Printable View
Admiral Stanhopes address to the International Institute of Strategic Studies:
http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addre...nhope-address/
Why do i mention this in an election thread?
Because both political parties have promised Defence Reviews at a time of budget cutbacks, so the question of what capabilities we keep, and what we lose, is both imminent and critical.
If you think the RN is important, go find a petition on the no10 website and sign the thing.
It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You still need a substantial proportion of the working class to exist to fuel the Tories' claims of a "broken society" though. If everyone was rich, we'd all vote for the Lib Dems, but having a underclass allows the Conservative Party to enforce their moral agenda upon the rest of us Britons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.
If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.
If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Indeed. :fishing:
I totally agree. When it comes to the crunch of governance, the Tories will put their chums before the people of Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
One will find that poverty is lowest in the countries with strongest social-democratic policies.Quote:
:fishing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index
Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month. :balloon2:
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood British politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I do not think I have ever seen since a piece of utter bullshit. If you actually believe that - blimey you need help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
He is also an ass... And in lock step with the Tories, so he is probably floating that for their benefit. The election is going to be when everyone expects it to be, there is no benefit for Brown in bringing it forward now, with the polls narrowing more and more everyday - unless he feels we will go back into negative economic growth and after today's figures it does not look like that will happen. The Tories are doing what they have done over the last 13 years, panic.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Really? Think about it for a moment. When Thatcher came to power she increased wealth and tried to get people to buy their Council houses, because wealthy home owners vote Tory.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers. In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.
Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.
Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".
Where will this go?...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
By stripping the nation of its assets to fund an unworkable system... (also, she basically gave those assets away)Quote:
she increased wealth
At a very undervalued price, which caused chaos due to lack of Council Housing for those who need it. and at the undervalued rate actually caused a netloss all around in taxes, council funds, interest and a host of other things, which resulted in only the buyer benefiting while everyone else suffered.Quote:
and tried to get people to buy their Council houses
Council House = Wealthy?Quote:
because wealthy home owners vote Tory.
So poor people vote labour? Those dirty poor people, they should get a job and go to Eton. When they are getting 150,000 p.a. then they can be a good ol' conservative voter like you.Quote:
Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers.
In summary - You rob a old man of his walking stick, so he can walk. Rob some ones glasses to make them see. Instead of trying to get people off the streets, you should just let them stay on them. What a compassionate person you are, wanting to kick people when they are down. But no, wait, getting people out of poverty some how makes them poor... Some logic somewhere might make sense to you, but it doesn't to me. I think soical welfare and support is quite explanatory and does completely the opposite result then you are suggesting.Quote:
In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.
Also, just to actually explain to people, what you mean by public sector - Increased Healthcare (NHS) and Increased Education (Schools, etc), etc. It sounds far less omnimous now.
Right, so your solution is to do the opposite? Slash all the public welfare and support programmes (which affects poor people the most), redistrubute taxes from the rich to the poor (which widens the gap), etc... or you are not sure what you are talking about.Quote:
Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.
We don't have a 50% tax-rate... Only people who will have a 50% tax-rate are those earning over £150,000, which came in this year and those earning over £150,000 won't be affected much. Afterall, all, joe bloggs down here have the average wage of what, 18,000? I am sure they can manage that tax fine. If you are wondering. Basic rate tax we pay is 20%.Quote:
Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".
Typical socialist claptrap.
... or as Colbert puts it, "Reality has a well-established liberal bias."Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).
So sod off.
Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.
The conservatives were number 1 supports in increasing the costs for University, so unfortunately, you are placing bets on the losing side. Also, poor people don't spend all their lives sucking the "government tit", as you said yourself, you are not one of them, I am not one of them either, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Why do you address this to me? I didn't even respond to your second post..? Never mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And as for that second post of yours - if you believe that Labour's motivation for giving poor people more benefits is to increase their vote share - then again I say, you need help.
And as for this post, wow, what a piece of self deception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Firstly a 'little leg up' is what drives Labour politicians and the Labour party, in fact not a 'little' leg up but a real, sizeable and lasting leg up so that those who are not born into money are not left behind and defined by it. We believe that there is more to a person than their circumstance - and that is what drives those of us who are in and campaign for the Labour party.
You cite education and universitys - yet are voting Tory? Excuse me have I missed something over the last 24 years of my life? Who is it that pushes MORE funding - and delivered - pushes MORE places for people who want, yet can't afford to go. The Labour party is REJECTING Tory appeals to INCREASE top up fees, and though it was introduced by Labour - under significant rebel opposition, if you forget a 161 majority was reduced to 5 due to Labour party opposition in the house - there were vast increases in grants to poorer students so they avoided the fee's altogether. Which party has updated our school buildings which were in TERRIBLE shape because of chronic underfunding by successive TORY governments, but I guess you are too bitter to see all this, all you see is Labour bad right? You have some cheek in declaring yourself disgusted with Labour yet give two examples of areas where the Labour party is one which actually attempts to deal with the actual problems for underpriviledged kids, yet the Tories only care if it affects middle class areas. Disgusting, nothing gets me more pissed off than people who vote Conservative preach about things they don't give a sh.. about, or if they do, are simply too ignorant to realise what they are voting for.
All I can say is bring on a hung parliament! maybe the we can get some proper voting and politcal reforms.
As and aside I've always wondered what the effect would be of putting a "none of the above choice" on the ballot paper, sure you can spoil you vote but most poeple don't know about that.
Maybe if they saw that a large proportion of people only vote for them because they are the lesser evil, the major parties would actually start adopting proper political viewpoints as opposed to trying to chase as many votes as possible and ending up not really standing for anything.
A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
i'll hold you to that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
We shall see, from what I have read, however, compulsory voting simply favours the parties near the top of the ballot. This has, apparently, been the case in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
We shall see, follow this now:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Labour raises taxes for the poorest, then increases benefits and employs more functionaries and creates more red tape to administer the system. Net loss to the government, and probably the average tax payer because they can't understand the system and don't get their dues.Quote:
Firstly a 'little leg up' is what drives Labour politicians and the Labour party, in fact not a 'little' leg up but a real, sizeable and lasting leg up so that those who are not born into money are not left behind and defined by it. We believe that there is more to a person than their circumstance - and that is what drives those of us who are in and campaign for the Labour party.
Better to reduce taxes and fire the tax-men.
Also, don't spin me the whole "we don't want you to be defined by your circumstances" rubbish. As a Liberal I believe that wholeheartedly.
Well, if you're 24 you (like me) missed Labour "top up" fees. I vote Tory because Geoffrey Cox is a Tory, prior to that I would have voted Lib-Dem because our last man was Lib-Dem. I'm not an ideologue like you; but I see Labour's rank corruption and incompetence and I want them gone.Quote:
You cite education and universitys - yet are voting Tory? Excuse me have I missed something over the last 24 years of my life?
So, top up fees are wrong, but still a good thing? My sister is currently studying and she pays full wallop. Those grants don't cover the additional expense, or anywhere near.Quote:
Who is it that pushes MORE funding - and delivered - pushes MORE places for people who want, yet can't afford to go. The Labour party is REJECTING Tory appeals to INCREASE top up fees, and though it was introduced by Labour - under significant rebel opposition, if you forget a 161 majority was reduced to 5 due to Labour party opposition in the house - there were vast increases in grants to poorer students so they avoided the fee's altogether.
I'm not bitter, sorry. Educational standards have continued to decline throughout the late 90's, only exam results have improved. Massively excessive spending has done nothing to improve social mobility, university is still dominated by the Public Schools because the state system is crap.Quote:
Which party has updated our school buildings which were in TERRIBLE shape because of chronic underfunding by successive TORY governments, but I guess you are too bitter to see all this, all you see is Labour bad right?
The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.Quote:
You have some cheek in declaring yourself disgusted with Labour yet give two examples of areas where the Labour party is one which actually attempts to deal with the actual problems for underpriviledged kids, yet the Tories only care if it affects middle class areas. Disgusting, nothing gets me more pissed off than people who vote Conservative preach about things they don't give a sh.. about, or if they do, are simply too ignorant to realise what they are voting for.
Your sister pays the whole 11k per year tution fees that foriegn-students pay? Or are you saying that she pays all the costs herself with no parental support?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.
Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.Quote:
The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.
Personally I think we'll see a Parliament with a small Tory majority. Yes, labour have been making gains in the polls but I'm not sure it will be enough.
In all honestly though they would of done better if they ditched Brown a couple of months ago. That guy is damaged goods. I think the problem that a lot of people see is not the Labour party itself, but the guy leading it. He's attached politically to two very unpopular wars, questionable economic decisions and numerous other bad decisions.
I'm not really writing this from the point of view of a Tory/ Labour supporter, I probably wont actually vote at the next election, I don't see much point. Besides, my constituency is the fourth safest Tory seat in the country, therefore it's kind of irrelevant anyway.
Edit:
JAG might have a point..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ung-parliament
I personally think the Liberal Democrats should win, just because it will shock everyone.
Labour and Conservatives are both power hungry dogs just trying to gobble everything up like pac-man. Getting some fresh air in parliament will do it some good. It is just a shame that those who go "but they are the 3rd party, blah blah blah" should actually vote for them, instead of doing that dull mantra, then you would actually see them do it.
Tories reveal using "Obama Dinner Plan" to win over voters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8539619.stm
David Cameron and his croonies have revealed their new election slogan "Change we can" which is expected to be a hit with the illiterate dietry masses as inspired by Obama in the US elections.
Mr Osbourne comments:
"Our country stands at one of those moments when our forks come across a dinner table laden with either a fruit tart or a profiterole - and we have to make our choice."
"We can either continue with eating strawberries, oranges, apple, laden with a sticky fruit syrup and pastry in an attempt to give our country a 5-a-day special"
"That is Labour's choice. It always has been. We know where it leads and we must never allow this country to be dragged there once again." whilst making motions of stomach trouble.
"Or we can change the dessert - accept the difficult truth and get ourselves a mountain of chocolate covered, pastry puffs filled with cream, and create the flabs of a Britain that works for all. That is the Conservative path"
Tory front bencher Theresa May said the party would be setting out "real change" that the country needed as she eyes up the profiteroles.
Labour's Douglas Alexander said the proposals were "reckless".
Labour, holding a Welsh Labour Party conference in Swansea, will argue that Tory policies would damage the fight against obesity.
They will use the Conservative conference as an opportunity to launch a new poster attacking Mr Osborne over his proposed change, suggesting he will use full-fat cream and not a semi-skimmed variant in his profiteroles.
The election must be held by June but is expected to take place on 6 May. Recent polls have suggested the Conservative lead over Labour may be narrowing.
The message of change likely to be central to David Cameron's main speech on Sunday.
It was a theme underlined by Ms May, shadow minister for work and pensions.
She told the BBC: "Over 80% of people think this country is going in the wrong direction for desserts."
Danny Alexander MP for the Liberal Democrats:
"For people who want real change, real fairness in Britain there is only one choice: the Liberal Democrats with their choice of a strawberry sundae with optional extras such as wafer stick and chocolate sprinkles"
"Labour has totally failed to make Britain tastier, and the Tories can't be trusted to."
Ian Jenkings, Green Party representative:
"It is a case of the major parties policies of 'have your cake and eat it' which started this in the first place."
I think that whole "change" tactic is doomed to fail, David Cameron isn't Barak Obama (who in the election at least really was different from most US politcians in recent years), he isn't bringing anything new to the table.
People are hardly going to swallow the whole "change" message when Cameron comes from the same Eton/Oxford wealthy background as most Tory leaders came from and when he proposes many policies that are conservative classics (raising the inheritance tax threshold for example). His choice of colleages doesn't help either (Letwin anyone?).
Also the Labour government is nowhere near as unpopular as the republicans were in 2009 and there are a lot of people who are still very bitter about ations taken during the last Tory governments .
Not having to pay tuition fees* is one of my favorite joys of being scottish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
*kind of, if you earn above a certain threshold (11 or 15k i can't remember) you have to pay back a ~2k lump sum but thats all.
:laugh4: That spoof was great Beskar! :bow:
agreed, it gave me a laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Neither, she has a loan, but I was given a grant to cover ALL my undergraduate fees. My sister worked and saved for two years prior to Uni, while savings made when she was born have covered some of the cost for thsi year. However, my parents may have to dig her out and that might involve them having a mortgage for the first time in over 25 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
This is totally notmal, I'm afraid. I saved in order to study my Master's degree, got no help from our overlords, and thence emptied my bank account.Quote:
If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.
Thatcher's Poll-Tax was 20 years ago now. What's more, the much maliigned tax makes a certain sense, you shouldn't have to sell your home once you retire just because it's nice and you worked hard. In the same vein, a small house full of people puts a greater stress on public services. The Poll-Tax was a means of introducing a per-Capita tax for local services.Quote:
Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.
The alternative was to raise the base rate of income tax, again.
In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.
That is never the case though. No one sells their house unless which seems to be typical, granparents sell their two-storey house for a bungalow (which are usually more expensive but and smaller).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Also, public services are the same. You only have a certain quota they collect for garbage, no matter who lives in the house. Also, it is only poor people who have high number of people in the house, compared to those who are wealthy, so the poll-tax affected poor people more than anyone else. Since they were all in the house in the first place, since they can't afford to live in smaller numbers.
I just have to point out that old Labour were Socialists.Quote:
In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.
However, since there have been changes since those days, New Labour is pretty much "Middle Class" politics now a days with Tories as "Upper Middle Class and Upper Class" politics. Only people on the grass roots level of any sort are the Green party, BNP, Respect. So unfortunately, Tories are still quite Toffee. Well, I have to admit, looking at the political party groups on Campus, it is quite amusing. You get to see unwashed Greens, Conservatives in suits, Labour seemingly casual smart/scruffish with casual smart members being New Labour, and scruffish ones are Old Labour. Liberal Democrats seem to be strange mix of people who are fiercely zealous in promoting themselves.
stereotypes are a wonderful thing, i was the scruffy gimp wearing surfer rags............... who was also a toffee nosed tory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7044185.ece
And to think, you people doubt me -
As for the 'well this is just one poll' - go look at the very brilliant and impartial UK polling report. When people focus with the election coming, the polls were always going to narrow - the question was, and still is, how do the Tories react and deal with it and thus far they have done terribly.Quote:
GORDON BROWN is on course to remain prime minister after the general election as a new Sunday Times poll reveals that Labour is now just two points behind the Tories.
The YouGov survey places David Cameron’s Conservatives on 37%, as against 35% for Labour — the closest gap between the parties in more than two years.
It means Labour is heading for a total of 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories languishing on a total of just 263 MPs. Such an outcome would mean Brown could stay in office and deny Cameron the keys to No 10.
Furthermore I have been trying to get my head around the Tory strategy - their new one that is - for the last week and I simply cannot fathom it. People do NOT want significant change, they simply didn't like Brown all that much and didn't like the recession. People have consistantly liked what Labur stand for over the Tories all through this period - it is the reason Cameron went to such lengths to show he had changed his party's policies. People do not want significant change when it comes to economic policy, people do not want striking, stringent tax cuts and public spending cuts. People do not want schools being, effectively, privately run pet projects by big business and busy bodies - they want every school to be better and well funded. Yet The Tories are going into the election with a huge change message - it isn't what the people want. People have had one hell of a hard time over the last year and a half and they want stability and a sure hand and Labour are increasingly being effective at making people criticise and look at the Tory position, rather than the governenments action. With a platform of significant change - it only gets easier.
I find it quite mind boggling to say the least - anyway as a Labour member and campaigner, I am loving it. And people should learn never to doubt me ;)
Yep there is no denying that the polling has shown some sort of narrowing... my bet is on a hung parliament with the Lib Dems giving Labour government.
there is no doubt the polls have narrowed, whether that will be emulated on election day is another matter, lots of people are pressuring the Cons to see their own special interest invades Conservative HQ consciousness.
I have made plain that i will vote UKIP unless I see something worthwhile on the EU and Defence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other news; labour is infiltrated by islamic radicals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...our-Party.html
I was actually house mates with a Conservative councillor (laugh all you like), he was also quite toffee too. In his spare time, he was always scruffy looking and you wouldn't suspect it, except for boxes and rows of ties and various suits he had. He came from some rural posh area from the south, and had lots of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
He also had a copy of Mein Kampf too (dumdeedum!) but it makes sense since he was a History Student.
On paper, but they had significant Communist and Anarchist wings. You don't pick the colour Red during the Cold War casually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Quite standard. You aren't from within a 100 mile radius of Guildford, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.
Does that mean nothing to you?
Ok, I'm betting this one was from near Alton (Hampshire/Surrey border, Hampshire side).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
i should point out that i have no idea what the phrase "toffee nosed" is supposed to signify in class-war parlance, i just used it because it appears to be the traditional epithet applied to a tory. if it means i was rich and/or privileged then i certainly am not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
merely pointing out that tories at uni don't all have a wardrobe full of suits and a tie-press in their 'digs'.
it is fairly disgraceful that this imbalance still exists, even after the electoral boundary commission had its last go at straightening things out.
I support a change in the voting system, but the Tory party and the right wing in this country does not. Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats. So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.Quote:
So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.
Does that mean nothing to you?
Doesn't give me time to overseas register. Not that I was going to anyway. I'd rather eat sandpaper than vote either Tory or Labour. And the Lib Dems are like 'Magical Floating Candy-dispensing Models', a nice idea, but not really feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
This:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Get it? We're not fooled, voting reform is a smoke screen to hide the reality of the situation. One man (or woman), one vote; one vote is used to elect one MP. The problem is that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than any other kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Wales and Scotland have too many MP's relative to their population. This sop to their fear of being dominated is especially disturbing given the high level of Anti-Anglo sentiment.Quote:
Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats.
Labour had the chance to enact reform in 1997, as I recall they re-drew the boundaries to make it harder to oust them.Quote:
So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.
That would not be a good idea for Lib Dems the voters of Lib Dems would likely be annoyed they allowed labour to stay in power and obviously Tories would never waste a chance to proclaim that the people had been denied etc etc. Course they will be secretly hoping to cause them to walk across the floor and then using them as a figure of public hate for all the things they will end up doing the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Lib Dems will have to go Tory even if its not a natural home for then politically. however it is possible the Tories may not get enough with Lib dems to convene a government this election is shaping up to be a far better run than I expected. It will be hilarious to see them all incapable of copping that the public hold them ALL in contempt.
looks like the convention against standing in the Speakers constituency during elections is now thoroughly broken:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...in-buckingham/
to paraphase someone earlier in this thread, who said they would rather have a decisive leader like brown, i give you our decisive leader:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...d-defence.html
Farage just wants to become an MP, and is willing to resort to any dirty tricks to get his bum on a green seat. Hence, the convention breaking.
That's a prevailing mood over here too. "T'row da bums out!" is always present, though this year it seems to be capturing the minds of more and more voters, Dem, Repub and Indie.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Quote:
Lord Ashcroft goes from Tory saviour to election liability in marginal seats
The financial clout that has given the Conservatives a dominant position in the polls has rebounded spectacularly with last week's revelations about the tax status of the man with the cash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...marginal-seats
[...]
"It is huge, huge. We are putting it in every letter. Why should a billionaire who does not pay full taxes in this country be allowed to buy the election in places like this?"Ashcroft, a deputy chairman of the party, has used his huge personal fortune to fund Tory campaigns in dozens of marginal seats, the ones that the Conservatives must seize to win the next election. The secretive Ashcroft has run his own nerve centre at party headquarters masterminding the strategy that could bring Cameron to power. Since Cameron became party leader in 2005, the peer, who is a close friend of the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague (whom he flies round the world in his personal jet), has donated more than £5m.
His influence on policy and tactics is immense. Although not an elected politician, or a member of the Tory frontbench, he has accompanied Hague to Washington, Cuba, China, Panama, the Falklands and the Turks and Caicos Islands in recent months, prompting speculation that he will be given a ministerial role under a Conservative government. Labour has also raised concerns that Ashcroft may have used the visits with Hague to open doors to talks with business leaders in those countries.
The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.Quote:
The row over Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis last night as questions were raised over whether the Queen and the former prime minister, Tony Blair, had granted him a peerage under false pretences.
As David Cameron's aides confirmed that Ashcroft would be retiring as Tory deputy chairman after the election, the Liberal Democrats called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to publish all documents relating to the peerage as a matter of urgency, so that it could be established whether the sovereign had been misled.
The monarch confers honours mostly on the advice of the Cabinet Office and the prime minister. Ashcroft's declaration last week that he was a "non-dom" has been seen to contradict "clear and unequivocal" assurances given to the then Tory leader, William Hague, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of 2000. This assurance was seen as crucial. Members of Blair's inner circle suggest the former prime minister now feels he has been misled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...chael-ashcroft
Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.
Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.
Hur, hur! Ashcroft is being delicately disengaged by Cameron, and Hague. The interesting thing will be to see if Osbourne says something stupid and is finally replaced by Clarke (oh, God, please let it happen!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
With that said, the money does not belong to the tax payer because Labour has not, in twelve years, reformed the Tax Code. This may be because they have their own non-dom Peers and benifactorcs.
hmmm, what did that report into ashcroft conclude..........................?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The conclusion? The conclusion is that the Tories are sneaky, cheating bastards who made common cause with a billionaire tax evaser. But nothing illegal, no. The only thing that was broken, was the spirit of the law and the morality of the Party. Well done!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sir Hayden Phillips, then the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, also disclosed that the revised terms under which the billionaire businessman became a peer had been fully approved by House of Lords Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
In comments welcomed by Lord Ashcroft's supporters, he said: "I wanted to make sure that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative party leadership were of one mind as to what he was agreeing to, and that was agreed.
"I agree the words that were then formulated were different from those that were originally announced, but both the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative leadership at the time agreed with those words ... Let's be clear about one thing, there is nothing illegal in what has occurred." Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was at the centre of a political storm throughout last week after he revealed on Monday that he is a "non dom": a status which means he does not have to pay tax on his substantial overseas earnings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...n-tax-row.html
*reads Louis's post - fails to get too bothered*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oops, yet one more person tells Chilcot that Broon underfunded defence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-defence.html
What about the Labour Peer Lord Poul, who MUST be a non-dom because Harriet Harmen is refusing to say otherwise? Her excuse? Labour doesn't require its own Peers to declare tax status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So who's really sneaking and underhanded?
And Sir Ronald Cohen!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
However, afaik, neither received their peerage on the distinct promise to end tax evasion, as is the case with Ashcroft.
(As an aside - I'd be bloody embarrased to hold a British title. What a bunch of crooks. It's not a badge of honour, it's a public acknowledgement that you've stolen so much money you are now entitled to run Britain)
maybe we should have thought twice before we decided to reform the lords then.........?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Being chosen by parliament isn't much reform.
If you want my ideas, then those truly would be reform.
No elections please, we have enough of that with the Commons.
Oh, come on. There is no way that you can consider the hereditary House of Lords to have been suitable in a modern democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i don't really care aboutwhat is suitable, i care about what is effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
the house of lords pre-1997 functioned in an effective way.
the conduct of the reformed lords on the other hand..................
Ah, seems that Brown has noticed the defence debate isn't really going his way so has taken the obvious course of action: Prevent the press from reporting from the frontline in Afghanistan, cleansing the MoD website of any incriminating evidence and gagging all the armed forces between now and the election!
Link
Particularly like this bit:
Good to see Brown isn't beyond press censorship in his stuggle to maintain his desperate grip on power...Quote:
The prohibition on public speeches by senior officers is likely to be seen as a response to the increasing outspokenness of military chiefs
Labour to unveil plan to change the UK into a democracy!
Whoa...elected, have to pay taxes in the UK - a virtual Revolution says I!Quote:
Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.
The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.
Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.
Labour's plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.
The proposed changes also follow various House of Lords-related controversies, including the recent furore over the admission by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory deputy chairman, that he was a "non-dom."
Members of the new-style chamber will have to be both UK residents and domiciled here for tax purposes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-unveiled.html
Pretty certain Labour has been promising Lords reform since 1997. The closest it got was the removal of most hereditary peers which doesn't really make much of a difference when the peerage system means that political parties basically give a peerage to those who donate kindly to them. That being said, I don't think the Lords does a particularly bad job as it is, I just think there's a few people with peerage status who really shouldn't have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
As for this latest proposal, nothing will probably come of it. Here's what normally happens with the Labour government around election time Louis, Labour promises all these great things on face value in it's manifesto and broadly speaking fails to deliver on a majority of them. Both Lords reform and electoral reform aren't new ideas within in British politics, they've been floating round for years. Labour itself has promised both in past election manifestos and hasn't delivered it. Therefore why would I be inclined to believe they'll deliver this time. There electoral reform went down the pan too. Sure, they promise a referendum on it next year but I'm not sure the proposed system will be any better than our current one.
I don't think I nor any one else can deny that some labour promises, minimum wage for example which have been implemented have been anything but beneficial to British society but the fact remains that Labour like to promise the world in their election manifesto yet deliver on a pathetic proportion of said manifesto.
Gah! You're probably right. Such a shocking overhaul of the political system would not be unveiled out of the blue two months before an election.
It's more about embarrasing the Tories, I suppose. Get them to defend the Lords, defend Ashcroft and his NonDom status. Paint Cameron as the defender of privilige.
I think the whole idea of having a second elected house in the UK is absurd quite frankly. The whole point of the House of Lords is that it's meant to act as a balance to the election-focused Commons. The problem with it now is that it's those same election focused politicians that decide who should go to the Lords. I say take the power away from the politicians completely and let a totally independent committee run by the monarch decide who deserves to sit in the Lords. Then you have the elected Commons with a mandate from the people to create laws and an independent Lords to make sure those laws are remotely sensible.
The current system isn't really viable long-term but more elections isn't the answer in my opinion.
So just to re-cap. The bi-cameral system has worked pretty well for 300 years or more. The nasty party get in power back in '97 and decide that what isn't broke needs fixing after all. They then reform the upper house filling it with apparachniks, shysters and corrupt supporters, as you do, and then when the whole rotten edifice is exposed as a sham they then say that the upper house isn't working now, at least not as well as it did before we pissed about with it, so now we intend to abolish it!
Sounds like something from the Frankfurt Marxist school on destroyng a democracy. :book:
It seems to be getting more difficult to get people to bother to vote for someone to sit in one house, how many people are going to want to vote for another?
I agree that Labour's reform has been the usual ideologrical driven mess they like to produce. But at the same time, the Lords has been far from unchanging since 1707. In reality, our system is best called 'weak bi-cameralism', ever since 1911 the Lords has always been by far the inferior chamber. And then further weakened in 1949. The change has been gradual and probably in reality inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
thoroughly agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Boohugh
I wouldn't mind being a democracy, but I object violently to the idea of a Republic. Tony Blair's outing as a quasi-president who sold peerages for cash has only reinforced this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why not scrap it have a unicameral system its practically one anyway
on the directionless opportunism of the lib-dems:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ending-or-not/
Quote:
Do the LibDems want to cut spending or not?
By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: March 13th, 2010
I still can’t make out what the LibDems want to do about the debt crisis. They say they will be more radical than the Conservatives, closing the deficit wholly through spending cuts rather than through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. But, at the same time, they say they will avoid “Tory butchery”.
Vince Cable promises that any cuts will be the subject of consultation with those directly affected. Yet those directly affected are surely the one set of people who, by definition, can’t be objective, and who will oppose the reduction of their budgets whatever the national interest.
Most worrying of all, the LibDems now say that they would oppose any fiscal tightening this year. Yet it is precisely because Labour keeps deferring the cuts that we are in this mess. Gordon Brown is behaving like Nick Leeson, doubling and doubling in the hope of putting off the worst of the pain until after polling day. As a result, we have the same level of deficit as Greece, despite the additional trillion pounds seized in taxation since 1997. The agony will come soon enough, and will be far more severe for having been postponed.
You think I exaggerate? Then ponder this. In the time it has taken you to read this blog post, our national debt has risen by around 380,000 pounds. 390,000 now.
Then there would be no opposition from within the government; we would be a Tyranny of the Ruling Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Would the tories be stupid enough to take Straws idiotic plan for constitutional tinkering of the lords and run with it?
apparently they might:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...ng-parliament/
Seems the Conservatives have found some unlikely support from the EU over their economic policy of making big spending cuts early. A European Commission report has said that the UK budget deficit should be cut faster than Labour intend to do it, which certainly makes it harder for Mr Brown to argue the Conservatives are completely wrong on economic policy now.
Edit: In reply to the article Furunculus posted:
Never a truer word spoken!Quote:
It is a characteristic of modern Lab-Con Britain that everything that is unbroken is gratuitously mended, while the many things that are indeed broken are left unrepaired.
true, not that i put much store in EU adice over and above that which is available here.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-us-were-bust/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
time to break the unions again?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...spending-cuts/
Updating the Lords would be a great idea. But if you are going to do that then you may as well update the commons at the same time. The Lords has been largely powerless since 1911, if we were to make it democratic, then at least give it a powerful role.
Possible Lords ideas: party alliegance should be banned? Fixed term elections? etc..
In reality the commons will never create a second chamber that could possibly hurt them.
first labour was infiltrated by islamists, now it is owned by the unions once more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...by-Labour.html
being owned by the unions, as was the case up to the 80's, made more sense when 80% of the workforce was a union member, it could claim a national mandate.
now however, when union membership has dropped below a third it looks distinctly more sketchy............
In short: No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boohugh
Gordon Brown admits: I was wrong on defence spending:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-spending.html
awesome news, defence continues to be newsworthy in the run up to the election. :)Quote:
Gordon Brown has admitted he was wrong to claim that he increased defence spending in real terms every year.
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 12:26PM GMT 17 Mar 2010
The Prime Minister said that claims he had made in the House of Commons and in evidence to Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry had been incorrect.
Mr Brown, who has faced intense criticism over his support for the Armed Forces, had repeatedly insisted that as Chancellor, he made real increases in the defence budget every year.
However, offcial figures from the Ministry of Defence show that, allowing for inflation, its budget fell in five years: 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002 and 2007.
Challenged about his claim during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Brown made a rare admission of errror.
"I do accept that in one or two years, defence expenditure did not rise in real terms," he told MPs.
Mr Brown said is now writing to Sir John Chilcot to amend his evidence to the inquiry.
The Prime Minister's admission is a political victory for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who challenged him about the figures last week in the Commons.
By amending his evidence to the Chilcot panel, Mr Brown may bolster the case for recalling him for another evidence session later this year.
I bet you have your trousers round your ankles and the box of tissues to hand while you consider all the extra weapons that are going to get bought :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus