The FT letter strongly advised not to cut spending since with interest rates so low and growth so poor, private investment was not going to build a recovery and that public spending cuts would throttle the economy and mean the deficit would remain an issue. Of the 20 who wrote to The Times, only Roger Bootle was of note (head of a private economics consultancy). Of the 67 who wrote to the FT in response, Joseph Stiglitz was a key signatory.

 

Importantly, the FT agreed with the Letter and supported it in their editorial. Apparently the FT have supported Labour since 1992, which might surprise a few people.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...s-deficit-times

 

Back the pound with gold. Default on all soverigh debt. Invade somewhere with loads of stuff...Oh wait...

[ChezGiven 0]

yeah, i got that one wrong.

 

bizarre that the right are more in touch with civil liberties than the "left"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

[spongebob toonpants 3956]

On the subject of the economy, public spending cuts and the views of economists, i was reminded by the New Statesman about the 20 economists who wrote to The Times in Feb supporting spending cuts as essential to reducing the deficit. This was seized upon by the Tories and their supporters. What was less well publicised in the Tory press was the response by 67 economists in the FT calling them idiots and saying that the way to sort out the deficit was with expansionary policies that grow the economy. The debate boils down to whether the cuts will stifle the economic recovery.

 

The FT letter strongly advised not to cut spending since with interest rates so low and growth so poor, private investment was not going to build a recovery and that public spending cuts would throttle the economy and mean the deficit would remain an issue. Of the 20 who wrote to The Times, only Roger Bootle was of note (head of a private economics consultancy). Of the 67 who wrote to the FT in response, Hugo Stiglitz was a key signatory.

 

Importantly, the FT agreed with the Letter and supported it in their editorial. Apparently the FT have supported Labour since 1992, which might surprise a few people.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...s-deficit-times

 

Now theres an economist I can believe in

 

[Park Life 71]

The usual daisy chain financial fixes/engineering won't work this time round.