What a bunch of intrisuve *what you do with a salad*.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
LibDems ftw!
Printable View
What a bunch of intrisuve *what you do with a salad*.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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: AbstainBNPConservativeGreenLabourLiberal DemocratSNPUKIP
*waits for Louis's furious rebuttal....................* :p
Sure. This makes the Labour manifesto look like an actual blueprint for a future fair for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
For all of Labour's blahblah, it is still one step up from the Cons' Twitterocracy.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Also, I am disturbed by the figure representing democracy in their advertisement video as being incompetent and an idiot.
I thought you were in the Republic. Not so?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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
*They never actually leave, alas.
last year one left every three minutes. try harder. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:
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 InsaneApache
And yet the same paper will gripe about immigration two pages later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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 Furunculus
Will you repay the expensive education the British taxpayer provided for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As soon as they repay the expensive taxes I pay. Oh, and 5 years of service to the government as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
~:smoking:
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 Banquo's Ghost
Not wierd, considering the historical hangover. Sensible perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Interesting article where Brown admits his mistakes -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8618974.stm
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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:
and yet the point stands; 200,000 people a year........Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
while that is true in some part, entrepeneurs do not grow on trees, the loss is felt i'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
[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
[/edit]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”.
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.