Who's Been Shafted by the Torie's

[Zoe]

Does it really have to split into Left (Socialist) or Right (Conservative) battle, can there not be compromise taking the best of both idealologies.

Labour are much closer to the centre these days. Since Blair they have supproted the free market more.

 

[Old Timer]

I'd appreciate a Centralist Party for England (like the SNP seems to be). Does it really have to split into Left (Socialist) or Right (Conservative) battle, can there not be compromise taking the best of both idealologies.

That is unlikely to ever happen. The SNP only exist because so many Scots want feeedom from the Union (Yes, agree lets do it as a matter of urgency) whereas in the UK, the issue is simply a question of how the economy is managed.

There is no middle ground between a freee and a controlled economy. For the benefits of a controlled economy look to the former Soviet Union.

Labour are much closer to the centre these days. Since Blair they have supported the free market more.

Only because certain individuals were paying large sums of money into Labour's coffers to keep them from bankruptcy.

These individuals were then given peerages in return as well as in some cases large uncontested Contracts worth £millions.

For details read The Big Red Book of New Labour Sleaze which is available from Amazon.

 

[SS4]

Is there such a thing ultimately ? There will always be Turkeys who will vote for anything with a red rosette - look at how Ed Balls and some of the most venomous and downright dishonest Labour MPs got relected - however the mantle are being drawn for the eyes of the normal, honest, discriminating voter as they realise just how much of a mess this Country has been left in.

Just as there will always be Turkeys who will vote for anything with a blue rosette too so the answer is clearly yes - at least until FPTP is abolished
Perhaps a better system will be to force potential MPs to stand in constituencies in which they've lived for a given unit of time to avoid parachuting.

This country was left in a mess but I still think such a fact is being exaggerated by the Tories who want to force through ideological measures not strictly necessary. It'll be interesting to see how the voters you mention will vote when they see the state the country is in come the next election. As someone in a strong Labour area I don't hold out much hope my vote will change anything but it's not going to stop me

 

[Old Timer]

Just as there will always be Turkeys who will vote for anything with a blue rosette too so the answer is clearly yes - at least until FPTP is abolished
Perhaps a better system will be to force potential MPs to stand in constituencies in which they've lived for a given unit of time to avoid parachuting.

This country was left in a mess but I still think such a fact is being exaggerated by the Tories who want to force through ideological measures not strictly necessary. It'll be interesting to see how the voters you mention will vote when they see the state the country is in come the next election. As someone in a strong Labour area I don't hold out much hope my vote will change anything but it's not going to stop me

Ah a deficit denier !

Tell me how is life on that parallel universe of yours ? Seen Ed Balls recently ?

Neither the IMF or other leading International economics bodies share your view, but I am sure they are wrong and you are right with your enormous economics experience ?

By "idealogical measures" do you mean cuts ? Because if you do then there is only 5% difference between these so called "cuts" which really aren't "cuts" and those which Labour propsed to implement and which Chancellor Darling announced as being far deeper than anything Mrs Thatcher had ever done.

Although I doubt the attached article will be read by you as it contradicts your own rose tinted spoectacle views, I will add it anyway.

For your benefit it explains how public sector spending, especially in the health service is still increasing, and will go on doing so. At least partly until we get rid of the Pilgrims that live within it.

An unfortunate fact which you may wish to comment upon is Labour's legacy of PFI deals which have left health authorities with 25 to 30 years of debt, to a level which means that there is insufficient money to even man all the wards.

Political expediency to win votes in the West Midlands has led to the construction of such a large hospital, that even with the amalgamation of the two former hospitals, there is now a shortage of nurses given that the hospital is so large it takes much longer for nurses to do their rounds or move about the hospital. Of course now there are "demands" for more money to cope with this - which people like yourself will obviously gloat about as being "cuts" if it is not provided, but in reality has arisen purely through Labour's incompetence and Political machinations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...pends-it-will-still-be-attacked-for-the-cuts/

 

[WestCoast]

This quote came to my mind...

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken

 

[Old Timer]

This quote came to my mind...

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken

Well personally I am !

 

[SS4]

Ah a deficit denier !

Tell me how is life on that parallel universe of yours ? Seen Ed Balls recently ?

Exactly where did I say that?

By "idealogical measures" do you mean cuts ? Because if you do then there is only 5% difference between these so called "cuts" which really aren't "cuts" and those which Labour propsed to implement and which Chancellor Darling announced as being far deeper than anything Mrs Thatcher had ever done.

I mean cuts that are above and beyond necessary and done simply to further Tory ideology. How about you come out and give the monetary figure instead of misleading percentages?
What's more it's not mentioned where those cuts have come from, the government could choose to clamp down on tax evasion and close a couple of the loopholes to bring in revenue - instead cut HMRC.
We never got to hear exactly where Labour would have cut from.

Although I doubt the attached article will be read by you as it contradicts your own rose tinted spoectacle views, I will add it anyway.

I left mine on the bus, can I borrow yours?

For your benefit it explains how public sector spending, especially in the health service is still increasing, and will go on doing so. At least until we get rid of the Pilgrims that live within it. An unfortunate fact whicjh you may wish to comment upon is Labour's legacy of PFI deals which have left health authorities with 25 to 30 years of debt, to a level which means that there is insufficient money to even man all the wards.

PFI was a disaster, there can be no arguments there. Spending on health is increasing but it's about the only government department which is increasing. I would have liked to have seen it remain in state hands even if it meant less investment. Where will this money come from? Probably the 49% of our shiny new hospital beds are going to be given over to private patients - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16337904 :roll:

I, any many other people, have seen right through Osborne's plan to pass the buck onto local authorities.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100126316/however-much-the-government-spends-it-will-still-be-attacked-for-the-cuts/[/QUOTE]

Right, a Tory MEP's own personal opinion? Normally your sources are so much better.
As I said above spending on health is increasing and it's about the only one which is. Funny how he didn't mention

• Energy and Climate Change (the greenest government ever anyone?)
• Education
• Home Office
• Defence
• Foreign Office
• HMRC

The above come from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htm (not a Tory MEP)

 

[Trog]

Not voting at all also sends a message that a large proportion of the electorate either trust no party, or think that voting will not make any change that is worth the effort.

The political parties can take this two ways just ignore it and concentrate on the people who do vote, of whom only those with unfixed voting habits are perhaps worth much effort.

Or someone could say if I could get even a reasonable fraction of the non voting public to change their minds and vote for me I will win by a landslide. They would then have to find out what sort of policies and behaviours would appeal to this group.



I have often wondered if it would be a good thing if a really objectionable party like the NF were to win a few seats, not enough to do any real harm. But enough to give the big parties a fright, and make them start to listen to what the public wants, and behave in a way the public feels is right and proper.

For example when you listen to debates on the TV and Radio, you often get one speaker who constantly interrupts the other speaker, and will not let them reply. Or keeps repeating something that is nothing to do with the question being asked. This really annoys me both with the interrupter, and with the radio/TV company for not turning their mike off to shut them up when it is the other sides turn to reply.

I don't want to be represented by MP's who can not behave like reasonable adults. For what they pay themselves we deserve a proper standard of behaviour in both their public and private lives and dealings. Those who can not live up to both common standards of decency and honesty, and this would also apply to anything extra in this line that is their party policy should be out on their ear. (For example if a party was to state that they were really keen on personal honesty, their MP's would than have to demonstrate that they lived up to this, with a prompt and final resignation being the fate of any found lacking.)

I have also wondered if the legal profession should be barred from standing for Parliament.
As these are the people who make a living out of the administration of justice, and allowing them also to make the laws seems something of a conflict of interest.

 

[Old Timer]

Exactly where did I say that?

2nd paragraph, first sentence.

...I left mine on the bus, can I borrow yours?

If I had some you could but having lived through the various Labour Governments of the 70s I have very clear vision.

..I mean cuts that are above and beyond necessary and done simply to further Tory ideology. How about you come out and give the monetary figure instead of misleading percentages?
What's more it's not mentioned where those cuts have come from, the government could choose to clamp down on tax evasion and close a couple of the loopholes to bring in revenue - instead cut HMRC.
We never got to hear exactly where Labour would have cut from.

Firstly percentages have to be based upon money so what is the point ?

Secondly if by "Tory Ideaology you mean cutting back to balance the economic situation, then bring it on. We are in deep deep cack, as organisations such as the IMF confirm. Since the Election, there has been much greater International confidence in the UK, and China for example has stated that it is to increase dramatically its investment into the UK rather than Europe. Indeed the UK is now the No.1 Country for Chinese investment because of its strategy. Even Obama in the US has run cap in hand to beg for investment to China now that the reality of his own economic approach has been proven not to work.

As for loopholes, these were actually widened under Labour, and Brown as chancellor broke a Manifesto pledge to close these loopholes down as so many Labour investors utilised them, as well as one or two Labour Ministers and officials as well.

And no we only got a taste of what Labour proposed but the interview in which Darling admitted what was to be cut was obviously missed by you - it was on TV early on a Sunday morning - as well as his statement that the "Dogs of War" would be unleashed on him for contradicting Labour's official stance that there would be no cuts. Somehow very cynical do you not think ? Oh and by the way these "Dogs of War" were indeed released as one or two recent Political memoirs will prove, although I believe it was you who said they had no time to read such things ?

....PFI was a disaster, there can be no arguments there. Spending on health is increasing but it's about the only government department which is increasing. I would have liked to have seen it remain in state hands even if it meant less investment. Where will this money come from? Probably the 49% of our shiny new hospital beds are going to be given over to private patients - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16337904 :roll:

Strange then how your position has changed since Labour lost power - along with most other supporters and indeed former Ministers, who we are assured were against Brown all along although the records showed pathetic blind obediance.

Your comment on private health just underlines your lack of research and understanding. Any private patient is paying twice for their treatment. Once through NI contributions and secondly through private healthcare costs, and for your information all contributions are net of tax as well so very much a triple whammy there. They also introduce money into the health system which would not normally be there because they are paying and not taking.

Without private patients many of these Labour monuments would be unable to afford to operate in the public sector, which you should know even if you refuse to accepot the fact. Incidentally do a check on how many Trade Union and Labour party officials have access to private healthcare - if you have the time or the inclination of course.

Oh and by the way Labour actually went out of its way to introduce private medical provision into the health service, perhaps another awkward fact you would prefer to overlook ?

I, any many other people, have seen right through Osborne's plan to pass the buck onto local authorities.

Really ? I am surprised given your lack of basic understanding of economics, but still when have the facts been allowed to change a biaised opinion ?

Right, a Tory MEP's own personal opinion? Normally your sources are so much better.

Ah yes, usual Leftist response only Labour MPs words can be trusted.

What was that Bliar said about renationailising the Railways, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Balls denial of any economic issues when the whole world knew different ?

 

[Zoe]

Don't forget that PFI was first introduced by John Major. If the Tories had won in 1997 would they really have not continued it?

 

[Old Timer]

Don't forget that PFI was first introduced by John Major. If the Tories had won in 1997 would they really have not continued it?

It is hard to say, but what Brown did was to take PFI deals "off the public books" although this was disingenuous because ultimately no school, hospital or other government controlled facility will go bankrupt. It also allowed the spending of money on all sorts of pointless Political projects which served only to damage our economy. When PFI deals had to be taken onto the books because even the corrupt EU decided they were in fact illegally withheld, the whole house of cards started to collapse as the markets finally had proof that the UK could not meet its debt.

Do not confuse OUR economic crisis with that of the Euro. Sweden is in a similar position to us with regards to the Euro but their economy is not so tainted by debt.

Also if we were not actually supporting the Euro - though a deal signed by Labour in its caretaker days which was completely against convention and designed simply to make the new Government's position far worse Politically - then we would at least have some chance. The EU wanted littel to do with the Uk before the collapse of the Euro now suddenly the UK is supposed to be at the heart of Europe ?

This clip is a good explanation of where we are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdob6QRLRJU

Later addition
This may help explain as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4EQAPRN7Dw

 

[table38]

I mean cuts that are above and beyond necessary and done simply to further Tory ideology. How about you come out and give the monetary figure instead of misleading percentages?

I, any many other people, have seen right through Osborne's plan to pass the buck onto local authorities.

Councils are hoarding billions of pounds of taxpayers money, equivalent to £430 for every British family, despite making cuts to public services

[Grant Shapps] claimed councils had been making “political cuts” that were “totally unacceptable” while sitting on vast cash reserves.

The new figures show that some of the biggest increases in reserves came from Labour-led Wakefield Council, which is expected to have more than doubled its cash pile from £21 million to £51 million by March.

Meanwhile, Labour-run Bolton Council is likely to have tripled its reserves £23 million to £81 million.

So it would appear that it's Labour who are making "idealogical" cuts in the pretense of blaming a lack of funding from central government.

 

[Minilad]

That is unlikely to ever happen. The SNP only exist because so many Scots want feeedom from the Union (Yes, agree lets do it as a matter of urgency) whereas in the UK, the issue is simply a question of how the economy is managed.

There is no middle ground between a freee and a controlled economy. For the benefits of a controlled economy look to the former Soviet Union.


Only because certain individuals were paying large sums of money into Labour's coffers to keep them from bankruptcy.

These individuals were then given peerages in return as well as in some cases large uncontested Contracts worth £millions.

For details read The Big Red Book of New Labour Sleaze which is available from Amazon.

That would be right next to The Big Blue Book of Tory Sleaze I would imagine

 

[Oswyntail]

Back on topic
I wonder who's shafted the country more,

The Tories: cuts, hatred for the working class, tripling of tuition fees.
New Labour: Starting tuition fee's, very dodgy foriegn affairs policy, too much spending.
Big Business: Using government as puppets, domination of the free market, upstart business mentality.
Mainstream press: Uses the general public as puppets, scaremongers the population, controls public opinion.

You should also include the "Old Labour" of Wilson and Callaghan who would do anything the Unions dreamed up so they could have a quiet life, and (much like Blair/Brown) hid the desperate problems they created behind the gloss of technological advance.
But this is just the usual list of shibboleths (along with subsequent posts on voting reform), most of them meaningless ("hatred of the working class" - define "working class" in a meaningful way, then explain what you mean by "hating"; "upstart business mentality" - by which you mean..?; "controls public opinion" - maybe yours, but this does seem to suggest you despise the competence of people in this country to think). Oh, and you might like to check punctuation and spelling.
Most of the work of government is reactive and on the hoof. The Civil Service will try to offer predictions and alternatives, usually very good ones on both counts, but cannot cover every contingency (who would have believed, for instance, exactly how incompetent and cowardly European finance ministers would prove to be?). So the parties really only have influence on the broader aspects of policy. All the main parties are aiming at the same end - prosperity for the country - but take different tacks, sometimes equally justifiable. Occasionally a rogue element can insist on ignoring all advice and the result can be disastrous - can you hear me Mr Brown? - but it is usually wrong to talk of "shafting", as no one is in control enough to achieve that.
What I would like to see is not voting reform, which, IMHO, would achieve little other than to take a monkey off parties' backs. I would, however, like to see the abolition of Whips in Parliament, with all votes free, so that discussion could flourish, and the artificial indignation so beloved of Milliband would die out. (Try watching the proper debating in the House of Lords to see something of what could be achieved).
Dream on!

 

[SteveP29]

by being more interested in which celeb is sleeping with who rather than more important things.

That sums up the attitude of the majority who criticise the government for all they do etc. Ask them who they voted for at the last election and they tell you they didn't bother (most likely because they were more interested in celebrities, s**t brother, x factor etc etc)
Well, I'm afraid, if you can't be bothered to vote, then you get the government you deserve, whether they're good for you or not.

I find it sad that reality tv programmes are deemed more important to many people in this country. Reality tv programmes and the so called 'stars' it creates only have an effect for a limited period, whereas the government you choose (or choose not to by not voting) to elect has an effect on everything you do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Time for the SNP to cross the border

Unfortunately, the SNP exists only to secure independence for Scotland from the Union, so their political agenda would serve no purpose in England.

I fully expect that if Mr Salmond gets his way and the Scots vote for independence, then the SNP will be seen to have achieved their ultimate goal and therefore would be obliged to disband
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

shame the British public didn't want to change the system then

I don't think it was that they didn't want to change to voting system, it was just we were given only one alternative to FPTP.

If there had been 2 questions on the ballot form, we may have had a better idea of what the electorate felt.

The first question should have been something to the effect of:
Would you like to see the British electoral system changed.

Question two could then have gone on to list various different alternatives to what we have now.

Instead we were offered a system that I think just wouldn't have worked, which the majority of those that chose to vote agreed with
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What I would like to see is not voting reform, which, IMHO, would achieve little other than to take a monkey off parties' backs. I would, however, like to see the abolition of Whips in Parliament, with all votes free, so that discussion could flourish

Quite right, we elect these people to represent US, not to prop up the validity or agenda of a government or opposition.
Polititians should be free to vote with their conscience, not how they are told to do so

 

[SS4]

I would, however, like to see the abolition of Whips in Parliament, with all votes free, so that discussion could flourish, and the artificial indignation so beloved of Milliband would die out. (Try watching the proper debating in the House of Lords to see something of what could be achieved).
Dream on!

Definitely. Not sure if you'd get the same veracity as in the Lords since they'd those in the commons would still need to convince the electorate every so often

 

[Butts]

The SNP would not disband in the event of Independence for Scotland, there is no reason why they should.

Their policies should appeal to left leaning Labour/Liberals in England as they seem to be more egalitarian in approach.

The Electoral System is already far more advanced up here with PR for The Scottish Parliament never mind AV.

I voted SNP and Conservative at the last Scottish Parliament Elections (Tory on the List part - SNP Candidate)

 

[Zoe]

The Electoral System is already far more advanced up here with PR for The Scottish Parliament never mind AV.

That may well be but don't forget that if you win a lot of first past the post seats for the Scottish Parliament then it will count against you in the PR.

 

[Butts]

That may well be but don't forget that if you win a lot of first past the post seats for the Scottish Parliament then it will count against you in the PR.

Thats the whole idea to balance the system and produce a parliament more representative of the votes cast - not just the first preferences.

For example the Conservatives have double figures in members of the Scottish Parliament compared to one in the Westminster Parliament on similar percentages of the votes.