homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  23  24  25 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:

It sounds like you care more about (delayed) power for your party than the good of the country.
.

I think the other likely outcome is a wafer thin conservative government or minority conservative government and this will collapse in about 2/3 years time followed by a series of weak governments.
Although Cameron could invite the IMF in to do an audit of the books present this to the country and call another election and say who do you want to sort this mess out?

I would prefer a strong 25/40 seat majority conservative government but I cannot see that happening.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Funny, most Tories I've heard are calling for a "decisive result", "a mandate to govern"; they are willing to accept that it will be really tough on them if they get their wish, but it's an honourable position. You Nightlamp are hoping for a weak ineffective government, doomed to fail just so your party can get into power later.

It sounds like you care more about (delayed) power for your party than the good of the country.
.

The good of the country depends upon the ability of politicians to work together, rather than the Tory baloney of decisive mandates etc. Most other democracies manage. It seems that the Tories have no faith in their ability to deal with anyone but themselves.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just for fun, I've started a poll in The Circus

Please cast your vote!

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
All the polls on this subject say they don't want a hung parliament
A show of hands at the Scottish leaders debate last night was approx 2/3 in favour of a hung parliament, 1/3 against.

This could be because the best outcome for the SNP would be a hung parliament, in which they could exert influence, but I think it's more likely to be because we've had a hung parliament in Scotland and it doesn't appear to have been disasterous.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560

 - Posted      Profile for Touchstone   Email Touchstone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about this (nightmare) scenario:

Tories win most seats, some way short of a majority. GB goes to the palace and Advises Her Madge to invite DC to form a minority government. Then he goes away on a long holiday. (He'll also have to win an internal Labour power struggle with those who want to depose him and do a deal with Clegg. However, one thing that Gordo is good at winning is Labour Party power struggles.)

GB comes back in the autumn, itching to knock seven bells out of Cameron's government, which shouldn't be difficult as by then it will already be hugely unpopular. Some time next year Cameron throws in the towel, or loses a confidence vote, and there is a fresh election. The Lib Dem surge is long gone and GB gets back in with a slender majority. We are then set for a decade or two of weak and unpopular governments.

(Apologies if this has been discussed before, I have been skimming a lot of this very long thread)

--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!

Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An interesting scenario. At the moment, Labour is almost bankrupt and I don't see that situation changing any time soon. (This is the reason why the whole debate about the election date was a lot of rubbish - Labour couldn't afford to fight a general and local elections on different days).

The Lib Dems never have a lot of money, which makes the Tories relatively better off.

If the Tories don't get an overall majority, Mr Cameron can call a general election at any time in the next 12 months knowing that the Tories are better equipped to fight it.

Edit: Also, in this scenario, Labour wouldn't have the government's advertising budget at its disposal, which it has at the moment.

[ 03. May 2010, 18:24: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read the interesting comment that a Tory win might actually undermine the SNP, on the basis that Labour would revert to being the party of opposition for Scotland. I don't see it myself, but an interesting point nevertheless.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If there is a Conservative minority government next week, then we could see some interesting votes in the House of Commons in the next Parliament.

I would think that we could see a lot of abstentions from the other parties to avoid defeating the government on a vote of confidence which would result in another general election.

The last thing that the Lib Dems want is to bring down a minority Conservative administration, in a House where they are their most powerful for a generation / lifetime. They can't afford another election, and not clear they could do any better, and could easily be punished by the electorate. So although the LibDems will have a lot of power, they won't really be able to use it freely.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freejack,

I think it would depend upon what issue the Lib Dems used to bring down the government, and whether the public perceived it as being worthwhile. That is what tends to happen down here. The Lib Dems might even be able to get away with propping up a Tory government in a manner inconsistent with their manifesto commitments on the basis that it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. It all depends upon the public's likely response.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well true public perception is key in the 'game of hung parliament chicken', but it also depends on how keen the public is to have another election in say July or October this year, rather than say May in a year or two.

Say the House of Commons looks like:

Con 310
Lab 230
L.D 75
Oth 35 (o/w DUP 10)

So only real option is Conservative minority government with some sort of DUP support.

Gordon Brown would resign on Friday, David Cameron would form a government by Monday.

If Labour, Lib Dems, SNP+PC+SDLP (+Green+Ind?) all voted down the Queen's speech or the mini-budget there would have to be an immediate general election. There would be no real prospect of any sustainable government - any red-yellow-green coalition would just be too fragile, and the leader of the Labour Party would already have failed to form a government.

One could construct a different result where the Lib Dems held power over Labour, particularly if they were very close in the national poll result even if not seats.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some very perceptive posts here, on the subject of "What happens after election day".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives got a majority on Thursday. For one thing, the weather forecast doesn't look too good, and traditionally the Labour vote suffers disproportionately if it rains. That said it might be a very slim majority and if, as seems likely, there is an Emergency Budget with cuts all over the place, I'm not sure there would be any of the customary arrangements to cater for absent MP's. That could make things very tight.

So while the Queens' Speech might be passed there may be trouble for a Conservative government that has a majority in single figures.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
You didn't read the bit about investments may go down as well as up? And I thought you were a capitalist!

Normal market forces driving prices down (as recently happened) is one thing. A deliberate government policy to artificially do so is another thing altogether.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice idea Doc Tor; the problem is that the scale of new housing required is in practice inconceivable on this crowded island. The cities such as London and Manchester are pretty much full.

No, they aren't. Nowhere near. Both have fewer inhabitants than they did 80 years ago (as does Glasgow).

As I pointed out earlier the decline in the population of our large cities is a function of the decline in household size and rise in demand for accommodation size. If Manchester were to move towards London's population density, it would need the quality of infrastructure - such as underground lines - that we don't at present have. Such expenditure would be HUGE. And the idea of yet more people travelling ever farther to work is deeply unattractive; I write as one who fled the South after graduation because I saw a high density lifestyle and daily commutes of an hour each way to be a sign of irrationality, not a rite as passage as my mother did [Big Grin]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matt Black said:
quote:
Firstly, because you have to a degree at least a choice of supplier of your finance (less so admittedly than you did this time three years ago) which you certainly don't have with the state. Secondly, presuming that you have a repayment mortgage, the idea is that in due course you will progressively own more than just two bedrooms, indeed ultimately you will own the whole property. Thirdly, everyone has to live somewhere and thus be in hock to either a landlord or a mortgage lender,
Thank you, I do understand the terms of my mortgage.

However...

If I have a council house, the rent I pay covers the cost of maintaining the property and (presumably) part of the cost of building it. The primary aim of the government in providing it is the welfare of its citizens, so in a housing shortage the people with the greatest need (eg families with young children) will be first in the queue.

If I have a mortgage, the monthly payments cover the cost to the bank or building society of lending the money to me, together with a Certain Amount of profit (as much as they can get away with) for the shareholders of the company. If I am lucky enough to have a mortgage with one of the few remaining mutual societies, I will be one of those shareholders, but probably I'm not. I will also be required to have life assurance (or in other words, a sucker bet with someone that I won't die before the term of the mortgage is up) so that there is no risk to the mortgage company if I drop dead before I've finished paying them back. I am also responsible for all maintenance costs on the property (there are sucker bets for this, too, known as buildings insurance). In this system, people who have the money to buy a house are first in the queue. The primary aim of everyone involved (except me; I'm just looking for somewhere to live) is to make a profit.

I can see why the second option is better for the economy - all those extra opportunities to make a profit! - but not why it's better for the householder.

Jane R

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For what its worth, my own reasons for intending to vote Labour are here

(seemed a bit pointless to crosspost the whole rant, but if anyone wanted to reply to any of it feel free to copy any parts of it here)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the Canadian experience, if you get a minority:

The tea leaf reading and discussion of minute details of government will happen daily as the media discuss the next election from day 1.

&

After the first few years, and maybe another hung parliament, somebody will figure out it is possible to govern with a minority and get through legislation based on consenus. As you seem to have a parliament with a bit less strong a whip then we have here, your government might actually get a lot done, if the chatting political classes will let them.

People actually like minority government as it keeps a check on the more aggressive natures of the ideologues.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Matt Black said:
quote:
Firstly, because you have to a degree at least a choice of supplier of your finance (less so admittedly than you did this time three years ago) which you certainly don't have with the state. Secondly, presuming that you have a repayment mortgage, the idea is that in due course you will progressively own more than just two bedrooms, indeed ultimately you will own the whole property. Thirdly, everyone has to live somewhere and thus be in hock to either a landlord or a mortgage lender,
Thank you, I do understand the terms of my mortgage.

However...

If I have a council house, the rent I pay covers the cost of maintaining the property and (presumably) part of the cost of building it. The primary aim of the government in providing it is the welfare of its citizens, so in a housing shortage the people with the greatest need (eg families with young children) will be first in the queue.

If I have a mortgage, the monthly payments cover the cost to the bank or building society of lending the money to me, together with a Certain Amount of profit (as much as they can get away with) for the shareholders of the company. If I am lucky enough to have a mortgage with one of the few remaining mutual societies, I will be one of those shareholders, but probably I'm not. I will also be required to have life assurance (or in other words, a sucker bet with someone that I won't die before the term of the mortgage is up) so that there is no risk to the mortgage company if I drop dead before I've finished paying them back. I am also responsible for all maintenance costs on the property (there are sucker bets for this, too, known as buildings insurance). In this system, people who have the money to buy a house are first in the queue. The primary aim of everyone involved (except me; I'm just looking for somewhere to live) is to make a profit.

I can see why the second option is better for the economy - all those extra opportunities to make a profit! - but not why it's better for the householder.

Jane R

<Shrug> It's a trade-off, isn't it, between rights and responsibilities: if you want the right (ultimately) to own the roof over your head, then you have to take the responsibilities (insurance* and maintenance of said home, life cover for your dependants*) too; if you don't, you don't. Personally, I'd rather have the rights and responsibilities of ownership.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you should only have such insurance if you have a mortgage? Whilst you may be required to have buildings insurance if you have a mortgage, it would be silly to not have it even if you didn't have a mortgage, eg: in case it burned down. Ditto to a lesser extent with personal insurance (life, critical illness, redundancy protection etc). It's about providing as best you can those 'shit happens' events.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
For what its worth, my own reasons for intending to vote Labour are here

(seemed a bit pointless to crosspost the whole rant, but if anyone wanted to reply to any of it feel free to copy any parts of it here)

Thanks, good solid stuff and more coherent than Messrs Balls and Hain on the "Vote intelligently" issue. It explains why I voted Labour in 1997 and 2001.

We too get the Lib Dems and Tories saying they came second and we have Plaid Cymru to add to the fun. Remember that we have four elections here: for the local council, Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament: The Lib Dems can claim they very nearly won once and the Tories that they nearly won on another occasion! PC point to wins in council wards and the Tories and Lib Dems to similar in some pretty unlikely neighborhoods. No wonder a lot of shoe leather is being worn though.

Newport East will definitely be worth a look on Friday morning. A sizable swing is needed but the last European and council elections show anything is possible.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Weird stuff from the Public Service front-line.

It looks like there will be capital spending cutbacks, quite possibly starting on Monday next week! Why therefore did my managers get together this very day with the user IT rep's to prepare a prioritized list of projects to be done.

Actually, I know damn well what is going on. There isn't anything resembling a programme for change, just a wish-list, so if the Powers That Be decide to cut then they can strike that through, as it is of no consequence, and the cuts will have to be borne by the relatively few ongoing activities. If on the other hand there is a umpteen man-year multi-million pound programme of seven or eight hefty identifiable items, we may get away with keeping everything that now exists and lose only part of the programme that was cobbled together just today, two days before the election!

Sir Humphrey would be proud of you.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matt Black said:
quote:
*Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you should only have such insurance if you have a mortgage? Whilst you may be required to have buildings insurance if you have a mortgage, it would be silly to not have it even if you didn't have a mortgage, eg: in case it burned down. Ditto to a lesser extent with personal insurance (life, critical illness, redundancy protection etc). It's about providing as best you can those 'shit happens' events.

Fair point. Though if you are a tenant, it's the landlord's job to arrange buildings insurance, not yours (so the cost of it is 'hidden' in the rent).

I am playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here - I think we need more council houses for those who'll never be able to buy their own, but I also think we need more housing in the private sector for the reasons already stated by Doc Tor.

I think the present housing situation, where even fairly well-paid people in their late twenties have no hope of buying a house in many areas, is unjust and needs to be corrected. Without overloading the already creaking infrastructure or further reducing the amount of green space, if possible.

And just for the record... I didn't get compensation for the money I lost in the 1990s crash, so do not expect to be compensated for any (notional) value of my house that gets wiped out in this one, either.

Jane R

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
For what its worth, my own reasons for intending to vote Labour are here

I can't possibly vote labour because they destroyed my pension, they spent to much during the boom years (remember PFI)and when the bust years came they mortgaged the country to the hilt.
Who ever is in power will have to bring in massive cutbacks over the next 18 months and probably sooner because the Bond market might get annoyed with the UK. The public sector has had it's boom and is about to enter Browns bust.

The only reason I can think for voting Labour in is so they can get the credit for sacking hundreds of people, giving people 10% reductions in pay and taxing all those very nice public pension pots.

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I couldn't possibly vote Labour because they're a bunch of control freaks and always have been. There is an assumption that Lib Dem voters sympathise with Labour. This one doesn't.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
labour ... destroyed my pension*, they spent to much during the boom years (remember PFI**)and when the bust years came they mortgaged the country to the hilt***.

* a system already under pressure because of (a) the Tories allowing firms "pension holidays" and (b) pension funds' dependence on the deregulated financial system created by the Tories.

** a system invented by the Troies and dependent on a deregulated system created by the Troeis

*** in pursuit of the ethos that underpinned the Tories' system - making credit available will increase people's ability to take risk. The consequence of some of those risks are now being felt.

Blaming one party for the current situation, which is the result of the lazy and greedy consensus of the last 20 years, marks a failure to truly undertsand that governments aren't really in charge of anything anymore. The irony is tht the Euroseptics and UKIP are half right - sovereignty has been given away, but not to the peopple they say - it's gone to the market. And the market believes in profit, even if it requires the bankrupting of a few countries along the way.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
For what its worth, my own reasons for intending to vote Labour are here

I can't possibly vote labour because they destroyed my pension, they spent to much during the boom years (remember PFI)and when the bust years came they mortgaged the country to the hilt.
Who ever is in power will have to bring in massive cutbacks over the next 18 months and probably sooner because the Bond market might get annoyed with the UK. The public sector has had it's boom and is about to enter Browns bust.

The only reason I can think for voting Labour in is so they can get the credit for sacking hundreds of people, giving people 10% reductions in pay and taxing all those very nice public pension pots.

[Overused] And Brown wants us to give him anopther five years..??? [Killing me]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The only reason I can think for voting Labour in is so they can get the credit for sacking hundreds of people, giving people 10% reductions in pay and taxing all those very nice public pension pots.

Indeed there is a scary logic for Labour voters to vote Tory to let them take the hit for doing the necessary. Which says something deeply depressing about human nature, but if it comes as a surprise we are very wet behind the ears...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
labour ... destroyed my pension*...

* a system already under pressure because of (a) the Tories allowing firms "pension holidays" and (b) pension funds' dependence on the deregulated financial system created by the Tories.
I believe Nightlamp is talking about the tax raid on pension funds perpetrated by Brown when he was Chancellor.

If he gets back in this time he'll probably help himself to half our savings accounts as well. Labour policy has always been to keep people as poor as possible so that they're dependent on the Almighty State.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Labour policy has always been to keep people as poor as possible so that they're dependent on the Almighty State.

Your nuanced understanding of their policies are noted.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767

 - Posted      Profile for kentishmaid   Author's homepage   Email kentishmaid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking of keeping people poor, I found Johann Hari's article in today's "viewspaper" section of the Independent both illuminating and scary.

--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"

Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Labour policy has always been to keep people as poor as possible so that they're dependent on the Almighty State.

Deary me.

[ 05. May 2010, 12:53: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Labour policy has always been to keep people as poor as possible so that they're dependent on the Almighty State.

Your nuanced understanding of their policies are noted.
Is it any more nuanced than certain posters' understanding of Tory policy?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You were complaining about leo's prejudice about the Tories, while you have just displayed your own about Labour. You're no better than what you decry.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
[qb] labour ... destroyed my pension*, they spent to much during the boom years (remember PFI**)and when the bust years came they mortgaged the country to the hilt***.

* a system already under pressure because of (a) the Tories allowing firms "pension holidays" and (b) pension funds' dependence on the deregulated financial system created by the Tories.
Then along came Gordon Brown in 1997 and literally destroyed the private pension schemes by the abolition of Advanced Corporation Tax by taking £100 billion out of private pensions.

quote:

** a system invented by the Troies and dependent on a deregulated system created by the Troeis he

Yet industrialised and perfected by Labour. Indeed I voted labour because I thought they might end PFI. Little did I realise they would behave even worse.


quote:

Blaming one party for the current situation, which is the result of the lazy and greedy

I don't blame Gordon Brown for everything yet Gordon Brown did destroy private pensions, and he spent far more than was sensible in the boom years, he over complicated the Tax credit system, he did announce the end of boom and bust. I blame him for what he did as probably the worst chancellor this country has ever hence I could never vote labour whilst he remains as leader. He was inspired at times like the introduction of the 10% Tax rate but then stupid when he took it away.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
probably the worst chancellor this country has ever

That award goes to Nigel Lawson. Or Norman Lamont.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
You were complaining about leo's prejudice about the Tories, while you have just displayed your own about Labour. You're no better than what you decry.

Well spotted!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529

 - Posted      Profile for Pottage   Email Pottage   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
probably the worst chancellor this country has ever

That award goes to Nigel Lawson. Or Norman Lamont.
The office goes back centuries so the competition is severe. But even if we limit ourselves to living memory I suggest Denis Healey has a greater claim than any of these?
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
labour ... destroyed my pension*...

* a system already under pressure because of (a) the Tories allowing firms "pension holidays" and (b) pension funds' dependence on the deregulated financial system created by the Tories.
I believe Nightlamp is talking about the tax raid on pension funds perpetrated by Brown when he was Chancellor.

If he gets back in this time he'll probably help himself to half our savings accounts as well. Labour policy has always been to keep people as poor as possible so that they're dependent on the Almighty State.

It is this kind of rhetoric that really fucks me off during elections. Do you really believe that is what the labour cabinet has been thinking ? Really ?

I certainly don't believe that Cameron is thinking, "how can I really fuck over the welfare state" or "I really want to run the country for the richest business leaders and the devil take the hindmost". I think that is the outcome of his polices not the intention.

Similarly, a politician saying - "I can do x" - is not a lie, unless he knew for damn sure he couldn't when he said it. I don't think Clegg is lying when he says that a £10,000 personal allowance will create all sorts of wonderful effects, I just think he is wrong.

What happened to mistaken, misguided, badly advised, or even I think there is more evidence for economic theory x than economic theory y ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I will be voting Labour as I believe theologically that in principle private property is immoral.

Conservatives and Lib Dems don't seem to even begin to engage with this. But some in the Labour party will.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of weeks or so ago I got bolloxed here for posting my opinions on the political lines taken by UK newspapers, including this:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The Liberals will probably be supported by the rather misnamed Independent and will at least get a sympathetic ear from the Guardian and Observer and maybe the weekly Economist (though they overtly and covertly supported the Tories in Thatchers time) Coming from different sides of the fence the Grauniad and its stablemates, and the Economist and Financial Times are the only UK national newspapers likely to remain politically independent in news reporting during the election.

Labour will probably only be supported by the Mirror and the low-circulation weekly New Statesman (News International probably employ more people than read the Staggers!)

[...]

It is basically about filtering the news. Printing stories that talk about the things your party wants to talk about. Relegating other stories to the bottom of page seven or the week after the election. Making up shock headlines that do not adequately describe the contents of the article (The most egregious so far was the Mail's CLEGG IN NAZI SLUR ON BRITAIN which existed purely as a headline - the story underneath so inconsequential its hard to see how the staff could stay awake long enough to set it. And of course choosing which of the dozens of opinion polls to mention today in order to talk up your party and talk down the others.

One of the reasons I rarely read newspapers any more. And why all British people should thank God for the BBC. (And vote for party that is not going to gut the BBC and sell the offal to Murdoch's bottom-feeding lampreys)

Well, surprise, surprise. It turns out that the Economist and Financial Times have both come out in favour of the Tories, as have ALL the other national papers apart from the Mirror (and the Staggers if you caount that) for Labour and the Independent, the Guardian and Observer who went for Liberals.

Who would've thunk it? [Roll Eyes]

Oh and the Mail's top three online headlines today - the day before an election - are £20,000 benefits so father of seven can keep his children in video games... and pay his huge booze bill because he's 'too moody to work and Father has face sliced open in 'racial attack' as his son, 5, watches in horror and Bulgarian family with 'pickpocket map' of London hotspots stole £100,000 from commuters. News, yes. But front page news in a national paper? During an election? Nothing about the economy, or global warming, or the national debt or the possibilities of constitutional change? Really??

Their most prominent online political headline was: 'We have 24 hours to save Britain': Cameron in last gasp bid to oust Brown as four in 10 voters as still undecided and their comment column is headed MAIL COMMENT: Why we must vote DECISIVELY to stop Britain walking blindly into disaster . . . and give the Tories their chance Fair enough - its the filtering of the news that I object to. Their endless venomous drip drip drip attempt to make people angry and afraid.

On past form (going back decades) I reckon there is about a 2/3 chance that tomorrow's main headline in the Daily Mail will be something they have saved up to seem damning of the Labour Party (if not it'll be some more saloon-bar "Britain is Broken" scaremongering). And if its an anti-Labour piece there will be about a 1/3 chance that it will later turn out to have been a lie.

Not all the Tory press is like this - the Telegraph's website leads on the Athens riots, the ash cloud, and a problem with Facebook security. Seriously defensible choices. Times online top stories are about Gordon Brown, the volcanic ash, Greece, and the Louisiana oil leak. Even the Sun, the tabloid of tabloids, after putting a recommendation to vote Tory from Simon Cowell (!!!!!!) at the top, has a human interest story from China, tonight's Spurs/Man City match, and the Greek situation.

There is no left-wing mass-consumption press in the UK. But the Grauniad - the only national newspaper that is not pitched politically to the right of the average Brit - leads with EU warning: UK to overtake Greece for worst deficit (if anything a story that tends to help the Tories), an reasonably neutral election news roundup, volcanic ash, and the oil leak. The Mirror, as usual these days, floods its web page with celebrity and football gossip - the only political story is a claim that Simon Cowell's endorsement of the Tories has backfired. A bit pathetic really.

The usually utterly middle-of-the-road Independent's website leads with an appeal to vote Liberal, followed by a story about the SAS in Afghanistan, then the volcano, the oil spill, and Greece. Though they did publish Johann Hari's "Cameron Land" which is perhaps the most twittered and blogged about news item of the last day of the campaign - almost displacing Philippa Stroud from the Twitter trends. (Both those links are well worth a read incidentally - though probably proof that the political Twitterati are on average as far to the left of the average Brit as the newspapers are to her right.)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
probably the worst chancellor this country has ever

That award goes to Nigel Lawson. Or Norman Lamont.
The office goes back centuries so the competition is severe. But even if we limit ourselves to living memory I suggest Denis Healey has a greater claim than any of these?
Come Friday, the title of "the worst chancellor this country has ever seen" will surely belong to Osborne...

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I will be voting Labour as I believe theologically that in principle private property is immoral.

This economic theory has been tried for countries like China and Russia and it wasn't that successful at bringing people out of poverty

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529

 - Posted      Profile for Pottage   Email Pottage   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Come Friday, the title of "the worst chancellor this country has ever seen" will surely belong to Osborne...

To be fair, I think you have to assume that it'll take longer than 24 hours to establish a workable minority government and appoint ministers. And if he gets the nod over Cable, then in fairness Osborne has to be allowed at least a few months to wreck things before he could be expected to hold his head high in ompany like that.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I will be voting Labour as I believe theologically that in principle private property is immoral.

This economic theory has been tried for countries like China and Russia and it wasn't that successful at bringing people out of poverty
Neither I suspect is Capitalism on a global scale.

We have to live in the system. But that doesn't mean we have to accept that it isn't evil.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191

 - Posted      Profile for redderfreak   Author's homepage   Email redderfreak   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I will be voting Labour as I believe theologically that in principle private property is immoral.

This economic theory has been tried for countries like China and Russia and it wasn't that successful at bringing people out of poverty
At heart Labour stands for the poor and underpriveleged in society. The Tories stand for the rich and the elite. They believe in cutting taxes for the rich (for example, inheritance tax) so that they can get richer. They hope that enough of the aspiring poor will make money to prevent them from rebelling. And the rest can rely on charity, a leisure activity for the rich to keep their conscience clear while they enjoy the trappings of wealth.

A bit of a simplistic view I know but I'm old enough to remember 18 years of Tory government, including Thatcher. We muddled through but a lot of people got hurt. That's why I'll be voting Labour.

--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see

Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
At heart Labour stands for the poor and underpriveleged in society. The Tories stand for the rich and the elite. They believe in cutting taxes for the rich (for example, inheritance tax) so that they can get richer.

This is a rather weak reason to vote Labour. The Inheritance tax threshold used to be in the region of £250,000. When the Conservatives pledged to raise the threshold to £1 million Labour cancelled their planned election campaign and began to increase the threshold (although that has been delayed recently).

I won't go on to the fact that the gap between rich and poor has actually widened under Labour.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I will be voting Labour as I believe theologically that in principle private property is immoral.

This economic theory has been tried for countries like China and Russia and it wasn't that successful at bringing people out of poverty
Neither I suspect is Capitalism on a global scale.

We have to live in the system. But that doesn't mean we have to accept that it isn't evil.

Strengthening property rights is the best means towards poverty reduction says the World Bank...

but don't let hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian people's experience of being raised out of poverty undermine your ideology [Help]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191

 - Posted      Profile for redderfreak   Author's homepage   Email redderfreak   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
At heart Labour stands for the poor and underpriveleged in society. The Tories stand for the rich and the elite. They believe in cutting taxes for the rich (for example, inheritance tax) so that they can get richer.

This is a rather weak reason to vote Labour. The Inheritance tax threshold used to be in the region of £250,000. When the Conservatives pledged to raise the threshold to £1 million Labour cancelled their planned election campaign and began to increase the threshold (although that has been delayed recently).

I won't go on to the fact that the gap between rich and poor has actually widened under Labour.

My point is that how ever bad you think things are under Labour (and I think they're quite good), they would have been a whole lot worse under the Tories. Be careful what you wish for.

--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see

Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Ken Said.

Cameron must be stopped.

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I wish for is sadly not available under liberal Cameroonian Toryism.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
What Ken Said.

Cameron must be stopped.

I don't find Cameron especially worrying. He's basically "Blair - The Sequel" so the Tories have wisely kept most of the erstwhile shadow cabinet under wraps. Labour may be short of talent but can we take seriously the likes of Christopher Grayling (Home Office), Andrew Lansley (Health) and Theresa May at DWP? Oh, and Osborne at the Treasury. Hague will wow them in Washington.

Sod the policies, someone has to carry them out and I have no faith at all in that shower.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Labour may be short of talent but can we

Ah yes, Brown as Prime Minister is there main weakness followed by Bob Ainsworth. I actually think Darling as been an OK chancellor every so often he has told the truth before the spin doctors got to him. If you are voting Labout to avoid the cuts well think again. Unfortunately for Darling his predecessor completely boloxed the economy and he will probably take some of the blame.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  23  24  25 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools