Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Naffa]

Someone misplaces a decimal point in world-ends shock!

Yes, quite right! It's a good thing we can't even trust these guys to get something as simple as that right, if they're going to fix our economy!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Yes, quite right! It's a good thing we can't even trust these guys to get something as simple as that right, if they're going to fix our economy!

Yeah, you're right. Lets rule out every party that has ever made a typographical mistake.

Oh wait, we need someone to vote for.

 

[Naffa]

There's a difference between making the mistake, and allowing an attack based on that mistake to go ahead. It's proof that the Tories genuinely have no clue about family life any more, and are more out of touch with reality than a lot of people first realised.

How could anybody in the Conservative party have believed that the figure could be anything like 54% when the actual figure is 5.4%, if they had any clue about what's going on?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

There's a difference between making the mistake, and allowing an attack based on that mistake to go ahead. It's proof that the Tories genuinely have no clue about family life any more, and are more out of touch with reality than a lot of people first realised

Blunders happen all the time.

Remember the Himalayan melting blunder by the IPCC?

I am not familiar with the "ten most deprived areas" in the country. Neither are you, the writer. Probably neither are you, future commenters. Neither will most academics and researchers working at CCHQ.

Actually, if I think back to an estate I grew up on, there were about 11 - 12 kids my age, 6 of them girls. 3 became pregnant at 18 or younger, so for me it isn't that out of kilter!

It is easy to see how the mistake was made - there is no reason why someone would 'spot' the mistake because the figure is 'unreasonable'. The only reason why you know it is "shockingly out of whack" is because the news article you read said so. In reality, you (as did most) had zilch grasp on the figure reality.

An 'unreasonable' figure would be 553.2%, and we could slate them not spotting that.

Need I bring up the '45 minutes'...?

 

[Naffa]

I am not familiar with the "ten most deprived areas" in the country. Neither are you, the writer. Probably neither are you, future commenters. Neither will most academics and researchers working at CCHQ.

You're not running for office claiming that Labour are out of touch, etc etc.

Actually, if I think back to an estate I grew up on, there were about 11 - 12 kids my age, 6 of them girls. 3 became pregnant at 18 or younger, so for me it isn't that out of kilter!

I'm sure there are some parts were that statistic reigns true.

It is easy to see how the mistake was made - there is no reason why someone would 'spot' the mistake because the figure is 'unreasonable'. The only reason why you know it is "shockingly out of whack" is because the news article you read said so. In reality, you (as did most) had zilch grasp on the figure reality.

Again, I'm not running for the government and have no desire to do so. Are you seriously saying that you've got no problem with the fact they (the Tories) had no idea of the reality of the situation? So much so, that they had no concept of what the real amount was? It's been my point for a long time, that they've no concept of that which they're trying to gain support from.

An 'unreasonable' figure would be 553.2%, and we could slate them not spotting that.

You're right, that would be ridiculous, but a factor of 10 is bad enough.

Need I bring up the '45 minutes'...?

That was different, as the 45 minutes was a bare faced lie. Sheer scare tactics to try and get us to conform and agree with the war.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You're right, that would be ridiculous, but a factor of 10 is bad enough.

You might have missed my point - I said 553% because it is an impossible figure. 53% may well not have been

 

[Naffa]

You might have missed my point - I said 553% because it is an impossible figure. 53% may well not have been

I didn't miss your point, I was pointing out that 54.32% is an impossible figure if you were aware of what was going on, on the ground.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I didn't miss your point, I was pointing out that 54.32% is an impossible figure if you were aware of what was going on, on the ground.

Oh, ok. I agree.

However, like I said, the likelihood is that this was not typed up by ministers - just admin bods. It is a shame and a silly mistake, but nothing more I think. It certainly cannot be used to accuse the entire shadow government of being "out of touch" (- there are perhaps plenty other tangible things that can)

 

[Naffa]

However, like I said, the likelihood is that this was not typed up by ministers - just admin bods. It is a shame and a silly mistake, but nothing more I think. It certainly cannot be used to accuse the entire shadow government of being "out of touch" (- there are perhaps plenty other tangible things that can)

Fair enough, each to their own and what not. It's actually nice that this sub debate actually began and ended on one page.

EDIT: Damn.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I think the explanation for that is britboy and Dolph are having fun over here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...15&highlight=username_Hatter+Mad#post15964815

 

[pingwing]

Been avoiding this thread for a while but todays the day (whilst sitting very bored in a policy of the uk lecture) that iv decided to found the voter apathy party. For everyone who voted in this pole to say they were not going to vote, come vote for me and show that you just dont really care....

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Despite being ironic and flawed, it would do more harm than not voting... surely?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

National Insurance. The very term is a serious misnomer, because whatever the original Beveridge intentions may have been, these days National Insurance is simply weaselspeak for Jobs Tax. And whereas Labour inherited a combined employer and employee NI contribution rate of 20% (contracted in), as from next April (2011), the rate will be 25.8%, an uplift of well over one-quarter.

Combining that with their stealth changes in NI contribution bands, by next year Labour will have increased the Jobs Tax by around 120% since coming to power. And to put that in context, money GDP will have increased by only 85%.

Over the decade to 2007-08, Council Tax in England rose by 80%, more than four times the general rate of CPI inflation. Yet at the same time, councils increased service charges - for everything from parking to pest control - by 120%, about seven times the general inflation rate. And the revenue from charges is big - it's now equivalent to over 50% of that raised from Council Tax itself.

Now, as a matter of principle, we actually applaud charging for services - as far as possible, users should pay for the services they use. But what sticks in our craw is that we're effectively being charged twice over. Charges have risen but taxes haven't been cut. In reality, there has been a disguised increase in taxation.

http://bit.ly/9hAGzM

 

[Stretch]

Despite being ironic and flawed, it would do more harm than not voting... surely?

Maybe it could provide the impetus required to get the voting system changed to give smaller niche parties a chance.

 

[Judge Mental]

Been avoiding this thread for a while but todays the day (whilst sitting very bored in a policy of the uk lecture) that iv decided to found the voter apathy party. For everyone who voted in this pole to say they were not going to vote, come vote for me and show that you just dont really care....

Thing is, anyone voting VAP wouldn't be a true apathetic voter.

 

[pingwing]

Maybe it could provide the impetus required to get the voting system changed to give smaller niche parties a chance.

Bam! got it in one (plus everyone likes a bit of irony)

But yeah the idea is to generate serious political discussion about the current failings of current political parties and change the attitudes of politicians to do positive work for the country instead of just playing political games (my quick example is ignoring policy advice on drugs and sacking that guy who said horse riding is more dangerous than ecstasy)

And here's the futurama bit for reference:

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Ultimately, the history of running deficits this big is pretty clear cut - at some point the bond market explodes and carries you out

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5776563/turbocharged-fiscal-crises.thtml

The crisis in Greece shows just how quickly a fiscal crisis can blow up. Just two-and-a-half weeks ago, Greece was able to raise several billions in financing, with demand for almost 25 billion of their debt in an auction. The very next day, their bond market collapsed and the rout began. Just ten days later, they were turning up in Brussels with a begging bowl, and inviting the European Commission and IMF to Athens to start making their tax and spending decisions.

There can be nothing worse for a government than having your economic policy dictated by the markets, and then other governments, as access to finance disappears. All you can do is rush out announcement after announcement, promising tax hikes and spending cuts, and pray that the market pressure eases up. While the usual weeping and wailing about evil speculators and short-sellers hits the headlines - a familiar ruse to those in the UK from the bank collapses - the reality is that the willingness of international markets to lend further has been exhausted. The endgame has begun.

Few should understand the dreadful nature of this experience better than David Cameron. Watching Norman Lamont and John Major rush in front of the cameras in 1992 - promising ever higher interest rates and economic pain to assuage markets - will have been a powerful lesson in just how overwhelming the markets can be when confidence is lost.

Something lost in the memory of the 1992 experience was that other countries were having similar pressures - Canada, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Italy in particular. The commonality was that all had high - and, to many investors, unsustainable - deficits. That year saw bond markets and currencies collapse like dominos. Country after country was forced into sorting out its debt position, as markets withdrew the national credit card. The memoirs of the leaders of the left wing Canadian and Swedish governments at time make clear just how terrified their governments were of being forced into the hands of the IMF. It was the firm view of the left in those countries that they had to get the national finances under control quickly, lest their ability to provide the social safety they wished became unsustainable.

Ultimately, the history of running deficits this big is pretty clear cut - at some point the bond market explodes and carries you out. It's when, not if. A country with very high household debt and a shaky banking system is particularly vulnerable.

Which is why this chart is particularly ominous. It shows that the UK deficit is the same size as that of Greece:

Cameron and Osborne seem to have been thinking about this more than most, and recognise the constraints their government will be under. They seem to realise that they are going to have to face up to some very different decisions and need to warn people. And so it will start becoming clearer that the guy who says, rightly, that "we can't go on like this" is a very different kind of politician from the guys who arrived singing "things can only get better."

 

[ripperOFflesh]

im still not decided yet

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Obviously, not a serious political article, but hilarious nonetheless on why we should Tobin Tax the film industry, not the banks:

http://brackenworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/luvvie-tax.html

It seems that some assorted Luvvies have found something else to do with their lives since they realised the utter pointlessness of devoting their lives to the art of “Dress up and Pretend”. They have dreamt up a “Robin Hood” tax where banks pay a minimum 0.005% (note Minimum, they make no mention at all of the maximum) tax for being a bank, the money going to the causes de jour of these self appointed guardians of world economics and morality.

The rather obvious point is that they decided on picking somebody else’s industry for the joy of funding their pet projects. No “Robin Hood” tax on their dreary 2 hour lectures dressed up as entertainment. No Tobin Tax for an industry that requires nothing more than memorising a really short book and being able to regurgitate it in front of a camera; or if you’re an actress regurgitate both the two pages of your script and your breakfast. Indeed, if memory serves me right the UK film industry is constantly arguing for less taxes all the time so they can make another film all about how wonderful Socialism is. So for them to ask for more taxes for somebody else sticks in ones craw just a tad. We all know why they’ve done it of course, Bankers are bigger pantomime villains right now than the signposted baddies in one of their god awful films; and they want to strike before people work out that fiscal policy shouldn't be dictated by a man who pretends to be a Squid for Disney.

For all their claims about ending world poverty, I notice none of them fired up the Prius to take some canned goods to Haiti unless their ****ing Scientology minister threatened them with more dead space aliens. Granted they did a telethon for the place in the States, but then Actors getting free publicity by appearing on TV is hardly pushing the bloody boat out. It’s a bit like Paula Radcliffe doing the Nike 5km fun run and asking for sponsorship. If you could get them off the "Electric Fish Tank" then that would be worth sponsorship. I’d pay more money to Haiti if I could get George Clooney to promise not to make another film for a year

Banks create jobs that grow industry and business, the Film industry creates jobs that mean you no longer have to dig a ditch for a co-star when filming Dustin Hoffman. You can now CGI him into looking like he could play Point Guard for the Detroit Pistons. Now this is great for Dustin who previously didn’t have the imagination to pretend he could play in the NBA, but really **** all use to anybody else. The only real jobs created by the UK film industry are the blokes on a 12 Hour shift in Shenzhen, who are making the Love Actually DVD’s that are now makeshift Coffee coasters, and the catering van knocking up bacon and egg sandwiches to fat lighting technicians. Luvvies are not pulling their weight quite frankly, so I suggest the following…

Tax the cost of one goat per village in Botswana every time a British film re-writes history to show their political causes and ideals in a better light than they would otherwise. E.g. Richard Curtis, the Labour Supporting luvvie’s wet dream jerk off when he gets a Tony Blairesque Hugh Grant to tell George Bush to sod off in Love Actually. Or when, oh let me think Richard Curtis, the Labour supporting Luvvie pretends that it was those evil Tories who tried to shut down pirate radio stations in the 60’s when it was in actual fact those wonderful progressive comrades who didn’t like competition to the State in “The Boat that rocked”. Or Richard Curtis; who changed history in Blackadder to re-write all officers as buffoons as anything else wouldn’t fit his anti-military stereotype. Or Richard Curtis who used the TV drama “The Girl in the Café” and “The Vicar of Dibley” to plug his previous incarnation of his poverty campaign before Jews Bankers became available to extort.

Tax the cost of replanting 10,000 acres of Brazilian Hardwoods every time a director says how “wonderful it was to work with X” on the DVD commentary.

Fine a writer his entire wealth and give it to Rwanda every time he writes a script on how the fit bird falls for the shy writer.

Fine a director the cost of 100,000 MRE packs every time he has a 40 year old lead man boning a barely post pubescent actress on film.

Tax the studio its entire post tax profits if anybody mentions anywhere in the Publicity or interviews about how "It's wonderful that people devote their lives to telling stories and making people happy". No it isn't wonderful, its ****ing tragic. I make my Godson happy reading him Barney the Dinosaur - whoopie doo.

Every British film will have to pay a package tax of £100,000 every time a Codpiece, Ruff, or pair of tights on a man can be spotted by the BBFC.

We can create a better Britain with these taxes. We can drive these people from our shores to France where they also make crap films nobody wants to watch. No longer will Leicester Square be blocked off so these walking adverts to the scourge of Bulimia can go hassle free into their self congratulatory circle jerk Premieres. Our trees will no longer die in vain; proper news will cover the noble Pine and Birtches’ sacrifice rather than some drivel on neck lines and vintage Ralph Lauren. And we’ll get good films, from America, with Machine Guns, and a Car Chase, and Bruce Willis, and an actress, with implants. Our London shops will get a proper meat counter back, rather than having to share it with some **** called Tapenade in earthenware bowls. Britain will be free of Alan Rickman’s view of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, Ken Loach’s “Contribution” to Anglo-Irish relations and; lets not **** about here, every single ****ing one of them on how we should all drive a Prius and canoe to our Holiday destination (with the exception of our Luvvie Intelligentsia who simply need their Gulfstream G5’s to pick up their Palme d'Pretentious). And we don’t even need to think too hard for a new name for this tax. A vulgar name for female genitalia followed by the word Tax seems a good starting point.

 

[PermaBanned]

Tories to be tougher than Thatcher on spending - Clarke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8514697.stm

A Conservative government would have to be much tougher on public spending than "Margaret Thatcher ever was", Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke has said.

In an interview with the Times, he said the Tories would have to cut spending more severely than in the 1980s.

Mr Clarke also described his party as being "vague" on possible tax increases, such as raising VAT.

But the former chancellor said that was because it was not something the Conservatives liked doing.

Difficult situation

He said: "If you are going to increase taxes you have to look at all your revenues.
"But we are definitely going to have cuts in spending. We are vague about tax increases because we don't like them."

Mr Clarke, who will be 70 in July, said a future Tory administration would face a more difficult situation than he ever did as a minister in the past.

"This is the longest, deepest recession anyone alive can now remember," he said.
"In percentage terms the level of spending cuts we are contemplating is probably [going to] exceed those of any modern government.

"We are going to have to be much tougher on public spending than Margaret Thatcher ever was."

'Very fragile'

Mr Clarke said the current economic downturn was far worse than the recession of the 1990s.

"I would say we're going to be bouncing along the bottom for quite some time," he said.
"There are myriad uncertainties; we haven't got rid of any of the underlying problems. It's very fragile."

In the interview, Mr Clarke also said it was foolish to deny that some small businesses might be reluctant to employ female workers because of the possibility they could take long maternity leave.

But he added that to start reversing rights to maternity leave would be ridiculous.