The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[al Roumi]

Apparently I scored high with UKIP too, even though I disagree with their core principles in many places. I don't want a Parliament for England, I think it should be Regional. While I could agree on a referrendum on Europe, it wouldn't be because we should leave Europe.

Editorial bias...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I scored 71% UKIP, 61% Con, 52% Lib Dem.

Not that surprising, really.

[Boohugh]

73% Cons, 60% UKIP for me (followed by 51% Lab and 44% Lib Dems). Not too surprising I guess, not sure how accurate the UKIP count really is though, as they don't have particularly well developed policies in many areas they ask about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think UKIP scores well with most people because they are political whores. Rather than presenting a coherent political position they pick various incompatable policies to appeal to the largest number of voters. They probably edged out the Cons on my test because I want (at least) an English Parliament and a referendum on Europe. The last not so much because I definately want to leave, but because I want to see someone actually ask me and put foward resons why we shouldn't.

[Subotan]

Labour Party: 62%

Liberal Democrats: 55%

Green Party: 49%

Is that surprising?

[InsaneApache]

http://www.slapometer.com/

Be careful or you might hit one of the other two! :)

[Strike For The South]

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Like when someone gets a whole blow in his gut, the cheeky Brit says "don't fret gubna just a little nick we'll have you ready for tea time"

That Brit has done his job and he deserves all the fish and chips he can handle.

[al Roumi]

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues...

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top, shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife?

[Furunculus]

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7084502.ece

[Strike For The South]

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues...



Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top,?

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife

From time to time a man must put his hobbies aside

[Boohugh]

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7084502.ece

Indeed, watching the BBC news online headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too!

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Indeed, watching the BBC news online headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too!

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

[al Roumi]

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

[InsaneApache]

I'd love to help cocker but today I'm mainly laikin about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

Mercians....

[tibilicus]

I don't plan on voting Lib Dem but I have to admit, of all the pre-election campaigns launched so far, this has to be the cleverest, If not the funniest.

http://www.labservative.com/

[Furunculus]

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

[al Roumi]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

[Furunculus]

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?
Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

[Banquo's Ghost]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

[Furunculus]

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

absolutely agreed.

if you know that your party, if elected, will have to makes some deeply unpolular changes then the only to implement this is to go into an election seeking a mandate from the people to make those changes.

its is why i have so much sympathy with the mission of the excellent critical reaction blog when they say the following:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2502/...tical-reaction

At Critical Reaction we not only want David Cameron to campaign as a Conservative and be elected as a Conservative. We even hope he will govern as a Conservative.

I am not a floating voter, i don't need the tory brand to be 'decontaminated', therefore I am not a huge fan of this new image of cuddly-conservatism.

[Beskar]

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off)

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

[InsaneApache]

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

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

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

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

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

[Beskar]

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

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

[Louis VI the Fat]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Tory spin.


1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

[Beskar]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

Thanks for reminding me. That is the sort of thing I meant with "That is not actually entirely true."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.



No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

This works only with services, i.e. Rail, Water, etc. (as you pointed out). However, the massive number of as-yet unidentified leaky pipes, and the only recently replaced (last five years or so) rail carriages show that the public sector in Britiain not only failed to provide value for money, it failed to upgrade with time and technology. When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I('m afraid.

[Furunculus]

Tory spin.

1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:



roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am reminded of the quote attributed to gordon brown in 97 on being informed by a civil servant that he was inheriting an economy in tip-top condition, he reportedly responded with; "do you want me to send them a f*£^%$& thank you letter?"

so, i am literally rolling on the floor, splitting my sides with laughter when you attribute the proseperity of the nineties and noughties to labour!

i doubt gourgeous george osborne will be given any such reassuring news to rude about!

thanks Louis, you brightened my day.

[Beskar]

When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I'm afraid.

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link, I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.