Why will you be voting Labour?
Discussion
Political Pain said:
NoelWatson said:
I think he has been caught on tape slagging her off too!
tamore said:
put yourself in this situation. you are a senior guy who is trying to be made MD on a company's board. you have to make pledges on finances, but aren't allowed access to the detailed books. what would you do?
only the encumbants know the real state of the finances. the rest simply know they're a mess and something needs to be done.
Are these numbers classified? They know the state of the economy, and they know that massive cits are needed. They're not saying where for the same reason Labour aren't saying - it's a massive vote loser.only the encumbants know the real state of the finances. the rest simply know they're a mess and something needs to be done.
Realistically, to save the sort of money they need to either health or social security need to be slashed way back. I wouldn't be surprised to see the free-at-the-point-of-delivery NHS dead by the end of the year. If you're on anything above minimum wage count on paying health insurance in the near future.
Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see big cuts in social security.
groak said:
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions. You feel that a REDUCTION in this (which, in your opinion, toryboys will effect) will somehow reduce cost. How exactly, in your opinion, do autonomy and cost-reduction correlate? And what on earth makes you think either that labour/central government IMPOSES autonomy, or that it would be a bad thing if someone DID impose it or a good thing for anyone to reduce?
Toryboys again, so you can't debate using normal language. Pity. Anyhow. Smaller government means less expensive government. This isn't rocket science. The less officials you have to pay, the less targets imposed centrally, the less quangos and advisory committees that exist, the less money spent. Labour is obsessed with central control, which is inherently expensive. Local people are much more attuned with what is needed locally, there will be no need for expensive advisors/consultants and quangos. Local people are far better placed to make local decisions. Removing a target drive culture will also reduce the costs required to meet those targets. This is iniquitous within the NHS (where I work) and will hopefully be the first thing to go as they have resulted often in patient harm rather than good, in order to meet a govt imposed target.
groak said:
Next you offer opinions on national debt and financial priorities. In reality you have no idea, nor can you or anyone else HAVE any idea, what toryboys would have done. Over the last 13 years the air hasn't exactly resounded with economy-saving toryboy economic policy alternatives, nor does it do so now. But please feel free to tell us what toryboys WOULD have done, now you've told us what they WOULDN'T have done.
Yes actually it's fairly easy to predict how the tories would have run the economy after 1997, as they had made it a very healthy and prosperous economy handed to Labour, due to their spending plans and focus on business. The clue is in the name, Conservative. However, that is frankly irrelevant. What we need to focus on is what happens now. We are where we are due to Brown. Please don't give me the 'global' bulls
t. Our problems started way before the global recession, with his irresponsible and massive public spending, which is what separates Labour from Conservative, and answers your point above.968 said:
groak said:
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions. You feel that a REDUCTION in this (which, in your opinion, toryboys will effect) will somehow reduce cost. How exactly, in your opinion, do autonomy and cost-reduction correlate? And what on earth makes you think either that labour/central government IMPOSES autonomy, or that it would be a bad thing if someone DID impose it or a good thing for anyone to reduce?
Toryboys again, so you can't debate using normal language. Pity. Anyhow. Smaller government means less expensive government. This isn't rocket science. The less officials you have to pay, the less targets imposed centrally, the less quangos and advisory committees that exist, the less money spent. Labour is obsessed with central control, which is inherently expensive. Local people are much more attuned with what is needed locally, there will be no need for expensive advisors/consultants and quangos. Local people are far better placed to make local decisions. Removing a target drive culture will also reduce the costs required to meet those targets. This is iniquitous within the NHS (where I work) and will hopefully be the first thing to go as they have resulted often in patient harm rather than good, in order to meet a govt imposed target.
groak said:
Next you offer opinions on national debt and financial priorities. In reality you have no idea, nor can you or anyone else HAVE any idea, what toryboys would have done. Over the last 13 years the air hasn't exactly resounded with economy-saving toryboy economic policy alternatives, nor does it do so now. But please feel free to tell us what toryboys WOULD have done, now you've told us what they WOULDN'T have done.
Yes actually it's fairly easy to predict how the tories would have run the economy after 1997, as they had made it a very healthy and prosperous economy handed to Labour, due to their spending plans and focus on business. The clue is in the name, Conservative. However, that is frankly irrelevant. What we need to focus on is what happens now. We are where we are due to Brown. Please don't give me the 'global' bulls
t. Our problems started way before the global recession, with his irresponsible and massive public spending, which is what separates Labour from Conservative, and answers your point above.Unfortunately your understanding of how the universally despised toryboys would have handled a post '97 economy hasn't any depth or clarity. Yes we know you think they would have guided it conservatively but that isn't specific enough. HOW would they have guided it conservatively? Conservatively isn't saying anything at all. And your belief that tories or labouries or anyone elsies "make" healthy and prosperous economies is seriously misplaced. They don't. They probably wish that they could. But how the economy will perform over the next 5 years is not under the control of any politician or political party. Would that it were. I don't think you understand just how relieved the business community was to see the back of the despised tories in '97 or how universally it feted the Blair Govt and Brown the Chancellor. You know what I think? I think you're a "hindsight guru" with a mouthful of woolly generalisations and half-baked shallow economic misunderstandings. And personally I prefer my toryboys in grovelling mode to starting down the road to the arrogance that saw a couple of them into gaol and the rest on the dole.
"It's all Brown's fault"!! "The Global economy doesn't exist"!!! Grow up, toryboy. Creating scapegoats and looking for the blame isn't very mature, though it has to be said that you're probably a product of your NHS environment which is very much about "who's to blame" rather than "how do we sort it", isn't it?
groak said:
968 said:
groak said:
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions. You feel that a REDUCTION in this (which, in your opinion, toryboys will effect) will somehow reduce cost. How exactly, in your opinion, do autonomy and cost-reduction correlate? And what on earth makes you think either that labour/central government IMPOSES autonomy, or that it would be a bad thing if someone DID impose it or a good thing for anyone to reduce?
Toryboys again, so you can't debate using normal language. Pity. Anyhow. Smaller government means less expensive government. This isn't rocket science. The less officials you have to pay, the less targets imposed centrally, the less quangos and advisory committees that exist, the less money spent. Labour is obsessed with central control, which is inherently expensive. Local people are much more attuned with what is needed locally, there will be no need for expensive advisors/consultants and quangos. Local people are far better placed to make local decisions. Removing a target drive culture will also reduce the costs required to meet those targets. This is iniquitous within the NHS (where I work) and will hopefully be the first thing to go as they have resulted often in patient harm rather than good, in order to meet a govt imposed target.
groak said:
Next you offer opinions on national debt and financial priorities. In reality you have no idea, nor can you or anyone else HAVE any idea, what toryboys would have done. Over the last 13 years the air hasn't exactly resounded with economy-saving toryboy economic policy alternatives, nor does it do so now. But please feel free to tell us what toryboys WOULD have done, now you've told us what they WOULDN'T have done.
Yes actually it's fairly easy to predict how the tories would have run the economy after 1997, as they had made it a very healthy and prosperous economy handed to Labour, due to their spending plans and focus on business. The clue is in the name, Conservative. However, that is frankly irrelevant. What we need to focus on is what happens now. We are where we are due to Brown. Please don't give me the 'global' bulls
t. Our problems started way before the global recession, with his irresponsible and massive public spending, which is what separates Labour from Conservative, and answers your point above.Unfortunately your understanding of how the universally despised toryboys would have handled a post '97 economy hasn't any depth or clarity. Yes we know you think they would have guided it conservatively but that isn't specific enough. HOW would they have guided it conservatively? Conservatively isn't saying anything at all. And your belief that tories or labouries or anyone elsies "make" healthy and prosperous economies is seriously misplaced. They don't. They probably wish that they could. But how the economy will perform over the next 5 years is not under the control of any politician or political party. Would that it were. I don't think you understand just how relieved the business community was to see the back of the despised tories in '97 or how universally it feted the Blair Govt and Brown the Chancellor. You know what I think? I think you're a "hindsight guru" with a mouthful of woolly generalisations and half-baked shallow economic misunderstandings. And personally I prefer my toryboys in grovelling mode to starting down the road to the arrogance that saw a couple of them into gaol and the rest on the dole.
"It's all Brown's fault"!! "The Global economy doesn't exist"!!! Grow up, toryboy. Creating scapegoats and looking for the blame isn't very mature, though it has to be said that you're probably a product of your NHS environment which is very much about "who's to blame" rather than "how do we sort it", isn't it?
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
s2art said:
.
We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
I'm not voting because I couldn't care less who wins, because it'll make no difference whatsoever to ME. However I can quite see why anyone who thinks it'll make a difference to THEM will vote, even though I think they're mistaken.We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
But I'd like to ask you something. You've been posting on Pistonheads for over 7 years. And you're saying Brown started going wrong after a couple of years. Could you show a couple of anti-Brown policy posts from yourself from, say, 2003/2004/2005 which can illustrate that you're not just being wise in hindsight. In fact, widen that to some warning posts from ANYONE from 2003/2004/2005......
groak said:
s2art said:
.
We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
I'm not voting because I couldn't care less who wins, because it'll make no difference whatsoever to ME. However I can quite see why anyone who thinks it'll make a difference to THEM will vote, even though I think they're mistaken.We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
But I'd like to ask you something. You've been posting on Pistonheads for over 7 years. And you're saying Brown started going wrong after a couple of years. Could you show a couple of anti-Brown policy posts from yourself from, say, 2003/2004/2005 which can illustrate that you're not just being wise in hindsight. In fact, widen that to some warning posts from ANYONE from 2003/2004/2005......
Edited just to remind you, from 2003;
'Much though I would hate to agree with Hines, I feel an alternative
view is required.
Brown did one brilliant thing; independant BoE. He did one very
intelligent thing; Stick to the Tories spending plans, be prudent. He
has done one truly heroic thing; fight Tony to keep the pound.
Other than that he has been disasterous recently. Completely buggered
the pension situation. Complicated tax law beyond mortal
comprehension, spent money like water, we face a borrowing requirement
of £50 billion plus this year and no end in sight. This is merely
deferred tax.
Overall I think he started well but is proving to be a real danger. My
prediction is he will be thought of similarly to Nigel Lawson,
initially seemed to walk on water, later his name becomes mud.
Stu'
And it is obvious that he is much worse than I feared then.
Edited by s2art on Wednesday 28th April 19:03
s2art said:
groak said:
s2art said:
.
We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
I'm not voting because I couldn't care less who wins, because it'll make no difference whatsoever to ME. However I can quite see why anyone who thinks it'll make a difference to THEM will vote, even though I think they're mistaken.We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
But I'd like to ask you something. You've been posting on Pistonheads for over 7 years. And you're saying Brown started going wrong after a couple of years. Could you show a couple of anti-Brown policy posts from yourself from, say, 2003/2004/2005 which can illustrate that you're not just being wise in hindsight. In fact, widen that to some warning posts from ANYONE from 2003/2004/2005......
groak said:
s2art said:
groak said:
s2art said:
.
We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
I'm not voting because I couldn't care less who wins, because it'll make no difference whatsoever to ME. However I can quite see why anyone who thinks it'll make a difference to THEM will vote, even though I think they're mistaken.We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
But I'd like to ask you something. You've been posting on Pistonheads for over 7 years. And you're saying Brown started going wrong after a couple of years. Could you show a couple of anti-Brown policy posts from yourself from, say, 2003/2004/2005 which can illustrate that you're not just being wise in hindsight. In fact, widen that to some warning posts from ANYONE from 2003/2004/2005......
s2art said:
groak said:
s2art said:
groak said:
s2art said:
.
We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
I'm not voting because I couldn't care less who wins, because it'll make no difference whatsoever to ME. However I can quite see why anyone who thinks it'll make a difference to THEM will vote, even though I think they're mistaken.We have the evidence of both Ken Clarke's spending plans prior to Nulab, and the Thatcher government. Paying down debt was given a high priority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Tories would have done anything different had they stayed in office.
Note that Winky stuck to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years, (prudence!), before going on a spending spree unparalleled in peacetime.
Note also that Nulab were handed a golden economic position by the Tories, they spunked it all away.
But I'd like to ask you something. You've been posting on Pistonheads for over 7 years. And you're saying Brown started going wrong after a couple of years. Could you show a couple of anti-Brown policy posts from yourself from, say, 2003/2004/2005 which can illustrate that you're not just being wise in hindsight. In fact, widen that to some warning posts from ANYONE from 2003/2004/2005......
Obviously yours is an opinion that's actually worth heeding. groak said:
I want to see anti-Brown vehemence from 2002!!
I found one from 2003,http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Plenty of complaints about economic policy on it but mostly aimed at the party as a whole due to the nature of the thread.
elster said:
dazzztay said:
Schools need help but are generally improving I believe (thats what I see in my area).
You must be in a lucky area, as numeracy and literacy have dropped down nationally over the past decade compared to a lot of other countries as we used to be in the top 10. Also the new schools built are a con, I don't see why a company needs to own a school or a building after x amount of years after being paid for it several times over. What comparisons? What areas / aspects of the subject(s)? What tests/assessments & method? What age range? When?
In the top 10 in . . against . . when . . ?
PS - I will NOT be voting Labour for many reasons. 'Just interested to see how claims like these stack up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff