'Cowardly' Brown decides NO ELECTION

Richdog · 7 Oct 2007 at 18:26

The tories' stance on immigration and inheritance tax means I will not be voting labour come the next election. Tories all the way from now on.

Richdog · 7 Oct 2007 at 18:31

I've edited my post to make it clearer to people who don't read properly.

Nullvoid · 7 Oct 2007 at 18:37

Saying they would abolish inheritance tax certainly makes for a nice sound-bite but what measures would they bring in to plug the resulting hole in their budget?

Richdog · 7 Oct 2007 at 18:43

2nd link down http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=co...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_enGB219GB223

MagicBoy · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:12

This was more than just floating the idea of an election. A relative works for a London Labour MP and was promoted to a 4 week campaign job last week ... which starts tomorrow.

Why appoint a large number of staff into campaign jobs if they were only "floating the idea" of an election? Brown has backed out because he doesn't believe he can win. Shame - I'd relish the chance to remove an unconstitutional Prime Minister.

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:40

So you'd be preferring a codified constitution as well?

I do agree that at the moment, it would be far too close to even consider calling an election. But that's just common sense, I don't think it's a display of cowardice in any sense of the word.

MagicBoy · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:47

naffa said:
So you'd be preferring a codified constitution as well?

Not sure what the term means to be honest.

I've got issues with a Scottish MP as prime minister in the context of devolved parliments in Scotland, Wales etc. It's a mess. Either they're devolved or they're not.

RockLobster · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:49

Nullvoid said:
Saying they would abolish inheritance tax certainly makes for a nice sound-bite but what measures would they bring in to plug the resulting hole in their budget?

By not wasting billions on ID cards.

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:54

MagicBoy said:
Not sure what the term means to be honest.

I've got issues with a Scottish MP as prime minister in the context of devolved parliments in Scotland, Wales etc. It's a mess. Either they're devolved or they're not.

Yes, I agree with that. As it stands we're neither a federal state, nor a unitary state. Personally, I think that a unitary state would be better for our economy as a whole, and would see us in good stead. I believe that a full federalisation of the UK wouldn't be so good. Scotland, for example, wouldn't be able to support it's own economy without the block grants it receives from Westminster. But I think it needs to be one or the other. Not a mish mash of both.

All a codified constitution is, is a constitution that's written down in one place. America has one of these. They're quite popular because they clearly state people's rights, and there is very little confusion due to things such as interpretation. An uncodified constitution is a constitution that isn't written down in a single place. The UK has one of these. Our constitution is made up from our laws, and various other things. I personally prefer our constitution as it is far easier to amend, and therefore change with time and society. I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Obviously just my opinion though.

PureAppleJuice · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:54

MagicBoy said:
I'd relish the chance to remove an unconstitutional Prime Minister.

But he's not 'unconstitutional'

MagicBoy · 7 Oct 2007 at 19:59

jidh007 said:
But he's not 'unconstitutional'

He is ... he represents a Scottish constituency. Scotland is allegedly devolved, therefore the non-English MPs shouldn't have any rights on English matters.

I could follow up with "People didn't vote for him" but then again we vote for our local MP. The winning party can pick whatever Prime Minister they like...

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 20:02

Scotland isn't devolved. Scotland has it's own parliament. This means that they has the power to alter it's tax by two pence to the pound either way, they can also pass certain laws, amongst other things. They are NOT fully devolved though. For this to happen, England would need to have it's own parliament.

Wang Computer · 7 Oct 2007 at 20:05

naffa said:
Scotland isn't devolved. Scotland has it's own parliament. This means that they has the power to alter it's tax by two pence to the pound either way, they can also pass certain laws, amongst other things. They are NOT fully devolved though. For this to happen, England would need to have it's own parliament.

The only problem is, save for some elements of the economy and defence, they essentially are. I realise that, strictly speaking they're legally not and only in the process of being 'devolved'...

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 20:10

That is the main problem in my opinion. It isn't clear cut. I believe that the line needs to be drawn, and they become fully devolved and has it's own government etc, or they relinquish their parliament. At this point in time, I'm not wholly fussed which it is, but I think it needs to be one or the other.

Glaucus · 7 Oct 2007 at 20:35

He doesn't have to call an election I wish he would though. He's a power mad ruler. Who will kill this country. They promised a referendum and is know trying to sneak it pass by changing it's name. He attacks Cameron for making sensible suggestion. More incentives for couple who live together, married parents. more jails etc. Then Gordon turns round and says he disagrees as this would disadvantage single parents and the jobless. That's how it should be, that's what tax is. Encourage people to do what you want and discourage them from others.

It's just a shame Cameron is seen as a posh Toft *****, he actually has a clue about the country and would be a strong leader. Granted not the best, but a lot better than Labour and Brown.

But then, maybe by 2009 people will wake up and we will have a party that isn't middle of *** road and will actually get tough on policys. But I doubt it as the general population are idiots.

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 21:32

AcidHell2 said:
More incentives for couple who live together, married parents. more jails etc. Then Gordon turns round and says he disagrees as this would disadvantage single parents and the jobless. That's how it should be, that's what tax is. Encourage people to do what you want and discourage them from others.

Well that's bs imo. Obviously in my opinion. But all I've seen from Cameron is a load of childish antics and no firm policies.

I'm not going to go into why I so strongly disagree with those policies you mentioned, as I would only end up irritating myself. But I personally do NOT agree with them.

HangTime · 7 Oct 2007 at 22:08

I don't see what all the fuss is about here... why is the the headline news on BBC? :confused:

We only had a general election a couple of years ago, it's a five year term. Why the hell should he feel any obligation to call an election whatsoever? Did we get a General Election when Thatcher resigned? No.

It seemed to me that all this talk about a forthcoming election was just media spin (no doubt prompted by certain polititians with an agenda)..... remember a month or so back it was all this stuff about how there was gonna be an election called 'within the week'. Yet I never saw a single quote from Brown indicating that he was seriously going to go ahead with it.

I have no respect for Tories branding this so-called 'cancellation' as cowardly, sounds like sour grapes on their part for losing the last election. It's quite simple really, if you don't win the GE then you have to accept the fact that you could be out of office for at least 5 years.

Glaucus · 7 Oct 2007 at 22:10

naffa said:
Well that's bs imo. Obviously in my opinion. But all I've seen from Cameron is a load of childish antics and no firm policies.

I'm not going to go into why I so strongly disagree with those policies you mentioned, as I would only end up irritating myself. But I personally do NOT agree with them.

No ones saying abandon those people, simply that model familys should have tax insentivies. Which is what we need. It's about time parents took responsibility. It's not antics it's policys, very sensible policys at that. Weahter he would go through with them if he is elected is anyone guess.

Naffa · 7 Oct 2007 at 22:14

I'm sorry but I think that is a simply ludicrous statement. You think people should be given money to stay married?

8/10 times it's probably beneficial to the child(ren) for their parent's to break up due to constant arguments or worse. I know it was beneficial for me when my parents broke up. But what you're suggesting is that parents get incentives to exert their children to this kind of horrible home life, that I had to endure for (luckily, only) a year or so?

Nullvoid · 7 Oct 2007 at 22:21

Wang Computer said:
The only problem is, save for some elements of the economy and defence, they essentially are. I realise that, strictly speaking they're legally not and only in the process of being 'devolved'...

I lifted this from the wiki on the Scottish Parliament:

Reserved matters are subjects that are outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament.[49] The Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate on such issues that are reserved to, and dealt with at, Westminster (and where Ministerial functions usually lie with UK Government ministers). These include abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system.

And then the areas they do have control over:

The specific devolved matters are all subjects which are not explicitly stated in Section 5 of the Scotland Act as reserved matters. All matters that are not specifically reserved are automatically devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Most importantly, this includes agriculture, fisheries and forestry, economic development, education, environment, food standards, health, home affairs, Scots law — courts, police and fire services, local government, sport and the arts, transport, training, tourism, research and statistics and social work. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to alter income tax in Scotland by up to 3 pence in the pound.