The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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]!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

no thanks.

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?

The torys.

In the real world...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/new...cle7094308.ece

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

Also, I liked this summary.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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!

Well, the Labour Party has published its manifesto 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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

Sure. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, the Labour Party has published its manifesto 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

---

I thought you were in the Republic. Not so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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?

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

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/th...published.html

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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/ukne...rt-the-UK.html

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rt-the-UK.html

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rt-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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Interesting article where Brown admits his mistakes -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8618974.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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

---

and yet the point stands; 200,000 people a year........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

[edit]

interestingly enough, property tycoon ronson on the coming social unrest, and the need to keep entrepeneurs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...r-Britain.html

Quote:

---

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”.

---

[/edit]

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:

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.

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...the-same-boat/

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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

~:smoking:

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.

Quote:

---

paid public service in the community

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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/elec...oll-shows.html

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

where the Lib-Dems economic figures fall apart:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...e-sums-add-up/

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/showt...=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

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.

As an adult, you are expected to budget for children - or not. No extra funds as if you can't afford them, don't have them.

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.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

OK thirty then. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

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:

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.

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 (!!!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

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/com...cle7096786.ece

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

: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/elec...forecasts.html

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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/

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