The United Kingdom Elections 2010 [Archive] - Page 4

al Roumi

04-07-2010, 10:46

I still cannot not believe no one is discussing the Lib Dems and the likely effect on Tory promises if as seem likely its a hung parliment then each party will have to give up some of there own cherished policy cards to attain government.

Seems to me no one in britain can even stomach talk of coalition even when it is the reality you all face very strange indeed. What deals will have to be made who will lose out on ministerial posts where will the wonga go to reward certain constitieuncies and that is without taking in independants who may even hold all the parties to ransom to achieve majority.

Very strange people in Sasana indeed when it comes to deal making the talk of coalitions and deals starts even before an election in Ireland

because i really don't think its going to happen, the british public are on record as being pretty decisive, and wanting a decisive electoral decision.

I'd agree that the public doesn't like to see politicians dithering and dropping cherished bits of manifestos, but i don't think that makes the public decisive. The voting system and established 2 + 0.5 party rule is what has made elections outcomes appear clear.

No-one is openly talking about compromises because:
1. They haven't even published their manifestos yet, so the issues have not even begun to be laid out for the voters
2. To speak of compromise on the causes they are championing from the start would be a huge strategic miss-step. They'd look, unfortunately not like a realist, but weak and as if they were already giving up -the voters would desert them and vote for whoever was closer to their views and looked stronger.
3. Standing firm and winning as many votes as possible on the platform they have will put them in a stronger position when/if there is any bargaining to be done afterwards.

Unfortunately, they were already taken by Labour and the Conservatives. Also, I lack the funds of Big Money to do a campaign. However, with the support of the Org Backroom, the lead council in the authority of Britain (and probably the majority of the vote, due to the apathetic population), I request Magister Populi to make the changes needed, and then retire from the life of politics once completed, back to my farm.

Well, at least you've made it clear what you'll be standing for. I'll pledge you my vote, especially if you are going to pursue that great idea of a land-war in Asia.

Furunculus

04-07-2010, 13:11

I'd agree that the public doesn't like to see politicians dithering and dropping cherished bits of manifestos, but i don't think that makes the public decisive. The voting system and established 2 + 0.5 party rule is what has made elections outcomes appear clear.

agreed, but ultimately it is the british public that perpetuates the 2.5 party system.

rory_20_uk

04-07-2010, 13:19

agreed, but ultimately it is the british public that perpetuates the 2.5 party system.

To change the system would require one of the following:

The existing politicians to change the system
The Monarch to force a change in the system
Insurrection

Politicians aren't going to change as it works relatively well for the large two parties.
The Monarch would be very brave to try to wade in. Easy to portray that they were overthrowing Democracy
Insurrection unlikely to function, unless we have a "new" Civil War. Who fighting who? Monarchists against the Parlimentarians, or the State verses the Traitors?

Few enough people care about who is in charge. The top corrupt the winners, the bottom are barely literate enough to read beyond the Sport section of the Sun, which leaves the middle which are so desperately keen to be middle class that they'd not want to loose what they've got or commit a social faux pas.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-07-2010, 14:31

not quite sure what you are saying from the point of view of the comment, i.e. that our 2.5 party FPTP political system tends to produce unambiguous results on election day......?

al Roumi

04-07-2010, 15:09

not quite sure what you are saying from the point of view of the comment, i.e. that our 2.5 party FPTP political system tends to produce unambiguous results on election day......?

I think Rory might have been aluding to your point over who perpetuates the current electoral system.

I think he was working from the assumption that the existence or persistence of a state of affairs, in this case the 2.5 party & FPTP systems, is more accurately decided by those equipped with the power to directly change it.

In that sense, he provided three examples, 1 the elected MPs and Govt and then two pretty fruity (but exciting) other possibilities.

I don't think your British public has much ability to change the system without pressuring its legislative representatives (MPs), as they are the gatekeepers to the change. However, MPs could quite feasibly change the system without the public's explicit approval, the Iraq war proved that even mass demonstration is not enough to ensure MPs do what the british public would like...

...but, yes on paper the public ought to hold ultimate responsability and choice over the system under which its country is ruled.

Furunculus

04-07-2010, 15:31

I think Rory might have been aluding to your point over who perpetuates the current electoral system.

I think he was working from the assumption that the existence or persistence of a state of affairs, in this case the 2.5 party & FPTP systems, is more accurately decided by those equipped with the power to directly change it.

In that sense, he provided three examples, 1 the elected MPs and Govt and then two pretty fruity (but exciting) other possibilities.

I don't think your British public has much ability to change the system without pressuring its legislative representatives (MPs), as they are the gatekeepers to the change. However, MPs could quite feasibly change the system without the public's explicit approval, the Iraq war proved that even mass demonstration is not enough to ensure MPs do what the british public would like...

...but, yes on paper the public ought to hold ultimate responsibility and choice over the system under which its country is ruled.

no, our FPTP plurality electoral system is something that could be changed by parliament, but the fact that we continue to have a point-five party is down to the electorate.

the US has a plurality electoral system that encourages two major parties and a number of minor parties just like the UK, but our point-five party is an accident of history in its creation and the will of the people in its perpetuation.

tibilicus

04-07-2010, 15:45

the US has a plurality electoral system that encourages two major parties and a number of minor parties just like the UK, but our point-five party is an accident of history in its creation and the will of the people in its perpetuation.

The thing is the US system works well, ours doesn't. It doesn't even need electoral reform to work. The problem in my opinion with the electoral system is that we are made, as constituents, to vote for a representative to represent our interest. In the US this works well and representatives can vote with a relative degree of flexibility and in the interest of those who they represent. Thanks to the whipping system and the sense of party loyalty in our system it doesn't really work. We elect representatives who don't even represent us, they represent the party machine instead. I highly doubt the system will ever be done away with but at least allow more free votes, particularly on issues which are divisive. The amount of free votes MP's get is laughable and very few have the balls to stand up to the party heads for fear of ruing their own precious career.

Furunculus

04-07-2010, 16:40

i don't disagree that the whips are over-powerful, but again this doesn't impact on the existence or utility of a point-five party.

InsaneApache

04-07-2010, 23:16

i don't disagree that the whips are over-powerful, but again this doesn't impact on the existence or utility of a point-five party.

They've been aound for a couple of hundred years. It's Labour that's the mold breaker. Hence gang of four; SDP.

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 09:45

very true, but the arrival of Labour dropped the liberals down a notch, but not so much that they became a minor party.

this, IMHO, is a good thing as it means that there is always a credible alternative waiting in the wings to dethrone whatever incumbent is arrogant enough to stop representing the needs of the electorate.

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 10:14

bit more Dan's special sauce:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100033241/780172602739/

£780,172,602,739

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: April 8th, 2010

That’s the level of Britain’s national debt. It’s rising at a rate of £5,169 per second, £310,212 per minute, £18,607,306 per hour, £446,575,342 per day.
The level of our government’s overspend should be the main, almost the only, issue at this election. To ensure that it isn’t forgotten, the heroes at the TaxPayers’ Alliance have mounted a vast debt clock on the back of a lorry, and are driving it on a 1300-mile tour of Britain.
It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece.

British consumers got rich quicker under the Conservatives than under Labour, a study has discovered. :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7564320/Britain-got-rich-quicker-under-Tories-than-Labour.html

Britain got rich quicker under Tories than Labour

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor
Published: 8:30AM BST 08 Apr 2010

The average wealth of British consumers grew quicker under both Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major than under New Labour, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The study found that people continued to increase their disposable income after Tony Blair was elected in 1997, but the rate of growth slowed. Since Gordon Brown took over at number 10 the rate has dropped off almost completely.

In 1979, when Lady Thatcher took office the average household disposable income was just a little over £150 a week, in today's prices. This steadily increased during her premiership, by 2.6 per cent a year. When Sir John took over it carried on increasing by 2.3 per cent a year.
By the time he lost the 1997 election to Tony Blair the average weekly income had hit £250.

During Mr Blair's first term in office, the rate accelerated to 3.2 per cent, but since then it has steadily slowed down. His second term saw incomes climb by 2 per cent, and during the current third term incomes have edged up by just 0.7 per cent to hit £300 a week. Under the New Labour Government, as a whole, the growth rate was 2 per cent compared with the Conservative's 2.5 per cent.

The IFS concluded the main reason for the slowdown in consumers' wealth growth was employers cutting back on wage increases. "We concluded that it is earnings from employment which appear to account for most of the slowdown. From 1996–97 to 2001–02, the average income households received from earnings grew by over 4 per cent per year. From 2001–02 onwards, however, income from earnings grew far more slowly – at a rate averaging just 0.7 per cent per year," the report said.

Though both poor and rich have befitted from the increase in wealth, the Labour Government has failed to tackle the gulf between the two groups, the IFS study said: "The latest data show that in 2007–08 income inequality was slightly higher than when Labour came to power and higher than in any year since at least the 1950s."

rory_20_uk

04-08-2010, 10:45

Subotan

04-08-2010, 11:39

the heroes at the TaxPayers’ Alliance
I thought none of them paid any tax

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 11:56

We'll see if that happens. I'm not sure who Labour represents at the moment, but I doubt votes will flod to the Lib Dems.

~:smoking:

that is kind of the point, labour or the cons cannot stray to far because they are constantly aware that a bunch of opportunistic young thrusters waiting in the wings.

but if labour do continue to tank, they basically rely on wales and scotland currently to get them into power, then that might change.

I thought none of them paid any tax
and this matters........... why? :inquisitive:

Banquo's Ghost

04-08-2010, 15:12

bit more Dan's special sauce:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100033241/780172602739/

That’s the level of Britain’s national debt. It’s rising at a rate of £5,169 per second, £310,212 per minute, £18,607,306 per hour, £446,575,342 per day.

Like George Osborne, Mr Hannan is another modern Tory that can't do sums. £5,169 x 60 = £310,140 x 60 = £18,608,400 x 24 = £446,601,600. I guess the £26,258 per day he's missed is being re-located overseas to Lord Ashcroft's Buy-a-New-Small-Country Fund. :sweatdrop:

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 15:27

Like George Osborne, Mr Hannan is another modern Tory that can't do sums. £5,169 x 60 = £310,140 x 60 = £18,608,400 x 24 = £446,601,600. I guess the £26,258 per day he's missed is being re-located overseas to Lord Ashcroft's Buy-a-New-Small-Country Fund. :sweatdrop:

It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece. :sweatdrop:

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 15:31

a new voting tool; the sceptical voter:
http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100007501/general-election-2010-skeptical-voter-the-voting-tool-for-science-nerds/
General Election 2010: Skeptical Voter – the voting tool for science nerds

By Tom Chivers Last updated: April 8th, 2010
5 Comments Comment on this article
Are you, like me, a nerd? Do you care about nerdy things like science and rationality? Are you wondering, ahead of the 2010 general election, which parties and candidates also care about basing policy on evidence, rather than media scaremongering, opinionated ignorance and/or kneejerk populism? If the answer is yes to all of the above, I would like to point you towards Skeptical-Voter.org.
Because it’s true what they say – this is going to be Britain’s first digital election. But not, you suspect, in the way that the parties might think, or hope. For every vote swayed by WebCameron or the Labour Party’s official Facebook page, there will be thousands who change their mind because of the faster spread of information that the internet allows.
Skeptical Voter is a tool, similar in broad intent if not design to our own Vote Match, that allows voters to find out which parties and candidates match their views on rationalist topics. Worry that your MP wants creationism taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools, or to give Sharia legal status in the UK? Maybe you think homeopathy (I know I go on about it) should be subject to the same standards of scientific rigour as other NHS treatments, and want to know which candidate agrees with you. As the Bad Science blogger and Guardian writer Ben Goldacre put it in a typically acid Tweet, “Does your MP seriously believe in fairies and magic beans?”
It’s more widespread than you might think. David Tredinnick, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, has used Parliamentary questions to promote homeopathy, “Medical Astrology”, and something called radionics (which Skeptical Voter describes as “healing via a kind of psychic remote control”. This from someone who gets to vote on health policy bills.
Iris Robinson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP, says “the government has the responsibility to uphold God’s laws”, and clearly feels she has a clearer insight than the rest of us about what those laws are – including banning stem cell research, despite its potential to transform medicine.
She has offered to put homosexuals in touch with a “psychiatrist [who] tries to help homosexuals – trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,” (she is also reported on Hansard as saying that homosexuality is “viler” than sexually abusing children), despite there not being a shred of evidence that such a thing is even possible, let alone desirable.
Another DUP MP, Jeffrey Donaldson, worries that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill could lead to “GM babies or cloned adults or minotaurs” (minotaurs!), while Paul Williams, the UKIP prospective candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon, believes that “Neither creationism nor evolution have been conclusively proved or ’settled’. My view is that schools should teach both and allow pupils to make up their own mind.” For the record: it is settled and has been for years.
There are lots more – and, of course, lots who have admirably sensible views, like the redoubtable Dr Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, who campaigns for “science, evidence-based policy and free speech”, and has fought the good fight against MMR scaremongering. You can also find out which MPs and candidates have a background in science or medicine – like Caroline Johnson, the Conservative Party candidate for Scunthorpe, a qualified doctor.
Having said all that, it is far from complete. In my constituency of Dulwich & West Norwood, only the sitting MP – Tessa Jowell – has an entry, and that’s very sparse. Neither of the two main-party candidates challenging her has a profile at all. And that’s where you come in.
If this matters to you – and it should; if we don’t base policy on evidence, we may as well make it up, or say it comes to us in dreams – you can get involved. Email your MP to find out where they stand on sceptical and rational issues. When they reply, go and add the information to Skeptical Voter’s Wiki site.
I’ve included their suggested questions below, but you can of course add your own. Happy hunting. Wouldn’t it be nice to be governed on the basis of what we actually know, rather than what some kaftanned psychic healer saw in a vision?
Skeptical Voter’s suggested questions for candidates ahead of the General Election 2010:
1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative “treatments” such as homeopathy?
2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger ‘public interest’ defence?

Banquo's Ghost

04-08-2010, 15:52

It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece. :sweatdrop:

Because of course, the Tories would never break promises on tax. (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=49472) And much as I would have hoped a conservative government would have refused to bail out the banks, had they been in power they too would have given in to spending citizens' money to maintain the stupefyingly incompetent.

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 16:12

Because of course, the Tories would never break promises on tax. (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=49472) And much as I would have hoped a conservative government would have refused to bail out the banks, had they been in power they too would have given in to spending citizens' money to maintain the stupefyingly incompetent.
BG, the argument runs that you reduce deficits in the good years to make up for the bad, labour was playing its old game of tax-n-spend in addition to borrow-n-spend in the good years, which has made the deficit truly stupendous when you add the cost of the recession to the above.

it is a simple concept, really.

Banquo's Ghost

04-08-2010, 16:19

BG, the argument runs that you reduce deficits in the good years to make up for the bad, labour was playing its old game of tax-n-spend in addition to borrow-n-spend in the good years, which has made the deficit truly stupendous when you add the cost of the recession to the above.

it is a simple concept, really.

I don't disagree with that analysis - where I part with Mr Hannan is on the contention that the current Conservatives will be any different, since fiscal responsibility appears to be something of which they are terrified. My link was to demonstrate that Tax'n'Spend is by no means confined to the Labour Party.

rory_20_uk

04-08-2010, 18:07

Human beings are more averse to losses than gains.

So, to inform that losses (cuts in services) are required now as else soon in the non specific future thing will be bad isn't a vote winner.

People understand that cuts are needed. BUT not to anything that they want. So, best to stick to a detached message, rather than focus on specifics.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-08-2010, 23:09

banks are hoping for a tory win:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7569336/General-Election-2010-Deutsche-Bank-backs-Conservatives-to-help-economy.html

Louis VI the Fat

04-08-2010, 23:13

banks are hoping for a tory win:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7569336/General-Election-2010-Deutsche-Bank-backs-Conservatives-to-help-economy.htmlIf I were a Tory, I wouldn't advertise that...

tibilicus

04-08-2010, 23:33

If I were a Tory, I wouldn't advertise that...

Agreed.

Beskar

04-08-2010, 23:57

Because Banks will enjoy the free-ride under the Tory government even more than the Labour bail-out.

Furunculus

04-09-2010, 08:39

I don't disagree with that analysis - where I part with Mr Hannan is on the contention that the current Conservatives will be any different, since fiscal responsibility appears to be something of which they are terrified. My link was to demonstrate that Tax'n'Spend is by no means confined to the Labour Party.

oh i agree BG, i am a fairly severe critic of the new cuddley variety of conservatism, given that i take the view that it is the conservatives job to repeatedly clean up the utter shambles that labour leaves the economy in every chance it gets, and i expect the electorate to have the wit to realise the necessity.

so dressing up as labour-lite is infantilising the electorate and at the same time less eeffective at their core task in government; fixing things.

Because Banks will enjoy the free-ride under the Tory government even more than the Labour bail-out.
as long as they continue to make vast amounts of money, who cares?

it was Browns vaunted tri-partite scheme of financial governance that on introduction immediately failed the first crisis that was presented to it; you remember when he proudly boasted he had broken the cycle of boom and bust?

Furunculus

04-09-2010, 08:44

Welfare reform likely under the tories:

General Election 2010: The Tories have just the man to find more jobs for British workers
Iain Duncan Smith's ideas on benefits reform could overturn Labour's dismal legacy, says Fraser Nelson

By Fraser Nelson
Published: 8:04PM BST 08 Apr 2010

When Gordon Brown launched the election campaign by insisting that he would "tell the truth", it was clear that he intended no such thing. His campaigning style is to pick a falsehood and repeat it. Eventually, interviewers grow tired of correcting him and his message is hammered into the electorate's subconscious. Yesterday, he produced a figure that he would like us all to know: that even after the recession, some 2.5 million jobs have been created since 1997. His economic stewardship, therefore, has been a triumph after all.

His problem lies in the word "created". A better one would be "imported". Unpublished figures sent on request to The Spectator show that 98.5 per cent of jobs created for working-age people since Labour came to power are accounted for by immigration. Britain's boom was great news for the unemployed of Gdansk, but failed to transform Glasgow. And this cuts to the heart of what is, arguably, the greatest and most deplorable of Brown's economic failures: failing to find (as he memorably put it) British jobs for British workers.

To deal with a problem, one must first recognise it – and there are precious few signs of this happening. I have never believed in claims of a great conspiracy about immigration, simply because it is beyond the organisational skills of this Government. When John Hutton was Work and Pensions Secretary, he told me that immigrants accounted for only "2.5 per cent of the workforce, even less". He was quite adamant. The real figure was 12 per cent. He was genuinely in the dark: his civil servants had not briefed him because such data is not produced.

One has to work in Westminster not to know the seismic impact of immigration on Britain. A third of London's population is now foreign-born; most babies born in the capital have immigrant mothers. On the city's local radio yesterday, a phone-in was being conducted: why is it that, when you buy a cup of coffee or a sandwich, you are never served by a Brit, of whom 780,000 in London are on benefits? Why is youth unemployment so high, yet demand for immigrant labour so strong? Why do employers prefer foreigners?

There is an answer here, and it does not lie in racist employers or workshy Brits. It is a question of financial incentives. If an unemployed Pole gets a job as a barista in Starbucks, even for 15 hours a week, his situation improves dramatically. A young man in Britain would be just £10 a week better off than if he stayed at home on benefits. Why break your back for an extra tenner?

The situation is even more pernicious for young women who leave school with low qualifications, because the alternative to low-paid work is pregnancy. A woman with one child and on benefits has, on average, more disposable income than a hairdresser or teaching assistant. With two children, it's more than a receptionist or library assistant. With three, it's a lab technician, typist or bookkeeper. So there should be no mystery about why Britain came to have so many children in workless households (one in five, the highest in Europe). The young mothers, and the young men on benefits, are walking down a road to dependency paved for them by the state.

This is a peculiar definition of compassion. What Beveridge denounced as the "giant evil" of idleness is now being incubated on a mass scale by the very welfare state designed to eradicate it. As Britain positions itself for a recovery, this raises an ominous question for a prospective Conservative government: will it do any better? If the economy is to recover, might it simply suck in more of these industrious, hard-working immigrants while leaving between five and six million British people on out-of-work benefits?

The answer does not lie in tightening borders, even if we could. The problem is not supply of overseas workers – the problem is demand for them. So the way to solve this problem is to reform welfare so that work actually pays. This will arguably be the most important task of the Conservative government and could end up being David Cameron's most significant lasting legacy.

Many of those about to be elected for the first time as Tory MPs have been radicalised by the scandal of welfare ghettoes – seeing the unemployed as the victims of an uncaring socialism, which uses statistical manipulation to deal with unemployment. Iain Duncan Smith has led the field here. A trip to the east of Glasgow (the most heartbreaking example of state-induced poverty) led him to set up the Centre for Social Justice, to propose new ways of dealing with the problem. And he has recently proposed a measure which could end this scandal at a stroke.

He would introduce a single benefit, aimed at ensuring that work always pays. Part of it involves reducing tax on low-paid jobs – on the principle that if a woman gets up at 4am to clean offices, the state has no claim on a single penny she earns. Part of it would be in-work benefits, giving a boost to low wages. It would mean tearing up the Department of Work and Pensions, which has more "clients" than Ireland has people.

Just over a year ago, Cameron looked set to deliver this. He had, in Chris Grayling, a man utterly dedicated to welfare reform. But the agenda died when Theresa May was sent in and Grayling was promoted to be shadow home secretary. With a nine-year track record of achieving precisely nothing in Opposition, May is spectacularly ill-suited to what should be the toughest task in government. It is not enough for her to have David Freud, a banker turned welfare adviser, in the wings. There is only one man appropriate for this job.

Duncan Smith wanted to stay on the back benches, to be a Wilberforce-style campaigner rather than be part of a cabinet. But now there is a compelling case for him to head a new Department of Social Justice – set up on the explicit basis that the welfare state is bankrolling the worst type of injustices. It should replace the Department for Work and Pensions, and provide a single universal benefit.

When Tony Blair was elected, he was deadly serious about "ending welfare as we know it". The economy was stalling for lack of workers in the late 1990s – some bus companies were even trawling homeless shelters to find people to train. Then, around the turn of the decade, immigrants started to flood in. They provided an easy answer. Why go through the political agony of welfare reform if you can pay the poor to live in edge-of-town council estates and let immigrants expand the economy?

Mass immigration gave Labour the option not to deal with welfare reform. The party took it, and the result can be seen in the welfare ghettoes of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow – and in the Babel-like atmosphere of the Olympic village, with workers from around the world, but local unemployment as high as ever. Cameron speaks convincingly about wishing to heal the "broken society": in Duncan Smith he has someone with an agenda to do it. We will see, after the election, if he will dare to put the two together.

Fraser Nelson is Editor of 'The Spectator'

Subotan

04-09-2010, 09:03

and this matters........... why? :inquisitive:
Well, being called the Taxpayers Alliance, you'd think that they'd actually pay tax, seeing as they're standing up to big mean Mr. Taxman with his briefcase, moustache and bowler hat.

InsaneApache

04-09-2010, 10:39

Well tax is institutional theft. Anyroad, everyone in the UK pays tax in one form or another. Even my 3 year old grandsons.

Furunculus

04-09-2010, 10:42

Well, being called the Taxpayers Alliance, you'd think that they'd actually pay tax, seeing as they're standing up to big mean Mr. Taxman with his briefcase, moustache and bowler hat.

seeing as they spend their time exposing the true scale of taxation and the waste therein i don't see any fundamental paradox between their stated aims and the non-dom status of some of their members.

it simply isn't a problem...............? :juggle2:

rory_20_uk

04-09-2010, 11:07

Unless Non-Doms avoid purchasing anything in the UK (from services to utilities and goods) they are paying a fair whack of money. Definitely not as much as the Government would like, but that is mainly due to the excessive taxes that they try to obtain.

Most tax at the higher levels is easily reducible - get share options as opposed to a larger salary. Suddenly it's Capital gain tax (18%) as opposed to Income tax (40-50%). I don't earn enough to really make that worthwhile, but in the future I'll definitely be asking to be paid in this way.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-09-2010, 11:33

al Roumi

04-09-2010, 12:09

Most tax at the higher levels is easily reducible - get share options as opposed to a larger salary. Suddenly it's Capital gain tax (18%) as opposed to Income tax (40-50%). I don't earn enough to really make that worthwhile, but in the future I'll definitely be asking to be paid in this way.

I take it that's not as an NHS doctor...right? :wink:

rory_20_uk

04-09-2010, 12:14

I'm not an NHS doctor anymore.

I might do a bit of GP work now and again, but I work pretty much full time in Pharmaceutical Consultancy. So, a future in Big Pharma is a definite possibility...

~:smoking:

al Roumi

04-09-2010, 12:28

I work pretty much full time in Pharmaceutical Consultancy. So, a future in Big Pharma is a definite possibility...

My GF works in Pharma on clinical trials - is "Pharmaceutical Consultancy" related, or does that mean you're a drug rep?

/off topic

tibilicus

04-09-2010, 12:32

as long as they continue to make vast amounts of money, who cares?

it was Browns vaunted tri-partite scheme of financial governance that on introduction immediately failed the first crisis that was presented to it; you remember when he proudly boasted he had broken the cycle of boom and bust?

Spoken like some one who obviously believes in his free market principles. I don't mean that in a bad way, I myself believe the free market should be free to some extent. I just don't think after the recent crisis that the banks can go on being unregulated. It is possible to regulate without suffocating the free market, we just haven't tried it yet.

Also isn't it the banks desire to make huge sums of money regardless of the risk factor in investments that got us into this mess in the first place?

Well tax is institutional theft. Anyroad, everyone in the UK pays tax in one form or another. Even my 3 year old grandsons.

Tax isn't bad, it's the way our tax system works.

Someone earning over £40,000 (I think that's right) qualifies for the highest tax band of 40%. That means he or she has to pay the same % of tax as someone earning £100,000, someone earning £1,000,000 would only pay 10% more.. I would much prefer a system where there's another tax band and from £40,000 to £55,000 your only taxed 30-35%. Even more ironic is that most people earning £100,000+ can afford to pay some one to get them out of paying a large sum of tax. That basically means that the middle/upper middle class are left to pay the tax burden. The people on lower wages are closer to minimum wage so are unlikely to be taxed much and the rich just don't pay.

Who would of thought that the middle class were actually the oppressed ones in the class system.:dizzy2:

al Roumi

04-09-2010, 12:36

Who would of thought that the middle class were actually the oppressed ones in the class system.:dizzy2:

Lets face it, they are also (historicaly and currently) the only group that really has the initiative and capacity to control and effect change. The vast majority of MPs (senior MPs) must be from middle class backgrounds.

InsaneApache

04-09-2010, 12:42

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! :laugh4:.

Just to illustrate a point.

In fact councils are so determined to get their money from other councils that they pursue their cases all the way to the Parking Adjudicator.

But the craziest, stupidest example has to be an appeal by Islington Council (Case number 2070232277) heard by the Traffic Appeals Service between June and September 2007.

In this case Islington Council had not only issued a parking ticket to itself, but then pursued itself at the Parking Adjudicator and then asked for costs against itself! (The craziness doesn’t end there because to ask for costs the council must believe that it acted wholly unreasonably or vexatiously against itself!)

The decision of Mr. Adjudicator Gerald Styles on 13th September 2007 clearly points out that the council cannot sue itself but the fact that he clearly did not collapse laughing and managed to dictate his decision is a tribute to his professionalism.

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/press-release-001/

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....:laugh4:

rory_20_uk

04-09-2010, 12:44

My GF works in Pharma on clinical trials - is "Pharmaceutical Consultancy" related, or does that mean you're a drug rep?

/off topic

There are loads of jobs in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I don't directly work for a big pharmaceutical company, I work for a company who is brought in to different companies to provide extra people to work on specific projects. The reason for this is we can staer relatively quickly rather than getting a full time position, and can be removed as soon as the work ends. The downside is that per hour we cost more.

For me the advantage is I get exposure to all areas of the industry which will help later on.

Drug reps speak to doctors mainly or other persons to try to get them to prescribe the product. They have a basic degree and are purely in sales. I can do a variety of things, from writing the materials they use, to providing medical knowledge onto getting the drugs approved in the first place, as well as a load of others.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-09-2010, 13:47

Spoken like some one who obviously believes in his free market principles. I don't mean that in a bad way, I myself believe the free market should be free to some extent. I just don't think after the recent crisis that the banks can go on being unregulated. It is possible to regulate without suffocating the free market, we just haven't tried it yet.

Also isn't it the banks desire to make huge sums of money regardless of the risk factor in investments that got us into this mess in the first place?

i am not against a regulated banking system, but that regulation must maintain britain as a competitive place to do business............. as well as mitigate the impact of cyclical financial trends. ;abour don't have much credibility here.

yes it is, but they should not consider themselves too big to be allowed to fail.

what gordon's treasury was doing when people began to speculate on a house pricing bubble:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100004814/a-prime-minister-who-knows-something-about-the-economy/

Subotan

04-09-2010, 17:44

Well tax is institutional theft
Yes because burglars provide you with an education system, free healthcare at the point of use, an armed forces etc.

InsaneApache

04-09-2010, 18:18

The other side is that burglars don't put you in prison if you refuse to let them pinch your stuff.

Beskar

04-10-2010, 00:29

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....:laugh4:

Oh, they do it all the time. They are just not accountable for their actions, and the government ends up paying for it.

For example, that one where the banks kept asking themselves for a loan, and chased itself up on the loan and after years of finical neglect, cause a global-wide recession with governments all over the world having to bail them out.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2010, 04:08

The other side is that burglars don't put you in prison if you refuse to let them pinch your stuff.

But are you allowed to, and allowed the means to, defend your property?

Furunculus

04-10-2010, 10:45

Oh, they do it all the time. They are just not accountable for their actions, and the government ends up paying for it.

For example, that one where the banks kept asking themselves for a loan, and chased itself up on the loan and after years of finical neglect, cause a global-wide recession with governments all over the world having to bail them out.
wow, what parallel universe do you live in?

so this had nothing to do with central banks keeping interest rates too low for too long to keep the boom years rolling (read: bubble years expanding), at the same time as quango mega-banks like fannie & freddie were encouraged to get into social lending at the bottom of the property market (read: take non-commercially viable risks), in order that social engineering objectives could be met?

this of course not helped in britain by a tri-partite scheme of financial governance that failed the first time it was tested (thanks Gordon) that worked under the assumption that the timeless cycle of boom-and-bust was broken (thanks Gordon) and a regulatory regime that allowed banks to grow to the point where their failure would represent an existential threat to the economy of the country (thanks Gordon).

yeah, it was all the fault of nasty money grubbing capitalist scum! what utter bull [insert random smiley here]!

gaelic cowboy

04-10-2010, 16:35

wow, what parallel universe do you live in?

so this had nothing to do with central banks keeping interest rates too low for too long to keep the boom years rolling (read: bubble years expanding), at the same time as quango mega-banks like fannie & freddie were encouraged to get into social lending at the bottom of the property market (read: take non-commercially viable risks), in order that social engineering objectives could be met?

this of course not helped in britain by a tri-partite scheme of financial governance that failed the first time it was tested (thanks Gordon) that worked under the assumption that the timeless cycle of boom-and-bust was broken (thanks Gordon) and a regulatory regime that allowed banks to grow to the point where their failure would represent an existential threat to the economy of the country (thanks Gordon).

yeah, it was all the fault of nasty money grubbing capitalist scum! what utter bull [insert random smiley here]!

Get over yourself Furrunculus the bankers gambled and lost and all the hand wringing in the world wont change that it was there own fault. I am still shocked at how little they understood the risk potential and completely amazed at how reckless they were at pricing this risk

Furunculus

04-10-2010, 18:14

no thanks.

Louis VI the Fat

04-10-2010, 19:40

I hear that a British political party plans to levy a billion pound populist tax on banks, to be spend on social engineering, buying a nice amount of votes in the process too.

Care to guess which party this is?

InsaneApache

04-11-2010, 00:30

The torys.

In the real world...

LABOUR has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government.

Cards addressed to sufferers by name warn that a Labour guarantee to see a cancer specialist within two weeks would be scrapped by the Tories. Labour claims the Conservatives would also do away with the right to be treated within 18 weeks.

Cancer patients who received the personalised cards, sent with a message from a breast cancer survivor praising her treatment under Labour, said they were “disgusted and shocked”, and feared that the party may have had access to confidential health data.

Labour sources deny that the party has used any confidential information. However, the sources admit that, in line with other political parties, it uses socio-demographic research that is commercially and publicly available.
Election special
Marginal's voters want details, not slogans
The verdict on Labour from the street
Tory women MPs spoiling for a fight
Gove vows to get every child reading
Cameron faces unprecedented swing odds
Focus: Election 2010
Brighton’s so far left, it’s almost Hastings
Meet the kingmakers – the Motorway Men
Is the rise in NI really a tax on jobs?
Brown: 'Just look at my achievements’
Election 2010: Be tanned, tailored and witty
Related Links
Things did get better, but not due to Labour
Meet David Cameron's secret weapon

The postal campaign started last month before the general election was called. This is the first election in which parties have been able to use internet databases and digital printing to personalise their mailshots.

Labour has sent out 250,000 “cancer” postcards, each addressed to an individual, asking: “Are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Many of those receiving the cards have undergone cancer scans or treatment within the past five years.

- In the Labour constituency of Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, two of a group of eight women friends received the breast cancer card. They are the only two to have undergone cancer treatment. One of them, Phyllis Delik, 80, described it as “callous” and “despicable”. The second woman, Shirley Foreman, 58, who received the card a fortnight after undergoing surgery, said: “It is bad taste after what I have been through.”

- In the marginal east London constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, the card was sent to a 44-year-old television producer who had a potentially cancerous lump that turned out to be a cyst. She appeared to be the only person who received the mailshot among 50 neighbours. She said: “It’s crude and insensitive.”

- A card was sent to a woman who has died of breast cancer. Her 33-year-old husband was so upset that he sent a message to the Facebook page of Diane Dwelly, the woman whose case is featured in the mailshot, accusing her of being a pawn for the Labour party.

This weekend Dwelly, 48, from Rugby, admitted she had “probably been used by Labour”. She believed her photograph had been taken for use in a magazine for the National Health Service, not as part of Labour’s election campaign.

The cards are being distributed by Ravensworth, part of Tangent Communications, which has won accounts sending out mail for the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Tangent claims that it specialises in “highly targeted marketing”.

The cancer cards are part of a wider postal campaign targeting various groups. Others are aimed at parents whose children attend Sure Start centres, pensioners and the owners of small businesses.

Labour has so far sent out 600,000 cards. It plans to distribute 4.5m during the election campaign.

Janet Arslan, 40, a graphic designer who also lives in the Sherwood constituency, said: “When I received the breast cancer card at first I thought it was from the hospital.

“I did not think Labour would be that crass to deliberately target a terminal cancer patient like me.”

Damian Bentley, managing director of Tangent, said: “Our company does a lot for the Labour party but I don’t work on that side of the business.”

He failed to respond to a list of questions on how the addresses of the cancer victims were obtained.

Emilie Oldknow, 29, the Labour candidate in Sherwood, worked for the NHS before she became the regional organiser of the East Midlands Labour party. She is the fiancée of Jonathan Ashworth, Gordon Brown’s deputy political secretary and a member of his “kitchen cabinet”.

Oldknow has denied all knowledge of the cards.

“I had not seen the mailshot before and it wasn’t sent out by my campaign,” she said.

In an email to Arslan’s mother, she said her details had been “obtained from the electoral register, which is available to political parties”.

Experian, the data management company, confirmed that both Labour and the Conservatives use its Mosaic database, which divides voters into 67 groups. The databases can use anonymised hospital statistics, including postcodes and the diagnoses of patients, to identify the likely addresses of those with particular illnesses.

It cannot identify potential breast cancer sufferers because the disease affects adult women of all ages and backgrounds.

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: “For Labour’s campaign to deliberately distress or scare sufferers from breast cancer is shameful. Because we are going to increase the NHS budget in real terms and cut bureaucracy and waste, we will have the capacity to ensure that cancer patients are seen sooner than they are at the moment and to meet the quality standards that they expect.”

A Labour party spokesman said: “These leaflets highlight the Conservative party’s actual policies on cancer treatment. Cancer is a terrible condition and sadly all too prevalent in our society, which is why some of the 250,000 people we sent this message to are likely to have suffered from it.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7094308.ece

Beskar

04-11-2010, 07:38

All the more to not vote Labservative in the general election.

Also, I liked this summary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/29/vince-cable-chancellors-tv-debate).

Vince Cable might be old, but he knows what he is talking about.

Last and not least: http://mydavidcameron.com/cameron

This is what we do to our politicians when they make a fool of themselves, America does it all wrong.

Furunculus

04-11-2010, 08:53

Britain needs to move away from a Cold War-style posture towards a more relevant armed forces structure. If we are to continue to have the capability to be a force for good in the world we need far greater cooperation with our NATO and EU partners.

Liberal Democrats do not believe that the UK can afford the billions of pounds the Government wants to spend on a like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. Full-scale Trident is a cold war system that we no longer need nor can afford. We believe that less expensive alternatives should be considered.

no, and no.

tibilicus

04-11-2010, 12:22

no, and no.

Why not?

Are you saying no to the close cooperation with NATO and EU partners and no to the disarmament of Trident? If it is just the latter, I agree with you to some extent. I believe it could be cut back to some extent, but I don't particularly endorse the idea of complete nuclear disarmament. No other NATO member is suggesting a complete scrappage of nuclear arms, even America want's a cut back, not a complete scrappage. Which is kind of understandable too, seeming the Americans have a stupendous amount of missiles in their nuclear arsenal. I think there will be a time and a place for complete nuclear disarmament, I don't believe now is that time or place however.

As to the subject of closer cooperation with NATO and the EU, I think it's a good idea. Costs can be shared with other EU members and a vast majority of military operations (in theory) should be ones which our allies also support. I'm not suggesting some kind of binding contract, where if one European or NATO member wants to perform a military operation everyone else is sucked in, but I do think Britain, whilst more than capable of being an independent military force, shoould seek to cooperate with our allies whenever possible.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-11-2010, 14:19

He's saying no to "greater co-operation" which is code for "relying on our allies for certain capabilities". Close EU co-operation in the past has produced project Eurofighter, which while much better than it's detractors claim is still a disaster from a contractual/cost point of view. We could probably have had two new British-made fighters for the same price by now.

Furunculus

04-11-2010, 18:43

Why not?

Are you saying no to the close cooperation with NATO and EU partners and no to the disarmament of Trident? If it is just the latter, I agree with you to some extent. I believe it could be cut back to some extent, but I don't particularly endorse the idea of complete nuclear disarmament. No other NATO member is suggesting a complete scrappage of nuclear arms, even America want's a cut back, not a complete scrappage. Which is kind of understandable too, seeming the Americans have a stupendous amount of missiles in their nuclear arsenal. I think there will be a time and a place for complete nuclear disarmament, I don't believe now is that time or place however.

As to the subject of closer cooperation with NATO and the EU, I think it's a good idea. Costs can be shared with other EU members and a vast majority of military operations (in theory) should be ones which our allies also support. I'm not suggesting some kind of binding contract, where if one European or NATO member wants to perform a military operation everyone else is sucked in, but I do think Britain, whilst more than capable of being an independent military force, shoould seek to cooperate with our allies whenever possible.

PVC is close to the mark.

I have had the conversation many times elswhere about how we could get a more affordable strategic deterrent, and the end conclusion by people more knowledgable than I is that there are no more economies to be had, we either keep four subs or we ditch the lot as the deterrent is no longer strategic, and i reject the idea that it cannot be afforded. £90b spread over 45 years to provide an absolute guarentee against someone initiating conventional/industrial war against the UK is a piffling sum for such security.

I am all for cooperation with individual EU nations, particularly the useful ones like France, but becoming enmeshed in soggy security frameworks like the EU is stupid, especially when the 'harmonisation' process will certainly leave us incapable of independent action.

Louis VI the Fat

04-12-2010, 02:50

LABOUR has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government. What a bunch of intrisuve *what you do with a salad*.

LibDems ftw!

Banquo's Ghost

04-12-2010, 14:08

Well, the Labour Party has published its manifesto (http://www2.labour.org.uk/manifesto-splash?gclid=COakjpScgaECFQ-Y2Aod7j5Bhw) and since they appear to be committed to even more intrusion into civil liberties (my first line in the sand) they won't be getting my vote. It was never very likely, I know, but one has to observe the protocols.

Vote: Abstain BNP Conservative Green Labour Liberal Democrat SNP UKIP

Furunculus

04-12-2010, 16:28

*waits for Louis's furious rebuttal....................* :p

Louis VI the Fat

04-12-2010, 17:04

*waits for Louis's furious rebuttal....................* :pSure. This makes the Labour manifesto look like an actual blueprint for a future fair for all.

For all of Labour's blahblah, it is still one step up from the Cons' Twitterocracy.

Beskar

04-12-2010, 17:14

Vote: Abstain BNP Conservative Green Labour Liberal Democrat SNP UKIP

I agree.

Also, I am disturbed by the figure representing democracy in their advertisement video as being incompetent and an idiot.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-13-2010, 01:06

Banquo's Ghost

04-13-2010, 07:30

I thought you were in the Republic. Not so?

I have the privilege of being able to vote in both countries. Which is mildly amusing, since until this Labour government, I wouldn't have been able to vote at all.

InsaneApache

04-13-2010, 09:25

I have the privilege of being able to vote in both countries. Which is mildly amusing, since until this Labour government, I wouldn't have been able to vote at all.

What's that? I thought all citizens of the republic have the right to vote in UK elections. When did it change and can I still vote in your elections?

Beskar

04-13-2010, 09:33

Sinn Féin always wins though, and they don't actually use their seats.

Furunculus

04-13-2010, 16:28

tory manifesto published, and some people at least believe that Hannan and Carswell should be pleased, because it more or less describes their plan for localism as outlined in the plan:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/the-most-untory-manifesto-ever-published.html

rory_20_uk

04-13-2010, 16:36

the dichotomy I feel is that I like the manifesto... but will it bear any resemblance to what happens if they were in office? Easy to plan to scrap the Civil Service, but who'se going to do it? Getting that hydra to commit suicide isn't easy.

Of course, the other side of the coin is with Labour it will bear a resemblance to their manifesto which is far more disturbing - every facet will have its own commissar. if he does get in I'll probably plan on emigrating in 2 years.

~:smoking:

Idaho

04-13-2010, 16:42

if he does get in I'll probably plan on emigrating in 2 years.

How come right wingers always pledge to leave a country if someone they don't like gets elected*, and conversely demand that others leave the country if they don't like their preferred winning candidate?

*They never actually leave, alas.

Furunculus

04-13-2010, 17:23

How come right wingers always pledge to leave a country if someone they don't like gets elected*, and conversely demand that others leave the country if they don't like their preferred winning candidate?

last year one left every three minutes. try harder. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569400/Emigration-soars-as-Britons-desert-the-UK.html

rory_20_uk

04-13-2010, 18:00

Ah, the dream of all wealth generators leaving the UK, leaving it a utopia for Civil Servants and the unemployed, eh?

My reason for choosing 2 years is multifactorial of course, and is the usual "hastle vs gain". Two of my friends are shortly going to the USA due to work, but I've got more training to do. After 2 years I'll have done the bulk of that, and we'll have new offices over there.

One confounder would be moving jobs where more of the salary was in kind rather than income. My work is international so if the pound dives I get paid more, so no biggie.

~:smoking:

Banquo's Ghost

04-13-2010, 19:13

What's that? I thought all citizens of the republic have the right to vote in UK elections. When did it change and can I still vote in your elections?

Yes, you can, as long as you satisfy residency requirements. If I recall, the entirely open ended arrangements were regularised around 1985 for both sides, but in essence, we're still one big happy family. :beam:

Idaho

04-13-2010, 19:57

last year one left every three minutes. try harder. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569400/Emigration-soars-as-Britons-desert-the-UK.html

And yet the same paper will gripe about immigration two pages later.

Beskar

04-13-2010, 20:22

last year one left every three minutes. try harder. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569400/Emigration-soars-as-Britons-desert-the-UK.html

Vaccuum of wealth. If they leave, it leaves a protential source of wealth generation untapped to be taken up by some one else...

Louis VI the Fat

04-13-2010, 22:18

Of course, the other side of the coin is with Labour it will bear a resemblance to their manifesto which is far more disturbing - every facet will have its own commissar. if he does get in I'll probably plan on emigrating in 2 years.

~:smoking:Will you repay the expensive education the British taxpayer provided for you?

rory_20_uk

04-13-2010, 22:40

Will you repay the expensive education the British taxpayer provided for you?

As soon as they repay the expensive taxes I pay. Oh, and 5 years of service to the government as well...

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-13-2010, 23:55

Yes, you can, as long as you satisfy residency requirements. If I recall, the entirely open ended arrangements were regularised around 1985 for both sides, but in essence, we're still one big happy family. :beam:

I just need to say, for the record, I find the Ireland-UK thing weird, but not in a bad way.

InsaneApache

04-14-2010, 00:52

I just need to say, for the record, I find the Ireland-UK thing weird, but not in a bad way.

Not wierd, considering the historical hangover. Sensible perhaps.

Beskar

04-14-2010, 07:20

Interesting article where Brown admits his mistakes -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8618974.stm

Banquo's Ghost

04-14-2010, 07:46

the dichotomy I feel is that I like the manifesto... but will it bear any resemblance to what happens if they were in office? Easy to plan to scrap the Civil Service, but who'se going to do it? Getting that hydra to commit suicide isn't easy.

Having read the Conservative manifesto, I share your feelings. There are some principles I like subsidiarity (though they'd never use that Euro-concept) and citizen involvement and streamlining the state apparatus.

However, it's very clear to me that the leadership have no idea how to accomplish any of these plans, and certainly don't have the moral resolve or wit. The manifesto is also full of completely unaffordable tax giveaways whilst generally promising that no-one will notice any effect from "savings" (not cuts, that word would frighten the natives). Now, I'm all for reducing the tax burden, but whether they like it or not, the next government has the pressing issue of an enormous deficit. This is not going to be reduced in the short term by mythical "efficiency savings" and therefore tax rises are the only way to pay for the same level of public services that they continue to say they will deliver. Tax or Cuts, gentlemen - which is it?

No detail, and a leadership group that scare me more than Brown. They're not off my list yet, but I'd better start hearing some real analysis and solutions soon.

As an aside, there's an amusing radio show on BBC R4 called the Now Show, which does some incisive political satire. One of their latest was: "Strange word, manifesto. Manifest, from the Latin 'to make happen' and O, as in 'Oh, it didn't happen.'" :beam:

Furunculus

04-14-2010, 08:13

And yet the same paper will gripe about immigration two pages later.
and yet the point stands; 200,000 people a year........

Vaccuum of wealth. If they leave, it leaves a protential source of wealth generation untapped to be taken up by some one else...
while that is true in some part, entrepeneurs do not grow on trees, the loss is felt i'm sure.

interestingly enough, property tycoon ronson on the coming social unrest, and the need to keep entrepeneurs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/7587483/Property-tycoon-Gerald-Ronson-warns-of-social-unrest-in-a-two-tier-Britain.html

Property tycoon Gerald Ronson warns of social unrest in a two-tier Britain
Britain faces “social unrest” over rising unemployment outside London according to Gerald Ronson, the property tycoon.

By Graham Ruddick
Published: 6:30AM BST 14 Apr 2010

Speaking at his annual lunch, the chief executive of Heron International said Britain was becoming a “two-tier country”.

“I spend 12 hours, once a week, driving around the country. I don’t like what I see,” he added. “We are creating a two-tier country where I fear that the consequential effects of significant unemployment will be social unrest.”

Mr Ronson, who is estimated to be worth £180m, is developing the Heron Tower, the highest building in the City of London, and owns petrol stations across the UK.

He said it was vital that the next Government, in its efforts to reduce the UK’s debt, is “careful not to put too much pressure on the people who can make a difference”.

The Government must act like any organisation in a downturn, Mr Ronson insisted, by cutting costs and finding new sources of revenue.

“Entrepreneurs should not be the targets,” he said. “Entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged – not penalised and driven out of the country. Entrepreneurs take personal and financial risk and create employment and enterprise. We have to be careful because it wouldn’t take a lot for us to slip back into recession and that’s before the effect of inflation on the economy.”

Mr Ronson warned that, amid talk of new taxes against banks, the City of London must be maintained as a “vibrant and attractive environment for international business”.

“The next Government must tread carefully when making decisions on regulation and the commercial regime,” he said. “The UK is highly dependent on professional and financial services which have replaced the manufacturing industry we once had.

“The time zone, language, financial infrastructure and legal system all contribute to it being the financial centre of the world.”

Speaking about the property industry itself, Mr Ronson said developers were “on the endangered list” because of a lack of bank finance.

The Heron Tower is one of the few City developments under construction, and Mr Ronson said it was “very difficult for the development industry to function”.

rory_20_uk

04-14-2010, 09:23

Even if the Tories did have a Cunning Plan to cut the Civil Service (which I doubt - asking Canada how they did theirs would be a goo start) odds would be the Civil Service would hear of it.
If we're talking serious cuts, that's a lot of the non-jobs going. Great, but those non-jobbers all have votes. Some might have insight that the whoile is better off without their employment, but moth in the face of a tough job market and the ending of their final salary pension will fight it tooth and nail - by voting for someone else - "cuts are required, but not me"

If there was a Cunning Plan that did increase efficiency and not damage front line staff, the other parties would steal it within seconds. Labour of course would use the money on other departments.

The Tory lot seem competent enough. Well, let's face it, the competition isn't hard: the PM has self belief oozing out of him, and it is the world's fault his policies aren't working. Balls tries to reduce whatever he's in charge of to a morass of mediocrity and red tape. The deputy PM is determined to cut balls off any man she can find in her toxic, androphobia. Lord Sugar? Mandleson? Sooner out the better.

Humans are naturally risk averse. Sadly that means we fear change more than we fear what we've got. Whoever wins the next 5 or so years are not going to be nice. The Tories are butchers, but one is required. Labour will suck the last vestiges of life out of the country and expect us to thank them

~:smoking:

Idaho

04-14-2010, 10:19

I think both Labour and Tory are as similar as in anytime in the last 50 years. It's just that Labour filter money to cronies on the sly, the Tories are bare-faced about it.

All elections come down to "Time for a change" versus "You can't trust the new guys". Personally I think the "Time for a change" momentum isn't quite there. Similar to the 1992 election.

Furunculus

04-14-2010, 13:54

hmmm, i take the point from BG and others that Dave and his cuddly conservative crew may not have the stones to drive through their manifesto reforms, but as far as welfare reform goes we really need it, because this article makes grim reading:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100004906/greek-lesson-we-are-all-in-the-same-boat/

Idaho

04-14-2010, 14:53

Welfare reforms are fairly irrelevant. No good pushing people off benefits when there are no jobs to go to. Why do you think no government since the 60s has had 'full employment' as an election pledge? If you aren't committed to full employment, how can you get people off benefits?

Likewise the only people who suffer from the macho posturing on benefits are legitimate claimants who will get bullied off their entitlements by civil servants chasing quotas. People who scam will always scam. They won't be daunted. And the amount of benefit fraud is massively outweighed by people not claiming for what they are due.

It's an easy tick box for politicians. The government probably gives more money to director bonuses of private-public finance initiatives than it ever gives to benefit fraudsters.

rory_20_uk

04-14-2010, 15:44

There's a massive difference between reducing benefits and 100% employment. But it's a great strawman.

Only ones to suffer are legitimate claimants? How did you dream that one up?

If the whole benefit system was massively simplified it would be easier to apply for money, and easy to see those who were trying to work the system. As it is, the money comes from several different places for a variety of different reasons.

It should be linked to the tax one pays - very simple, straightforward, and money coming and going to one place in the government, not dozens.

~:smoking:

Idaho

04-14-2010, 16:20

I didn't dream it up old bean. For those of us who don't live in the lofty circles you inhabit, Rory, the everyday stories of how people live are all around.

I completely agree that these things need to be simplified. But simplifying such a massive process would be massively expensive and take ages.

Furunculus

04-14-2010, 16:28

only because gordon has made it so labyrinthine in the first place.

Idaho

04-14-2010, 21:38

rory_20_uk

04-14-2010, 21:47

Erm, as chancellor the taxation system became the longest in the world.

~:smoking:

Beskar

04-14-2010, 22:00

My social employment plans are far simplier and effective.

Simply make that people under a certain threshold pay no tax, with a scaled increased. There are no benefits given out.

Instead, those who are looking for work or need employment will obviously do their weekly 3 minutes google search at the job centre, and if they require money, they do paid public service in the community. Because end of the day, doing service in the community would get people active and involved and giving back.

Myrddraal

04-15-2010, 01:01

paid public service in the community
I like the sound of that, which party does that come from?

Furunculus

04-15-2010, 07:49

This isn't Question Time mate. You don't have to strain our credulity to score party points :laugh4:

No matter what you think of the man, there is no way that Gordon Brown is responsible for the mess that is our social security system. It's been a political football for decades. Some good ideas badly implemented, some bad ideas put into effect.

oh believe me, while i am a conservative dave and cuddley band of new-cons are not, so while I am batting against labour as i believe it to be the lowest form of cretinism, i am not batting for the conservatives.

my vote is UKIP's to lose, especially given that i live in a part of the country where the cons are a joint third place party a LONG way behind the two big local parties.

---------------------------------------

while i would be happy with daves six EU pledges, i have no confidence in him that he will enact them, so ukip is closer to my position.

whil i would normally trust cons over lab on defence, i have no confidence in dave that he won't make cuts, so ukip's pledge to spend a minimum of 2.5% of GDP on defence is attractive.

nothing else matters.

----------------------------------------

new poll results, tories well ahead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591249/General-Election-2010-Conservatives-lead-in-100-key-seats-Telegraph-poll-shows.html

----------------------------------------

where the Lib-Dems economic figures fall apart:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100034410/the-lib-dems-tax-promises-are-voter-friendly-but-do-the-sums-add-up/

Furunculus

04-15-2010, 08:14

So far JAG and myself have laid down in concrete our predictions for the election result:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone else going to show some stones and put their 'dog' in the race?

I propose a scoring system, the earliest person to predict the correct result is declared "magnificent" and is awarded an Orgah title, if our benevolent dictators would be so good as to agree......? :knight:

Beskar

04-15-2010, 11:37

I like the sound of that, which party does that come from?

I believe it is none of them. Unfortunately.

They are content with just throwing money at people. The way I describes ensures there is no money thrown at all, in return, the government supplies employment opportunities which allows people to work for money which will also assist in getting the homeless of the streets, as they can easily get work which is the biggest problem.

rory_20_uk

04-15-2010, 12:22

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-15-2010, 12:27

I believe it is none of them. Unfortunately.

They are content with just throwing money at people. The way I describes ensures there is no money thrown at all, in return, the government supplies employment opportunities which allows people to work for money which will also assist in getting the homeless of the streets, as they can easily get work which is the biggest problem.

Cameron said it about two years ago, I'm afraid. He also said that community service should be publically visable, and involve things like litter picking, rather than working in a community centre.

Beskar

04-15-2010, 12:33

My brother's idea was similar, but suggested negative tax for the first earnings, then with an increasing scale. No other benefits.

Not working you get paid as your tax is negative. As you start to work this decreases slowly, so there is still an incentive for working.

Very simple to run and understand. Just insert earnings and taxes / benefits pop out. Very difficult to abuse as there isn't much there to abuse.

The need for masses of civil servants reviewing forms,, printing forms etc will be removed. The need for so many accountants to fight through labyrinthine forms will decrease. And so, taxes overall can also fall as there is less overhead, and probably less acidental overpaying / fraud.

Not exactly true, it can be abused. There are many loopholes, especially as you go into "What is earning a wage?" or the fact, many self-employed can simply like about how much they earn, thus get free money.

As for the first one, Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple) only earns around $1 a year in wages. Apple gives him his "wage" through "company expenses" which means there is no income tax.
As for the latter, self-employed can just claim they earn under a certain threshold and they get given money.

The consequences are, these two examples get money for nothing.

In my system, the worse case would be that government wouldn't recieve the right amount of tax part, not that plus handing out money. In otherwords, government wouldn't be responsible for giving away tax money for nothing, as in your brothers scheme, this would still be the case.

Also, the point of my system is to get people actually working. Even if it ultimately boils down to doing some simple tasks, as the ultimate result is, these people are getting up in the morning, they are going out of the house and they are doing something productive.

Beskar

04-15-2010, 12:37

Cameron said it about two years ago, I'm afraid. He also said that community service should be publically visable, and involve things like litter picking, rather than working in a community centre.

He has changed his stance since then. Last I heard, Conservative policy is a "refuse three jobs, you get no benefits" which is fraught with problems due to various reasons.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-15-2010, 12:49

He has changed his stance since then. Last I heard, Conservative policy is a "refuse three jobs, you get no benefits" which is fraught with problems due to various reasons.

It's still a better idea than what we have now, why would you refuse a job you applied for anyway?

Beskar

04-15-2010, 13:00

It's still a better idea than what we have now, why would you refuse a job you applied for anyway?

Because you are forced to apply for it anyway.

Because of this, people are forced to apply for jobs that for example, they are not suitable to work in due to health reasons or child care arrangements or suitable hours, but also, you are highly over-qualified for the job, and trying to get work which is your calibre, and not stuck changing sheets in a B'n'B on a 6-12month contract while you are more than qualified to be actually running the place. Then there is also the situation where you are in the middle and moving between two jobs, but require a little "pick-me up" to pay off your bills.

My idea would account for things like this.

rory_20_uk

04-15-2010, 13:07

Beskar

04-15-2010, 13:18

Employers have to make adjustments for health reasons, or be reviewed as unfit by GP / Occ health.
Employers have to make adjustments for all women who have children under 5 years old. See the person who sued the MOD as they wouldn't bend over backwards to help her do exactly what she wanted (including breaking immigration law).
Highly qualified? Find something better, you high flyer you.
Want a pick me up between jobs? ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's called a loan, a credit card, or even savings - not my money!

None of those examples were my own, but it is easy to paint the situation.

Well, how many one-armed bed changers do you know? I doubt occuptional health willl blame the business for that.
Well, appart from the fact there are also single fathers (usually because their wife died), even single mothers still have problems with children older than 5. Would you leave a 6 year old home-aline while you was at work doing a graveyard shift?
People turn you down if you are too highly qualified, also, other jobs might require you to have experience working as that job even though you could easily do it. I doubt you would like to leave University with a 2.1 degree and end up working in Mc Donalds, for example.
For the last one, not everyone can afford loan, credi cards, or even savings. Some people are simply forced by circumstance to be humiliated by having to take an unemployment check. At least under my system, they can do some work for that.

rory_20_uk

04-15-2010, 13:23

6 year olds go to school. To cover, I would suggest childcare of extended family / friends. Do you know the number of doctors and nurses who have to deal with this?
If you're turned down it doesn't count. I've been turned down after Medical school as I tried to do some work before my job started.
No, not everyone can afford a loan. But all can afford to save. I thought you meant a period when you know the next job is coming. Redundancy also usually gives a payout.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-15-2010, 14:05

Because you are forced to apply for it anyway.

If the system puts you up for jobs you can't do, that's incompetence; not a philosophical issue.

Because of this, people are forced to apply for jobs that for example, they are not suitable to work in due to health reasons or child care arrangements or suitable hours, but also, you are highly over-qualified for the job, and trying to get work which is your calibre, and not stuck changing sheets in a B'n'B on a 6-12month contract while you are more than qualified to be actually running the place. Then there is also the situation where you are in the middle and moving between two jobs, but require a little "pick-me up" to pay off your bills.

My idea would account for things like this.

If you are out of work and you can do the job you should take it, if you are litterally all on your own with a child then something else has happened in your life for you t reach that situation. There has to come a point where people are responsible for life choices.

as far as a "pick me up", I will have enough to live for about 2 months after I leave my current job. Everyone can afford to save a little, it's about regnising what you can actually afford to begin with.

InsaneApache

04-15-2010, 19:07

If you are out of work and you can do the job you should take it, if you are litterally all on your own with a child then something else has happened in your life for you t reach that situation. There has to come a point where people are responsible for life choices.

I have to take issue with this. Some of you guys on this board may be surprised to learn that I was once a single parent family. After Mrs. Apache MK I ran off with a Ukrainian double glazing salesman (opps, where's me washboard!) I was left looking after two little lads under six. Although I was in full time employment, indeed I took on a part-time job on top of looking after the nippers, it was one of the hardest times in my life. I was lucky, a lot just aren't. Should they be punished (again!) because thier partner buggered off when the going got a bit rough?

Too simplistic a view IMO. Every case is different. That is all. :juggle2:

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2010, 19:18

Indeed. Life's too complex for populist solutions.

Occasionally, the populists do get elected into power. Inevitably, it results in a set of complete mobsters ruining an otherwise fine country, which a subsequent competent administration then has to spend two decades to clean up again.

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2010, 19:18

Inevitably, it results in a set of complete mobsters ruining an otherwise fine country, Does that mean it will take us twenty years to clean up NuLab's mess then?:furious3:

InsaneApache

04-15-2010, 19:51

OK thirty then. :laugh4:

Idaho

04-15-2010, 21:05

I have to take issue with this. Some of you guys on this board may be surprised to learn that I was once a single parent family. After Mrs. Apache MK I ran off with a Ukrainian double glazing salesman (opps, where's me washboard!) I was left looking after two little lads under six. Although I was in full time employment, indeed I took on a part-time job on top of looking after the nippers, it was one of the hardest times in my life. I was lucky, a lot just aren't. Should they be punished (again!) because thier partner buggered off when the going got a bit rough?

Too simplistic a view IMO. Every case is different. That is all. :juggle2:

Thank god - a right winger who has actually experienced the world, as opposed to all these educated single men with comfortably off families talking tough about benefits.

The workfare idea is nonsense. You are sounding like politicians. Saying that people signing on can magically be given a 'job in the community'. What does that mean? Who would implement it? Who supervises/schedules/monitors/plans all this temporary labour? And if this work really needs doing, why not employ people to actually do it? It's just popular sounding nonsense.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-15-2010, 21:28

Thank god - a right winger who has actually experienced the world, as opposed to all these educated single men with comfortably off families talking tough about benefits.

The workfare idea is nonsense. You are sounding like politicians. Saying that people signing on can magically be given a 'job in the community'. What does that mean? Who would implement it? Who supervises/schedules/monitors/plans all this temporary labour? And if this work really needs doing, why not employ people to actually do it? It's just popular sounding nonsense.

Employing people to "actually" do the job would cost more tax money. The idea is to mobilize un or under employed government check recipients to do some of the odds and ends work that always gets shunted aside in the effort to keep budgets down. Administration of such a temporary labor pool would be, of course, a potential sticking point. I am not sure exactly how U.S. states or cities who use workfare managed to administer it.

Idaho

04-15-2010, 21:39

Employing people to "actually" do the job would cost more tax money. The idea is to mobilize un or under employed government check recipients to do some of the odds and ends work that always gets shunted aside in the effort to keep budgets down. Administration of such a temporary labor pool would be, of course, a potential sticking point. I am not sure exactly how U.S. states or cities who use workfare managed to administer it.

It would be a nightmare to administer. It's not a practical policy - just showboating.

InsaneApache

04-15-2010, 22:40

I don't know if it's typical or not but when I worked for the local authority, upwards of 70% went on admin. I suspect it was.

Yes I have had experience of the real world. I bloody should have, I'm past fifty. :laugh4:

tibilicus

04-15-2010, 22:51

On the subject of tonight's debate my personal opinion was Cameron came out on top by a whisker, followed by Clegg and Brown firmly brought up the rear. It will be interesting to watch the other two and see how things turn out. I'm particularly keen to see the Conservatives foreign policies put under scrutiny in the international affairs debate.

Subotan

04-15-2010, 23:03

tibilicus

04-15-2010, 23:11

I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.

Polls:http://www.itv.com/electiondebate?intcmp=780097_123_1

56% - Clegg (!)
26% - Brown (!!)
18% - Cameron (!!!!)

Not too surprising. Clegg has a massive amount to gain from these debates and it will give him the exposure the lib dems have been desperate for.

It will be interesting to see the polls in the upcoming days once the dust settles.

Idaho

04-15-2010, 23:41

I didn't watch the debates - sounds like a potentially interesting turn of events if Clegg can capitalise on it.

I think this election has finally seen a situation that has caused these debates to be agreed to. Previously they were always demanded by the trailing candidate, and rejecting by the leading one. This time the combination of it being so close, both leaders are fighting for the agenda and desperate for the edge on each other. Interesting if allowing it to happen gives an unexpected boost to Clegg - who has the most to gain - compared to the profile he has had up to now.

Beskar

04-16-2010, 02:16

Clegg is obviously the best choice.

I just hope all those that go "I would vote for Lib dem, but I vote labour to keep the tories out" smirk comes close to an end, so they get in power. Labour and Conservatives are basically show men, Libdems have some real brains on the team.

Beskar

04-16-2010, 02:20

It would be a nightmare to administer. It's not a practical policy - just showboating.

No it isn't, it occurs in other European countries and they get on fine with it. Also, the fact it forces people to work means there won't be that many people actually doing it, due to the big cuts I proposed, there is massive incentive to work in the first place instead of pay-fiddling, or working part-time, because you end up with more money than if you worked full-time, amongst other things.

Myrddraal

04-16-2010, 02:27

I read an interesting (though clearly biased) article in the Times by JK Rowling on single parents. I'll see if I can find it online.

EDIT: here it is. I find the critisism of the Tory proposals very well thought out, though the defence of Labour a little less so.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece

Seamus Fermanagh

04-16-2010, 03:29

If Ser Cleggane is running, then I have no doubt he'd win. He'd make an excellent PM.

naut

04-16-2010, 03:48

Clegg is obviously the best choice.
:yes:

It'll almost certainly be a hung-parliament, which is the best outcome (other than a Lib Dems win, not happening :wacko:). A clear cut win for the Tories would be disastrous, absolutely disastrous.

Banquo's Ghost

04-16-2010, 07:41

I watched the debate with interest, especially as it developed into quite a good discussion with some real bite - without descending into yah-boo. Nick Clegg certainly did well - I was quite impressed. He listened, spoke to the audience warmly and passionately and I like his disdain each time Brown tried desperately to be buddies. He got a fairly easy ride, however, because only Cameron tried to nail him down - Brown's pathetic overtures just embarrassed everyone.

Gordon Brown was worst, as expected. He was awfully nervous for the first ten minutes, and then warmed to his theme. I just wish they'd tell him not to smile. I know it's supposed to be about substance, but I swear that if that man smiles as he tells me the sun is going to rise in the morning, he'd have me doubting the phenomenon for the first time. Having said that, he knew his stuff and skewered Call-Me-Dave several times. But he looked like the desperate opposition, not the incumbent.

I agree that Cameron looked Prime Ministerial, in a John Major fin de siècle kind of way. He looked tired, and continued to avoid any real detail. I thought he came off badly on immigration and defence (surprisingly) and wet on the economy (unsurprisingly). As a natural conservative voter, he depresses me and made no inroads into changing my opinion that he will be a disaster. He wore that petulant frown too often, which makes him look like the bad people are taking away the victory daddy promised, and his brain can't think of an answer.

Early days, but it was a decent debate.

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 08:17

I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.

that appears to be the consensus at the telegraph, not read the articles but the headlines all talk about clegg coming out ahead.

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 08:21

:yes:

It'll almost certainly be a hung-parliament, which is the best outcome (other than a Lib Dems win, not happening :wacko:). A clear cut win for the Tories would be disastrous, absolutely disastrous.

would you care to firm up that prediction with a call on who will lead the coalition parliament after the election ruckus settles down?

people need to go balls-to-the-wall and call the result, so they can be added to the sweep-stake.............. :p

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

in other news, CEBR predicts GDP £20b higher by 2020 under tory government:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7595265/CEBR-raises-UK-growth-forecasts.html

The Centre for Economics and Business Research has increased its forecast of economic growth in Britain, predicting GDP would be about £20bn higher by 2020 if the Conservatives gain power.

By Angela Monaghan
Published: 6:15AM BST 16 Apr 2010

The leading think tank forecast gross domestic product (GDP) would grow by 1.3pc and 1.4pc in 2011 and 2012 respectively, compared with earlier forecasts of 0.8pc and 1.1pc growth.

It left its 2010 forecast unchanged at 1.2pc, and said the upgrades for the following two years were based on a Conservative victory at the election, and a more buoyant world economy.

Despite the upgrades, the think-tank's figures are far less optimistic than the Chancellor's March Budget predictions of 3.25pc growth in 2011 and 3.5pc growth in 2012, which the CEBR described as "highly optimistic".

Charles Davis, senior economist at the CEBR, warned: "The upward revision to growth should not be taken to imply that the pressure is off as far as public finances are concerned. Whoever wins power will have to take tough decisions."

Mr Davis said about £35bn of extra fiscal tightening on top of that announced in the Budget would be required to sufficiently reduce Britain's deficit.

The CEBR said its forecasts assumed the bond market would effectively force the same scale of fiscal tightening irrespective of which party formed the next Government. It said it had therefore assumed spending cuts and tax increases that were not included in the party manifestos.

It said that should the Conservatives win the election, GDP was likely to be £20bn higher by 2020 than it would be if a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was in power, because the Conservatives were more likely to promote a low-tax environment.

It calculated that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would result in £20bn more in tax rises and spending cuts £20bn lower by 2015, compared with a Conservative Government.

"We expect that in a hung parliament with a Lib-Lab pact the deficit will probably be eliminated more slowly; with more tax rises and fewer public spending cuts," said Douglas McWilliams, chief executive at the CEBR. "But this does very much depend on the financial markets allowing this. There is a real possibility that they might take fright and force more draconian cuts. Whatever happens, a higher tax strategy is likely to lead to significantly slower economic growth."

Under the two scenarios, growth was slightly faster under a hung parliament in the first three years, CEBR said. However, between 2015 and 2020, it said a "low-tax, low-spending government" would benefit, with the economy growing about 0.3pc faster per year.

"Whoever wins the election, we will be in for a tough couple of years of sluggish growth at best as the budget deficit issue is addressed," said Mr McWilliams.

naut

04-16-2010, 08:51

would you care to firm up that prediction with a call on who will lead the coalition parliament after the election ruckus settles down?
Not at this early stage no.

All I know at this stage is that my vote doesn't count for anything: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 08:59

ya big girl, show some stones.......................... :p

Idaho

04-16-2010, 10:53

Idaho

04-16-2010, 10:59

in other news, CEBR predicts GDP £20b higher by 2020 under tory government:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7595265/CEBR-raises-UK-growth-forecasts.html

They talk a lot of balls though:

Pound-could-soon-be-worth-less-than-euro-warns-CEBR (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6896334/Pound-could-soon-be-worth-less-than-euro-warns-CEBR.html)

They are an 'independent' research agency who come up with whatever conclusion the people paying for the research want:

SAB Miller pay for research that says minimum alcohol pricing is a bad idea (http://www.cebr.com/Newsroom/Minimum_pricing_of_alcohol)

rory_20_uk

04-16-2010, 11:11

Yes, predictions are always fun as one doesn't need anything like evidence. But let's face it: all partys do it to support their latest plan - how locking up criminials will "save" billions to care in the community will "save" billions... Who can truly say?

The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 11:24

I think Cameron has more to fear from Clegg than Brown does. I think you will see Labour continuing to 'talk about their policy' (repeat same soundbites) and the Conservatives will step up their attacks on the Lib Dems. The Cons need the floaters to win, Labour just needs the floaters to not vote Tory to win.

My prediction - narrow Labour win.
good man. :D

Yes, predictions are always fun as one doesn't need anything like evidence. But let's face it: all partys do it to support their latest plan - how locking up criminials will "save" billions to care in the community will "save" billions... Who can truly say?

The election system is bias enough that Labour can get a majority will a much smaller percentage of the populace than the Tories. I hope for a hung parliment at least, preverably a slight Tory win (seeing as UKIP aren't going to win masses of seats.

~:smoking:

but what do you think is going to happen, nail your colours to the mast.........?

rory_20_uk

04-16-2010, 11:54

good man. :D

but what do you think is going to happen, nail your colours to the mast.........?

Hung parliment. So much disillusionment for Labour, distrust of Tories which will probably increase overal share to others. Probably only Lib Dems will see this translated into seats though.
I really hope I'm wrong. A party with a majority has enough intertia. No party majority is a recepie for paralysis. If the same as heppened last time occurs, no party will want to cut anything as there's always a view to a new election being called and who wants to be the bad guy?

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 12:14

The debate for us ITV-deprived foreigners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2MY4jD_vw

I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more exciting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

what do you think is going to happenNo majority. I predict Brown will turn out massively hung. He'll refuse to get into bed with the LibDems, making it all even harder for him than it already is. New elections after eightteen months.

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 12:23

Hung parliment. So much disillusionment for Labour, distrust of Tories which will probably increase overal share to others. Probably only Lib Dems will see this translated into seats though.
I really hope I'm wrong. A party with a majority has enough intertia. No party majority is a recepie for paralysis. If the same as heppened last time occurs, no party will want to cut anything as there's always a view to a new election being called and who wants to be the bad guy?

~:smoking:

so out the other side of the election train-wreck you foresee................... a conservative minority government, or a lib-lab coalition?

Vladimir

04-16-2010, 12:29

rory_20_uk

04-16-2010, 12:32

Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power. The lib dems will have demands for a coalition, and I imagine Gordon would accept almost anything. So, assuming no majority in power, I would see Lib-Lab coalition rather than Tory minority. There is a precedent in Scotland, after all.

Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 13:22

BBC America last night blamed the politeness of the three way debate on American influence. Evidently they wanted to see a more brutal, question time-like approach to the debate. I think this is the first time the U.S. was blamed for causing things to be too polite.
US politeness has two faces: it is a sign of refreshingly good manners. And it can be plasticy, slick. In politics, obviously the latter aspect dominates. Studied sound bites, evasive answers, pandering to market segments. Not to mention, middle-aged men with more make-up than 21 year old girls on a night out, smiles revealing teeth that are too white, and hair that stays in exact artificial shape regardless of weather conditions.

God forbid the second aspects creeps into European politics, and especially that of the UK, even more than it already does.

so out the other side of the election train-wreck you foresee................... a conservative minority government, or a lib-lab coalition?Go on, give us your prediction between the two. After thirteen years of Labour in government, reaching a low point in approval rates, it is not difficult predict the other guys will get in. It's akin to correctly predicting Man Ure will beat Stoke city. Predictions are about close calls, like 'will Manchester beat Bayern Munich?'. When Labour was trailing behind by fourteen points, JAG several months ago predicted this gap would be closed. Now that's what I call political instinct.

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 13:27

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 13:31

US politeness has two faces: it is a sign of refreshingly good manners. And it can be plasticy, slick. In politics, obviously the latter aspect dominates. Studied sound bites, evasive answers, pandering to market segments. Not to mention, middle-aged men with more make-up than 21 year old girls on a night out, smiles revealing teeth that are too white, and hair that stays in exact artificial shape regardless of weather conditions.

God forbid the second aspects creeps into European politics, and especially that of the UK, even more than it already does.

Go on, give us your prediction between the two. After thirteen years of Labour in government, reaching a low point in approval rates, it is not difficult predict the other guys will get in. It's akin to correctly predicting Man Ure will beat Stoke city. Predictions are about close calls, like 'will Manchester beat Bayern Munich?'. When Labour was trailing behind by fourteen points, JAG several months ago predicted this gap would be closed. Now that's what I call political instinct.
my prediction is noted, what about yours?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2470254&viewfull=1#post2470254

Beskar

04-16-2010, 13:33

The debate for us ITV-deprived foreigners:

I've been watching some of it just now. Not all of it, as I got a tad bored and switched to more riveting videos, such as the 1978 Sunderland darts championschip.

I am surprised the BBC didn't host the show, that would have been the obvious choice.

Myrddraal

04-16-2010, 13:38

Iirc there will be three debates, each hosted by the three major channels, ITV, Channel 4, BBC

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 13:46

Iirc there will be three debates, each hosted by the three major channels, ITV, Channel 4, BBC
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/details-leaders-election-debates

Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.

General election 2010
Broadcasters reveal details of leaders' election debates
Three live face-to-face debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will take place in mid-evening weekday slots in front of studio audiences on BBC, ITV and Sky News.

The first debate, screened on ITV1 and moderated by Alastair Stewart, will be filmed in the north-west of England and look at the theme of domestic affairs.

The second debate will be screened on Sky News and moderated by Adam Boulton. Its themed section will be on international affairs and it will come from the south-west of England.

The final debate will be screened on BBC1, moderated by David Dimbleby, and will focus on the theme of economic affairs. The programme will be based in the Midlands.

mor info:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/how-leaders-election-debates-will-work

Subotan

04-16-2010, 13:58

Wowww

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/16/nick-clegg-guardian-icm-poll-pm

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/4/16/1271419580784/Graphic---poll-TV-debate--001.jpg
Nick Clegg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg) has surged into contention as a potential prime minister, according to a Guardian/ICM poll carried out following last night's TV leaders' debate.
A quarter of voters who watched the three leaders on the ITV programme say they will switch their vote, with most changing to the Liberal Democrats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats).
Clegg emerges from the telephone poll as the overwhelming winner, with 51% who watched saying he came out on top. David Cameron (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameron) and Gordon Brown (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown) trail in far behind: 20% say Cameron won and 19% Brown.
The poll, based on a sample of 505 voters who had previously told ICM how they would vote, found Conservative and Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) supporters also thought Clegg won the event. While 44% of Tories thought Cameron won, 46% thought Clegg did. Among Labour voters, 43% said Brown won, and 44% Clegg.
The Guardian poll coincides with a survey of voting intentions carried out by ComRes for ITV. It showed support for the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) was unchanged at 35%, with Labour down one point on 28%, and the Lib Dems up three on 24%.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/04/16/poll_pie_mind_460x276.gif Among those voters who had watched the debate, the surge in Lib Dem support was more dramatic: up 14 points to 35%, only a shade behind the Conservatives on 36%, who were down three. Labour languished in third place, at 24%, down three points.
According to the ICM poll for the Guardian, Clegg appears to have won the affections of voters across the board. He now runs Brown neck and neck as the man voters think would make the best prime minister, 29% to 29%. Cameron remains just ahead on 33%.
Clegg is also far ahead as the leader who offers substance over spin. Cameron comes off worst among people who saw the debate, with 47% saying he is more spin than substance against 36% who say that of Brown and 11% Clegg.
Cameron performed particularly badly with Lib Dem supporters, with 61% saying he offered spin over substance. That suggests the Tory leader's appeal to centre ground voters is faltering.
The debate had a clear impact on people's voting intentions, although the effect may fade as polling day approaches. Among people who saw the debate, 23% say they will change their mind, including 25% of Conservatives and 21% of Labour voters.
Most of them are going to the Lib Dems, with 54% of people changing their minds saying they will move to the party. A further 17% say they will switch to Labour. The Conservatives have attracted the least new support with only 13% saying they plan to move their vote to the party.
• ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 505 people by telephone on 15th April 2010. It re-interviewed people who had previously been selected at random who told us they would be watching the debate and had agreed to be interviewed again. The sample has been weighted to the profile of all people selected at random who previously stated they would be watching the debate. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

rory_20_uk

04-16-2010, 14:04

People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years :wall:

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 14:16

People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years :wall:

~:smoking:Which is still better than closely following politics for years only to then vote the tor...wrong bunch in.

Beskar

04-16-2010, 14:19

People are idiots. 90 mins of talking and people are prepared to alter who runs the country for the next c. 5 years :wall:

~:smoking:

Yet Nick clegg was always the best choice in the first place, but he got next to zero air-time compared to David Cameron and Gordon Brown. So in actual fact, the TV debate is a success. I mean, they have a political mastermind of Vince Cable behind them as well, if there was some one in House of Commons with an actual acutement for politics, it is him. Not many of them there, only a few others like Tony Benn.

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 15:04

Wowww

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/16/nick-clegg-guardian-icm-poll-pm

forget COmres:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robertcolvile/100034968/when-i-said-forget-comres/

Banquo's Ghost

04-16-2010, 15:05

Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?

~:smoking:

The constitutional position is that whilst Parliament is dissolved, ministers stay appointed. That includes the Prime Minister. Regardless of the result of the election, he continues in office until replaced by the will of Parliament or dismissed by Her Majesty.

Convention dictates that a Prime Minister whose party has lost an election decisively, and therefore will be definitively voted out once Parliament sits, stands down immediately. Not to do so would cause a constitutional crisis resolved only by the Queen dismissing him. However, if a sitting Prime Minister thinks he can form a government from whatever has been presented as a Parliament, he has the right to try. The monarch may, on advice, invite him to try or ask him to stand down because the mandate of the people clearly indicates a different desire. She would be unlikely to do the latter, but may give him only a few days, even hours (since if the will of the electorate were that clear, one assumes it would have expressed through the ballot box).

If he fails, Her Majesty would invite another leader to try and form a government. This not by petition - it is the monarch's prerogative, though convention dictates that she would choose the leader of the biggest (but in this scenario, still minority) party. If that leader then fails to form a government (remember, this is a government that will not be brought down by the first vote in the newly constituted Parliament) she may invite some one else, but in this case, the sitting Prime Minister (yes, he's still there unless dismissed) would either wait till Parliament voted him out on the first day, or call another election.

InsaneApache

04-16-2010, 16:49

One would assume that they stay in place because they are ministers of the crown, rather than ministers for the Labour party as they are usually. :juggle2:

I mean, they have a political mastermind of Vince Cable behind them as well

Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder. :fishing:

Idaho

04-16-2010, 18:14

Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power.

They all would Rory. That's what they are in it for.

I heartily recommend Paxman's book - The Political Animal (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Animal-Anatomy-Jeremy-Paxman/dp/0140288473) for a cruel eye on what motivates them.

Beskar

04-16-2010, 19:07

Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder. :fishing:

You mean Cameron? Yes, he is the mastermind of flounce.

ICantSpellDawg

04-17-2010, 00:44

tibilicus

04-17-2010, 01:24

Is it just me, or have the Lib Dems tacked towards the center under Clegg, even taking up some center right issues? I remember Campbell being an intolerable pinko. I believe that the Lib dems will strip moderate votes from Labour, spurring the Torries on to victory while the LD's and Labour spar in the mud for a while. Could the old party be on its way back to the top? This is inconcievable to me.

I personally believe the opposite. I think a Lib Dem boost will actually hurt the Conservatives. As it stands the Conservatives have to win by a solid 10% to get a majority government and the electoral system is stacked so high in Labours favour that they can afford to drop to 30%, perhaps even lower and still receive a decent number of seats. The people who might consider voting for Clegg now are not so much disillusioned Labour voters but more voters who were drifting towards the Conservatives because they saw them as the alternative to Labour which has traditionally been the case. Some of those floating voters might now see Clegg as a credible alternative and side with him instead. Also there was a good analysis on the BBC news earlier. Going off the "battleground constituencies", in terms of the ease in taking seats, the Lib Dems have a much easier time taking marginal Conservative seats. It suggested that a 3% swing to the lib dems would only result in a handful of new seats but that tiny number began to grown significantly once the projections showed what would happen if the lib dems received a extra 10% swing (unlikely). if this 10% swing did occur then it would seriously damage the Conservatives. Whilst it would also damage Labour, due to their greater number of safe seats, the damage would defiantly be felt more by the Conservatives.

I also have to note that a surge in support for Clegg certainly wont see the death of New labour. In 1983 Labour polled a pathetic 27%, only 2% more than the SDP-Liberal Alliance. yet Labour enjoyed a generous 209 seats whilst the Alliance gained only 23. Even if we see Labour drop bellow 30% (which may or may not see a hung parliament) I'm sure it wont be the last of them. They'll either hang on in a coalition government or retreat back to their safe seats and conjure up a new cycle of regeneration.

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 01:32

Myrddraal

04-17-2010, 02:29

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626256.stm
If you can stand Jeremy Vine's mannerisms, this 'swingometer' is a neat illustration of the fact that, despite any success in debates, the Lib Dems need to gain a significant number of votes before they start winning any significant numbers of seats. It looks as if (on average), a 6 percent increase in Lib dems taken from the conservatives would lead to an increase of 22 seats won from the torys. Likewise, taking an extra 6 percent of votes from Labour would result in 16 Labour seats won by the Lib Dems. Considering there are 650 odd seats, the Lib Dems need to overcome this initial 6 percent if they want a significant increase in voting power in the commons.

Beskar

04-17-2010, 02:46

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8589691.stm

Interesting speech here on the exclusion of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the debates.

Beskar

04-17-2010, 03:28

Also this article is an interesting read and on how the bigwigs behind the bonds were making bets on bonds actually failing, then fraudently selling these bonds on to unwitting customers and banks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/04/goldman_may_owe_british_taxpay.html

The SEC says that Goldman also failed to disclose to those who invested in the CDO that it had been created with advice from Paulson and that Paulson wanted to bet on the bond falling in value.

The $1bn bet

It believes that investors in the CDO, like IKB, and those that insured the CDO against default - which ultimately turned out to be Royal Bank - wouldn't have done so, if they had known that it had been constructed to enable Paulson to take a giant bet at their potential expense.

Paulson certainly won that bet (and this firm, founded by John Paulson, has won many such big bets over the past three years, making its founder a billionaire several times over).

and Furuculus said I lived on another planet when I suggested these scams were going on. :laugh4:

InsaneApache

04-17-2010, 09:56

You mean Cameron? Yes, he is the mastermind of flounce.

No, I meant St. Vince of the Cable. If the SDP lib dems are going to up their game, then they should be held to the same rigour as the other two lot. The only reason the 'holy one' gets away with it, is because a lot of what he said over the last couple of years or so has gone under the radar. Like I said, do a bit of research, it's all out there.

I voted SDP once, I might do it again. Around here there are hundreds of little yellow triangles and I havn't seen one red rose yet. (Although with this being Yorkshire, that's prolly a good thing!) The other upside is that my MP is one of El Gordos ministers, (so Gordon thinks anyroad) and kicking him into touch seems a delicious idea. He's been a crap MP. Too long in the job.

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 10:10

tibilicus

04-17-2010, 12:37

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8589691.stm

Interesting speech here on the exclusion of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the debates.

I really loath Alex Salmond for a variety of reasons but I'll just focus on this video for now. His claims in the media that "the voice of Scotland and Wales" has been excluded is truly laughable. The SNP may be the biggest party at a devolved level but the UK elections are different. If we are to take 2005 into account then Scottish Labour is the voice of Scotland, not the SNP, they have four seats. Plaids claim is even worse. I'm pretty certain they don't even control the welsh executive and as for Westminster they have what, two seats, I haven't even bothered to count.

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 13:11

Tellos Athenaios

04-17-2010, 13:52

I agree it is an exceptionally bland article. “Ooh, look, Brits finally discovered televised election debates 50 years after the rest of the world did” and not much else. But the idea that Britain could benefit from PR is not exactly unique to Continental Revolutionaries. Remember “Dunny-on-the-Wold”?

EDIT: PR as we know it here, is you vote for the MP you want in parliament. The idea being that there are local elections with local politicians for your local political fix; and national equivalents for things that supposedly do matter on a national scale. Which means that there is no need to be limited to your local politicians if you vote in national elections.

Subotan

04-17-2010, 13:54

Interesting series of articles from American journalists on the debates. If you relied on them for your news, you would think that Britain is the land of the Amish, where television is viewed as evil Yankee sorcery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/apr/16/leaders-debates-us-reaction-nick-clegg

Beskar

04-17-2010, 15:11

a dutch op-ed thinks we should get proportional representation, and conform with the enlightened standards of the continent:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/opinion/article2526297.ece/UK_district_system_needs_an_update

my reply is; PR is an electoral system for, politicians that don't trust their electorate not to install demagogues, and an electorate that doesn't trust the politicians not to become tyrants, no thanks.

PR is a system which gives power to political parties, therefore it is a very bad idea.

Interesting series of articles from American journalists on the debates. If you relied on them for your news, you would think that Britain is the land of the Amish, where television is viewed as evil Yankee sorcery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/apr/16/leaders-debates-us-reaction-nick-clegg

They all think Nick Clegg was the best. I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change, compared to another Labservative administration.

Boohugh

04-17-2010, 16:03

I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change

Absolutely, lets vote for the sort of change which will:

- Dismantle our ultimate defence against attack. Remind me what the first priority of the State is again?

- Increase an already heavy tax burden, especially for those who work hard to earn more. Not every rich person is a banker and even then many of them work silly long hours for their money, creating a disincentive to try and do well. And no, that doesn't mean poor people don't work hard for their rather meagre pay packet, but there does seem to be an assumption that rich people generally don't and don't deserve their money.

- Will eventually hand over the keys of the nation to unelected officials in Europe, quite possibly without even consulting the electorate about it just to check.

Good plan :rolleyes:

Subotan

04-17-2010, 16:37

PR is a system which gives power to political parties, therefore it is a very bad idea.
I totally agree. If, say, I voted for the Lib Dems and they ended up in a coalition with the Tories I'd be pissed off.

They all think Nick Clegg was the best. I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change, compared to another Labservative administration.
I can't hope but notice a worrying amount of glee that the UK is finally getting some "presidential zing"

- Dismantle our ultimate defence against attack. Remind me what the first priority of the State is again?

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

- Increase an already heavy tax burden, especially for those who work hard to earn more. Not every rich person is a banker and even then many of them work silly long hours for their money, creating a disincentive to try and do well. And no, that doesn't mean poor people don't work hard for their rather meagre pay packet, but there does seem to be an assumption that rich people generally don't and don't deserve their money.
The more money you get, the less marginal utility it is worth. £1,000 isn't really anything to a high flying estate agent, but it obviously is to a hospital porter. This the main justification for progressive taxation, as decreasing taxes for the wealthy does not necessarily result in them producing more wealth for the collective whole.

- Will eventually hand over the keys of the nation to unelected officials in Europe, quite possibly without even consulting the electorate about it just to check.

Good plan :rolleyes:
The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics. I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.

Boohugh

04-17-2010, 17:49

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

Or North Korea or Iran or anyone else who is trying to aquire nuclear weapons and may do so in the future. Just because it doesn't seem a likely threat in the next 10 years, does not mean it won't be in the next 20 or 30 years. If we give up nuclear weapons it will be far far more difficult and expensive if we need them again in the future. As for Clegg's nuclear deterrent lite that he seems to think possible, I believe that just demonstrates he is living somewhat in la la land. A sea-based nuclear deterrent is the most cost-effective option whilst still actually maintaining an effective deterrent, other methods just aren't as reliable or are open to pre-emptive attack, which is why we ended up with a sea-based nuclear deterrent in the first place.

The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics.

Apart from the fact one of Cameron's manifesto pledges is to hold a referendum if any further power is to be handed over to Brussels.

I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.

That very much depends on what you define as "strengthening European institutions". This really boils down to a fundamental question of whether the EU will inexorably continue to integrate into a completely federal institution or if it is possible to stop and not have deeper integration. Personally I feel too much power has already transferred to the EU and that governments (of both parties) should have made a stand earlier and put a block on deeper integration. Unfortunately there are a number of EU nations that do push for ongoing deeper integration and they seem to have prevailed.

The above may seem slightly offtopic but it leads to a very important: the Liberal Democrats do support much deeper integration regardless, whilst the Conservatives and, to a much lesser extent, Labour are willing to at least pause before going headlong into it without really thinking about whether it is really in the national interest to continue.

Tellos Athenaios

04-17-2010, 18:43

The vast majority of Nuclear weapons will be well past sell-by-date after those next 30 years, though.

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 19:43

The vast majority of Nuclear weapons will be well past sell-by-date after those next 30 years, though.

we can only presume that the new UK system, to be acquired in the 2020's in tandem with the most advanced nation in the world, will not be part of that 'vast majority' of obsolescent nukes, eh?

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 19:47

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

The more money you get, the less marginal utility it is worth. £1,000 isn't really anything to a high flying estate agent, but it obviously is to a hospital porter. This the main justification for progressive taxation, as decreasing taxes for the wealthy does not necessarily result in them producing more wealth for the collective whole.

The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics. I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.
it is absolute insurance against conventional warfare being visited on the british isles, cheap insurance at only £2b/year for the next forty years i'd say.

or just tax less based on the principle that consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation is both immoral and an excellent way to retard growth in the coming decades.

a referendum lock combined with the euro train-wreck puts the whip firmly in Camerons hand, he'll do a much better job of keeping britain in the slow-lane of euro-integration than either of the other two parties.

InsaneApache

04-17-2010, 22:04

What great post @ Boohugh 920.

Subotan

04-17-2010, 23:13

Or North Korea or Iran or anyone else who is trying to aquire nuclear weapons and may do so in the future. Just because it doesn't seem a likely threat in the next 10 years, does not mean it won't be in the next 20 or 30 years. If we give up nuclear weapons it will be far far more difficult and expensive if we need them again in the future. As for Clegg's nuclear deterrent lite that he seems to think possible, I believe that just demonstrates he is living somewhat in la la land. A sea-based nuclear deterrent is the most cost-effective option whilst still actually maintaining an effective deterrent, other methods just aren't as reliable or are open to pre-emptive attack, which is why we ended up with a sea-based nuclear deterrent in the first place.
North Korea has neither the technology nor the will to nuke Great Britain, and if Iran was mad enough to actually use the weapons it's trying to get, it would rather have the "Zionist State" burn in flames along with Iran than the "Little Satan". Of course, then there's Russia and China, but an attack from both in the medium term seems very unlikely.

That said, it would be stupid to permanently discard our ability to do our bit into turning the Fallout series a reality. A replacement for Trident should be looked at when we have the resources to fund it.

Apart from the fact one of Cameron's manifesto pledges is to hold a referendum if any further power is to be handed over to Brussels.

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

That very much depends on what you define as "strengthening European institutions". This really boils down to a fundamental question of whether the EU will inexorably continue to integrate into a completely federal institution or if it is possible to stop and not have deeper integration. Personally I feel too much power has already transferred to the EU and that governments (of both parties) should have made a stand earlier and put a block on deeper integration. Unfortunately there are a number of EU nations that do push for ongoing deeper integration and they seem to have prevailed.
I would feel uncomfortable with further integration if certain EU institutions did not undergo radical reform. However, the ability of the EU to undergo that reform is lacking, as it is not strong enough to overcome the objections from single member countries. It's a real catch-22 situation.

For example, I would burn the Strasbourg Parliament to the ground, consolidate the four separate Presidencies of the EU into a single one, draw up a constitution that has a maximum length of 30 pages, make the President directly elected, synchronise national elections with European ones etc. These would all strengthen the European Union, but they would lead to a vast increase in both accountability and efficiency.

Working within the EU system is the only way those goals can be achieved, and regardless of the aims of the Tory Party, they simply cannot affect the debate from their position. It's like the USA refusing to join the League of Nations.

or just tax less based on the principle that consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation is both immoral and an excellent way to retard growth in the coming decades.
A banker being taxed less for his capital gains than a cleaner is for her income is far more immoral than the state spending (Not consuming; that's what the private sector wants the people to do). And progressive taxes don't retard growth, as they encourage consumption by the public.

a referendum lock combined with the euro train-wreck puts the whip firmly in Camerons hand, he'll do a much better job of keeping britain in the slow-lane of euro-integration than either of the other two parties.
A referendum lock can easily be screwed up into a ball and chucked into wastepaper basket of Euroscepticism when a non-Tory government gets into power, thanks to the British uncodified constitution, and the Tory's policy of refusing to codify it. Sure, the likes of Heffer and Hannan would huff and puff and get mighty cross, but then they wouldn't vote for anyone but the Tories anyway, so the point is moot.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-17-2010, 23:49

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

All states formed with violence and extreme bloodshed. This assumes that: A) The formation of the USE is inevitable and B) a Good Idea.

Not convinced on either point. The last time Europe was unified was under the Roman Catholic Church, and that was about as ineffectual and chaotic as the EU. I don't believe the EU can work, ever.

Myrddraal

04-18-2010, 00:11

consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation
:inquisitive: Let's just start by saying that taxation certainly doesn't "consume" wealth, let alone the fact that income is not equivalent to wealth. I explained this in a little more depth relatively recently.

tibilicus

04-18-2010, 00:18

New polls suggest a massive surge in lib dem support. Whether this is a shot term phenomenon based on Thursdays debate or the start of an actual shift of people genuinely wanting to vote liberal democrat remains to be seen but still, looks like this election is about to get interesting.

YouGov’s daily poll tonight has toplines of CON 33%(nc), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 29%(-1). Labour are back into second place, but there isn’t really any significant change from yesterday, it’s just random sample error between the polls and while the parties remain this close we should expect to see some with the Lib Dems last, some with them first.

There is a BPIX poll in tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday which has topline figures of CON 31%(-7), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 32%(+12). That’s the biggest drop for Conservatives so far, and the biggest surge for the Lib Dems – and it puts the Liberal Democrats up in first place. The Lib Dems were in equal first place in a poll back in 2003, but I think you need to go back to around 1982 to find polls with them (or their predecessor parties) consistently in first place (Update – Tom in the comments has flagged up one poll from 1985 that had the Alliance ahead)

Undoubtedly this surge has seriously affected the Conservatives. I expect Tory HQ is panicking right now due to the fact Tory support appears to be evaporating fast. Funny how a couple of months ago Cameron was seen as a PM in waiting and only in the past few weeks jokes and jibes were being made about how the lib dems had never and most likely never will win anything. A two horse race no more perhaps?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-18-2010, 00:30

tibilicus

04-18-2010, 00:55

I doubt it will make a huge difference to the final result in this election, but it may mark a longer term swing id the Lib Dems do well enough to get 80+ seats. That will make them a serious voting block again, especially if the other two parties are weakened.

Agreed.

According to the bbc "swingometer", even a 32% backing for the lib dems would only give them around 100 seats. Still, it makes a hung parliament seem even more certain.

Furunculus

04-18-2010, 02:36

:inquisitive: Let's just start by saying that taxation certainly doesn't "consume" wealth, let alone the fact that income is not equivalent to wealth. I explained this in a little more depth relatively recently.

and i don't accept your explanation. reduce taxation. increase growth. simple as.

Furunculus

04-18-2010, 02:44

That said, it would be stupid to permanently discard our ability to do our bit into turning the Fallout series a reality. A replacement for Trident should be looked at when we have the resources to fund it.

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

I would feel uncomfortable with further integration if certain EU institutions did not undergo radical reform. However, the ability of the EU to undergo that reform is lacking, as it is not strong enough to overcome the objections from single member countries. It's a real catch-22 situation.

Working within the EU system is the only way those goals can be achieved, and regardless of the aims of the Tory Party, they simply cannot affect the debate from their position. It's like the USA refusing to join the League of Nations.

A banker being taxed less for his capital gains than a cleaner is for her income is far more immoral than the state spending (Not consuming; that's what the private sector wants the people to do). And progressive taxes don't retard growth, as they encourage consumption by the public.

A referendum lock can easily be screwed up into a ball and chucked into wastepaper basket of Euroscepticism when a non-Tory government gets into power, thanks to the British uncodified constitution, and the Tory's policy of refusing to codify it. Sure, the likes of Heffer and Hannan would huff and puff and get mighty cross, but then they wouldn't vote for anyone but the Tories anyway, so the point is moot.
you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

eu law having supremacy over UK law might be considered part of the problem, had you considered that?

yes indeed, and why is this catch 22 situation necessary for Britain?

you're wrong, as long as there remain unanimous decisions to be agreed by sovereign nation states there is haggling to be done. and if the eurozone needs something, and we are outside it and yet a veto holder then we hold the whip hand. to argue otherwise is absurd, try it...............?

this isn't an argument about progressive taxation, it is an argument about too much taxation. we want less of it.

and the other parties are offering us what? the point is this is a desirable trait, the public want it, so your point that it is invalid because it might be rescinded is utterly condescending.

Beskar

04-18-2010, 04:29

This assumes that: A) The formation of the USE is inevitable and B) a Good Idea.

Should be both. We should all be united globally and through time, this should ultimately result in being the case.

you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

Trident was considered a waste of money back in Thatchers day. Still hasn't changed from that.

Furunculus

04-18-2010, 09:07

Trident was considered a waste of money back in Thatchers day. Still hasn't changed from that.

Trident is an important part of the reason why Britain still has a UNSC seat, that is the definition of a good thing.

Trident is also a 100% guarantee against having to maintain massive standing armies on the threat of invasion, also the very definition of a good thing.

At £2b/year that is bloody good value for the utility it provides.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAS forced to use a charitable fund to provide body armour for Afghanistan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7601880/SAS-in-body-armour-private-funding-row.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

some truly stellar lib-dem policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7599322/Election-2010-The-truth-behind-Nick-Cleggs-half-baked-policies.html

The truth is that a Liberal Democrat government would:

End Britain's right to opt out of EU regulations governing justice and home affairs;

Campaign to drag Britain into the euro as soon as the economy stabilises;

Commit the UK to an energy policy based entirely on renewable sources – a plan that would turn us into a peasant economy, as we pointed out this week;

Increase air passenger duty enormously;

Demand that anyone living in a house worth £2 million or more hand over one per cent of the value to the state – a "mansion tax" that could easily be extended to more modest properties;

Abandon Britain's independent nuclear deterrent at a time when rogue states are building their own, and delegate responsibility for foreign policy to the EU;

Grant citizenship to illegal immigrants, thus encouraging more people to slip into this country in the hope of a further amnesty.

InsaneApache

04-18-2010, 10:51

The 'call me dave' quotation game.

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

Very funny.

Subotan

04-18-2010, 11:12

you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

At this moment in time, what with the budget deficit and all. Once our financial situation is stabilised, we should get back to rebuilding our military capabilities.

eu law having supremacy over UK law might be considered part of the problem, had you considered that?
I would say a bigger problem is that the biggest British Party in Europe has isolated itself from the legislative process that generates that law. And that doesn't change the fact that Eu Law is supreme to British law, regardless.

yes indeed, and why is this catch 22 situation necessary for Britain?

Well, I was talking about strengthening EU institutions, and further integration as a whole. I would rather have a stronger, more accountable and integrated EU than the one we have at present.

this isn't an argument about progressive taxation, it is an argument about too much taxation. we want less of it..
We do?

and the other parties are offering us what? the point is this is a desirable trait, the public want it, so your point that it is invalid because it might be rescinded is utterly condescending.
I'm just pointing out that it's totally pointless, as the Tories wouldn't agree to any further integration anyway (And would rather pass the buck to an imaginary Poundland where 60 million people all despise the Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats ), and any government which does want further integration can get rid of that lock.

Trident is an important part of the reason why Britain still has a UNSC seat, that is the definition of a good thing.

Trident is also a 100% guarantee against having to maintain massive standing armies on the threat of invasion, also the very definition of a good thing.

At £2b/year that is bloody good value for the utility it provides.

I agree, but now is not the right time to be thinking about a replacement.

some truly stellar lib-dem policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7599322/Election-2010-The-truth-behind-Nick-Cleggs-half-baked-policies.html
Truly stellar! Apart from the last (Which I need a sauce for) and the Trident thing, which I've already discussed.

The 'call me dave' quotation game.

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

Very funny.
I love it! :laugh4:

tibilicus

04-19-2010, 00:28

-Another poll shows that the lib dem surge continues.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2613

Tonight’s YouGov poll shows the Lib Dem boost continuing. The topline figures are CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3), LDEM 33%(+4), so following on from BPIX yesterday we now have YouGov putting the Lib Dems in the lead. The 32% is the lowest the Conservatives have been with YouGov since the election-that-never-was in 2007, 26% is the lowest Labour have been since the Conservative party conference boost last year.
The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, so with the “Lib Dem breakthrough” dominating the media and the election narrative. It’s quite hard to guess what is going to happen next – on one hand the Lib Dems are likely to face a concerted attack from the other parties and hostile newspapers, on the other hand if they stay at this level there will be a snowballing effect of them being seen to be on a roll, the Lib Dem’s normal weaknesses of being seen as a wasted vote will be whittled away, and if the two main parties start focusing their fire upon the Lib Dems it may well backfire by making them seem negative and the Lib Dems as the real challenger.

I'm still unconvinced it will materialise into anything convincing but still, if support remains this high after this Thursdays debate and in to the weekend following that debate, I think the Tory's will have essentially thrown the election.

Boohugh

04-19-2010, 00:30

At this moment in time, what with the budget deficit and all. Once our financial situation is stabilised, we should get back to rebuilding our military capabilities.

However it isn't a case of suddenly splashing out £30 billion or even £100 billion now to replace Trident, depending on who you want to believe about the cost. The cost is spread out over the expected 50 year lifetime of the new system and keep in mind we need to think about the replacement now for it to be ready in 10 years when the Trident system will come to the end of its life. Starting planning for the Trident replacement now does not mean slashing £30 billion off the health or education budget next year to pay for it, as some (*cough* the Lib Dems *cough*) would have you believe. You know all this talk about problems in defence procurement and how much money is wasted? Well that is precisely because many of the planning decisions are taken with a short term outlook. If the politicians would just grow some balls and put in place long term plans early, rather than rush things at the last minute, then projects like this would generally come in on time and on budget.

I would say a bigger problem is that the biggest British Party in Europe has isolated itself from the legislative process that generates that law. And that doesn't change the fact that Eu Law is supreme to British law, regardless.

Right, EU law is British law, that's how the system works. The only difference is where that law is generated (London or Brussels) and even then only a certain type of EU legislation (Regulations) come directly from Brussels and can be considered 'supreme', in that national legislatures aren't able to pass new laws that aren't consistent with the regulation (i.e. try to obscure the direct effect of the regulation), the rest are passed to member states to implement through their own legislative processes.

Well, I was talking about strengthening EU institutions, and further integration as a whole. I would rather have a stronger, more accountable and integrated EU than the one we have at present.

Well this just boils down to a difference of opinion. I, quite frankly, do not want a more integrated EU than the one we have at present. I presume you are also in favour of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland passing all their power back to Westminster? Otherwise I fail to see the logic of decentralisation being a good thing on a national level but a bad thing on a European level.

I agree, but now is not the right time to be thinking about a replacement.

As explained above, now is exactly the time to be thinking about a replacement if we want a reliable, cost-effective system. The longer we delay, the more it will end up costing and the initial costs aren't going to break the bank.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 08:39

Booguth's correct about trident.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

entertaining op-ed on the paradoxical nature of the lib-dems:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7605612/Nick-Clegg-to-win-the-General-Election-Has-someone-put-something-in-the-water-supply.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

and i f anyone is in ANY doubt about how severe the coming reforms NEED to be to stop the UK ending up like albania, read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/7601633/Televised-debate-made-history-but-what-about-the-herd-of-elephants-in-the-room.html

Televised debate made history, but what about the herd of elephants in the room?
First, an apology. If you're not willing to endure an analytical bucket of cold water being poured over your head, stop reading now. But if you care about the UK's economic future, I'd advise you to read on.

By Liam Halligan
Published: 9:44PM BST 17 Apr 2010

Last week's "big debate" was a breakthrough. The leaders of our three main political parties finally agreed to a television discussion. It's crazy, though, that Britain – despite our "vibrant media culture" – took so long to stage such an event. The actual discourse was also stymied by all those rules. An audience that "isn't allowed" to clap when it agrees with what someone has said e_SEnD what kind of public debate is that?

A far bigger failing was that all the leaders - even the Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg – continued to promote woefully inadequate and dishonest fiscal policies.

Labour's March budget laid out plans to "halve the deficit" during the next Parliament - from £163bn to £74bn in 2014/15. Even this final figure is huge - around 7pc of GDP, more than twice the annual average during the decade from 1998/99. The whole strategy is also based on extremely optimistic growth assumptions. When they don't materialize, higher benefit spending and lower revenues will blow Labour's "stability plan" apart.

Yet the other two parties have used the Government's underlying assumptions as the framework for their tax and spending policies - to the extent they exist. The election manifestos of all three parties, also published last week, contained less fiscal detail than any in recent history.

Labour says it will "protect schools, hospitals and the police from spending cuts", while raising national insurance contributions. The Tories won't increase NICs, but will give a £150 annual tax break to married couples. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, will slash tax relief on higher earners' pension savings, while restoring the £10,000 income tax threshold.

The important point is that all parties - even the "honest" Lib Dems - are at least £30bn short when it comes to explaining how they'll "halve the deficit" – even if Labour's growth numbers come true. The unspecified spending cuts and tax rises needed to fill those black holes will swamp party political nuances, whoever wins the election. That's an affront to democracy.

The fiscal denial goes much deeper, though. Even if the deficit is "halved" over the Parliament, the "national debt" – the total stock of debt owed, not just the annual increase – still spirals out of control.

In 1997, the national debt was £350bn. After Gordon Brown's reign of terror at the Treasury, that figure now stands at £776bn. Buried in the 2010 budget documents is an admission our national debt will soon double again to £1,406bn by 2014/15, such is the impact not only of ongoing fiscal profligacy but the financial meltdown caused, and then savagely exploited, by the world's "leading investment banks".

While these are absolutely ghastly numbers, the reality is far worse. If you can stand it, I'd ask you to look at the graph accompanying this article. It shows that if government spending continues at current levels, the UK's national debt explodes from 70pc to more than 500pc of GDP by 2040. Were that to happen, debt interest payments would equal 27pc of GDP, more than half of all tax revenues. This is the reality we face. Yet our politicians still deal in, and present as "austerity measures", deficit reduction plans which barely dent state spending.

These aren't back-of-the-envelope estimates. This graph was published by the Bank of International Settlements – the umbrella body for the world's leading central banks – in a report called "The Future of Public Debt: prospects and implications".

The trajectory of UK public debt is the most terrifying of any leading country on earth with the exception of Japan (which anyway has far more savings than the UK and the world's second biggest haul of foreign exchange reserves).

The reason the UK is in such dire straits going forward, apart from the legacy of Brown and the credit crunch, is our rapidly ageing population. Generations of politicians have refused to acknowledge this, parking massive and ever-increasing pension and other state liabilities off balance sheet – so the official public debt projections we publish and occasionally debate in this country are fictitious.

So great are these hidden liabilities that, even if the UK controls spending along the lines our politicians now propose, and retains such fiscal vigilance for the next 30 years – avoiding bank bail outs and pre-election spending splurges for decades hence - our debt stock still exceeds 350pc of GDP by 2040.

Grasping the nettle and cutting state pension entitlements in a manner the BIS calls "draconian" would require nothing short of a transformation of our political culture. Even doing that wouldn't prevent the UK's national debt from topping 300pc of GDP in 30 years' time.

This column has often issued such fiscal warnings. Now important international bodies are doing the same. The BIS reports predict that so huge are the impending debt numbers, with the UK the most vulnerable of all, that Western governments may ultimately "resort to monetisation". In such an environment, "fighting inflation by tightening monetary policy would not work, as an increase in interest rates would lead to higher interest payments on public debt, leading to even higher debt... and, in the
absence of fiscal tightening, monetary policy may ultimately become impotent to control inflation".

To avoid this disastrous vortex of spiralling debt, money printing and inflation, the UK is in desperate need of political honesty. Yet we live in an age of unparalleled spin.

I respect Vince Cable, the Lib Dems' economic guru who won plaudits last week for daring to say, in the heat of the election battle, that the deficit is the "elephant in the room" of British politics. Of course, the Lib Dems are right – at least those of them who agree with Cable (many don't). Yet, as the excellent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, even the Lib Dem plans "fill in only a small part of the deficit-reduction jigsaw".

And then, of course, outside the room containing Cable's large "deficit elephant", there's a thundering herd of even bigger "national debt elephants" charging in the UK's direction. In fact, this country's entire fiscal house is set to be crushed under the massive grey, wrinkled foot of a rampaging "demography elephant", so large and fierce that it makes Cable's beast look like a poodle.

To repeat: between now and 2040, on conservative assumptions, the UK's national debt will spiral from 100pc to 500pc of GDP, or 300pc if we take measures to rein in state age-related entitlements that go far beyond what is currently proposed.

Why aren't our politicians being forced to address this reality? Why aren't the massed ranks of "strategy men" in the Treasury waving this BIS paper under the noses of our so-called leaders, telling them "we have a very serious problem"? Why aren't other mainstream economics commentators screaming from the rooftops, using their media platforms to jump up and down and shout "WE SIMPLY MUST CHANGE OUR WAYS"?

The tone of my writing may humour you. The edges of your mouth may be showing the beginnings of a smile. That is absolutely not my intention. I warned this column wouldn't be an easy read – and I'll close by withdrawing my earlier apology. If you've stuck with me until this final sentence, I suspect you'll understand why.

InsaneApache

04-19-2010, 09:39

Well I've had a look at lib-dem policies and they are strange. I'm not sure I could vote for a party that wants to do away with the bomb, or one that wants to adopt the euro. This odd mansion tax, very weird. How is Aunt Edna supposed to pay that on her pension? More state control! Oh yes we need much more of that, after all it's worked rather swimmingly these last thirteen years. As for more green policies, do me a favour. Nope I couldn't vote for this bunch of labour-lite, even tactically.

Back to the drawing board.

Subotan

04-19-2010, 10:34

Probably the best reason yet to vote Lib Dem:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/rupert-murdoch) watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg).
Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/politics+media/media) elite.
I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)
I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.
So while we sent a team of five, plus assorted senior staff, to both the Tory and Labour conferences, we sent nobody to the Lib Dems. And while successive News International chiefs have held parties at both those conferences, they have never to my knowledge even attended a Lib Dem conference.
It gets even worse. While it would be wrong to say the Lib Dems were banned from Murdoch's papers (indeed, the Times has a good record in this area), I would say from personal experience that they are often banned – except where the news is critical. They are the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored. But it is worse than that, because it is not just the Murdoch press that is guilty of this. The fact is that much of the print press in this country is entirely partisan and always has been. All proprietors and editors are part of the "great game". The trick is to ally yourself with the winner and win influence or at least the ear of the prime minister.
The consequence of this has been that the middle party has been ignored, simply because it was assumed it would never win power. After all, why court a powerless party?
So, as the pendulum swings from red to blue and back to red, the newspapers, or many of them, swing with it – sometimes ahead of the game and sometimes behind.
Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.
We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle. For he is untainted by it.
Just imagine the scene in many of our national newspaper newsrooms on the morning a Lib-Lab vote has kept the Tories out of office. "Who knows Clegg?" they would say.
There would be a resounding silence.
"Who can put in a call to Gordon?" another would cry.
You would hear a pin drop on the editorial floor.
The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.
I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.
All of us who care about democracy must celebrate this over the coming weeks – even if Cameron wins in the end, at least some fault lines will have been exposed.

If I could vote in the next election, it would probably be Lib Dem, and probably for this.

InsaneApache

04-19-2010, 10:48

I've never quite understood the lefts fetish with Murdoch. Are they really insulting the electorate by saying that Murdoch buys the election? Maybe they hold to the old adage that we should disband the electorate and form a new one.

rory_20_uk

04-19-2010, 11:18

I imagine the Lib Dems are doing rather well if papers have ignored them rather than vilifying them.

And as InsaneApache points out, there are other ways of obtaining news than via Murdoch.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2010, 11:27

Should be both. We should all be united globally and through time, this should ultimately result in being the case.

That's an ideological viewpoint, not a politic opinion. The EU may be doomed, only to be rplaced by the American Empire, or the Chinese New New Kingdom.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 11:45

Louis VI the Fat

04-19-2010, 11:50

Excellent Subotan, and one more reason yet to root for the LibDems!

I've never quite understood the lefts fetish with Murdoch. Are they really insulting the electorate by saying that Murdoch buys the election? It's not a lefty fetish. Murdoch's got an undue influence on UK politics. Remember Murdoch's swing in 1997 that was so instrumental in bringing NuLab to power? :

https://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8224/sunblair3909186.jpg

InsaneApache

04-19-2010, 11:54

So they are insulting the electorates intelligence then. It's all as clear as mud.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 13:17

Excellent Subotan, and one more reason yet to root for the LibDems!

It's not a lefty fetish. Murdoch's got an undue influence on UK politics. Remember Murdoch's swing in 1997 that was so instrumental in bringing NuLab to power? :

https://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8224/sunblair3909186.jpg

given that you have such a low opinion of the electorate, it is a wonder that you support the concept of democracy at all.........?

labours win was inevitable after 16 years of tories, especially when the last term was considered riddled with malpractice scandals.

the british electorate are judged to be adults of sound mind and therefore legal responsibility, if you are willing to write that off so easily then concepts like democracy and trial-by-jury are utterly pointless.

i have a little more faith in the people than that, so no, getting worked up about Murdoch (that nasty republican that he is) is totally stupid.

and watching anti-tories (previously known as lib/lab fan-bois) getting worked up over murdochs advocacy for the tories after his support for labour in 97 is frankly just hilarious!

Louis VI the Fat

04-19-2010, 13:32

Oh, I trust the electorate alright.

I do however mistrust politicians and politicised media. These two are in bed with each other, enjoy an intimate relationship*, and, even more worryingly, the latter have the upper hand, an undue influence on the former. I am not impressed by their excuse that any questioning of this all too intimate relationship amounts to 'mistrusting the electorate'. Masterful spin that, it plays on the pride of the reader.

*For example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-newspapers-phone-hacking):

David Cameron's chief press adviser, Andy Coulson (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/andy-coulson), is not named in any of the suppressed evidence. However, the paperwork shows that during the time when he was editor of the News of the World, and contrary to News Group's earlier denials, editorial staff for whom he was responsible were involved with private investigators who engaged in illegal phone-hacking; and that when Coulson was deputy editor, reporters and executives were commissioning multiple purchases of confidential information, which is illegal unless it is proved to be in the public interest. These purchases were not secret within the News of the World office: they were openly paid for by the accounts department with invoices which itemised illegal acts.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 14:07

*fails to be bothered*

rather more importantly is the liam halligan article above on what the Bank of International Settlements is saying, i.e. unless something DRASTIC as attempted britain will be carrying a public debt of at LEAST 350% of GDP by 2040.

who do you think is going to have the best shot at reducing that figure, and preventing my retirement occuring in azerbaijan mk2?

Subotan

04-19-2010, 14:20

Murdoch's influence over the media and British politics is far more dangerous than that of the EU. The Sun revels in boasting about how it won this election or that, rolling like a pig in the mud of corruption. The impact of Fox News in the USA is terrifying enough to make any sane person think twice about Murdoch's attempts to dismantle the BBC.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 15:13

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 15:53

on the subject of the lib-dems and their blithe refusal to 'see' the fiscal apocalypse the country is facing; here is an ex-lib-dem who has a very good idea of what is needed:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2573/16-04-2010-when-tinkering-is-not-enough
When Tinkering Is Not Enough
It has taken Nick Clegg to get the debate going on the size of the State
Mark Littlewood
It’s become something of a cliché to suggest that politicians are all the same, it doesn’t matter who you vote for and that the real issues that matter to people are ducked or ignored. ‘Don’t vote, it only encourages them,’ the cynics often say.
None of the three main parties have yet to properly address the elephant in the room. And it’s a £170 billion elephant. That’s the approximate size of this year’s budget deficit. On top of an overall debt that is set to accelerate beyond a jaw-dropping figure of £1 trillion.

Such horrific numbers require considerably more surgery in the public sector than is being countenanced by anyone likely to serve in the next British cabinet. Amongst politicians of all stripes there is a growing, albeit often begrudging, acknowledgement that the nation’s finances are in a sorry state, but there is no seizing of an opportunity to fundamentally change the way we do things.
It’s here that liberal free marketeers need to truly find their voice. Because although no party is running on a classical liberal platform in this election, the need to make the intellectual case for less government and more freedom is going to become increasingly important in the months and years to come.

Necessity may – to some extent – become the mother of invention. The prevailing social democratic consensus could soon reach breaking point because of a simple lack of funds. An ever-growing array of government programmes reliant on squeezing still more support from taxpayers - or funded by yet more borrowing - is simply becoming unsustainable.

But proponents of free markets need to show not merely that free markets are necessary, but that they are actually more desirable than the state-run alternatives. It is here – in public relations terms at least – that supporters of markets have sometimes allowed themselves to be boxed in. If arguments between social democrats and classical liberals are couched in terms of the former defending the interests of the poor – or even the ‘average’ family – and the latter defending the vested interests of the rich, then – whatever the merits of the liberal case, the social democrats are likely to prevail.

Free marketeers need to show that the welfare state and a growing public sector sphere are not in the long term interests of the overwhelmingly majority of British citizens.

It is an absurdity, of course, that a third of all households in Britain are reliant on state handouts for more than half of their annual income, but this isn’t merely a heavy tax burden on the middle classes, it entraps the least affluent members of society in a cycle of poverty, generation after generation.

An entirely new economic settlement – and a wholescale review of the functions of the public sector is needed.

With less than three weeks to go until polling day, the LibDems’ Nick Clegg has – according to the polls and media narrative – banked a substantial win in the first of three televised debates between the party leaders. He is widely seen as having scored a public relations coup, in part by insisting on honesty and a new approach to politics.

But the Liberal Democrats’ proposals remain extremely limited. The scale of cuts recommended by Nick Clegg amount to a microscopic proportion of the overall public sector spend – and the LibDems would only countenance any measurable reductions in public spending in the next financial year. Even then, they amount to only ₤15bn per annum – and two thirds of this would be recycled into alternative public sector projects.

In the very same television debate, David Cameron attempted to make a virtue of the modesty of Conservative proposals to trim spending. Although the Tories support cutting spending now, Mr Cameron was determined to emphasise that he was only seeking to save a penny in every pound, that such reductions were easy to achieve and could be implemented without any serious pain.

The Labour Party, of course, continues to insist that any reductions in public spending amount to taking money ‘out of the economy’ (as if the private sector – which funds government programmes - doesn’t really count as part of the economy at all).

What Nick Clegg may well have established is that there is a growing appetite amongst the electorate for straight-talking and that under-promising may be more attractive to voters than over-promising. But his party – along with Labour and the Tories - are yet to contemplate the sort of reductions in government activity that the country really needs.

To a very considerable extent, they are looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. Each of the parties is considering present expenditure and looking at where it can be trimmed or where those elusive ‘efficiency savings’ can be made.
But the problem isn’t just that their proposals for cutbacks are so limited, it’s that the size of government has spiraled completely out of control. Public spending has doubled in nominal terms since Labour came to power in 1997. And, while it is true that if you throw enough money at something you are bound to sometimes make some improvements, no one in their right mind suggests that the qualitative output of the public sector has improved in line with the resources placed at its disposal.

Rather than working through every government department, working out how we might save ₤1bn here or ₤2bn there, we should start with a completely blank sheet of paper. We should think through – from first principles - what we want the public sector to do, and how much it should cost. Given that no sensible person would start from here in making those assessments, it makes sense to start all over again.

Let’s not trim, or even slash, a list of specific government programmes. Let’s raze the whole edifice to the ground and start from scratch.

If we did so then it’s hard to imagine that we would countenance a public sector that consumed much more than 30% of GDP.
Tragically, instead of this approach, we face a choice of parties who essentially seem to disagree on whether the proportion of national income spent by the state should be 49%, 50% or 51%. That does not provide much ground for optimism - whichever shade of social democracy ultimately triumphs at the polling stations on May 6th.

Mark Littlewood is Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). He was head of media for the Liberal Democrats from 2004 to 2007.

Myrddraal

04-19-2010, 18:01

Churchill would disagree with you Furunculus, and I'm inclined in this case to agree with Churchill.

The combined power of the press is enormous, but it is negated by it's disunity. Monopoly of ownership of the press is quite a scary idea, hence why we are appalled by the idea of state media.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 18:19

the answer is simple then; if we are really only children then we should be governed as children, by benign parents who will make our choices for us.

i'm glad that was cleared up.

Beskar

04-19-2010, 19:39

Curious argument Furunculus making.

Shame the world isn't full of Beskar. Now that would bring some great nations.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 19:56

why a curious argument?

my views on the proper form of british politics are adequately described by charalmage the arch-euro-federalist here, oddly enough:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/04/european_lessons_britains_party_leaders
Nick Clegg, the Francois Bayrou of British politics?

* Apr 16th 2010, 9:32 by Charlemagne

A MERE decade or five after the rest of the world, Britain last night held its first live television debate between the three leaders of the main political parties. British politicians not being known for bashfulness, it is no great mystery why debates had not happened before. Every time televised debates were proposed, one or more of the party leaders felt they had more to lose than to gain from appearing on an equal footing with their rivals, and said no. BBC Radio 4 held a fascinating panel discussion before last night's debate, at which former Downing Street insiders recalled that James Callaghan (then sliding from power as an embattled Labour prime minister) had been willing to hold a debate before the 1979 election, but his feisty opponent, Margaret Thatcher, said no. In 2001, a (still all-powerful) Tony Blair scorned the idea of a debate with his Tory rival, William Hague, let alone the amiable but doomed Liberal Democrat leader of the day, Charles Kennedy.

This time, with the polls pointing towards the closest of votes, in which the Liberal Democrats could hold the balance of power, the current Lib Dem leader was not just welcomed to a three-way debate, but wooed on air by Gordon Brown with a sort of dour yet cooing flirtatiousness that was quite something to witness.

As noted here before, Nick Clegg is a bit of a Brussels local hero, having worked for the European Commission before serving one term as a member of the European Parliament. It also helps that he is multi-lingual, comes from a multi-national background and his party is as pro-EU as it gets in British politics.

So across town, there will be broad beams today at the conventional wisdom jumping out of the British newspaper headlines, namely that Nick Clegg was the winner of the debate, romping home in instant polls, and discomforting the Tories greatly. At last, my fellow Bruxellois may have thought, as they sipped their morning espresso, Britain is becoming a more normal country, in which coalition government replaces the ghastly, winner-takes-all certainties of two party politics.

Hmm. I wonder. Any idea that Britain is about to become like Belgium or Germany, ie, countries where consensus and compromise are prized, seems premature to me. As if on cue, an email dropped into my inbox from Denis Macshane, a Labour member of parliament, former Europe minister and—most importantly—one of the few Labour politicians with a genuine enthusiasm for European politics (he speaks languages, shock horror, and goes skiing with foreign politicians etc). Mr Macshane is not exactly an objective observer of British politics: he was in the Manchester spin room briefing foreign reporters for Labour. But he is a shrewd sort.

This is his take, written in condensed memo style. It is partisan, but it is thought-provoking:

On UK punditocracy we always look to America. But surely we are seeing the slow continentalisation of UK politics with the old bipolar Tory-Labour divide replaced by a two and half party system with national identity parties (SNP, UKIP, BNP) also having a big place - think Catalonia, Bossi's Northern League, FN in France, Wilders in Netherlands. Clegg is having the same kind of impact as a Bayrou in France, Rutelli in Italy, maybe a Lafontaine in Germany: compelling communicators who seem apart from the bipolar parties.

But English politics over centuries has remained stubbornly tribal and I am not sure that one good Clegg showing will abolish history. It was the Lib-Dem's Diana moment and good luck to them. But there is a long way to go.

The idea of Nick Clegg as the François Bayrou of British politics is an elegantly low blow. I interviewed M Bayrou in March 2007 before the last French presidential elections, when he rose in the polls to 19%, within hailing distance of the Socialist challenger, Ségolène Royal (who was on 25.5%), though further behind Nicolas Sarkozy (then on 29%). Mr Bayrou's big plan was to overtake Ms Royal in the first round of presidential voting, and then find himself one on one against Mr Sarkozy, when he would offer the French people coalition uniting the left and right. He described the French as deeply distrustful, in search of “guarantees” that reforms are “fair”. Coalition rule offers just such a guarantee, he argues. “If you do not have a broad-based government, citizens will think reforms are being pushed for reasons of ideology.” It was, if you like, an attempt to pull off the same trick as Jean-Marie Le Pen (who overtook the main Socialist candidate in 2002 to squeeze into the second round against Jacques Chirac) but from the nice rather than the nasty side of politics.

In the event, Mr Bayrou never closed the gap, as that March poll was pretty accurately reproduced in the first round of voting in 2007 (Sarkozy 31%, Royal 26%, Bayrou 19%). Since then, his centrist MoDem movement has all but faded totally from view.

Now, I am not saying that Mr Clegg stands no chance of being in a coalition government after the next election. From the distance of Brussels, neither of the main political parties looks especially inspiring: neither Mr Brown nor Mr Cameron were willing to have a grown-up discussion last night about the horrible state of Britain's public finances, instead holding a piffling proxy-argument about £6 billion of spending and/or tax cuts (when the annual budget deficit is forecast to reach £167 billion this year).

It is a thought about the nature of coalition rule and how it is seen in some parts of Europe: as somehow enjoying more moral legitimacy and fairness than majority rule. I am not sure that is where British voters are, yet. There is a long tradition in Britain of kicking the current lot out, and giving the other lot in the opposition a chance to show what they can do. I suspect, again from my distance, that we are watching an electorate minded to kick the current lot out, but not yet sure they trust the other lot to take charge.

so no, i have no time for consensus and compromise, what i like are decisive victories that give a party a mandate for change, and the power to enact it, and if they make a hash of things then kick the buggers out next time.

this is why i like FPTP.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 00:06

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 13:43

the answer is simple then; if we are really only children then we should be governed as children, by benign parents who will make our choices for us.

i'm glad that was cleared up.
(emphasis mine)

I tend to believe that we don't have democracy to stop benevolant dictators (such as the great TosaInu, all hail!), but rather to stop the less benevolant ones. We certainly don't get to make the actual decisions of government ourselves, we just pick someone who will, and hope that they will indeed be benign parents who will make our choices for us.

InsaneApache

04-20-2010, 13:54

What a weird concept. I always thought that we elected our politicians to run the country for us because we have better things to do. Still if your happy to be patted on your head and told that nanny knows best, I'm pleased for you. Incredible.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 13:56

What's the difference beyond semantics? Do you hope that the government will not be benevolent? Do you hope that they won't make decisions for us? Or was it just because Furunculus used the word "parent" that you object?

Banquo's Ghost

04-20-2010, 15:00

Furunculus

04-20-2010, 15:09

i have been aware of this, and my opinion obviously is that it would be a disaster for Britain.

Tellos Athenaios

04-20-2010, 15:28

One of the fascinating possibilities that is emerging along with the Liberal Democrats' poll ratings is the constitutional impact. If the Lib Dem party delivers a high twenties share of the vote, this is likely to end up with a Labour-Liberal government where the LD holds quite a lot of moral power. It would be almost impossible for such a government to resist their core demand of a change in the voting system to one of proportional representation. If that happens (and it is increasingly likely, it seems) then there will never again be a Conservative government unless there is a seismic shift in voting trends.

Whatever one's feelings about the Tories, having an opposition with no realistic chance of government (not because of policy, but because of voting system) is a fundamentally bad thing. Yet the UK is probably weeks away from such an outcome.

Food for thought.

This suggests that previous conservative governments did not rule through the ballot box, but through the red tape of elections? (Outdated distribution of seats in parliament per region.)

At any rate the suggestion that Tories cannot enter government if the voting system changes is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that coalitions with Tories are impossible. Why, after you assert the possibility of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in order to make that election change? Are the Tories a party unable to pass exams on politics 101? If that is truly the case (which I very much doubt), it would seem clear that Britain can only benefit from such a change then.

Furunculus

04-20-2010, 15:51

at the moment it is the reverse, the lower concentration of voters in labour strongholds means that a smaller proportion of the electorate can vote labour than conservative, and yet return more MP's to parliament thus winning the election.

the lib-dems have said they would not form a coalition with a minority government, as they would respect the mandate of the people, however they have not said whether that mandate would be determined by votes or seats (see above).

in my opinion a lab-con coalition would still be a stupid result, for the following two reasons:
1) the price would be PR, a terrible continental invention IMO.
2) it would be almost impossible for the tories to start the reforms that would prevent the national debt reaching 400% of GDP by 2040, and they are the only ones who would even attempt such a thing.

Banquo's Ghost

04-20-2010, 16:00

This suggests that previous conservative governments did not rule through the ballot box, but through the red tape of elections? (Outdated distribution of seats in parliament per region.)

With the British system, huge majorities can be commanded with just over 40% of the popular vote. I think it was before the war that any government in the UK had over 50% of the vote.

At any rate the suggestion that Tories cannot enter government if the voting system changes is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that coalitions with Tories are impossible. Why, after you assert the possibility of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in order to make that election change? Are the Tories a party unable to pass exams on politics 101? If that is truly the case (which I very much doubt), it would seem clear that Britain can only benefit from such a change then.

It has always been highly unlikely that the Liberal Democrats (a left of centre party) would ever find common cause for a coalition with the Conservatives, especially since one of their other core commitments is being very pro-European. The Liberals don't sit easily with the Labour party, but they have common objectives in many areas. In the modern era, these three parties have held 90-95% of the popular vote between them. Only in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are there parties with any parliamentary representation outside these three. Both the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru are socialist and very unlikely to enter a coalition with the Tories. Only the DUP in Ulster would consider it, and with their 8-10 MPs at best, the Tories would have had to take an unprecedented 48% share of the seats to have such a coalition work.

All governments in Britain are minority governments under most PR systems. The left splits between various flavours of party, but traditionally gets around 55-60% of the vote, whereas the only serious right of centre party is the Conservatives, which often polls the highest for a single party (which gets it into government under the existing system) with around 40% of the vote, but this would not be enough in a future PR approach to form a government.

One might say that is a good thing since the voters of the UK are consistently left of centre, but it would atrophy the opposition of ideas and that is bad for democracy - as anyone who watched the super-majorities of Mrs Thatcher or Tony Blair could attest.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 16:10

Would they dare change the electoral system without referendum? This isn't rhetorical, I'm curious.

Boohugh

04-20-2010, 16:41

That's what I'm thinking Myrddraal, I can't see a coalition government truely believing they had a strong enough mandate to change the whole electoral system without holding a referendum on the issue, especially when one of those parties (Labour) isn't exactly keen on the idea. There is a difference between making minor constitutional changes (and even changes to the Lords) without asking the electorate about it directly compared with changing the entire electoral system that has worked more or less for the last 170 years. I firmly believe the latter is stepping way over a government's authority without holding a referendum on the issue unless they clearly stated it as a main aim in their manifesto when getting elected (which only the Lib Dems have done).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 16:50

Would they dare change the electoral system without referendum? This isn't rhetorical, I'm curious.

I don't see why not.

RE: Coalitions, anything is possible. There have been Lab-Con coalitions in the past, they have lasted a single term.

A hung Parliament is most likely to result in a minority government though, because of the way all politicians conduct themselves at the moment.

Beskar

04-20-2010, 17:46

One of the fascinating possibilities that is emerging along with the Liberal Democrats' poll ratings is the constitutional impact. If the Lib Dem party delivers a high twenties share of the vote, this is likely to end up with a Labour-Liberal government where the LD holds quite a lot of moral power. It would be almost impossible for such a government to resist their core demand of a change in the voting system to one of proportional representation. If that happens (and it is increasingly likely, it seems) then there will never again be a Conservative government unless there is a seismic shift in voting trends.

Whatever one's feelings about the Tories, having an opposition with no realistic chance of government (not because of policy, but because of voting system) is a fundamentally bad thing. Yet the UK is probably weeks away from such an outcome.

Food for thought.

PR is a fundamentally bad system though. It is about electing parties and not people.
(This is inregards to elections which revolve around picking a party, and if a party gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the Seats and the Party decides who goes into those seats.)

There should be a bunch of democratic reforms, however, making parties stronger is a bad idea. Introducing things like "Single-Transferable Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote)" (STV), "Re-Open Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above#Re-open_Nominations_.28RON.29)" (RON), re-laying the boundaries based on population for Members of Parliament (removes rotten boroughs), allowing multiple candidates ascribing to the same party to stand, Regional Governance, Electable Mayors. (shouldn't be just London that elects their Mayors), the reformation of the House of Lords, perhaps even rename it to "Senate" and redefining its purpose. Could even do an electable Cabinet based on purson for the job.

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2010, 18:20

PR is a fundamentally bad system though. It is about electing parties and not people.
(This is inregards to elections which revolve around picking a party, and if a party gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the Seats and the Party decides who goes into those seats.)

PR is used in the Republic and it is not about electing parties and giving them seats It does however elect people who happen to be members of parties the same would be true in UK

Incidently Ireland is one of the longest stable democratic countries in Europe apart from UK.

Beskar

04-20-2010, 18:35

PR is used in the Republic and it is not about electing parties and giving them seats It does however elect people who happen to be members of parties the same would be true in UK

Depends on the PR system. The one I illustrated is the most popular form which some one says "PR" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation). What you are describing sounds like a hybrid between FPTP and PR. Need more information on it to comment, wikipedia is bare in that area.

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2010, 18:39

Depends on the PR system. The one I illustrated is the most popular form which some one says "PR" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation). What you are describing sounds like a hybrid between FPTP and PR. Need more information on it to comment, wikipedia is bare in that area.

I believe Single Transferable Vote is the technical term.

It make's for great theatre in elections too which is nice if your a political junkie

Beskar

04-20-2010, 18:44

I believe Single Transferable Vote is the technical term

Which if you read after that comment you quoted, is what I suggested we should adopt in the UK. :beam:

I make a distinction between PR (Party-List) and STV. Sorry if that confused you. The Party-list setup basically means you do not get to choose who gets in government, it is just some one "from that party/group".

As quoted from the first-line of STV in wikipedia:

The single transferable vote (STV) is a preferential voting system designed to minimize "wasted" votes, provide proportional representation, and ensure that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.

The bold bit is the distinction.

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2010, 18:51

Which if you read after that comment you quoted, is what I suggested we should adopt in the UK. :beam:

I make a distinction between PR (Party-List) and STV. Sorry if that confused you. The Party-list setup basically means you do not get to choose who gets in government, it is just some one "from that party/group".

As quoted from the first-line of STV in wikipedia:

The bold bit is the distinction.

Whoops my fault :embarassed:

Banquo's Ghost

04-20-2010, 19:48

Would they dare change the electoral system without referendum? This isn't rhetorical, I'm curious.

Constitutionally speaking, there is no need for a referendum. The United Kingdom has long worked on the basis that Parliament is sovereign, and does not need to refer questions to the electorate in referenda. There is some precedent for such referrals in the case of assigning sovereignty to the European Union, but not internally.

The Labour party has promised a referendum in their manifesto and the Liberal Democrats are explicitly committed to electoral reform in theirs. One could easily make a case that there was a mandate for reform - and in the current climate of distaste for politics, a referendum may well succeed anyway. Especially if the LibDems come second in this election (remotely possible given the polls) but only get 80 seats to third placed Labour's 300 + return for less votes.

Subotan

04-20-2010, 21:16

I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum - Clement Atlee

Well said Clem :bow:

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 23:14

From what I've read, there's a lot to be said for the single transferable vote system

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2010, 05:34

I'm the only person at my school who knows that the UK is having an election. (Well, maybe actually 1 of 6 people in my school).

CountArach

04-21-2010, 08:06

Current polling data shows the Lib Dems surging, though their current support seems to be plateauing around the low-30s mark, putting them slightly ahead of Labour in most polls. The Conservatives are at about this same point as well. As such if you see polls with the headline SHOCK: LIB DEMS IN THE LEAD, or TORIES TAKE LEAD BACK, don't read anything at all into it. With all 3 parties polling this close to each other there are going to be several polls that will show each of the three ahead at one point or the other (Yes, even Labour, given that most of the recent Lib Dem support has come from the Tories, and there is no reason to assume this will stop). For example the recent ComRes (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2621?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PollingReport+%28UK+Polling+Report%29) poll with a 9 point Tory lead, putting them much further ahead of the other two than the other polling companies.

Also the Lib Dem surge is likely to not really amount to as much as they are hoping for (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/is-lib-dem-surge-for-real-part-2-target.html) due to the nature of tactical voting that already goes on. It will be interesting to see how Labour voters in 3-way contests vote.

Beskar

04-21-2010, 08:10

The tactical vote is annoying, as it is basically all "We are going to vote Labour instead of Lib Dem, because we don't want those slimey Tories in power" and people calling a vote for Lib dem a "Wasted Vote."

Also, why STV would be a big improvement over the current system, Liberal Democrats will get a lot more firsts.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2010, 08:22

Reading this thread about "tactical" voting makes me sad. I wish I had a strong third party to at least give me the opportunity to make my vote "tactical".

Furunculus

04-21-2010, 08:35

I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum - Clement Atlee

Well said Clem :bow:

agreed with atlee, the only time i demand to be consulted is when the government proposes to give its authority to govern away to a third party. i elect a british government to govern the british people, not to let some unconnected foriegners rule me from afar.

other than that, i expect the elected government to get on with it, you don't give a man a spade and then teach him how to dig.

Beskar

04-21-2010, 09:05

other than that, i expect the elected government to get on with it, you don't give a man a spade and then teach him how to dig.

It's like the reverse of the Oxfam message.

Furunculus

04-21-2010, 09:21

It's like the reverse of the Oxfam message.

obscure phrase related to me by an ex-boss, basically means; that if you give someone a job to do then you leave them to get on with it, because to do otherwise implies that you don't trust them to do the job, in which case why did you give them the job in the first place.

Subotan

04-21-2010, 13:43

I'm the only person at my school who knows that the UK is having an election. (Well, maybe actually 1 of 6 people in my school).
You should run a mock campaign!

agreed with atlee, the only time i demand to be consulted is when the government proposes to give its authority to govern away to a third party. i elect a british government to govern the british people, not to let some unconnected foriegners rule me from afar.

other than that, i expect the elected government to get on with it, you don't give a man a spade and then teach him how to dig.
Does that include UN Resolutions?

The only time I'd agree would be on a local scale for certain aspects of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland.

Idaho

04-21-2010, 13:53

What we need in this country is a more proportional system that fits with the current model.

My suggestion would be for 6 member constituencies. We all get one vote, and can vote for anyone standing in our large super constituency. There is no limit on how many candidates any party can field - but they would obviously be daft to field more than 6 (water down their own vote) and may in fact field just one more than they expect to win (so a constituency that had 6 seats and was previously 2, 2 and 2 for each party, may well see each party field 3 or 4 - 2 high profile candidates, and 2 lesser ones).

The multi-seat constituency would also give a chance to local campaigners, independents and other parties - but wouldn't give parties as much control on the outcome as the party list system (which I think is awful) and wouldn't be as confusing and remote as STV.

Furunculus

04-21-2010, 14:07

Does that include UN Resolutions?

The only time I'd agree would be on a local scale for certain aspects of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland.

[/INDENT]
no, why would it.

Furunculus

04-21-2010, 14:09

CountArach

04-21-2010, 15:48

An interesting system is New Zealand's Mixed-Member Proportional (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/11/nz-election-how.html), which is a combined proportional and FPTP system. Though I would rather FPTP be replaced by an optional form of STV, it still seems to really work.

Boohugh

04-21-2010, 15:56

If we're talking about electoral reform, for my part I'd be happy with us just starting out by stopping Scottish MP's voting on issues that only affect England and (sometimes) Wales, i.e. education, health, etc. I'm happy for them to keep MP's from Scotland in Parliament as their funding is, afterall, assigned in Whitehall, along with issues such as defence and security, and so they need representation, but it really pushes my button that they can vote on issues that just don't affect their constituents (the top-up fees vote comes to mind, as it only passed thanks to the support of Scottish MP's whose constituents all get free Uni education anyway!).

The fact that would cripple Labour as Scotland has a disproportionate amount of MP's compared to the population is just a rather happy side effect! :laugh:

Furunculus

04-22-2010, 08:18

Nick Clegg says British past is more insidious than even Nazi Germanys, that should play out well in the marginals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616685/Nick-Clegg-Britain-bears-cross-bigger-than-Germanys-Nazi-past.html

What a stupid, stupid comment!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

and my third article (the first two as yet uncommented upon) on the true scale of the economic misery that the uK faces long term:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/7615783/General-Election-2010-What-the-would-be-chancellors-havent-said.html

General Election 2010: What the would-be chancellors haven’t said
You can’t have a prosperous economy in which an overindebted government is twinned with an overindebted private sector, argues Edmund Conway.

By Edmund Conway
Published: 6:39PM BST 21 Apr 2010

Alamy Piggy Bank
Let's face it: Britain has run out of money Photo: Alamy

You know the quality of British economic discourse has hit a new low when the most interesting thing to come out of a television debate between prospective Chancellors is George Osborne's new hairstyle. But sure enough, it was the Shadow Chancellor's Brylcreemed barnet that demanded the most attention when the prospective finance ministers took each other on in the BBC studios yesterday.

Actually, that's unfair: the comprehensive demolition of St Vince Cable at the hands of his rivals was similarly diverting. But accusing the Lib Dems of having a flaky economic manifesto is a bit rich, when it comes from Osborne and Alistair Darling. In terms of economics, this has been a shamefully vacuous election. One where unemployment figures showing that the labour market is flat become evidence either of grand government failure or that Labour's jobs strategy is working, depending on whom you listened to. Where Darling is rolled out to claim that all the major economic experts – the Item Club and OECD included – back his plans, when they do nothing of the sort. And where, yesterday, the carnival reached a new pitch of preposterousness as Ken Clarke claimed that a hung parliament would guarantee an International Monetary Fund bail-out of Britain's economy.

Amusing as the farce is, it ignores a far more important issue. Although more attention was given over this week to its plan for two new taxes to be levied on the banking system, the IMF has spent more of this week quietly and methodically laying out the state of the world economy. And, for Britain at least, the omens are not good.

As we all know, one of the main reasons Britain suffered so sharp a recession was because it was dangerously overburdened with debt. Everyone – households, banks, businesses and the state – borrowed too much over the past decade or so, meaning that when the recession arrived, none of these sectors was able to take the strain and support the wider economy. The same happened elsewhere, but the problem, according to the IMF, is that Britain's debt hangover is vastly greater than any other major economy.

The figures are simple enough. Add together the combined debts of businesses and households and the figure is somewhere north of two times gross domestic product. This is pretty much the highest in any developed nation. The fact that much of this debt is set against assets might seem reassuring until you realise that most of those assets are houses, which are as liable to fall in price as to rise in the coming years.

In fact, according to Jamie Dannhauser of Lombard Street Research, although the past quarter-century saw a "long upward march in house prices", the factors propelling property – easy mortgage availability, low inflation and interest rates – are no longer around. In other words, the next decade may well bring with it a steady decline in real (inflation-adjusted) house prices.

But the IMF's more worrying point – one that will impinge far more on the next Government's first term than anything you might hear the politicians discuss – concerns the way that debt will continue to cast a dark shadow over the economy. The chances are that you haven't heard of a "financing gap" before. I hadn't until the IMF pointed out that Britain has the biggest one in the world, both this year and next.

The gap is the difference between what people need to borrow and what they actually can lay their hands on. This year, the IMF says, that debt overhang and the impact of the financial crisis mean that British banks and investors will only be willing to lend around £50 billion. This comes nowhere near to fulfilling the demand for borrowing – some £200 billion. Since neither the borrower or the lender can get what they want (and cross-border lending has collapsed in the wake of the financial crisis), the only solution is that, in the IMF's words, "either borrowing needs to be scaled back to equalise the lower supply, or… market interest rates will need to rise."

Now, when I tell you that the person responsible for that £200 billion of borrowing this year is none other than Gordon Brown, you might start to understand the problem. The British economy – both government and private sector – only has a limited capacity to lend money. It has reached that maximum, and yet the Government is still trying to borrow more. The upshot is that either the private sector must be prevented from borrowing so the money can be channelled towards the Government, or the Government will have to seek out overseas investors, and offer them a higher interest rate in exchange.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying: there is no money left. You can't have a prosperous economy in which an overindebted government is twinned with an overindebted private sector. While the US, which has no such problem, is already starting to boom again, Britain simply does not have the capacity for anything other than a tepid slouch back towards growth. Yesterday, in recognition of this debt hangover, the IMF cut its forecast for UK economic growth next year. Beneath their bravado, the three would-be Chancellors are squabbling over a thoroughly toxic legacy.

that is the BIS and the IMF one after the other, we need cuts and massive reform of the pension system, and they need to be brutal!

Subotan

04-22-2010, 09:13

This is the actual article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/19/eu.germany

I still cringe when I remember what happened on the school bus. The shame of it still lingers.
We were all travelling together - a class of 17-year-olds from my school and our German "exchange" partners - on an excursion to the Bavarian mountains. The German teenagers had already endured a month at our school in central London. Now it was our turn to spend a month in Munich, living with our "exchange" families and attending the local school.
A boy called Adrian started it. He shouted from the back of the coach, "we own your country, we won the war". Other boys tittered. One put a finger to his upper lip - the traditional British schoolyard designation for Hitler's moustache - threw his arm out in a Nazi salute, and goose-stepped down the bus aisle. Soon there was a cascade of sneering jokes, most delivered in 'Allo 'Allo German accents.
I remember two things vividly. First, none of the girls in my class joined in. It seemed to be a male thing. Second, the German schoolchildren did not appear angry, or even offended. That was what was so heart wrenching. They just looked confused, utterly bewildered. To a generation of young Germans, raised under the crushing, introspective guilt of postwar Germany, the sight of such facile antics was simply incomprehensible.
I looked nervously to Bernhard, my German exchange partner sitting next to me in the bus. I could see he wanted to turn and face the commotion. Instead, he sat rigid, staring silently ahead. The next day, as we were walking to school, I lamely apologised to him for what had happened. I was miserable that I had not had the courage to protest in the bus on his behalf. Such is the power of teenage peer pressure. He stopped, and explained. He said he felt he had no right to react himself. It was part of the shame he was obliged to bear on behalf of his parents and grand parents. Such is the power of collective guilt.
All this came to mind last week when I read of the plight of Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki, two Germans employed at Motorola's international call centre in Swindon. They were so upset by the barrage of anti German jokes from their British colleagues - "they used to call us :daisy:Germans and sing songs about Hitler", said Mr Sawartzki - that they were forced to leave their jobs. But at least they didn't take it lying down. They have decided to take their employers to an industrial tribunal. Good on them.
It is easy enough to explain the mixture of arrogance and insecurity that fuels this peculiar British obsession. Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche. John Cleese struck a chord in the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans, in which a concussed Basil Fawlty bombards his earnest German guests with a volley of jokes about the war.
But humour on telly is one thing. Hounding Germans out of work half a century after the last war is altogether different.
Even worse, a warped view of Germany also seems to prevail in Britain's top boardrooms. In an oafish article published last week in the Financial Times, Martin Taylor, the chairman of WH Smith, declared that Germany, in cahoots with France, remains one of our principal rivals. He dismisses the idea that Germany is a partner, "a weasel word", and concludes - as if he were Jeremy Clarkson - "France is for holidays, Germany is for cars". His view of the EU is that of a schoolboy's military board game. I'm surprised he didn't suggest that we should settle it all in a game of conkers.
The latest twist to this anti-German mania is a gloating satisfaction at Germany's recent economic woes. With tedious predictability, one British pundit after another occupies acres of newspaper space to tell us that the German economy is a busted flush, that only a vigorous dose of Anglo Saxon reforms will do the trick, that German economic weakness spells the end of the euro. And so on. Even New Labour ministers, Gordon Brown in particular, crow about comparative British economic success with more than a hint of condescension towards Germany and the rest of the EU.
They all blithely overlook that Germany's wealth per head remains a full 6% higher than in the UK. That German workers are 29% more productive than their British counterparts. That German trade with other EU countries has shot up in recent years, while Britain's trade with the euro zone stagnates. That Germany has engineered one of the world's most ambitious economic transformations in the former East Germany. Not even the most blinkered British visitor to Germany's prosperous towns and cities, to its schools, hospitals and its transport system, could pretend that our quality of life is comparable to German standards. All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. I wish Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki well. We need to be put back in our place.

I agree completely.

Furunculus

04-22-2010, 09:30

you might, i don't, and i don't think it will play too well with floating voters either.

tibilicus

04-22-2010, 10:31

Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worrying and feel that Dave needs saving.

InsaneApache

04-22-2010, 11:34

Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder. :fishing:

Isn't the biggest myth of this election your reputation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grwkqnc1U&feature=player_embedded)

Subotan

04-22-2010, 11:47

you might, i don't, and i don't think it will play too well with floating voters either.
Germany has been racked by guilt for the Second World War for several generations, and it's always going to be a stain on Germany's history. Yet Germany has moved on. Business links with Russia, America, France, America etc. are all extremely strong. Britain is no longer the "Perfidious Albion" of pre-1945 German media, but recognised as an equal partner on the world stage.

And yet, a juvenile, ignorant and totally repulsive attitude exists in Britain of a feeling of superiority over Germany and Germans as a whole. Despite the fact that there is hardly anyone alive who actually fought against Fascism, apparently every British citizen alive today was a contributor to "winning the war", as if it finished last week. I don't need to give any examples because it such a common phenomenon in British society. The numerous contributions that Germany has made to science, the arts, engineering and pre-1914/post-1945 history go totally ignored. It is insulting to Germany and the German people, and Clegg was entirely in the right to speak out against this rot that infests Britain.

Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worry and feel that Dave needs saving.
It can only be a good sign :beam:

Louis VI the Fat

04-22-2010, 12:13

Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worry and feel that Dave needs saving.:yes:

The Murdoch papers are not about providing news. They are about political campaigning.

At first, the Murdoch press was quite content to simply ignore the LibDems as a strategy. Then Clegg won the debate, the Cons got worried, and presto, the Murdoch press changes strategy in perfect unison with the Cons. With reporting, with press, this has got nothing to do. Activist rags they are.

Also, 'Britain's cross' is not Britain's past. It is not the history of Britain that is compared with the history of Germany. It is the dealing with history that is compared. Germany's cross to wear is simply guilt, that of Britain is more insiduous still, namely misplaced superiority, sometimes resulting in outright insulting behaviour.

Subotan

04-22-2010, 12:21

Cor blimey, I do believe I have found an article by David Cameron criticising the British constitution! It's a scandal, a scandal!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jun/23/davidcameron.politicalcolumnists

Never mind the European constitution, what about the British one? Evidence of the wretched state of our own arrangements is all around us.
The House of Commons is quite useless at scrutinising legislation and amending it accordingly.
My experience on one "standing committee", covering the criminal justice bill, was enough to convince me of this. Whole clauses were not even debated because time was too short. Changes of huge significance, such as storing DNA from anyone who is taken to a police station, were introduced at the last minute and discussed for less than an hour.
Down the corridor in the House of Lords the government may face a more challenging time, but as the upper house is now almost entirely made up of appointed peers it lacks genuine legitimacy.
The Conservative party is always in danger of letting its reverence for our institutions translate into a dignified silence about constitutional reform. It is time we spoke out.
Don't get me wrong. Two years into this job I have not lost faith with the British way of doing things. Much of its job, parliament does very well. Our one-member, one-constituency system ensures excellent representation for every part of the country. The Commons is a great place for raising concerns, questioning ministers, discovering information and debating important issues.
But there is a lot that is seriously wrong. The failure to scrutinise laws. The power of the whips and patronage. The illegitimate second chamber. And the unchecked growth of government from both Whitehall and Brussels.
What would a package of Conservative constitutional reform look like? Here goes:
1. Lords' reform
A botched job that we didn't start, but we must finish. Legitimacy flows from elections and we must restate our commitment to a majority elected house. Conflict between the houses could be limited by making the second chamber a senate, rather than a mirror. Taking out all the ministers, insisting on a single term of 15-year duration and setting out down the powers to reject, delay and question in clear detail would be a pretty good start.
But the real problem is not the Lords, but the Commons. After all, they actually scrutinise legislation, we just pass it.
2. Independence for the Commons
The central problem is the government's complete control of the Commons timetable. There is no balance between the government's right to get its way and the Commons right to scrutinise. Labour's routine timetabling of all bills, the reform of the hours and abolition of all late sittings has made this far worse. Time and again the Speaker is asked for more time, yet all he can say is "these are not matters for me".
Why not have an all-party committee, elected by MPs, to adjudicate? If the whips kept control those elected would effectively be "named and shamed" for not doing their job properly.
3. Voting by secret ballot on standing committees.
Sounds insignificant, but goes to the heart of the problem. We debate laws line by line, but votes are then whipped. During the criminal justice bill Labour MPs would make valiant speeches about why a clause was wrong-headed, only to vote for it as soon as a division was called. Even if amendments were overturned in the chamber, the government would have to explain why it was going against the considered opinion of MPs.
4. Election of select committee members
Everyone agrees that select committees do a great job and should be nurtured. They ought to provide an alternative career path to the greasy pole of ministerial office. But members are chosen by an opaque process owing more to patronage than performance. The fiercely independent and effective Chris Mullin has just left the home affairs select committee to become a minister. Heaven knows who we will be sent in his place. Why not guarantee places for all parties, including the minor ones and then let backbenchers vote for their colleagues?
5. Referendum provision
I am no fan of what can be the "dictator's weapon", and referendums should have a very limited place in a representative democracy. But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first.
At least the wretched Maastricht treaty was clearly set out in the Conservatives' 1992 manifesto; the new constitution was never mentioned in Labour's effort for 2001. 6. Fixed-term parliaments
If we are looking for ways to redress the balance between a weak legislature and an over-mighty executive, five-year fixed-term parliaments could play a role. A government that lost the confidence of the house could still be forced to dissolve parliament through a vote of confidence.
7. Limits on ministers, bills and taxes.
We may not scrutinise it, but we sure as hell pass enough of it. The Home Office is the most incontinent department, having produced some 10 criminal justice bills since 1997 - and to what end?
Budgets get thicker, taxes get heavier, lists of ministers and their advisers get ever longer. A proper, more independent House of Commons would get to grips with this, but why not set down some limits so that ministers are suitably embarrassed if they have to come back and ask permission to break them?
8. War powers act
The Iraq debate set a precedent: it is hard to imagine any government going to war now without a vote in the Commons. But the fact remains that it does not need to seek one. It should.
9. A written constitution
What! Isn't it sacrilege for a Conservative to question our age-old, time-proven "unwritten" constitution that has evolved and adapted so superbly down the ages?
I am beginning to think not. How do we know that freedoms won through the Magna Carta, the bill of rights or anywhere else are under threat? Because we know what they say. Our constitution is being assaulted by an overweening government on the one hand, and a burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy on the other. Is it such a revolutionary concept to suggest that it could, just possibly, be time to write the thing down on a piece of paper?