General Election

[leeslover]

And on here too. LL clearly repeated the nonsense he'd read on unemployment, make-believe jobs, statistical scams and repossessions and got them all wrong.

As you have it all to your fingertips, why don't you give us the breakdown of the numbers on sickness/incapacity benefit over the years? And we can see how that translates when we look at how many jobless there are. After all, it would be odd for more people to be invalided from work in the era when most heavy industrial jobs have gone, as you say.

 

Re: unemployment, I was pretty much correct in what I said on rising figures. There was a statistically insignificant rise which we can expect to be reversed in the trends. Unemployment tends to be a lagging indicator of recession, although this may have been reduced due to the liberalised labour markets now in existence over the dead bodies of the labour movemnet of the 1980s. AS for make-believe jobs, there are an extra 1 million jobs paid for by the shrinking private sector into the growing public sector. We are c £170 BILLION overspending this year. But no, it's not make-believe, we can go on like that forever. La la la la la.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I think you'll find it was justified on the last page, the post with the first picture of Basil.

 

Well worth repeating.

 

Surestart.

 

Minimum wage.

 

Fox hunting ban.

 

Never seen before investment in improving housing in deprived areas.

 

Civil Partnerships/rafts of minority rights.

 

Massively increased African/overseas aid and writing off billions of third world debt.

 

Hugely increased NHS investment. Statutory holiday and Paternity rights.

 

Possibly the biggest ever redistribution of wealth ever seen in this country in the form of tax credits and minimum incomes for pensioners.

 

Peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Smoking ban.

 

To which I will add massive education reforms, meaning more people going to university, more new schools, more teachers, smaller class sizes.

 

And massively decreased crime levels.

 

Any more for any more?

[oafc0000]

Its time for a change

 

To a man who has admitted to basing himself on Blair ?

[Stitch_KTF]

Another related thought.....

 

Why is it seen as a given that higher earners pay a higher ratio of tax? To use an example at hand, that Johann Hari made the 'shocking' relevation that some big wig pays a smaller ratio of tax than his secretary. So what? He should pay the same yes, but he still pays miles, miles more. He still only has two arms, two legs and one arse. Discrimination is it?

 

Take it from me, on my wage I'm far from biased, but if I was earning big money then I'd be loatherd to pay a higher rate than the fella who earns nowt, who usually only has himself to blame. What a piss take - when I go out with my loaded mate I don't expect him to contribute more than me. I can sympathise with taxing the super rich, but those who graft to earn £100k a year I say good luck to - I don't advocate taking half their upper earnings. The worst part is that these sorts don't much use the resources the tax pays for! NHS, state schools, public transport. I suppose they need the police, if only to protect them (mostly) from the section of society that they are subsidising.

 

I think it's time people stop bleating about taxing the succesful (rich) to improve their own quality of life. For crying out loud, be happy for them, take inspiration, grow some bollocks and get out there and do it for yourself, or, just be happy with what you have. They are the two only acceptable ways for me.

 

To possibly be a tad controversial, maybe if we stopped laying on houses, £x per week, subsidies, hospital treatment, free schooling etc all at the expense of the rich, we wouldn't have near chronic over-population and an increasingly burgeoning section of vile scrotes?

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme. Pay for me, pay for me, pay for me.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Stitch_KTF

[Killens_physio]

I think you'll find it was justified on the last page, the post with the first picture of Basil.

 

I dont see how that post justifies bugger all. Thanks to Labour every family are lumbered with thousands of pounds worth of debt, because once again Labour have driven the economy into the ground. They inherited a healthy economy when they were elected in 97, and in true labour fashion have mismanaged it and the rest of us have to pay the price. Gormless Brown claims that he was a prudent chancellor and Prime Minister. Yeah whatever Gordon, you sold off our gold reserves for a fraction of their price in the run up to the 2005 election and promised an EU referendum to the country. Thats right A PROMISE! He was even so ashamed of his actions that he signed it behind closed doors. He and his government dont give a stuff about this country. They have treated us all as idiots, but some people just dont want to see it.

 

Whatever goes wrong with the country, Labour turn round and blame the Tories..........well after 12 years of incompetance who they going to blame now?

 

 

[oafc0000]

Another related thought....

 

Why is it seen as a given that higher earners pay a higher ratio of tax? To use an example at hand, that Johann Hari made the 'shocking' relevation that some big wig pays a smaller ratio of tax than his secretary. So what? He should pay the same yes, but he still pays miles, miles more. He still only has two arms, two legs and one arse. Discrimination is it?

 

I agree with you here. Beating up on the "rich" is nasty and counter productive a lot of the time. I do not like labours 50% tax rate.

 

I believe in giving people the aim of climbing the ladder and earning more.

Edited April 13, 2010 by oafc0000

[Killens_physio]

To a man who has admitted to basing himself on Blair ?

 

I never said Cameron specifically did I? None of the mainstream parties deserve any support. They are all the same, and all blowing smoke up the arses of those in Brussels. I voted UKIP in the EU elections and will probably do so this time. British Politics needs a radical shake up yes, but it needs a Labour-less government even more.

[oafc0000]

I never said Cameron specifically did I?

 

No but that is the cold hard reality... It is going to be Brown or Cameron as Prime Minister... With a little luck the libs will do well and we might find Cabell as Chancellor...

Edited April 13, 2010 by oafc0000

[Stitch_KTF]

Typical pinko point but whilst I respect your right to say that, it is the only system we have at the moment to have our say. We are never going to have "the perfect system" in a country with 45million eligible voters so for me opting out is a cop out. You might not agree with any of the parties but there is possibly one that you disagree with more, voting only takes about 10 mins every few years, hardly a hardship.

 

I voted once back when I first could. I did it to see what it was all about and voted for the Lib-Dems because they were saying they would legalise weed. Great policy but, for crying out loud, how many of those that do actually turn out are making similarly inconsidered votes?

 

I'll not be voting under this outdated, inefficient, unfair and out of date system ever again. With modern communication technologies and the like we could have a massively more logical and fairer system which, in my opinion, would provide opportunity to galvanise the electorate into taking the time to identify and elect the right people to take our backwards looking countrty forward.

 

Instead we will continue toing and froying between one set of career politicians and another. Now that's a hardship.

 

[Killens_physio]

No but that is the cold hard reality... It is going to be Brown or Cameron as Prime Minister... With a little luck the libs will do well and we might find Cabell as Chancellor...

 

Yes you are right and it does appear that its between them two. I have until the last Euro election voted Tory, and with a leader who even had a bit of leadership quality the Tories could have had this election sewn up. As it is they have distanced themselves from traditional conversatism, to this namby pampy lefty stuff. Im all for progression but there comes a point where the Tories had to put there foot down and try to retain some mild representation of what they stand for. Cameron has managed to isolate his a lot of his core voters because of this deviation away from Conservatism, to a new centre left leaning.

 

However, a choice if I had to make one I would still vote for Cameron, not because I like to guy or because his views represent mine, but just a complete dread of another 4/5 years of Labour. The country is in too much of the brown stuff (pardon the pun) to risk it. Brown says its no time for a novice........well after the way he has handled himself during his disasterous tenure, it begs the question, who really is the novice??

[leeslover]

Well worth repeating.

 

Surestart.

Destruction of any remaining school autonomy, testing of pre-natal kids to absurdity, massively increased schools budget with nothing to show

 

Minimum wage.

 

Old hat, never set that high to make a huge difference anyway but high enough to make lower paid jobs more attractive to Eastern Europeans and illegal immigrants than to British people caught in the welfare poverty trap. It was introduced when wages were going up fairly well anyway, it's now when times are hard that we feel the pinch

 

Fox hunting ban.

 

Poxy class warfare crap. Foxes are vermin and should be killed.

 

Never seen before investment in improving housing in deprived areas.

 

Not sure what this means. I didn't understand that Labour was building hundreds of thousands of council houses as all governments pledged to do in recent decades. The government as builder/landlord didn't turn out to be a great success really.

 

Civil Partnerships/rafts of minority rights.

 

Agree re: civil partnerships. Not opposed by any major parties I believe? The growth of, "positive liberty," into English law is a disaster and gives unwelcome weight to people who want to oppose the removal of genuine restrains on individual freedom.

 

Massively increased African/overseas aid and writing off billions of third world debt.

 

Smart. I'm paying for some dictator's kid's college fund or for daddy to have a new fighter squadron.

 

Hugely increased NHS investment.

 

Hugely increased salaries for existing staff for less work, thousands more well paid regulators. Massive burden for the future in terms of PFI costs. Probably some benefit for sick people in there, somewhere.

 

Statutory holiday and Paternity rights.

Less jobs

 

Possibly the biggest ever redistribution of wealth ever seen in this country in the form of tax credits and minimum incomes for pensioners.

 

Wrong. The biggest redistribution has been from people who work in the private sector to those who work in the public or don;t work at all. I hasten to add that the latter two are not the same.

 

Peace in Northern Ireland.

All hail Gordon.

 

Smoking ban.

 

Health fascism. I gave up years ago, I am old enough to decide if I want to go somewhere or not.

 

To which I will add massive education reforms, meaning more people going to university, more new schools, more teachers, smaller class sizes.

 

And nobody fails exams anymore. We're all cleverer. YAYYYY!!!!!!! It worked!!!!!

 

And massively decreased crime levels.

 

My arse

 

Any more for any more?

 

[Yard Dog]

Another related thought.....

 

Why is it seen as a given that higher earners pay a higher ratio of tax? To use an example at hand, that Johann Hari made the 'shocking' relevation that some big wig pays a smaller ratio of tax than his secretary. So what? He should pay the same yes, but he still pays miles, miles more. He still only has two arms, two legs and one arse. Discrimination is it?

 

Take it from me, on my wage I'm far from biased, but if I was earning big money then I'd be loatherd to pay a higher rate than the fella who earns nowt, who usually only has himself to blame. What a piss take - when I go out with my loaded mate I don't expect him to contribute more than me. I can sympathise with taxing the super rich, but those who graft to earn £100k a year I say good luck to - I don't advocate taking half their upper earnings. The worst part is that these sorts don't much use the resources the tax pays for! NHS, state schools, public transport. I suppose they need the police, if only to protect them (mostly) from the section of society that they are subsidising.

 

I think it's time people stop bleating about taxing the succesful (rich) to improve their own quality of life. For crying out loud, be happy for them, take inspiration, grow some bollocks and get out there and do it for yourself, or, just be happy with what you have. They are the two only acceptable ways for me.

 

To possibly be a tad controversial, maybe if we stopped laying on houses, £x per week, subsidies, hospital treatment, free schooling etc all at the expense of the rich, we wouldn't have near chronic over-population and an increasingly burgeoning section of vile scrotes?

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme. Pay for me, pay for me, pay for me.

 

 

VOTE STITCH.....He will legalise drugs as well

Edited April 13, 2010 by Yard Dog

[Killens_physio]

And massively decreased crime levels.

 

I think not somehow. The only way you could think that is if you have read some very heavily doctored statistics!

[oafc0000]

I think not somehow. The only way you could think that is if you have read some very heavily doctored statistics!

 

I don't remember walking the streets in fear too often... Then again I don't live in Oldham anymore

[Killens_physio]

I don't remember walking the streets in fear too often... Then again I don't live in Oldham anymore

 

I bet Dave Penney walks the streets of Oldham in fear though

[Stitch_KTF]

VOTE STITCH.....He will legalise drugs as well

 

I'd wager that a more apt core of government could be formed from this board alone. I'll be PM (but I will need a rise), leeslover can be Chancellor, Lags the Minister of State, oafc0000 as Minister of Transport and your good self as Minister of Drugs.

[opinions4u]

oafc0000 as Minister of Transport

Will he let me drive my car?

[oafc0000]

Will he let me drive my car?

 

Sure, but its going to cost you

 

[opinions4u]

Sure, but its going to cost you

Believe me, it already does!

[leeslover]

Sure, but its going to cost you

Only if you your department can afford the staff to enforce it Priorities might have to be revised after I spend half an hour alone with the departmental budgets and a couple of red pens...

[leeslover]

Not since the BoE took on this responsibility.

Getting briefly back on topic, another one that was easy to announce in the good times. The retail level of inflation was never going to go through the roof with the Chinese factories flooding us (and I am very grateful they did) with extremely cheap goods despite the associated growth. Now that we are in recession (or were, to avoid Mr Tulsehill smashing me with his statistical ability again) the Bank has been allowed to let the inflation target slide for a while, as well as artificially inflating the money supply with quantative easing. An en to Boom and Bust indeed.

[Stitch_KTF]

Will he let me drive my car?

 

I'll look at it the moment I've hush hushed an impending Cabinet sex scandal.

[leeslover]

I'll look at it the moment I've hush hushed an impending Cabinet sex scandal.

If it's that business about Evette Cooper's bag falling off her head but me carrying on, it is entirely without foundation.

[rudemedic]

Well worth repeating.

 

Surestart. Does some good but is not all that good and when did it start and who really came up with it?

 

Minimum wage. Meh- did a lot of good for some of the people earning it initally but like LL said makes Britain a magnet for immigration- but that isn't necessarily a bad thing

 

Fox hunting ban. Foxes are not nice people with a sense of justice they are animals. A ban made probably a 1000 people unemployed all for the sake of some foxes. Plus, was this an offical Labour policy or was it a private members bill- either way I wouldn't bother wasting parliamentary time with reversing it

 

Never seen before investment in improving housing in deprived areas.Throwing money at the problem doesn't always make the problem go away and can make things worse- see someone else's post about taxing the rich. Middlesbrough is still a hole and will probably get worse with all the local job cuts (and quite a few have happened recently)

 

Civil Partnerships/rafts of minority rights. I'm all in favour of equality but it has to be equality and not positive discrimination and the latest bunch is pushing it a bit too far towards positive discrimination for my tastes- although since I'm a white male working in a profession where white males are proportionally under represented I could use it in my favour

 

Massively increased African/overseas aid and writing off billions of third world debt. This I agree with

 

Hugely increased NHS investment. Statutory holiday and Paternity rights. The NHS is better but this improvement is not cost-effective- it has however made my parents richer so cheers. Paternity rights is something I agree on- see above on equality- and statuatory holiday pay is something I like too

 

Possibly the biggest ever redistribution of wealth ever seen in this country in the form of tax credits and minimum incomes for pensioners. Not really got an opinion on this one

 

Peace in Northern Ireland. A good thing I suppose but I'd have been tempted to let anyone who wanted to remain British come to great Britain and left Ireland sort out those that wanted to be Irish. Incidentally who was in charge when the troubles began?

 

Smoking ban. This is the thing I really wanted to argue about- this is not a Labour thing. In 1997 the only economy where there was a smoking ban was California (plus possibly one or two other states in the US and I'm not 100% convinced about California). Since then most of the developed world has introduced it- and we were definately not even close to being the first. It worked in the States, Canada, Oz, Ireland and we gave it a go bit by bit- Scotland was first I think- but some other countries beat us to it when they saw the benefit. No one will ever know if the Tories/whoever else would have introduced it and I don't remember it being a Labour manifesto promise in the last election but Labour was in charge when the developed world realised it was a good thing so some Labour supporters feel they deserve the credit

 

To which I will add massive education reforms, meaning more people going to university, more new schools, more teachers, smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes is one of those stats I don't see as actually being all that significant. Yes, loads more people are going to uni but is that a good thing studying surfing or kite flying doesn't seem all that important to me. How much were tuition fees under John Major's Tories- £0 how much are they now under Labour £3000+ nice one- a whole generation of people who leave univeristy with degrees that aren't uber necessary in a whole bunch of debt. My education got dicked under Labour who bought in changes which didn't do the job they were supposed to in the obvious theory and the education establishments were not given enough warning so were under prepared but in some ways that was my misfortune for being a certain age. Incidentally given the way the population has increased under Labour if the Tories had suffered a population rise to the same level I bet they would have built more new schools too as certain areas wouldn't cope otherwise, the same with teachers.

 

And massively decreased crime levels. I'm unsure about this one- crime may have gone down as a whole but I thought the crimes that actually cause people to be scared like murder, rape, violent stuff had actually gone up- but I stand to be corrected

 

Any more for any more?

 

My main point is so what if Labour did all that they had 13 years in power if that's all the good stuff they did then frankly they were Should all women vote for the liberals because they were in power when women got given the vote? What about all those people who are alive because of the leadership of a liberal/tory bloke during WWII? What about anyone who ever went to an NHS hospital should Labour get everyone's vote just because it was a Labour bloke who came up with it- he did something else really important too but I've forgotten what. I'm not employed in politics and at a guess by the Labour party, unlike some I could mention. I'm voting for a party that actually doesn't matter as they aren't any of the big three. I would however urge people not to vote for Labour because of the good stuff they did when the country had money (and as you can see by LL's points and mine good isn't necessarily good for everyone), nor should people not vote Tory just because of what Maggie Thatcher did to the unions to stop this country from becoming too Socialist- it worked really well for the Soviet Block countries didn't it. Vote for whoever you think will do the country the best in the next x number of months or has a policy different to the others you agree on- e.g. Stitch and weed. Frankly unless you are blessed to live in a marginal constituency it doesn't matter who you vote for anyway.

[oafc0000]

I'll look at it the moment I've hush hushed an impending Cabinet sex scandal.

 

Always time for a good sex scandal...