Millibrain as PM. The end of the UK?

[Otispunkmeyer]

Wont notice a change IMO. I get the impression that today most PM's can instigate little more than tinkering at the edges. The real core stuff that, if changed, would change things drastically for better or worse is untouchable through various contracts, vested interests by higher powers or other such things.

As has been said before, the only real difference between any of the parties is tie colour and I bet even that is questionable.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

[redacted]

[Vroomer]

Labour have an agenda to tax wealth as well as income.

Their 'Mansion Tax' might start on £2m houses, but how soon before it becomes £1M houses – and with fiscal drag in 10 years that will be houses that are £500k today.

And they want higher Council Tax bands on top of that.

[Twincam16]

There are three things looming large over Labour that make me struggle to want to vote for them in the next election:

-Their utter ruination of the state education system, from something that was quietly very effective in 1997 to a malaise of targets and initiatives that serve to generate favourable statistics largely at odds with reality, while creating a huge army of jobless and broadly difficult-to-employ university graduates.

-Their scattergun deregulation of financial and legal services that led to a horific 'credit culture' building up, where people who really couldn't afford it were practically encouraged to take out loans and even remortgage their houses to surround themselves with the trappings of a lifestyle they didn't feel they needed before, and yet feel practically entitled to now. The country has turned into a next of grasping, avaricious, materialistic awfulness thanks to this. Then throw in the compensation-culture and injury lawyers advertising their wares from every orifice of the media, and you've got an absolute ststorm.

-The weird inflexible zeal of Blairism, which flew in the face of any democratic sentiment. Blairites really do seem to think that the people cannot be left to their own devices, while at the same time taking enormously damaging foreign policy decisions while not paying a blind bit of notice to public opinion and having the temerity to lie to us over their reasons for doing so to the extent of fabricating evidence. I'd like to think that Blairism had been purged from the Labour ranks, but the tiresome presence of Ed Balls and the spectre-like permenance of Peter Scandalson is spine-chilling.

However, I'm really not convinced that George Osbourne is a good chancellor. We need someone with no personal business interests who can take a long, objective look at the economy and take decisions that may well cause one or two bankers and shareholders to initially get all up in arms about it, but in the end admit that it's for the best. Problem is, I don't think any person like this exists in the Tory party.

[grumbledoak]

Breadvan72 said:

So, there it is, at least for me. Thanks, Tories and Lib Dems, for helping me to choose.

As if you've ever voted anything else.


I'm just sad that the pound buys so little elsewhere and shows little sign of recovering in the short term.

[youngsyr]

Twincam16 said:

However, I'm really not convinced that George Osbourne is a good chancellor. We need someone with no personal business interests who can take a long, objective look at the economy and take decisions that may well cause one or two bankers and shareholders to initially get all up in arms about it, but in the end admit that it's for the best. Problem is, I don't think any person like this exists in the Tory party.

This is the crux of the problem facing financially aware voters, you have a choice of Labour, who have proven they can't run an economy, or Tory who have proven they can't fix the economy.

So, which do you choose? For me, the Tories are clearly the least worst option as I believe their polices will at least delay the inevitable until hopefully something miraculously pulls us out of this mess.

I don't think we even have that glimmer of a chance with Labour.

However, unfortunately a vast proportion of voters aren't thinking on that level, they're thinking on the level of "how much tax do I pay vs how much do I get back from the government" and comparing now to the Labour days. Obviously the Tories don't stand a chance in that comparison.

[Vroomer]

It is unrealistic to expect the Tories to fix Labour's mess in three years – but nevertheless people do expect that and the Tories are being unfairly blamed.

[youngsyr]

Vroomer said:

It is unrealistic to expect the Tories to fix Labour's mess in three years – but nevertheless people do expect that and the Tories are being unfairly blamed.

Balls. The Tories have had 3 years to make an impact and despite crowing about austerity, how we're all in it together and deep cuts will hurt but must be made, we're still growing the deficit, let alone cutting the debt.

I voted Tory last time around and didn't expect a fix in 3 or even 5 years. However, I did expect progress and have been deeply disappointed.

We've effectively stood still for the past 3 years and at this rate, we'll be in the same position in 10 years.

[McWigglebum4th]

Twincam16 said:

There are three things looming large over Labour that make me struggle to want to vote for them in the next election:

:Waffle snip:

.

But this isn't about voting labour

Everyone here will vote tory as if you don't tory labour will get in

Just once labour get in how long defore the entire country is a smoking ruin or will it be barely a noticable change

[Fittster]

kiethton said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I suppose the problem is what do you define as far worse?

I imagine for the city boys it might be something like not being able to afford the 21"inch wheel package on their latest s-line

Hmmmm before you start slating the city....again....you may want to read this

http://www.cityam.com/article/london-rules

So you favor one section of the economy over all others and it out performs.

[kiethton]

Fittster said:

kiethton said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I suppose the problem is what do you define as far worse?

I imagine for the city boys it might be something like not being able to afford the 21"inch wheel package on their latest s-line

Hmmmm before you start slating the city....again....you may want to read this

http://www.cityam.com/article/london-rules

So you favor one section of the economy over all others and it out performs.

If you read the article it states the London has become more successful due, in part, to the focus of state spending in the regions, stifling ambition and entrepreneurship leading to a widening gap...

[TEKNOPUG]

youngsyr said:

Balls. The Tories have had 3 years to make an impact and despite crowing about austerity, how we're all in it together and deep cuts will hurt but must be made, we're still growing the deficit, let alone cutting the debt.

I voted Tory last time around and didn't expect a fix in 3 or even 5 years. However, I did expect progress and have been deeply disappointed.

We've effectively stood still for the past 3 years and at this rate, we'll be in the same position in 10 years.

Will a Labour government at the next election improve the situation? I guess that is the question being asked.

Also, how much effect has the the Con-Lib coalition had on the stasis in the economy, compared to a Con only government?

[Fittster]

kiethton said:

Fittster said:

kiethton said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I suppose the problem is what do you define as far worse?

I imagine for the city boys it might be something like not being able to afford the 21"inch wheel package on their latest s-line

Hmmmm before you start slating the city....again....you may want to read this

http://www.cityam.com/article/london-rules

So you favor one section of the economy over all others and it out performs.

If you read the article it states the London has become more successful due, in part, to the focus of state spending in the regions, stifling ambition and entrepreneurship leading to a widening gap...

It provides 0 evidence for that statement.

[youngsyr]

TEKNOPUG said:

youngsyr said:

Balls. The Tories have had 3 years to make an impact and despite crowing about austerity, how we're all in it together and deep cuts will hurt but must be made, we're still growing the deficit, let alone cutting the debt.

I voted Tory last time around and didn't expect a fix in 3 or even 5 years. However, I did expect progress and have been deeply disappointed.

We've effectively stood still for the past 3 years and at this rate, we'll be in the same position in 10 years.

Will a Labour government at the next election improve the situation? I guess that is the question being asked.

Also, how much effect has the the Con-Lib coalition had on the stasis in the economy, compared to a Con only government?

As I wrote above, the Tories are the least worst option IMO as their policies will at least delay the inevitable. I believe Labour's policies would initially improve GDP, but will only store up a bigger problem for later (e.g. the US). I suspect we may get a chance to see come 2015.

I don't buy the Tories' excuses re only having 3 years and being hamstrung by the coalition. They voluntarily entered the coalition, it's not an excuse for them failing to meet the key items in their manifesto, i.e. deficit reduction and more recently the retention of our AAA rating (for whatever that's worth).

[kiethton]

Fittster said:

kiethton said:

Fittster said:

kiethton said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I suppose the problem is what do you define as far worse?

I imagine for the city boys it might be something like not being able to afford the 21"inch wheel package on their latest s-line

Hmmmm before you start slating the city....again....you may want to read this

http://www.cityam.com/article/london-rules

So you favor one section of the economy over all others and it out performs.

If you read the article it states the London has become more successful due, in part, to the focus of state spending in the regions, stifling ambition and entrepreneurship leading to a widening gap...

It provides 0 evidence for that statement.

Appologies, I could have sworn that I read it in that paper earlier on my way into work, possibly in an expanded printed version of:

http://www.cityam.com/article/london-has-never-bee...

[0000]

Breadvan72 said:

In my opinion, you are wrong. The human rights balance sheet of the last Government is far stronger than that of the current one.

The last Government did indeed introduce a lot of paranoid and authoritarian rubbish about terrorism, but they also enacted the HRA, brought in FOIA, introduced minimum wage and civil partnerships, produced the Equalities Act
(key parts of which the present Government decline to bring in to force), and stood up for human rights in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan, before going on to screw it all up in Iraq.

The current Government has scrapped ID cards, but it has continued the paranoid authoritarian stuff. It wants secret courts, and intrusive internet scrutiny. Theresa May seeks to place her diktats above Acts of Parliament, and attacks judicial independence. She now proposes to repeal the HRA, and sever ties with the court in Strasbourg. I would not oppose the latter, but the HRA has produced benefits for UK citizens. These are ALMOST never reported. Only the rarer cases in which scrotes and foreigners do well get any public attention.

They enacted HRA with one hand and then gave themselves RIPA so they could choose to ignore it.

[anonymous-user]

RIPA does not override the HRA in any significant respect. The article 8 right is a qualified right. RIPA to a large extent codifies prior practice.

I was and remain strongly critical of the illiberal and authoritarian aspects of the last Government's policies, but to suggest that the current Government has a better record on human rights and civil liberties than the previous one is, I suggest, unrealistic.

Blair, Brown, Cameron, and his likely successor are all authoritarian Statists. We have no libertarians, whether left-libertarian or right-libertarian in positions of influence.

[Previous]

Where's the option of:

Things will initially appear to get better, and there may be another 'rosy' periods where fake growth is funded by yet more debt, then eventually screw us for even more decades to come.... and repeat until the whole thing one day falls apart.

I fear that the electorate is getting fed up of hearing about cost cutting, has forgotten how we got in this mess (many dont even understand basics of debt and deficit) and will joyfully welcome back the labour party on promises of more free money and quango jobs creation.

My plan (in the loosest sense of the word) is to stay in the UK for the next labour government to give me lots of free stuff, save up a nest egg and then emigrate somewhere which has the resources and capabilites to work its way out of any potential crisis.

I'd be less against labour if they had some policies, rather than simply shouting down anything the conlibs eventually manage to agree on.

On a side note, I will never understand why Ed was voted in above his brother - I may not always agree with Labour policies, but David at least demonstrated some integrity during the Harriet-Harman-Clapping-gate thing.

[Elroy Blue]

Previous said:

Where's the option of:


On a side note, I will never understand why Ed was voted in above his brother - I may not always agree with Labour policies, but David at least demonstrated some integrity during the Harriet-Harman-Clapping-gate thing.

I think Ed won on the Union bloc vote. David one the 'popular' vote.

[ralphrj]

Elroy Blue said:

I think Ed won on the Union bloc vote. David one the 'popular' vote.

Correct, David Miliband won the largest number of votes from MPs & MEPs and from party members but lost out due to the votes from affiliated members (i.e. unions).

When Ed Miliband put his first shadow cabinet together the only member of his front bench team that voted for him was Ed Miliband (unless he managed to mess that up).