Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,226
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 23, 2015 23:49:41 GMT 1
It's the same old story. The Tories get in power, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the poor Labour party have to sort out the mess again.
This has always been the case and it looks like it always will be.
Lets be honest, would anyone in their right mind ever trust the likes of I'm distantly related to the Queen Cameron and the smarmy Bullingdon boy Osbourne with the economy?
If these two comedians get back into power, then we will be well and truly fucked.
See what I did there... Or rather than using Media rhetoric, cleverly spun by press outlets. Why not go and investigate each party and their manifesto? There are many independent sources who also comment on party ideas - especially the economy. Open your mind. Worth noting too that Labour spent most of the money saving the Banks and a flat lining economy. The sub prime mortgage crash was not their fault although in hindsight they could've done a lot more to ensure we weren't as badly hit. So youre sayng if labour get in they'll have to sort out the mess again? the mess of one of the strongest recovering economies in the world? Of more people in employment in the UK than ever before? Yeah right. More people are working and more people have been taken out of tax thresholds than ever, so this idea the Tories make the poorer get poorer really is a crock.The coalition have done a tremendous job of getting the country back on its feet after inheriting a shambles from Labour. Its not been pretty and tough decisions have had to be made, with labour arguing all the time that it wouldn't work. But unsurprisingly they were wrong and it has. Seems wholly unfair that having dome the repair job successfully, we would once again go back to the inept bunch that largely caused it. I wouldn't trust labour or their union paymasters to run a bath. Raising the income tax threshold was something that both Tory and Labour parties opposed. It rose as a concession to the LibDems as part of the coalition agreement. That said, I still haven't worked out what mess Labour cleared up in 1997. Which Tory policies did they reverse? Any? Surely if they were there to clear up the mess, then they would have thought that SOME Tory policies should have been reversed. They had the gall to implement PFI on a massive scale after being so vehemently against it when in opposition. Broke promises (twice!) on tuition fees, despite having a majority government and a strong economy to work with (and yet they've made capital out of the (admittedly shambolic) Lib Dem performance on that issue. Oh yeah, and they've promised to cut tuition fees (but only for the Oxbridge elites). Nice and progressive, eh? They certainly cleared up that awful situation of people being able to afford their own homes. Nice house price boom to benefit those who had a lot of property (at the expense of those people who were just starting out). On most issues I tend to the left wing and as a result I am no fan of the Tories. However, I would far rather have them in office than the stifling champagne socialists in the Labour party.
|
|
|
Post by iangreaves on Mar 24, 2015 8:26:29 GMT 1
So youre sayng if labour get in they'll have to sort out the mess again? the mess of one of the strongest recovering economies in the world? Of more people in employment in the UK than ever before? Yeah right. More people are working and more people have been taken out of tax thresholds than ever, so this idea the Tories make the poorer get poorer really is a crock.The coalition have done a tremendous job of getting the country back on its feet after inheriting a shambles from Labour. Its not been pretty and tough decisions have had to be made, with labour arguing all the time that it wouldn't work. But unsurprisingly they were wrong and it has. Seems wholly unfair that having dome the repair job successfully, we would once again go back to the inept bunch that largely caused it. I wouldn't trust labour or their union paymasters to run a bath. Raising the income tax threshold was something that both Tory and Labour parties opposed. It rose as a concession to the LibDems as part of the coalition agreement. That said, I still haven't worked out what mess Labour cleared up in 1997. Which Tory policies did they reverse? Any? Surely if they were there to clear up the mess, then they would have thought that SOME Tory policies should have been reversed. They had the gall to implement PFI on a massive scale after being so vehemently against it when in opposition. Broke promises (twice!) on tuition fees, despite having a majority government and a strong economy to work with (and yet they've made capital out of the (admittedly shambolic) Lib Dem performance on that issue. Oh yeah, and they've promised to cut tuition fees (but only for the Oxbridge elites). Nice and progressive, eh? They certainly cleared up that awful situation of people being able to afford their own homes. Nice house price boom to benefit those who had a lot of property (at the expense of those people who were just starting out). On most issues I tend to the left wing and as a result I am no fan of the Tories. However, I would far rather have them in office than the stifling champagne socialists in the Labour party. The worst thing about tuition fees was that a majority of English MPs voted against the legislation. Labour forced it through using the votes of their Scottish MPs, knowing that they would not be affected because education is devolved. I was hoping the Scots would vote for independence. Now that they've copped out, we need an English Parliament.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,226
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 24, 2015 8:48:09 GMT 1
Raising the income tax threshold was something that both Tory and Labour parties opposed. It rose as a concession to the LibDems as part of the coalition agreement. That said, I still haven't worked out what mess Labour cleared up in 1997. Which Tory policies did they reverse? Any? Surely if they were there to clear up the mess, then they would have thought that SOME Tory policies should have been reversed. They had the gall to implement PFI on a massive scale after being so vehemently against it when in opposition. Broke promises (twice!) on tuition fees, despite having a majority government and a strong economy to work with (and yet they've made capital out of the (admittedly shambolic) Lib Dem performance on that issue. Oh yeah, and they've promised to cut tuition fees (but only for the Oxbridge elites). Nice and progressive, eh? They certainly cleared up that awful situation of people being able to afford their own homes. Nice house price boom to benefit those who had a lot of property (at the expense of those people who were just starting out). On most issues I tend to the left wing and as a result I am no fan of the Tories. However, I would far rather have them in office than the stifling champagne socialists in the Labour party. The worst thing about tuition fees was that a majority of English MPs voted against the legislation. Labour forced it through using the votes of their Scottish MPs, knowing that they would not be affected because education is devolved. I was hoping the Scots would vote for independence. Now that they've copped out, we need an English Parliament. Completely agree there. We already have solely Scottish votes for Scottish laws, it's ridiculous that we can't have solely English votes for English laws. Labour argue that barring Scottish MPs from voting on solely English matters would create a 2-tier system. No it wouldn't - a 2-tier system is what we have already. Scottish politicians are more powerful, worth more, than those from any other home nation. The education example you give is spot on. If an issue has been devolved, then let it be properly devolved. Let it work both ways.
|
|
|
Post by iangreaves on Mar 24, 2015 9:47:32 GMT 1
The worst thing about tuition fees was that a majority of English MPs voted against the legislation. Labour forced it through using the votes of their Scottish MPs, knowing that they would not be affected because education is devolved. I was hoping the Scots would vote for independence. Now that they've copped out, we need an English Parliament. Completely agree there. We already have solely Scottish votes for Scottish laws, it's ridiculous that we can't have solely English votes for English laws. Labour argue that barring Scottish MPs from voting on solely English matters would create a 2-tier system. No it wouldn't - a 2-tier system is what we have already. Scottish politicians are more powerful, worth more, than those from any other home nation. The education example you give is spot on. If an issue has been devolved, then let it be properly devolved. Let it work both ways. I've never voted Labour since the tuition fees stitch-up. It was absolutely disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 24, 2015 20:56:48 GMT 1
Completely agree there. We already have solely Scottish votes for Scottish laws, it's ridiculous that we can't have solely English votes for English laws. Labour argue that barring Scottish MPs from voting on solely English matters would create a 2-tier system. No it wouldn't - a 2-tier system is what we have already. Scottish politicians are more powerful, worth more, than those from any other home nation. The education example you give is spot on. If an issue has been devolved, then let it be properly devolved. Let it work both ways. I've never voted Labour since the tuition fees stitch-up. It was absolutely disgraceful. Which in reality would mean London & the SE votes for the rest of us.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,226
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 25, 2015 13:04:58 GMT 1
Maybe. There's certainly a SE bias (although FWIW, this parliament is the first time I've noticed anything being done to redress that issue) but the issue for me is that as things stand, Scottish votes are worth double - they can control their own affairs through Holyrood AND what happens at Westminster. Iangreaves' post about Labour's tuition fees policy illustrates that perfectly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 15:50:38 GMT 1
Maybe, with the BBC being heavily slanted to the left wing, this explains why we are generally last to be shown on the Football League Show?
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 25, 2015 20:53:35 GMT 1
Maybe. There's certainly a SE bias (although FWIW, this parliament is the first time I've noticed anything being done to redress that issue) but the issue for me is that as things stand, Scottish votes are worth double - they can control their own affairs through Holyrood AND what happens at Westminster. Iangreaves' post about Labour's tuition fees policy illustrates that perfectly. I dont disagree with that, but equally anyone who thinks that the average Cotswolds Tory gives two hoots about anything that happens up here is deluded. Weight of numbers will mean that English law votes would have an automatic Tory majority (Northern Tories would have a party Whip to follow adding further to the problem), so that for me is the reason to resist it. Councils in the South have seen massively lower levels of cuts than Northern ones in the last few years ( Interactive Map) & we need to see this as an example of how they embed long-term inequalities & disguise it as fair, or even radical. In truth the Tories are playing a blinder here, implying that an "English" voting protocol is the natural antidote to Scottish devolution, but it isn't, & we lose out.
|
|
|
Post by malcolmbrown on Mar 25, 2015 20:54:24 GMT 1
insert code here Why do you have to vote Labour if you live in a working class town, and are working class? No chance of me voting for Ed Verybland. Just what I was thinking. I was brought up in a very humble home. My dad always voted Labour and so did I until they abolished capital punishment. I've never seen any reason to return to Labour. Every time they're in power they seem to mess up the country's balance sheet and since Bliar's time (apart from illegal invasions that have lead to ISIS) there do not seem to be many working class Labour MPs. I'm no Tory either by the way. As many people realise there's not the thickness of a cigarette paper between LibLabCon. They're all mates behind the scenes, well mostly. You're in favour of murdering murderers! How very civilised. Deary me.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 25, 2015 20:57:39 GMT 1
legally killing someone isn't murder. Obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 22:27:39 GMT 1
Maybe. There's certainly a SE bias (although FWIW, this parliament is the first time I've noticed anything being done to redress that issue) but the issue for me is that as things stand, Scottish votes are worth double - they can control their own affairs through Holyrood AND what happens at Westminster. Iangreaves' post about Labour's tuition fees policy illustrates that perfectly. I dont disagree with that, but equally anyone who thinks that the average Cotswolds Tory gives two hoots about anything that happens up here is deluded. Weight of numbers will mean that English law votes would have an automatic Tory majority (Northern Tories would have a party Whip to follow adding further to the problem), so that for me is the reason to resist it. Councils in the South have seen massively lower levels of cuts than Northern ones in the last few years ( Interactive Map) & we need to see this as an example of how they embed long-term inequalities & disguise it as fair, or even radical. In truth the Tories are playing a blinder here, implying that an "English" voting protocol is the natural antidote to Scottish devolution, but it isn't, & we lose out. An interactive map from the left wing mouthpiece, sorry Gaurdian. That'll be about as impartial as the BBC then....
|
|
|
Post by netterriers4 on Mar 25, 2015 22:39:16 GMT 1
Maybe. There's certainly a SE bias (although FWIW, this parliament is the first time I've noticed anything being done to redress that issue) but the issue for me is that as things stand, Scottish votes are worth double - they can control their own affairs through Holyrood AND what happens at Westminster. Iangreaves' post about Labour's tuition fees policy illustrates that perfectly. I dont disagree with that, but equally anyone who thinks that the average Cotswolds Tory gives two hoots about anything that happens up here is deluded. Weight of numbers will mean that English law votes would have an automatic Tory majority (Northern Tories would have a party Whip to follow adding further to the problem), so that for me is the reason to resist it. Councils in the South have seen massively lower levels of cuts than Northern ones in the last few years ( Interactive Map) & we need to see this as an example of how they embed long-term inequalities & disguise it as fair, or even radical. In truth the Tories are playing a blinder here, implying that an "English" voting protocol is the natural antidote to Scottish devolution, but it isn't, & we lose out. Typical Tory MPs don't give two hoots about the North of England, Jocks even less so. The last thing they want is a competitive English border region!!!
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 25, 2015 22:41:49 GMT 1
I dont disagree with that, but equally anyone who thinks that the average Cotswolds Tory gives two hoots about anything that happens up here is deluded. Weight of numbers will mean that English law votes would have an automatic Tory majority (Northern Tories would have a party Whip to follow adding further to the problem), so that for me is the reason to resist it. Councils in the South have seen massively lower levels of cuts than Northern ones in the last few years ( Interactive Map) & we need to see this as an example of how they embed long-term inequalities & disguise it as fair, or even radical. In truth the Tories are playing a blinder here, implying that an "English" voting protocol is the natural antidote to Scottish devolution, but it isn't, & we lose out. An interactive map from the left wing mouthpiece, sorry Gaurdian. That'll be about as impartial as the BBC then.... Sorry but it's nothing to do with the Guardian or any publication. It's basic auditing & you can find that analysis in other places. The South has not suffered anything close to the level of public sector cuts that the North has. So they get to keep their libraries in Chipping Wherever but not in Slaithwaite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 22:48:31 GMT 1
MarcusD - to re-state that I've seen nothing from yourself in the way of graphs, reports or even links to the Telegraph to state facts.
Your approach to debate is to behave (mostly) like a right wing attack dog, in the hope that people will get bored, back down & also in the hope that some less informed people will start to believe you.
I make no excuse that I have no facts or graphs to present as others, both more informed than you and I have done that on more than one occasion, responded to by yourself with the usual general flippancy etc.
If it wasn't for the fact that that some of your football related posts are also very negative and 'shoot from the hip' I may be minded to consider your position, but as it stands you appear to talk shoite on a multitude of things on here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 22:49:37 GMT 1
An interactive map from the left wing mouthpiece, sorry Gaurdian. That'll be about as impartial as the BBC then.... Sorry but it's nothing to do with the Guardian or any publication. It's basic auditing & you can find that analysis in other places. The South has not suffered anything close to the level of public sector cuts that the North has. So they get to keep their libraries in Chipping Wherever but not in Slaithwaite. Maybe you could spot where the Guardian announced it sourced the data from, because I cant. A graphic means nada unless the data is official.
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 25, 2015 23:02:07 GMT 1
Sorry but it's nothing to do with the Guardian or any publication. It's basic auditing & you can find that analysis in other places. The South has not suffered anything close to the level of public sector cuts that the North has. So they get to keep their libraries in Chipping Wherever but not in Slaithwaite. Maybe you could spot where the Guardian announced it sourced the data from, because I cant. A graphic means nada unless the data is official. It's just the data from the local Governnment settlement published last December. Google is your friend but I'll give you the BBC version as a freebie. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 23:10:40 GMT 1
Maybe you could spot where the Guardian announced it sourced the data from, because I cant. A graphic means nada unless the data is official. It's just the data from the local Governnment settlement published last December. Google is your friend but I'll give you the BBC version as a freebie. linkyou missed the Gaurdian link then to the data? You know, the bit where 6 of the top 12 biggest cuts are to councils in London? The bit where it skims past the part that more per head is still spent in Northern councils? www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jan/11/council-cuts-north-loses-out-to-the-south-newcastleThe Guardian are great at twisting stuff to meet their own agenda.
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 25, 2015 23:25:49 GMT 1
And those 6 councils are?? Yup, probably the 6 most deprived council areas in London(to be fair I've not looked up the Deprevation Index figures but I know for sure Tower Hamlets & Hackney are in there). The per head spending figure is a very blunt instrument for assessing impact because public spending will inevitably be lower in wealthier areas. There is some detailed research that shows the impact on deprived economies caused by, for example welfare cuts where the money taken out of the economy has damaged the broader small business sector. But my point really is about the English laws issue; it's just plain wrong to give it equivalence to Scottish votes on their issues, & there's a reason why the Tories are so keen on it.
|
|
|
Post by sabailand on Mar 26, 2015 0:28:22 GMT 1
insert code here Just what I was thinking. I was brought up in a very humble home. My dad always voted Labour and so did I until they abolished capital punishment. I've never seen any reason to return to Labour. Every time they're in power they seem to mess up the country's balance sheet and since Bliar's time (apart from illegal invasions that have lead to ISIS) there do not seem to be many working class Labour MPs. I'm no Tory either by the way. As many people realise there's not the thickness of a cigarette paper between LibLabCon. They're all mates behind the scenes, well mostly. You're in favour of murdering murderers! How very civilised. Deary me. So am i,although i wouldnt call it murder,i`d call it justice.
|
|
|
Post by trailingleg on Mar 26, 2015 1:55:08 GMT 1
Great -let's just all vote for more cuts for the North then. That'll teach 'em. Like putting out a campfire with your face. God help us.
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Mar 26, 2015 8:06:35 GMT 1
Are the cuts not deeper in the north because Northern councils are more reliant on the state than SE ones; more unemployed (higher benefits), more % of workers in the public sector etc
It stands to reason Northern councils get hit harder in austerity when the budget is cut because they take a bigger slice of a shrinking pie
That said having previously lived in Wandsworth council I am amazed at how little their council tax is comparative to other councils. It makes me think if Wandsworth can make do (paying staff London weighting as well) then just how much waste at Kirklees etc is happening?
Labour will probably get elected in May but only in a SNP pack and when that happens the North is screwed. Expect an increase in the Barnett formula, expect Scotland to see further economic advantage and expect Yorkshire MPs like Milliband and Balls to turn a blind eye as the SE growths organically and Scotland is given all the stimulus to get it to grow
The SE will be fine, Scotland will be better off ... but Northern England - it's a worry frankly
|
|
|
Post by iangreaves on Mar 26, 2015 9:13:54 GMT 1
An interactive map from the left wing mouthpiece, sorry Gaurdian. That'll be about as impartial as the BBC then.... Sorry but it's nothing to do with the Guardian or any publication. It's basic auditing & you can find that analysis in other places. The South has not suffered anything close to the level of public sector cuts that the North has. So they get to keep their libraries in Chipping Wherever but not in Slaithwaite. Statistics and damn statistics. Blair's Government was notorious for pushing funding the way of its supporters. So the obverse to your argument is that current spending is a realignment to some sort of parity.
|
|
|
Post by iangreaves on Mar 26, 2015 9:20:56 GMT 1
Labour will probably get elected in May but only in a SNP pack and when that happens the North is screwed. Expect an increase in the Barnett formula, expect Scotland to see further economic advantage and expect Yorkshire MPs like Milliband and Balls to turn a blind eye as the SE growths organically and Scotland is given all the stimulus to get it to grow The SE will be fine, Scotland will be better off ... but Northern England - it's a worry frankly This is the big one coming. Even the guy who created the Barnett formula says it should be scrapped but the three stooges went running up to Scotland with a promise that it would last forever if only they voted no. So money will continue to be transferred from poorer ares of the UK to richer parts of Scotland. And Salmond is already boasting that he will be the one writing the next Labour budget.
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Mar 26, 2015 11:19:55 GMT 1
Sorry but it's nothing to do with the Guardian or any publication. It's basic auditing & you can find that analysis in other places. The South has not suffered anything close to the level of public sector cuts that the North has. So they get to keep their libraries in Chipping Wherever but not in Slaithwaite. Statistics and damn statistics. Blair's Government was notorious for pushing funding the way of its supporters. So the obverse to your argument is that current spending is a realignment to some sort of parity. Labour reports - they lost all credibility after the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction report Sadly some have short memories of the lies told the last time they where in power
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,226
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 26, 2015 14:19:03 GMT 1
Maybe. There's certainly a SE bias (although FWIW, this parliament is the first time I've noticed anything being done to redress that issue) but the issue for me is that as things stand, Scottish votes are worth double - they can control their own affairs through Holyrood AND what happens at Westminster. Iangreaves' post about Labour's tuition fees policy illustrates that perfectly. I dont disagree with that, but equally anyone who thinks that the average Cotswolds Tory gives two hoots about anything that happens up here is deluded. Weight of numbers will mean that English law votes would have an automatic Tory majority (Northern Tories would have a party Whip to follow adding further to the problem), so that for me is the reason to resist it. Councils in the South have seen massively lower levels of cuts than Northern ones in the last few years ( Interactive Map) & we need to see this as an example of how they embed long-term inequalities & disguise it as fair, or even radical. In truth the Tories are playing a blinder here, implying that an "English" voting protocol is the natural antidote to Scottish devolution, but it isn't, & we lose out. You could equally say that the average urban labourite couldn't give two hoots about rural constituencies (although there will of course, be exceptions on both sides). FWIW, I do think there needs to be more regional autonomy - the financial & cultural differences in one part of the country & the next means that a one-size-fits-all approach directed from Westminster doesn't work very well, whichever party gets elected. English votes (+ Welsh votes + Northern Irish votes!) wouldn't necessarily have a tory majority, although if it became a bit too tory (whatever shape that would take) for the north, there would be an incentive for labour & other parties to step in and take those seats from them by being a bit less tory. Or for the tories to offer a bit more to those other regions. Or offer greater autonomy for regions . The map you put up is very interesting, and gives some food for thought (although purely from a personal perspective, I've not been hit as hard by this government during an economic crisis than I was by labour during an economic boom). One area that hasn't been mentioned on that map comes from the increase in investment in more northern businesses. Ironically, labour left the Redcar steelworks & midlands engineering companies to rot, preferring to focus on the financial sector - and it's this tory led government (whose scheme I forget the name of) that's reinvested in those regions. I'm not sure labour really offer anything there either. Just to add. I accept that the Tories are only doing this because it would be advantageous (or more to the point, it removes an unfair advantage for Labour) - political parties are in the business of doing what it takes to get themselves elected, rather than necessarily doing what's right. However, I don't understand how we "lose out further" by having English laws decided in England. Do the Scots necessarily care more about the North of England than the average Tory?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 15:21:28 GMT 1
The problem with that map is that it doesn't mention what level of overspending those mainly Labour councils were at before they were told to reign in the spending. Going by Labour's record on spending, I'd expect them to be more wasteful with resources than a Tory led council. It was a story in The Guardian, a staunch left wing paper with a heavy bias. The only side of the story you'll hear is the side which benefits the left and attacks the right. Any Guardian story carries about as much credence as a Daily Mail story, just from the other viewpoint. Unfortunately, there are very few media outlets which are impartial. Contrast that map with this one from the equally biased Daily Mail, showing which councils get to spend most per dwelling and the story looks slightly different. Outside of London, councils in the South East tend to get les to spend per household that your average Northern council does. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525842/Revealed-The-councils-1-000-spend-family-government-cuts-budgets-2-9.html
|
|
|
Post by iangreaves on Mar 28, 2015 10:38:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Mar 29, 2015 14:48:45 GMT 1
insert code here You're in favour of murdering murderers! How very civilised. Deary me. So am i,although i wouldnt call it murder,i`d call it justice. If you came home and found a bloke shagging your missus, would you expect him to let you go round his place and shag his missus to even if up? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by buzz on Mar 29, 2015 15:28:56 GMT 1
Tories!!!!.Its all really very simple!.this government has abandoned the most vulnerable citizens of our society more than at any time in the last hundred years!.....Despicable capitalist self centered bastards! the lot of em!
|
|
|
Post by sabailand on Mar 29, 2015 15:43:34 GMT 1
So am i,although i wouldnt call it murder,i`d call it justice. If you came home and found a bloke shagging your missus, would you expect him to let you go round his place and shag his missus to even if up? Just a thought. Huh
|
|