next election... vote ukip (you dont have a say, straight out of Europe) vote Lib dems ( keep Europe) vote labour ( scared to talk about it) conservatives ( scared to talk about it)
the only 2 party's that wanna discuss it went head to head. i have never voted lib dem but at least clegg can see it how it is and will then debate. Respect to him
It seems like Europe should be a topic for debate, but why has it become the only topic for debate ?
"we're free to say that your voiced opinions are racist (which is not necessarily the same as saying you are racist, but if you're doing it often enough then you probably are)."
This to me reads as, if I voice my opinions too often then I'm probably racist. I guess that's not how you meant it to come across?
No, that if you're saying racist things too often, then you probably are racist. Wouldn't have thought that was particularly controversial to be honest, particularly as I was using the generic you rather than the specific you. (If it would make you feel happier I will edit the above to make that point clearer). I have absolutely no position on whether you've voiced any racist opinions at this point, let alone how often you might have been doing it if you had, so unless you (specific you) think you (specific you) have been saying racist things too often, then we don't have a problem.
I can see a UCon collab next year, both pretty much Tories anyway.
Given our first past the post system I highly doubt UKIP will win enough seats to assist a party seeking to form a majority.
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
Well in each constituency whomever gets the most votes wins that seat for their party - so UKIP will get lots of votes across the country but they probably won't get the most in many individual constituencies and therefore probably won't win many seats (possibly any).
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
next election... vote ukip (you dont have a say, straight out of Europe) vote Lib dems ( keep Europe) vote labour ( scared to talk about it) conservatives ( scared to talk about it)
the only 2 party's that wanna discuss it went head to head. i have never voted lib dem but at least clegg can see it how it is and will then debate. Respect to him
It seems like Europe should be a topic for debate, but why has it become the only topic for debate ?
Because it was a European Election?
Just a European Election ?
For the whole Country, yes.
Yep, nothing else going on in the politics of this country this week other than a European election...
I can see a UCon collab next year, both pretty much Tories anyway.
Given our first past the post system I highly doubt UKIP will win enough seats to assist a party seeking to form a majority.
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
Well in each constituency whomever gets the most votes wins that seat for their party - so UKIP will get lots of votes across the country but they probably won't get the most in many individual constituencies and therefore probably won't win many seats (possibly any).
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
Interesting reading comprehension, somewhat proving my point.
The material for your debate is in wibble's post. Somehow I doubt you'll address it.
You can't take one idiot's fantasy policy, and then present it as the party's official policy. UKIP unfortunately has some real morons amongst it's ranks, like any party, but they seem to get more airtime.
Farage said today that UKIP will have no plans to privatise the NHS in their next manifesto. And when he last appeared on BBCQT, he also pointed out that the income tax increase was on the manifesto for the last general election and will not be repeated.
The climate change and human rights points are misleading, as leaving the EU would get rid of our current legislation on these, but that doesn't mean that UKIP want to scrap them altogether.
You do know (do you?) that the European Convention and Court of Human Rights are not part of the EU and were set up in the aftermath of the 2nd world war before the EU (or the 'Common Market') came into being?:
so simply leaving the EU (and leaving aside for the moment a debate on that) would not withdraw the UK from the European Convention and Court of Human Rights
Similarly, the UK Climate Change Act (as it's name implies) is UK legislation, and is separate from any EU regulations, so again it would not be repealed by leaving the EU (even if you were misguided enough to think it should be).
So to vote Tory you have to be a little Englander, zzzz
I vote Tory because I am a hard working family man.
Honestly if you have a job why would you vote for anyone else
I highly doubt we'll resolve such cosmic conundrums here on CL, but I will point out that your fourth statement rather ironically supports your first one
So to vote Tory you have to be a little Englander, zzzz
I vote Tory because I am a hard working family man.
Honestly if you have a job why would you vote for anyone else
Because I'm aware that that could change within the blink of an eye - your company could go bust or you could have a car accident that leaves you disabled - and the Tories are cutting great chunks out of the social safety net that protects you from the worst effects of that. The sick and disabled have been absolutely hammered by the cumulative effects of the Government's welfare reforms, and the corrosive effect of the continuous "scrounger" rhetoric makes their lives even more difficult.
And that's before we even get into talking about the stealth privatisation of the NHS...
I can see a UCon collab next year, both pretty much Tories anyway.
Given our first past the post system I highly doubt UKIP will win enough seats to assist a party seeking to form a majority.
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
Well in each constituency whomever gets the most votes wins that seat for their party - so UKIP will get lots of votes across the country but they probably won't get the most in many individual constituencies and therefore probably won't win many seats (possibly any).
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
Not according to Smiley/Stripey Nigel. He says they will take a leaf out of Paddy Trousersdown's approach when the Lib Dems grew their MP base considerably by targeting seats where they have a gained a local foothold.
All I would say is "good luck with that". It is by no means easy to grow from a local base to winning parliamentary seats.
I lived in Tunbridge Wells a few years back. The Lib Dems won the local council. They got central funding for fighting the GE. They never came close to winning even though they got over 30% of the vote. The Tories got 50%.
Take Orpington as an example. The LDs were strong for years there having lost the seat in 1970. They never won it back. They threw huge resources at the seat and came within a whisker twice.
There normally needs to be extra factors for a smaller party to win new seats at a GE.
1. A well known local candidate (or a nationally known one) 2. A vacant seat - where the incumbent has retired/given way to a new candidate 3. A local cause which sets the public against the incumbents party 4. Convenient boundary changes 5. Geographical issues such as people from an area needing an "independent" voice
To win a hatful of seats UKIP would need to get something around 25% in a four party system. They won't get this. 17% is their projected share this time. 50% of whom have stated they are likely to vote for other parties in the GE 2015. My guess it will be more than that as people focus on the "wasted vote" factor.
So to vote Tory you have to be a little Englander, zzzz
I vote Tory because I am a hard working family man.
Honestly if you have a job why would you vote for anyone else
I have a job (actually, I'm self-employed). I would never vote Tory because I care about the people who can't get a job. I care about those who are sick and I don't want someone making a massive profit out of making them better, or maybe deciding not to make them better because there isn't enough profit to be made.
I can see a UCon collab next year, both pretty much Tories anyway.
Given our first past the post system I highly doubt UKIP will win enough seats to assist a party seeking to form a majority.
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
Well in each constituency whomever gets the most votes wins that seat for their party - so UKIP will get lots of votes across the country but they probably won't get the most in many individual constituencies and therefore probably won't win many seats (possibly any).
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
Not according to Smiley/Stripey Nigel. He says they will take a leaf out of Paddy Trousersdown's approach when the Lib Dems grew their MP base considerably by targeting seats where they have a gained a local foothold.
All I would say is "good luck with that". It is by no means easy to grow from a local base to winning parliamentary seats.
I lived in Tunbridge Wells a few years back. The Lib Dems won the local council. They got central funding for fighting the GE. They never came close to winning even though they got over 30% of the vote. The Tories got 50%.
Take Orpington as an example. The LDs were strong for years there having lost the seat in 1970. They never won it back. They threw huge resources at the seat and came within a whisker twice.
There normally needs to be extra factors for a smaller party to win new seats at a GE.
1. A well known local candidate (or a nationally known one) 2. A vacant seat - where the incumbent has retired/given way to a new candidate 3. A local cause which sets the public against the incumbents party 4. Convenient boundary changes 5. Geographical issues such as people from an area needing an "independent" voice
To win a hatful of seats UKIP would need to get something around 25% in a four party system. They won't get this. 17% is their projected share this time. 50% of whom have stated they are likely to vote for other parties in the GE 2015. My guess it will be more than that as people focus on the "wasted vote" factor.
So...UKIP won't win enough seats to be a real player in a potential coalition then ?
Seriously what state do you think the economy would be in now if labour were in control
Well, when the Tories came in to power, the economy was GROWING. Osborne killed that growth and put us into recession, and it's taken four years to get the economy roughly back where it was when he became Chancellor.
I can see a UCon collab next year, both pretty much Tories anyway.
Given our first past the post system I highly doubt UKIP will win enough seats to assist a party seeking to form a majority.
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
Well in each constituency whomever gets the most votes wins that seat for their party - so UKIP will get lots of votes across the country but they probably won't get the most in many individual constituencies and therefore probably won't win many seats (possibly any).
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
Not according to Smiley/Stripey Nigel. He says they will take a leaf out of Paddy Trousersdown's approach when the Lib Dems grew their MP base considerably by targeting seats where they have a gained a local foothold.
All I would say is "good luck with that". It is by no means easy to grow from a local base to winning parliamentary seats.
I lived in Tunbridge Wells a few years back. The Lib Dems won the local council. They got central funding for fighting the GE. They never came close to winning even though they got over 30% of the vote. The Tories got 50%.
Take Orpington as an example. The LDs were strong for years there having lost the seat in 1970. They never won it back. They threw huge resources at the seat and came within a whisker twice.
There normally needs to be extra factors for a smaller party to win new seats at a GE.
1. A well known local candidate (or a nationally known one) 2. A vacant seat - where the incumbent has retired/given way to a new candidate 3. A local cause which sets the public against the incumbents party 4. Convenient boundary changes 5. Geographical issues such as people from an area needing an "independent" voice
To win a hatful of seats UKIP would need to get something around 25% in a four party system. They won't get this. 17% is their projected share this time. 50% of whom have stated they are likely to vote for other parties in the GE 2015. My guess it will be more than that as people focus on the "wasted vote" factor.
So...UKIP won't win enough seats to be a real player in a potential coalition then ?
Not saying it can't happen, its very unlikely though. Look at what happened in Scotland. At Westminster under FFTP it was almost impossible for the SNP to make a breakthrough. Even now they don't have many seats. The breakthrough came in the Scottish Parliament under PR, ironically introduced to stop one party (the SNP) from taking outright control.
The Lib Dems built over many years not just under Paddy. I think the smiley one will struggle to make much headway.
With all three parties now saying tougher lines on immigration Ukip seem to have rattled cages and made people see that the policy of the old labour government has caused people to cast a protest vote
But surely there is more to change than just tightening the controls on the borders
I look at milliband and think I just couldn't vote for someone like you or a party led by you
I look at Cameron and think you offered much but gave little will you really give the referendum on Europe
The liberals are just a wasted opportunity for a third serious contender in uk politics
Could that position be replaced by Ukip
But who the hell is there to vote for that will actually change the whole way this country has gone
We treat our elderly our ex service personel our disabled and needy in a way that is disrespectful and disgusting
We allow our health service and benefits service paid for by those hardworking folk be abused by people who have never contributed to the system ever
We allow our schools to have English as a second language
We don't have enough schools for our children
We don't have enough OB firemen drs or nurses or beds to put the sick in
We have cut our defences to a point where we are weak
And not one party offers any resolution to any of the above yet they will always stay in power
It's a real shame that no one is out there that will fix all of the above
With all three parties now saying tougher lines on immigration Ukip seem to have rattled cages and made people see that the policy of the old labour government has caused people to cast a protest vote
But surely there is more to change than just tightening the controls on the borders
I look at milliband and think I just couldn't vote for someone like you or a party led by you
I look at Cameron and think you offered much but gave little will you really give the referendum on Europe
The liberals are just a wasted opportunity for a third serious contender in uk politics
Could that position be replaced by Ukip
But who the hell is there to vote for that will actually change the whole way this country has gone
We treat our elderly our ex service personel our disabled and needy in a way that is disrespectful and disgusting
We allow our health service and benefits service paid for by those hardworking folk be abused by people who have never contributed to the system ever
We allow our schools to have English as a second language
We don't have enough schools for our children
We don't have enough OB firemen drs or nurses or beds to put the sick in
We have cut our defences to a point where we are weak
And not one party offers any resolution to any of the above yet they will always stay in power
It's a real shame that no one is out there that will fix all of the above
IMO the most sensible post on this thread so far NLA. As usual, most of the problems can be attributed to not enough money entering the government coffers via the tax base (Yes there is also terrible waste). Why? Not enough people working to support those that are not, or do not want to work. Why are not enough people working? Two reasons. Too many people, not enough jobs (due to technology) and sheer laziness, where we have created an age of entitlement where people think it is their right not to work if they don't want to, and in many cases make more money on welfare than actually going out to work. What's the answer? There are a number, but all are far too tough and unpalatable for the left side of politics who will always cry foul and try to demonise anyone who attempts to implement such tough policies. Socialist Governments always leave behind them mountains of debt, and a population ever reliant upon welfare payments, which incoming Conservative governments have to try to somehow contend with. The answers of course are to decrease the population and create a stronger economy for those remaining in the country. More people working means more revenue for the government, less wastage on welfare, better healthcare, infrastructure, services etc, which makes for a happier, healthier nation. Would any Government ever be allowed to implement such policies? Not a hope in hell. Cut spending? The Left would be up in arms. Cut immigration? Same. Toughen/reduce welfare? Same. Anyone who would dare even think of introducing such measures, are, according to the Left, evil, have no compassion, are racist, hate people, only interested in looking after the rich etc, etc, etc. Sadly only a major war could sort this mess out and finally bring people back to reality. What is needed is a change of mindset, flipping Governments every few years is not good enough anymore.
With all three parties now saying tougher lines on immigration Ukip seem to have rattled cages and made people see that the policy of the old labour government has caused people to cast a protest vote
But surely there is more to change than just tightening the controls on the borders
I look at milliband and think I just couldn't vote for someone like you or a party led by you
I look at Cameron and think you offered much but gave little will you really give the referendum on Europe
The liberals are just a wasted opportunity for a third serious contender in uk politics
Could that position be replaced by Ukip
But who the hell is there to vote for that will actually change the whole way this country has gone
We treat our elderly our ex service personel our disabled and needy in a way that is disrespectful and disgusting
We allow our health service and benefits service paid for by those hardworking folk be abused by people who have never contributed to the system ever
We allow our schools to have English as a second language
We don't have enough schools for our children
We don't have enough OB firemen drs or nurses or beds to put the sick in
We have cut our defences to a point where we are weak
And not one party offers any resolution to any of the above yet they will always stay in power
It's a real shame that no one is out there that will fix all of the above
IMO the most sensible post on this thread so far NLA. As usual, most of the problems can be attributed to not enough money entering the government coffers via the tax base (Yes there is also terrible waste). Why? Not enough people working to support those that are not, or do not want to work. Why are not enough people working? Two reasons. Too many people, not enough jobs (due to technology) and sheer laziness, where we have created an age of entitlement where people think it is their right not to work if they don't want to, and in many cases make more money on welfare than actually going out to work. What's the answer? There are a number, but all are far too tough and unpalatable for the left side of politics who will always cry foul and try to demonise anyone who attempts to implement such tough policies. Socialist Governments always leave behind them mountains of debt, and a population ever reliant upon welfare payments, which incoming Conservative governments have to try to somehow contend with. The answers of course are to decrease the population and create a stronger economy for those remaining in the country. More people working means more revenue for the government, less wastage on welfare, better healthcare, infrastructure, services etc, which makes for a happier, healthier nation. Would any Government ever be allowed to implement such policies? Not a hope in hell. Cut spending? The Left would be up in arms. Cut immigration? Same. Toughen/reduce welfare? Same. Anyone who would dare even think of introducing such measures, are, according to the Left, evil, have no compassion, are racist, hate people, only interested in looking after the rich etc, etc, etc. Sadly only a major war could sort this mess out and finally bring people back to reality. What is needed is a change of mindset, flipping Governments every few years is not good enough anymore.
If you got every living soul in this country back to work and paying taxes, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the taxes that large corporations and the super rich elite are able to avoid paying through tax loopholes and the Tories' lowering of their tax rates. You've had the wool firmly pulled over your eyes with this 'scrounger' deliberate rhetoric. Let's blame the poor for why we're all not rich.
Decrease the population to make a stronger economy? Now where are all the taxes going to come from? Less people = less taxes. How are you going to have more people working with less people in the country? By the way, migrants contribute 25billion pounds to the economy and are 45% less likely to go on state benefits than white British people.
The Tories have cut spending, and they have cut immigration. So I don't know what you mean, there. At the last general election, Labour were saying they would seek to stimulate the economy and not cut spending - same plan as Obama. The Tories won the election and have cut spending. Meanwhile, the American economy is booming thanks to Obama's stimulus package. Britain, on the other hand, will still be feeling the effect of Tory policy 10 years from now. Socially and economically.
The amount of people I see on here who blame Labour for the recession. The recession was due to the global market. It hit everyone. And everyone suffered. I don't particularly think the Labour government were up to much, but claiming that the economy is much safer in the Tories hands is an idea based on a lie.
With all three parties now saying tougher lines on immigration Ukip seem to have rattled cages and made people see that the policy of the old labour government has caused people to cast a protest vote
But surely there is more to change than just tightening the controls on the borders
I look at milliband and think I just couldn't vote for someone like you or a party led by you
I look at Cameron and think you offered much but gave little will you really give the referendum on Europe
The liberals are just a wasted opportunity for a third serious contender in uk politics
Could that position be replaced by Ukip
But who the hell is there to vote for that will actually change the whole way this country has gone
We treat our elderly our ex service personel our disabled and needy in a way that is disrespectful and disgusting
We allow our health service and benefits service paid for by those hardworking folk be abused by people who have never contributed to the system ever
We allow our schools to have English as a second language
We don't have enough schools for our children
We don't have enough OB firemen drs or nurses or beds to put the sick in
We have cut our defences to a point where we are weak
And not one party offers any resolution to any of the above yet they will always stay in power
It's a real shame that no one is out there that will fix all of the above
IMO the most sensible post on this thread so far NLA. As usual, most of the problems can be attributed to not enough money entering the government coffers via the tax base (Yes there is also terrible waste). Why? Not enough people working to support those that are not, or do not want to work. Why are not enough people working? Two reasons. Too many people, not enough jobs (due to technology) and sheer laziness, where we have created an age of entitlement where people think it is their right not to work if they don't want to, and in many cases make more money on welfare than actually going out to work. What's the answer? There are a number, but all are far too tough and unpalatable for the left side of politics who will always cry foul and try to demonise anyone who attempts to implement such tough policies. Socialist Governments always leave behind them mountains of debt, and a population ever reliant upon welfare payments, which incoming Conservative governments have to try to somehow contend with. The answers of course are to decrease the population and create a stronger economy for those remaining in the country. More people working means more revenue for the government, less wastage on welfare, better healthcare, infrastructure, services etc, which makes for a happier, healthier nation. Would any Government ever be allowed to implement such policies? Not a hope in hell. Cut spending? The Left would be up in arms. Cut immigration? Same. Toughen/reduce welfare? Same. Anyone who would dare even think of introducing such measures, are, according to the Left, evil, have no compassion, are racist, hate people, only interested in looking after the rich etc, etc, etc. Sadly only a major war could sort this mess out and finally bring people back to reality. What is needed is a change of mindset, flipping Governments every few years is not good enough anymore.
That is insanity. Don't believe everything you read, my friend. If you got every living soul in this country back to work and paying taxes, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the taxes that large corporations and the super rich elite are able to avoid paying through tax loopholes and the Tories' lowering of their tax rates. You've had the wool firmly pulled over your eyes with this 'scrounger' deliberate rhetoric. Let's blame the poor for why we're all not rich.
Decrease the population to make a stronger economy? Now where are all your beloved taxes going to come from? Less people = less taxes. How are you going to have more people working with less people in the country? By the way, migrants contribute 25billion pounds to the economy and are 45% less likely to go on state benefits than white British people.
It's Corporations, businesses and entrepreneurs who provide the employment for people to make a living. Tax them out of business and you get even more people on the dole. Yes I agree that there are some loopholes that need to be closed. Huge corporations like Amazon should not be avoiding large tax bills. I have not had the wool pulled over my eyes at all. I am currently one of the poor "scroungers" reliant on hand outs. Those hand outs have recently been drastically cut by the new Australian Liberal (right wing) government. Am I happy? no, I'm gutted, but it's the right thing for the country and I'll take the medicine for the sake of my children's future. My point about decreasing the population is that you get a higher proportion of the population working relative to those living on welfare. You don't necessarily need to have more people working/paying tax, you need to decrease the amount spent on welfare. With an aging demographic, this is a problem that has to be addressed. We currently have 5 people working for each person claiming the pension. By 2040 this will reduce to 2 to 1. How are we going to pay to keep these aged, unproductive people, in retirement? Oh I know, borrow more money on the nations credit card!
How much do you think the government is spending on unemployed people living on welfare? Your rhetoric is that they're the ones who are bankrupting the country, have you looked into the amount?
Do you really believe that cutting taxes to the richest in the world creates more jobs? Are you actually willing to believe that it's a good idea to give corporations and the super-rich tax breaks, and trust that they will in turn help out everyone else?
Thanks IA. Some people have been utterly fooled by the media and government in this recession into demonising poor, unemployed people as the source of all our problems.
How much do you think the government is spending on unemployed people living on welfare? Your rhetoric is that they're the ones who are bankrupting the country, have you looked into the amount?
Do you really believe that cutting taxes to the richest in the world creates more jobs? Are you actually willing to believe that it's a good idea to give corporations and the super-rich tax breaks, and trust that they will in turn help out everyone else?
I'm not just referring to unemployment, I'm referring to a welfare system as a whole where there is simply not enough revenue being generated to continue to fund it in it's current form. Please don't misquote me. I never said cut taxes for corporations or the super rich, I said you have to be careful not to overtax or you risk sending them out of business or moving their business offshore to a more tax friendly jurisdiction. It's the same with entrepreneurs, if you take away their incentive to make money they will simply not take on the risk of starting up a new business. Get the balance right and yes these Corporations do indeed help out the needy by contributing far more tax than any other sector of the economy. As I said there are currently loopholes that need to be closed whereby some corporations are avoiding paying the tax that they should. As for the super rich I personally believe that 1 billion is more than enough for any individual and a limit should some somehow be placed on how much wealth any individual should be allowed to accumulate. I guess that makes me a right wing communist!
Ah God bless the Guardian! Those figures are crazy. So the HMRC estimate of tax avoidance is 30 Billion, but the "Tax Justice Network" (Who the hell are they)? estimate it at 120 billion, 400% higher. Now have you got a chart that shows the total cost of the welfare system V Revenue generated via taxation? Then add to that figure the amount of interest that the Government has to pay on it's debts. Then factor in future rising interest rates and an aging demographic and the burden this will place on the welfare system. Preferably something not produced by the Guardian!
I asked, who are "The Tax Justice Network" founded by Mr Richard Murphy. Richard was voted the seventh most influential left wing thinker in 2010/11 in a Left Foot Forward poll, making him the highest ranked UK based economist on the list. What, a left winger, never, not in the Guardian!
Seriously what state do you think the economy would be in now if labour were in control
Well, when the Tories came in to power, the economy was GROWING. Osborne killed that growth and put us into recession, and it's taken four years to get the economy roughly back where it was when he became Chancellor.
Ignoring the source of the stats as that make it too easy to discredit them if you are inclined to the right like yourself, focus on the difference between the HMRC's own figures for tax evasion, etc and compare that to the government's own figures for benefit fraud. Given the populist politics played out by this coalition over welfare reform does the difference in approach not indicate to you that they would rather focus anywhere but at the biggest loss of revenue to the UK?
To put benefit fraud into further context, it costs the UK economy £3.6b as a result of (overseas generally) mass marketing frauds. That's scam mailing, emails, fake lotteries to you and me and is three times the amount lost to benefit fraud yet what are the government doing about it? Very little other than cutting back on the services like the OFT aimed at countering it. Does it ever get anywhere hear the attention in the media as the amount lost to benefit 'scroungers'? Of course not but then again it's a lot sexier for the media to run with stories about single mums with 6,7,8 kids asking for bigger council houses isn't it and those in power are very happy to see them focus at this side of the balance rather than asking difficult questions about what they are going to do about the Starbucks or Bernie Ecclestones of this world.
Seriously what state do you think the economy would be in now if labour were in control
Well, when the Tories came in to power, the economy was GROWING. Osborne killed that growth and put us into recession, and it's taken four years to get the economy roughly back where it was when he became Chancellor.
Missing out the Q2 performances whilst the elections were going on, the last Labour Government grew the economy by a toal of 1.3% in their 5 year tenure.
Conversely, the current coalition have grown the economy by 5% so far in the four years they have been in power.
Facinatiing insight on this thread into the current thinking in this country. As usual a pretty good CL cross section of views.
No doubt my views are coloured by my natural left wing leaning but here goes.
Racist ultra right wing politics has been at the fringe of our political system for decades. The National Front, The British National Party and spin offs which have never gained real credibility because of the nature of their moronic leadership and a general reticence of the British electorate, even those right wing middle englanders to be associated with such an overtly Nazi political party.
That does not mean to say that there is not a significant proportion of our society that have very right wing views which although are not aligned with the fascist party's extremism they are also not catered for by the natural haven for such views, the Conservative Party since a land grab for the middle ground post Thatcher.
There is a gap in the market which UKIP has cleverly exploited and managed to make it acceptable to vote for views which prior to Farage would have only been on offer from the BNP.
In my view the biggest threat that UKIP poses is that it forces the Conservatives to take a couple of steps to the right which given the oportunistic and unprincipled nature of our politicians (all flavours) is very much on the cards.
I don't see Farage being a big player other than in the above but I think he might condemn the next general election to be one where the largest party ( I have no idea) to form a minority government as there will be no coalition partners on offer.
If I were a Martian observer I might like to see the outcome of a UKIP government being formed just to see the make up of the cabinet and to see what policies they actually do have but that's just mischievous thinking.
Comments
How dd we end up with ConDem last time then ?
I'm genuinely interested and definitely ignorant
A coalition government is formed when one party doesn't have over half the total seats available. Normally the party with the largest minority (because no party has a majority remember) will look to form an alliance with other parties to get the total seats in this "coalition" over the halfway mark.
Given that UKIP will have very few, if any, seats forming an alliance with them wouldn't be worthwhile for any of the major parties - particularly as UKIP's one key policy is not supported by any of them.
Sweet I get it.
http://www.coe.int/aboutCOe/index.asp?page=quisommesnous&l=en
so simply leaving the EU (and leaving aside for the moment a debate on that) would not withdraw the UK from the European Convention and Court of Human Rights
Similarly, the UK Climate Change Act (as it's name implies) is UK legislation, and is separate from any EU regulations, so again it would not be repealed by leaving the EU (even if you were misguided enough to think it should be).
http://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/global-action-on-climate-change/
And that's before we even get into talking about the stealth privatisation of the NHS...
All I would say is "good luck with that". It is by no means easy to grow from a local base to winning parliamentary seats.
I lived in Tunbridge Wells a few years back. The Lib Dems won the local council. They got central funding for fighting the GE. They never came close to winning even though they got over 30% of the vote. The Tories got 50%.
Take Orpington as an example. The LDs were strong for years there having lost the seat in 1970. They never won it back. They threw huge resources at the seat and came within a whisker twice.
There normally needs to be extra factors for a smaller party to win new seats at a GE.
1. A well known local candidate (or a nationally known one)
2. A vacant seat - where the incumbent has retired/given way to a new candidate
3. A local cause which sets the public against the incumbents party
4. Convenient boundary changes
5. Geographical issues such as people from an area needing an "independent" voice
To win a hatful of seats UKIP would need to get something around 25% in a four party system. They won't get this. 17% is their projected share this time. 50% of whom have stated they are likely to vote for other parties in the GE 2015. My guess it will be more than that as people focus on the "wasted vote" factor.
Not saying it can't happen, its very unlikely though. Look at what happened in Scotland. At Westminster under FFTP it was almost impossible for the SNP to make a breakthrough. Even now they don't have many seats. The breakthrough came in the Scottish Parliament under PR, ironically introduced to stop one party (the SNP) from taking outright control.
The Lib Dems built over many years not just under Paddy. I think the smiley one will struggle to make much headway.
But surely there is more to change than just tightening the controls on the borders
I look at milliband and think I just couldn't vote for someone like you or a party led by you
I look at Cameron and think you offered much but gave little will you really give the referendum on Europe
The liberals are just a wasted opportunity for a third serious contender in uk politics
Could that position be replaced by Ukip
But who the hell is there to vote for that will actually change the whole way this country has gone
We treat our elderly our ex service personel our disabled and needy in a way that is disrespectful and disgusting
We allow our health service and benefits service paid for by those hardworking folk be abused by people who have never contributed to the system ever
We allow our schools to have English as a second language
We don't have enough schools for our children
We don't have enough OB firemen drs or nurses or beds to put the sick in
We have cut our defences to a point where we are weak
And not one party offers any resolution to any of the above yet they will always stay in power
It's a real shame that no one is out there that will fix all of the above
As usual, most of the problems can be attributed to not enough money entering the government coffers via the tax base (Yes there is also terrible waste).
Why? Not enough people working to support those that are not, or do not want to work.
Why are not enough people working? Two reasons. Too many people, not enough jobs (due to technology) and sheer laziness, where we have created an age of entitlement where people think it is their right not to work if they don't want to, and in many cases make more money on welfare than actually going out to work.
What's the answer? There are a number, but all are far too tough and unpalatable for the left side of politics who will always cry foul and try to demonise anyone who attempts to implement such tough policies. Socialist Governments always leave behind them mountains of debt, and a population ever reliant upon welfare payments, which incoming Conservative governments have to try to somehow contend with.
The answers of course are to decrease the population and create a stronger economy for those remaining in the country. More people working means more revenue for the government, less wastage on welfare, better healthcare, infrastructure, services etc, which makes for a happier, healthier nation.
Would any Government ever be allowed to implement such policies? Not a hope in hell. Cut spending? The Left would be up in arms. Cut immigration? Same. Toughen/reduce welfare? Same. Anyone who would dare even think of introducing such measures, are, according to the Left, evil, have no compassion, are racist, hate people, only interested in looking after the rich etc, etc, etc.
Sadly only a major war could sort this mess out and finally bring people back to reality. What is needed is a change of mindset, flipping Governments every few years is not good enough anymore.
Decrease the population to make a stronger economy? Now where are all the taxes going to come from? Less people = less taxes. How are you going to have more people working with less people in the country? By the way, migrants contribute 25billion pounds to the economy and are 45% less likely to go on state benefits than white British people.
The Tories have cut spending, and they have cut immigration. So I don't know what you mean, there. At the last general election, Labour were saying they would seek to stimulate the economy and not cut spending - same plan as Obama. The Tories won the election and have cut spending. Meanwhile, the American economy is booming thanks to Obama's stimulus package. Britain, on the other hand, will still be feeling the effect of Tory policy 10 years from now. Socially and economically.
The amount of people I see on here who blame Labour for the recession. The recession was due to the global market. It hit everyone. And everyone suffered. I don't particularly think the Labour government were up to much, but claiming that the economy is much safer in the Tories hands is an idea based on a lie.
The US economy booming ?? They are falling into the same traps as before and it's a false economy
Cutting was correct but the biggest crime you are right is the super rich and the corporations who are not paying tax correctly
I have not had the wool pulled over my eyes at all. I am currently one of the poor "scroungers" reliant on hand outs. Those hand outs have recently been drastically cut by the new Australian Liberal (right wing) government. Am I happy? no, I'm gutted, but it's the right thing for the country and I'll take the medicine for the sake of my children's future.
My point about decreasing the population is that you get a higher proportion of the population working relative to those living on welfare. You don't necessarily need to have more people working/paying tax, you need to decrease the amount spent on welfare. With an aging demographic, this is a problem that has to be addressed. We currently have 5 people working for each person claiming the pension. By 2040 this will reduce to 2 to 1. How are we going to pay to keep these aged, unproductive people, in retirement? Oh I know, borrow more money on the nations credit card!
Do you really believe that cutting taxes to the richest in the world creates more jobs? Are you actually willing to believe that it's a good idea to give corporations and the super-rich tax breaks, and trust that they will in turn help out everyone else?
Richard was voted the seventh most influential left wing thinker in 2010/11 in a Left Foot Forward poll, making him the highest ranked UK based economist on the list.
What, a left winger, never, not in the Guardian!
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/debunking_george_osbornes_recovery_in_four_charts
Ignoring the source of the stats as that make it too easy to discredit them if you are inclined to the right like yourself, focus on the difference between the HMRC's own figures for tax evasion, etc and compare that to the government's own figures for benefit fraud. Given the populist politics played out by this coalition over welfare reform does the difference in approach not indicate to you that they would rather focus anywhere but at the biggest loss of revenue to the UK?
To put benefit fraud into further context, it costs the UK economy £3.6b as a result of (overseas generally) mass marketing frauds. That's scam mailing, emails, fake lotteries to you and me and is three times the amount lost to benefit fraud yet what are the government doing about it? Very little other than cutting back on the services like the OFT aimed at countering it. Does it ever get anywhere hear the attention in the media as the amount lost to benefit 'scroungers'? Of course not but then again it's a lot sexier for the media to run with stories about single mums with 6,7,8 kids asking for bigger council houses isn't it and those in power are very happy to see them focus at this side of the balance rather than asking difficult questions about what they are going to do about the Starbucks or Bernie Ecclestones of this world.
Just a shame the Office of National Statistics doesn't.
The last 10 quarters of growth whilst Labour were in power were;
2007 Q4 0.1
2008 Q1 0.1
2008 Q2 -0.9
2008 Q3 -1.4
2008 Q4 -2.1
2009 Q1 -2.5
2009 Q2 -0.4
2009 Q3 0
2009 Q4 0.4
2010 Q1 0.5
A stagnant Q3 in 2009 followed by two quarters minimal growth DOESN'T show a growing economy.
Whereas the last 10 quarters of the current coalition DOES show growth in the economy.
2011 Q4 -0.1
2012 Q1 0
2012 Q2 -0.4
2012 Q3 0.8
2012 Q4 -0.2
2013 Q1 0.4
2013 Q2 0.8
2013 Q3 0.8
2013 Q4 0.7
2014 Q1 0.8
Missing out the Q2 performances whilst the elections were going on, the last Labour Government grew the economy by a toal of 1.3% in their 5 year tenure.
Conversely, the current coalition have grown the economy by 5% so far in the four years they have been in power.
No doubt my views are coloured by my natural left wing leaning but here goes.
Racist ultra right wing politics has been at the fringe of our political system for decades. The National Front, The British National Party and spin offs which have never gained real credibility because of the nature of their moronic leadership and a general reticence of the British electorate, even those right wing middle englanders to be associated with such an overtly Nazi political party.
That does not mean to say that there is not a significant proportion of our society that have very right wing views which although are not aligned with the fascist party's extremism they are also not catered for by the natural haven for such views, the Conservative Party since a land grab for the middle ground post Thatcher.
There is a gap in the market which UKIP has cleverly exploited and managed to make it acceptable to vote for views which prior to Farage would have only been on offer from the BNP.
In my view the biggest threat that UKIP poses is that it forces the Conservatives to take a couple of steps to the right which given the oportunistic and unprincipled nature of our politicians (all flavours) is very much on the cards.
I don't see Farage being a big player other than in the above but I think he might condemn the next general election to be one where the largest party ( I have no idea) to form a minority government as there will be no coalition partners on offer.
If I were a Martian observer I might like to see the outcome of a UKIP government being formed just to see the make up of the cabinet and to see what policies they actually do have but that's just mischievous thinking.