2015 Election

[witch]

He's also the man who wanted to overturn 1500 years of legal theory and a basic principle of human rights by making a "swift and minor change" (his words) to British law by overturning the presumption of innocence, instead assuming that people travelling to Iraq or Syria were guilty until proven innocent. He's terrifying.

 

 

Oh yes, he is very clever and that article is well written. I take issue with the fact that it is mostly about what Labour shouldn't be allowed to do rather than what any other party intends to do, and as for the above, yes, truly terrifying

To describe the system in the 70s as "evil" is going right over the top.

Edited April 23, 2015 by witch

[rickjames]

I live in a Labour safe seat that's been the case since 1989, but I couldn't help but laugh at someone running on behalf of CISTA | CISTA

[LeMarchand]

Boris wrote this on facebook the other day, its a brilliant piece even if you don't agree with his politics.

 

One of the top comments is from a teacher asking if she can use it in her persuasive writing class

 

Is that because it's great at selling a crock? What are all these British cars? I'm no petrolhead, but I was under the impression that automotive manufacture in this country consisted mainly of putting together vehicles for non-GB companies and luxury marques. While they are both contributing to the economy, I'd hardly call the former "British" and my worry about the latter is that their success just shows the wealth imbalance in the world.

 

Conversely, I think Boris is very, very clever, and he's realised that the people don't want an incisive, intelligent figure of authority to lead them, they just want a buffoon to entertain and distract them. He is a very capable debater, written* and spoken, and plays up the fool to disarm opponents and leave them underestimating him.

 

He's also the man who wanted to overturn 1500 years of legal theory and a basic principle of human rights by making a "swift and minor change" (his words) to British law by overturning the presumption of innocence, instead assuming that people travelling to Iraq or Syria were guilty until proven innocent. He's terrifying.

 

 

*EDIT: @zag provides the written example I was thinking of above. I don't agree with him, but it's masterfully done.

 

He also ordered water cannons for London just in case the proles get too uppity.

[sonofsanta]

Oh yes, he is very clever and that article is well written. I take issue with the fact that it is mostly about what Labour shouldn't be allowed to do rather than what any other party intends to do, and as for the above, yes, truly terrifying

To describe the system in the 70s as "evil" is going right over the top.

 

He picks and chooses his facts very carefully but makes it appear that the examples he uses are universally relevant - that's why it's so well written. Though his dismissal of UKIP is one I can't help but agree with

 

What I find constantly frustrating is the line about the "Labour made crisis of 2008-09" that is spouted not just here but everywhere. Last I checked, Labour had no influence with the US sub-prime mortgage lenders that caused the global recession, they just had the misfortune to be in power at that time. The converse claim is that the Tories have now fixed the recession, when they're just benefitting from the natural recovery -- a recovery that has, nonetheless, been the slowest in post-war Britain, and has failed to meet their 2010 promise of clearing the deficit in this Parliament.

 

I'm not siding with Labour here, either -- but it's a gross oversimplification and a dishonesty to pretend that anyone could have prevented a recession that was caused by global issues. It's treating me like an idiot to think I can't see through it.

[JRowley]

That also irritates me, the Labour gov was not responsible for global recession, pinning the state of the country and the economy on the party in power during that time period is a pathetic tactic. It's been used as an excuse for the last 5 years for pretty much everything the Torys have failed on.

[sted]

That also irritates me, the Labour gov was not responsible for global recession, pinning the state of the country and the economy on the party in power during that time period is a pathetic tactic. It's been used as an excuse for the last 5 years for pretty much everything the Torys have failed on.

 

yeah but thats always the way when a different party gets in power anything bad is the last guys fault anything good they somehow made happen. I swear most politicians have the reasoning of an 8 year old

[JRowley]

yeah but thats always the way when a different party gets in power anything bad is the last guys fault anything good they somehow made happen. I swear most politicians have the reasoning of an 8 year old

 

It's just been increasingly irritating this last 5 years because the majority of responses DC gave in PMQs was "we're just fixing what they broke" rather than answering the actual question with an actual answer.

[Garacesh]

answering the actual question with an actual answer.

Politicians don't do that.

[pcstru]

I live in a Labour safe seat that's been the case since 1989, but I couldn't help but laugh at someone running on behalf of CISTA | CISTA

Why? Single issue parties don't stand much of a chance, but they can be effective in moving issues forward which is something we desperately need to do with the "war on drugs".

[sparkeh]

More detail on what the IFS have concluded about spending plans: Tories have £30bn black hole in spending plans, says IFS | Business | The Guardian

[localzuk]

More detail on what the IFS have concluded about spending plans: Tories have £30bn black hole in spending plans, says IFS | Business | The Guardian

 

It does make it sound awfully like the Tories can't add up...

[sonofsanta]

It does make it sound awfully like the Tories can't add up...

 

Or like they're telling lies with promises they know they'll break.

[Andrew_C]

It does make it sound awfully like the Tories don't add up...

There, that's better.

[Gatt]

Unlike Labour who seem to be like a kid thats just found their parents Credit Cards and PIN and then go an a massive spending spree !

 

And then deny it and blame everyone else...

 

And then when the parents (The Tory's) start having to make cuts and have to scrimp and save to pay the whole lot back, the kiddies complain bitterly about it...

 

Spend the money wisely, and then you don't have to face the hard truth that to pay it back you need to make cut backs, stop spending, sell some stuff to get more money so you pay it back faster

And then every now and then a curve ball will be thrown (ie a boiler leak in my analogy above) so you end up with a bit more debt that you planned on...

 

I know I';ll probably get booted in the wossnames and called a few things, but I do think the Tories have done the right thing here considering the mess they were left with

[sted]

Unlike Labour who seem to be like a kid thats just found their parents Credit Cards and PIN and then go an a massive spending spree !

 

And then deny it and blame everyone else...

 

And then when the parents (The Tory's) start having to make cuts and have to scrimp and save to pay the whole lot back, the kiddies complain bitterly about it...

 

Spend the money wisely, and then you don't have to face the hard truth that to pay it back you need to make cut backs, stop spending, sell some stuff to get more money so you pay it back faster

And then every now and then a curve ball will be thrown (ie a boiler leak in my analogy above) so you end up with a bit more debt that you planned on...

 

I know I';ll probably get booted in the wossnames and called a few things, but I do think the Tories have done the right thing here considering the mess they were left with

 

as far as i can tell they just like selling off everything cheap so their donors can buy it and make even more money, or sell off affordable rented housing so that prices skyrocket so banks can make more money because then we have to borrow more money. they cut services in a way that seems designed to take money from those who dont have much and redistribute it to those who already have it. they also seem determined to break up the nhs so that any part that can make money is dolled out to their supporters again making money off peoples misfortune

 

as to the defect havnt all these cuts made it bigger. we are never going to pay it off as long as we can pay the interest does it actually matter its non existent money that only has a va'ue because enough people agree it has

Edited April 25, 2015 by sted

[zag]

as far as i can tell they just like selling off everything cheap so their donors can buy it and make even more money

 

You really think they are that self involved? if your talking about the post office and other privatisations then selling something cheap isn't really a choice. The market finds the price not the government. People who say it was given away or "sold to cheap" really don't understand IPO's or the stock market. Look at Facebook stock for an example.

 

or sell off affordable rented housing so that prices skyrocket so banks can make more money because then we have to borrow more money.

The idea of buying council house outright is to give people the chance to own their own home (and sell it in the future). Its a really nice way of helping people from poorer backgrounds in my opinion. Now the real key is to keep building houses so the ones that are purchased don't loose any housing stock in the process. That is something I think both parties need to improve on.

 

they cut services in a way that seems designed to take money from those who dont have much and redistribute it to those who already have it.

I really don't believe that. The vast majority of tax rises have gone on the rich and banks this past few years. The increase in the lower level of income tax threshold has benefited everyone but the rich. Take a look at stamp duty, the bank levy, pension tax relief. The major cuts came to benefits that were being abused. Even things like the so called "bedroom tax" is designed to make better use of the housing stock and let more people with larger families have access to social housing. You can spin a policy both ways you see

 

they also seem determined to break up the nhs so that any part that can make money is dolled out to their supporters again making money off peoples misfortune

Thats just election talk. Milliband trying to "Weaponise" the NHS again. Breaking up the NHS would be political suicide for any party.

Edited April 27, 2015 by zag

[sparkeh]

if your talking about the post office and other privatisations then selling something cheap isn't really a choice. The market finds the price not the government. People who say it was given away or "sold to cheap" really don't understand IPO's or the stock market.

Nonsense. The Government set the price, they could sell the shares for whatever price they wanted. Share price jumped 38% on the first day which led to the accusations that it was underpriced and undervalued. If you want to point the finger at anyone not understanding the market, point to the ministers who set the price.

 

Selling off state assets 'on the cheap' really is a choice.

Edited April 27, 2015 by sparkeh

[localzuk]

I really don't believe that. The vast majority of tax rises have gone on the rich and banks this past few years. The increase in the lower level of income tax threshold has benefited everyone but the rich. Take a look at stamp duty, the bank levy, pension tax relief. The major cuts came to benefits that were being abused. Even things like the so called "bedroom tax" is designed to make better use of the housing stock and let more people with larger families have access to social housing. You can spin a policy both ways you see

 

Thing is, its demonstrable that the rich have gained the most during the last 5 years. The UK's richest have doubled their wealth in a decade. The amount needed to be in the top 1000 people has increased by £15m in a single year! Here's an alarming statistic for you (well, its alarming to me anyway): The poorest 10% of the population pay 42% of their income in taxes. The richest 10% pay 35%.

 

If you really believe that benefits were being abused to the level that required "cutting" then you are, quite frankly, naive. The bedroom tax would only work if there were other homes for people to move into. There aren't, so it works out purely as a tax on being poor. Have you seen the length of waiting lists for social housing in some areas? You could be waiting for years for a suitable property, with it being entirely out of your hands, yet you are being charged for having too many rooms through no choice of your own.

[DavePa]

Thing is, its demonstrable that the rich have gained the most during the last 5 years. The UK's richest have doubled their wealth in a decade. The amount needed to be in the top 1000 people has increased by £15m in a single year! Here's an alarming statistic for you (well, its alarming to me anyway): The poorest 10% of the population pay 42% of their income in taxes. The richest 10% pay 35%.

 

Agree 100% with the above - but where does that 42%/35% figure from? I always had a gut feeling (nothing more than that) that there was a bigger disparity than that.

[Gatt]

FFS - The "Bedroom Tax" is not a bloody tax!

 

Sick of having to point this out..

It's an end to giving small family (2-3) living in a house that is meant for a much larger family

 

I as a private home owner totally agree with this as we don't get any f-ing subsidy of any kind

 

As for the benefit system - at present (thanks to Labour) it's a way of life now - people actually CHOOSE to take benefits rather than go to work!

So yeah I do agree with this, and I do think cuts need to be made in places where it is being sorely abused..

[LeMarchand]

You really think they are that self involved? if your talking about the post office and other privatisations then selling something cheap isn't really a choice. The market finds the price not the government. People who say it was given away or "sold to cheap" really don't understand IPO's or the stock market. Look at Facebook stock for an example.

 

Obviously the National Audit Office doesn't understand it either. The Privatisation of Royal Mail - National Audit Office (NAO) . Even Sky News (to avoid claims that it's leftie news sources only) had its doubts Royal Mail 'Undervalued By Up To £6bn'

 

The idea of buying council house outright is to give people the chance to own their own home (and sell it in the future). Its a really nice way of helping people from poorer backgrounds in my opinion. Now the real key is to keep building houses so the ones that are purchased don't loose any housing stock in the process. That is something I think both parties need to improve on.

 

Unfortunately the rules meant that the money had to go to paying off debts before building new stock: Right to Buy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

 

I really don't believe that. The vast majority of tax rises have gone on the rich and banks this past few years. The increase in the lower level of income tax threshold has benefited everyone but the rich. Take a look at stamp duty, the bank levy, pension tax relief. The major cuts came to benefits that were being abused. Even things like the so called "bedroom tax" is designed to make better use of the housing stock and let more people with larger families have access to social housing. You can spin a policy both ways you see

 

I think @localzuk answered these points, though (and this may no longer be the case) apparently if the parents live separately only one of them is allowed room/s for the kid/s.

 

Thats just election talk. Milliband trying to "Weaponise" the NHS again. Breaking up the NHS would be political suicide for any party.

 

Whilst I'm pretty sure similar dirt could be found for any party: 'Selling off NHS for profit': Full list of MPs with links to private healthcare firms - Mirror Online and (from a presumably biased source!) NHS for sale :: GOVERNMENT / POLITICIANS . Let's not forget then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's wife giving advice to medical firms Wife of Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, gave lobbying advice - Telegraph . Can't find a link, but I seem to remember stories about lectures on how to get in on the ground floor "if" the NHS went private.

[tmcd35]

Sick of having to point this out..

It's an end to giving small family (2-3) living in a house that is meant for a much larger family

 

No it is not. It is a victimisation of the poor and needy members of our society based on nothing more than were the council choose to house them initially. The deductions only apply to anyone claiming housing benefit. It does not apply to anyone capable of paying full normal rent on a property by themselves. As in a single person living in a 3 bed council house paying normal full rent isn't charged extra for bedrooms he/she doesn't need/use. However a single person in a 2 bed council house currently between jobs, getting £45 per week job seekers allowance has to pay £18 per week out of that JSA to the council for the unused bedroom because it isn't covered by housing benefit any more.

 

People earning way below minimum wage are being forced further into poverty by what is nothing more than a very bad ill thought out Tory policy.

 

As for the benefit system - at present (thanks to Labour) it's a way of life now - people actually CHOOSE to take benefits rather than go to work!

So yeah I do agree with this, and I do think cuts need to be made in places where it is being sorely abused..

 

This is tripe! The numbers of people this sentence truly applies to is infinitesimal at best. Seriously without any kind of disability or mental illness the amount paid out in benefits is so low nobody in their right mind would choose that as a way of life.

[Garacesh]

The issue with the "bedroom tax" (though you're right, it's not a tax per-se) isn't so much that "oh they're taxing for spare bedrooms" it's more that families who A) Have children that move out will lose money (which in concept is fair enough as they have one less mouth to feed, one less back to clothe) or if a parent has a child who stays with them for x-days-per-week that parent needs a room for said child to sleep in but gets their money cut because of it

[sted]

You really think they are that self involved? if your talking about the post office and other privatisations then selling something cheap isn't really a choice. The market finds the price not the government. People who say it was given away or "sold to cheap" really don't understand IPO's or the stock market. Look at Facebook stock for an example.

if that was the case why did the value of stocks go up the moment they were traded the easiest reason for that is that they were undervalued which isn't a surprise when the people who valued them also bought a large chunk of them I believe

 

The idea of buying council house outright is to give people the chance to own their own home (and sell it in the future). Its a really nice way of helping people from poorer backgrounds in my opinion. Now the real key is to keep building houses so the ones that are purchased don't loose any housing stock in the process. That is something I think both parties need to improve on.

it might of worked if they hadn't actively stopped councils reinvesting the money in new housing stock keeping demand higher than supply. For every council house sold they should of been forced to build a new one to keep the cycle going

 

I really don't believe that. The vast majority of tax rises have gone on the rich and banks this past few years. The increase in the lower level of income tax threshold has benefited everyone but the rich. Take a look at stamp duty, the bank levy, pension tax relief. The major cuts came to benefits that were being abused. Even things like the so called "bedroom tax" is designed to make better use of the housing stock and let more people with larger families have access to social housing. You can spin a policy both ways you see

so they complain like I don't know what about amazon/starbucks et all not paying tax have they done anything to close those loopholes no. You cant blame a company for only paying the smallest amount of tax they can legally get away with you can blame a government for not doing something to close theses loopholes so that companies with money actually pay their fair share

 

 

Thats just election talk. Milliband trying to "Weaponise" the NHS again. Breaking up the NHS would be political suicide for any party.

 

probably but I suspect they are being more snaky about it. Make people think the nhs is a useless waste of money slowly sell off the bits that can make money to private companies after they have run them down so the service is so poor anyone could do a better job then claim look health company a does this soo much better

[Gatt]

No it is not. It is a victimisation of the poor and needy members of our society based on nothing more than were the council choose to house them initially. The deductions only apply to anyone claiming housing benefit. It does not apply to anyone capable of paying full normal rent on a property by themselves. As in a single person living in a 3 bed council house paying normal full rent isn't charged extra for bedrooms he/she doesn't need/use. However a single person in a 2 bed council house currently between jobs, getting £45 per week job seekers allowance has to pay £18 per week out of that JSA to the council for the unused bedroom because it isn't covered by housing benefit any more.

 

People earning way below minimum wage are being forced further into poverty by what is nothing more than a very bad ill thought out Tory policy.

 

 

 

This is tripe! The numbers of people this sentence truly applies to is infinitesimal at best. Seriously without any kind of disability or mental illness the amount paid out in benefits is so low nobody in their right mind would choose that as a way of life.

 

 

poppycock!

 

That is NOT victimisation!

 

Victimisation is what happned when I *tried* to claim something as simple as JSA whenI lost my job in the school

I was told that, depsite havin WORKED FOR A BLOODY LIVING for years, I was given two fingers and £0.00!!

 

Whilst scrotes who had never seen a days work in their life were going in and getting all the benefits under the sun so that they can continue to stay at home, playing they XBOX one on they 46" TV screens.

 

Victimisation is when someone I know, was forced off the DSA because she was honest! Whilst the lying :censor: got everything

 

The benefit system is a joke to the ones who work and who are honest

 

So give me damn good reason to beelive that thsi "Bedroom Tax" should be scrapped, and why I should just go "yeahn its ok, i'll work my hardest, get f all back in return, whilst other can sit on they backsides and do nothing and be given everything!

 

Tell me why THAT is fair?