'The Deal' looks good to me.
That is all....
'The Deal' looks good to me.
That is all....
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
Bit meaningless without details
Presumably with a higher tax rate at the top ends? Otherwise this is a voter-happy measure that adding more debt...
Something's needed - wonder what they have in mind?
EDUCATION
Spending money?
Maintained grammar schools again?
POLITICAL REFORM
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.
"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.
Agree.
Excellent - but how hard will it be for the constituents to recall the fellow?
Good.
Agree, as long as the 3rd point is there.
Good.
FOREIGN POLICY/EUROPE
About time!
No one in their right mind would join the Euro right now.
Typical tory. This is one of the few good things to come from the EU IMO.
HEALTH
Hmm, more spending. Good, but where's the money coming from?
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Excellent. How far will it go though?
Vague.
PENSIONS AND WELFARE
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
Why not just go for a points system like everyone else?
ENVIRONMENT
Interesting.
They're going somewhere else presumably?
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.
And yet they've appointed a potential "slasher" and non train enthusiast as transport secretary?
OK.
As long as it takes the wider view and isn't a few windmills to appease the tree shaggers.
FAMILIES
Seems fairer.
I'm all for that.
Me too
Just wondered if that is what they actually meant...
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.
I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.
Yup
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.
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.
This man is known stupidity on legs.
The stupid backing up the stupid. The spending was stakes in banks.
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.
Cameron is a born liar.
More crap from an idiot. He has never heard of the Credit Crunch. He needs locking up.
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
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.