Polytics.

'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Reply to
Harry Bloomfield
Loading thread data ...

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from what I heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this coalition of idiots for the next 5 years.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se? Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours, eh-what old bean!!

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card plot - but I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the Proletariat - a George Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?

Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a couple of million pounds a year don't look that good at all - especially as it was those bastards that got us into the mess that we are in!

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft and his ilk?

I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in deepest Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred pounds per grave to try and claw back some of the cuts already taking place there - and that is just the f*****g start!!

Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf tournament that's taking place there this year - a matter of priorities eh? Now *THAT*

*IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.

Falco

Reply to
Falco

You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of £60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year starting from April 2011.

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.
Reply to
Bruce

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good luck to them I say. Let's hope that they can sort it. Cheers Don

Reply to
Donwill

I think its bot quire as simple as that. It is as I understand it, more like a binding contract between the two parties.

But I might be wrong..

The purpose is for the duration of this parliament, to ensure stability and continuity. Mindful of the fact that we have some very very difficult times ahead in the next 2-3 years, and that people with no brain will be crying out for communism shortly, in the vain belief that coming off the debt drug will be any better if nursey simply injects them with crack, and lets them run riot on the streets.

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber. This isn't exactly a military dictatorship alternative that has replaced it, but I agree, its in that direction.

I believe it to be the lesser of two evils.

The concept of a Proleteriat only exists in the minds of the Left. With luck, it will be dead ad forgotten in 5 years.

The Tory vision, partly shared by the LibDems, is to give power and responsibility *back* to the population, not to necessarily impose anything more than the bare minimum of crap from on high.

This is not the replacement of a Marxist state with a Fascist state., Its about the orderly deconstruction of the State itself, in its present form, before it falls apart entirely under its own spiralling costs.

If you like, the real Labour project was to build a State to do Everything. It was an impossible fantasy. The Tory vision is to build a new economic engine that can actually generate wealth, rather than simply spend it. I suspect the LibDEms want to make sure it gets spent as carefully as possible, but are mindful of the fact that you cant spend what you dont have, and that before you can spend money, you have to actually eran it. A concept the Left has never ever understood.

If you are in the private sector and on less than 30k things should be a little better in terms of income, and a bit worse in terms of inflation. Overall probably neutral

The real losers will be the marginal public sector workers. Telephone sanitisers and community lesbian liason officers on 65k. They will find themselves on the dole probably, and on a pretty restricted dole probably.

Some will, I can assure you. No one is making money out of this. Apart from Tony Blair, of course.

Well that's reasonable. No worse than an inheritance tax.

No worse than gay lesbian afro caribbean drop in centers.

The Tory plans are that in general such councils will in time, be able to raise their own money by local taxes, have a fairly free hand to raise and spend as they like, but no longer be able to depend on the central state for funding, and no longer able to evade responsibility for their actions with their local electorate., That's what all eh peoples power bit is about. If you don't like it, vote the bastards out, stand for local election yourself, and manage your own budgets yourselves.

If it looks like local councils actually will have the power to do more than rubber stamp central government decisions, I am sorely tempted to do just that.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

My fear is that it is unsortable, actually.

But I believe we have the best chance with what we now have. I don't rate the LibDems much, but they carry 23% of the vote, and that gives the whole shebang more perceived legitimacy, and may in effect allow them to be MORE drastic than the Tories alone would ever have dared.

It's one thing to come up with measures and have a bloc that commands more votes than you, shout you down: But to have two parties agreeing that its the only way, with a minority whingeing from across the benches, is a lot easier to deal with.

I believe this is why Cameron and the boys made such an insanely generous offer to get the coalition. They truly believe its necessary, and that if they couldn't entirely convince the electorate, they could at least convince the LibDems.

I also truly believe that for a time at least, tribalism has been set aside for the good of the nation. And that is probably really what we voted for, after all.

Until such time as it reappears, I am in support of the current arrangement.

This is uncharted territory, but at least we have some pragmatic brains on the case.

Not a bunch of troughing dinosaurs whose sole claim to power is that a bunch of community wurkahs and unemployed smack heads reckoned they were a softer touch than anyone else.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,

*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Reply to
Tim Watts

I agree. This carries teh notion that unpleasant policies (unthinkable even) will have a broader political concensus in the eyes of the public.

Lets have a look at the "working manifesto" if you can call it that, from the BBC:

formatting link
ECONOMY ===========

  • Measures to promote financial stability and support business growth

Bit meaningless without details

  • Next year's 1% National Insurance tax rise to be partly scrapped

  • Substantial rise in income tax allowances for lowest paid from April 2011

Presumably with a higher tax rate at the top ends? Otherwise this is a voter-happy measure that adding more debt...

  • New ministerial committee to look at "structural" banking reform

Something's needed - wonder what they have in mind?

  • New tax on financial transactions, clampdown on "unacceptable" bonuses That is different. SWMBO wonders if it will afect her company, which is an internet payment service provider, or whether it is aimed at the high end like investment banking?

EDUCATION

  • Investment to reduce class sizes for children from poorer backgrounds

Spending money?

  • New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

POLITICAL REFORM

  • Referendum on the Alternative Vote system for general elections

  • Fixed-term Parliaments - next election in May 2015

55% of MPs required to bring government down in confidence vote

I agree with those. Note sure AV is the best system, but it seems better than FPTP and is obviously more palatable to the Tories. Fixed term in office seems to be a good thing.

  • Committee to look at fully PR-elected House of Lords

"Look at" != "will happen". It seems more democratic, but what will it achieve? The benefit and at teh same time, the problem with the Lords is long term office without representation. "Good and wise lords" do not need to electioneer so spend more time contributing wisdom to the process. "Bad lords" would serve the interests of the rich and powerful without regard for the ordinary man. I really cannot see much point in an elected 2nd house. Why not make the best of the 1st house and scrap the Lords if they really are perceived to be a problem? Personally I think the review but limited powers of the Lords is fine as it is.

  • Cut in number of MPs and equal size constituencies

Agree.

  • Right of the public to "recall" corrupt MPs

Excellent - but how hard will it be for the constituents to recall the fellow?

  • Statutory register for lobbyists

Good.

  • Scottish Parliament to get more powers under Calman proposals
  • Referendum of devolution of further powers to Welsh assembly
  • Review of Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation

Agree, as long as the 3rd point is there.

  • Ban on "non-doms" sitting in Parliament
  • Reform of political donations and party funding

Good.

FOREIGN POLICY/EUROPE

  • No further powers ceded to EU without referendum

About time!

  • UK not to join euro in lifetime of Parliament

No one in their right mind would join the Euro right now.

  • Work to limit application of EU Working Time Directive in UK

Typical tory. This is one of the few good things to come from the EU IMO.

HEALTH

  • NHS spending to rise in real terms every year of the Parliament

Hmm, more spending. Good, but where's the money coming from?

CIVIL LIBERTIES

  • Great Repeal Bill including abolition of ID cards

Excellent. How far will it go though?

  • Safeguards for use of personal details on the DNA database

Vague.

PENSIONS AND WELFARE

  • Benefits to be conditional on willingness to work

Has been since I worked in the JobCentre in 1991. They have always been able to stop benefits of people "not available" to work. Dole queue is still full of scroungers though.

IMMIGRATION

  • Cap on immigration from outside the European Union

Why not just go for a points system like everyone else?

ENVIRONMENT

  • Aviation passenger duty replaced by plane tax

Interesting.

  • No new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted

They're going somewhere else presumably?

  • New nuclear power plants (Lib Dems able to abstain on issue)

Hallelujah... Seem to have reached a reasonable gentlemen's agreement with the Libs who would rather gut themselves than touch anything nuclear. If this is the spirit of the coalition it might just work. Now all they need is a time machine so they can start work in 1990.

  • Creation of a green investment bank.

  • High-speed rail network to be built

And yet they've appointed a potential "slasher" and non train enthusiast as transport secretary?

  • No new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage

OK.

  • Increased target for share of energy from renewable sources

As long as it takes the wider view and isn't a few windmills to appease the tree shaggers.

FAMILIES

  • Tax break for married couples and civil partners (Lib Dems able to abstain)

Seems fairer.

Reply to
Tim Watts

I'm all for that.

Reply to
Frank Erskine

Me too

Just wondered if that is what they actually meant...

Reply to
Tim Watts

I don't think it is, because both parties have a presumption against selective schools, although many traditional Tories are still very much in favour.

The schools local to me in Buckinghamshire are still selective. Primary school pupils sit the 11+ exam to see which school they will go to. What I find interesting is that, while it is no surprise that Buckinghamshire's grammar schools have high academic standards, the non-grammar schools still produce results that are significantly above the national average for all schools.

Reply to
Bruce

I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Yup

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Although, I wonder if a Government with a massive majority could "no confidence" itself when convenient?

My cynicism is only matched by the scumminess of politicians.

Reply to
Tim Watts

Normally it just dissolves parliament and calls an election: That is the governments prerogative. Here they have ceded that prerogative in exchange for a guarantee that the LibDems wont force the issue with a no confidence vote.

I dunno. I've seen scummy politicians all my life, and although there is a slight veneer of slime on Cleggover, I think Cameron plays with a fairly straight bat, smart enough not to need to lie. Cant really think of a PM that I feel was more honest..John Major maybe, but he was never given a chance.

I could be wrong, but I wasn't about T Bliar. He stank of bullshit from the first. I really hoped Broon would be better, but although he was more principled, he was terminally stupid, and extremely boring and dull and he knew it and hated it and took it out on everyone around him.

It's taken a long time for the Tories to repair the damage Thatcher did. She fixed the country, but she destroyed the conservatives for a generation. There are still a few blow hards that need slinging out, even now.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

This man is known stupidity on legs.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

The stupid backing up the stupid. The spending was stakes in banks.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

No one won the election. All lost. Some lost less than others. Like those in mid-table at the end of the football season. They did not win the title, but never lost as they were not relegated. It is like Stoke City, Fulham and Sunderland arguing who was best in the league this season. Only a few points apart yet some scored more goals and some had better goal difference. Rather petty to argue about pedantic details in mid-table.

Labour never lost in that they could have been in power if they wanted to - but at a price. The price to them was not worth it. The Tories were prepared to pay that price.

In the sordid shameless dealings Labour won. The Tories did not implement fully what they wanted - they mainly represent the top 5-10% of the population and their gift to them, inheritance tax, was not delivered, as was many others. You could say they partially lost, but not by much.

For 4 consecutive elections the Tories failed to get a majority. And they are in power. As Lord Faulkner said the Tories didn't give much away.

The Lib Dems sold out on PR,which would have stopped the likes of the Tories getting in power again.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Cameron is a born liar.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

More crap from an idiot. He has never heard of the Credit Crunch. He needs locking up.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Interesting times...

If it holds for the full five year term the lib-dems have a chance that they really do want to be a serious party of government, the conservatives have their liberal side reinforced and decontaminated of the daily wail faction , and labour's payroll vote will disappear with cuts in public expenditure. On the other hand lib-dems show they really want only to be dreamers, conservatives tears apart etc

Reply to
djc

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.