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

[Dolph]

I think this is correct apart from that we don't appear to have much of an economy left to recover. So the whole process will take a very long time , by which time we may have too much debt, which in turn will cause recession.

None of the parties have a plausible plan for the future.

All parties are promising massive cuts, Labour are just peddling the lie that these cuts are not going to be painful. Withdrawing a false driver from the economy is always painful, but necessary in the long term. The sooner the process starts, the quicker we can get back on our feet in the long term. Labour are right about one thing, it will be the 1980's all over again, with someone having to clear up the mess that Labour has made by thinking that the state can drive the economy without consequence.

 

[scorza]

Company? We're not talking about a company, you're not allowed to run a company with as much irresponsibility as labour has shown to the country.

How many countries have gone bankrupt or required a bailout during this global economic crisis? I can think of two - Iceland and Greece. How many companies have gone bankrupt or required a bailout?

 

[meghatronic]

How many countries have gone bankrupt or required a bailout during this global economic crisis? I can think of two - Iceland and Greece. How many companies have gone bankrupt or required a bailout?

Non sequitur.

 

[RatsPom]

Conservative

 

[Busa]

Non sequitur.

Yep i think i shall vote for them to.

 

[Sho]

Still making my mind up if im gona vote. As it stands, i wont be. bunch of noobs these MP's....

 

[craig3000]

None of them as they are as equally useless as each other.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Still making my mind up if im gona vote. As it stands, i wont be. bunch of noobs these MP's....

I guess you're not old enough to vote, anyway

 

[Dolph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/david-cameron-conservatives-radicals

Very good piece by Cameron, and a very true characterisation of the Labour party. Whether Cameron is the right person to deal with it or not, you can't deny the truth in this part.

Gordon Brown heaps taxes on the poor, blocks plans to improve gender equality, allows rape crisis centres and special schools to shut. He echoes the far right in demanding "British jobs for British workers", then plays to the far left in reigniting class warfare. His reflex is to seek dividing lines instead of ways to unite.

He is most reactionary, most illiberal, in his obsession with the state. Detention without trial; ID cards; new powers for the state to enter your home … the list goes on. And this antiquated belief in state control underscores Labour's approach to public services. In education they want to derail the academy programme by handing power back to local education authorities. In health, they refuse to dismantle the bureaucracy that drives nurses and doctors mad. And they refuse to release data on government contracts or the details of senior government salaries.

Labour are wedded to the idea that politicians know best, with their targets and quangos and diktats. But you cannot fight poverty or improve hospitals from office blocks in Westminster; you need pluralism, you need to release the energy and ambition on the ground in local communities. We live in an age where power is being diffused: in every industry, consumers are gaining control; in every debate, more voices are being heard. In politics, Gordon Brown is an anachronism. His government is past its sell-by date.

Brown's and Labour's control freak tendancies have to be curbed.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

How Labour are exploiting the ignorance of the MSM

For just over four years now I've been reading Hansard every day and trawling through the written questions submitted across Government. Last year I was rather humbled when the Labour MP Tom Harris noted of me that,

His tireless efforts to scan lists of EDMs and parliamentary written answers put many mainstream journalists to shame and he regularly comes up with some political nuggets. Wish he was on our side...

Now I bring up Tom's comment not to blow my own proverbial but rather to back up my credibility on the point I wish to make about the claim from Gordon Brown, Liam Byrne, Alistair Darling etc that the Tories "efficiency savings" have been drawn up on the "back of an envelope". The charge is, quite simply, ********.

During all the time that I've been reading through Hansard there's been a constant and recurring theme of questioning from Tory MPs such as Oliver Heald, Mark Hoban, Phillip Hammond and Francis Maude. These themes have included,

• * Departmental spending on consultants
• * Breakdown of pay grades to staff ratio in departments and executive agencies
• * Detailed spending costs on agency and contracted staff
• * Breakdown of different classes of travel by departments and executive agencies
• * Details of overnight hotel visits set against the number of night spent in hotels.
• * Spending on car and fuel costs by the Government Dispatch Service
• * Staff churn rates and vacant posts
• * Spending on empty buildings owned by departments, agencies and quangos
• * Operational costs of IT infrastructure
• * Delayed IT projects and ongoing costs
• * Operating and ongoing costs of negotiated contracts such as PFI, IT and back office service provision
• * Yearly spending on furniture in department and executive agencies
• * Breakdown in the cost of redecorating office with pretty new colours
• * Spending on artwork for Government buildings
• * Spending on hospitality and corporate event hosting across Whitehall and quangos

As the answers to these questions have been given - sometimes with the "it will cost too much to tell you" line - they've been followed up relentlessly with tweaks and rewordings clearly designed to gain a picture of what is happening in areas of Government spending that goes further than the headline budget figures of total operating costs.

In some cases the answers have produced eye-watering figures 10 digits long, in others they have produced what would be considered minuscule amounts when set against something like the deficit. The crucial thing is that they all add up however small or large.

Essentially what I'm saying is this. Yes, we're in an election campaign so we hear statement, then rebuttal, then a rebuttal of the rebuttal ad infinitum, but the attack that the Tories are working things on out on the "back of an envelope" is patently wrong and the public records of the daily happenings in Parliament proves it.

If the mainstream media put in the effort to read Hansard each day they'd realise that the savings being proposed are drawn from figures derived after at least four years of repeated questioning and research that's delved under the bonnet of the big headline budget numbers.

The "back of an envelope" line is nothing more than a sound bite designed to exploit the ignorance of a mainstream media that no longer reports the details of everyday Parliamentary business.

 

[Naffa]

This is quite a good read:

If you're looking for class war, you can find it - in David Cameron's policies

http://johannhari.com//2010/04/09/i...ar-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies


However, I found the IFS report that's referenced in there and he didn't mention the difference in inequality between '97 and '07/08.


Labour's tax and benefit increases prevent rapid rise in income inequality

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4806

 

[Dolph]

This is quite a good read:

If you're looking for class war, you can find it - in David Cameron's policies

http://johannhari.com//2010/04/09/i...ar-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies


However, I found the IFS report that's referenced in there and he didn't mention the difference in inequality between '97 and '07/08.


Labour's tax and benefit increases prevent rapid rise in income inequality

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4806

There's more to social mobility than simple income equality.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

After taking into account the more relaxed GCSE grading, ONS finds public sector productivity (value for money) has fallen 9% since Labour came into power:

You cannot trust them with your money.

 

[Naffa]

There's more to social mobility than simple income equality.

It's a good thing he only referred to social income then, isn't it?

Of course I agree, hence why we need another socialist government to ensure that all of the essential public services are available to the masses, rather than the richest few. It's Labour's biggest failing, in my opinion.

EDIT: I'm actually at a loss as to how on Earth you can use that justification for supporting the Conservatives.

 

[scorza]

David Cameron outlines how he's going to cut public spending by £12bn a month - fair play for going into some detail, though the media had to pester him long enough for it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8610560.stm

Now his problem is that his plan is unconvincing - losing 40,000 jobs through natural wastage is fine, except if those 40,000 jobs are useful and required. Oh and he's going to cancel IT contracts too, meaning the government will literally be paying money for nothing, and spend less on IT in general. Ought we not to follow the example of the private sector when cutting costs and invest in more IT systems?

Does he understand the business of government at all? or is he merely reverting to his profession as a PR representative - telling us what we want to hear (nasty IT projects cost too much) instead of what would actually make a difference?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Now his problem is that his plan is unconvincing - losing 40,000 jobs through natural wastage is fine, except if those 40,000 jobs are useful and required.

But they're not - hence why the government identified the same 'wastage' as actual wastage. They contribute zero to public sector productivity.

Oh and he's going to cancel IT contracts too, meaning the government will literally be paying money for nothing, and spend less on IT in general.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses. The majority of experienced IT commentators say that the NHS IT project is beyond repair now - it is a black hole for cash.

Ought we not to follow the example of the private sector when cutting costs and invest in more IT systems?

Not while the government and public sector product managers are not competent enough to deliver large scale IT projects. Once those problems are addressed, then yes - we should press on.


Let's quote from the Public Accounts Committee chair into government's abysmal and disgraceful mismanagement of almost every medium to large sized IT project:

In the letter, Edward Leigh said that departmental IT projects are “over-ambitious, overly complex and fail to deliver what is promised while costs rocket”. He also set out 10 lessons on government spending.

He added: “Time and again, departments have wasted millions on IT systems that fail to live up to promise, come in late and cost hugely more than forecast.”

...

In the letter, Edward Leigh said that departmental IT projects are “over-ambitious, overly complex and fail to deliver what is promised while costs rocket”. He also set out 10 lessons on government spending.

He added: “Time and again, departments have wasted millions on IT systems that fail to live up to promise, come in late and cost hugely more than forecast.”

http://futurefairforall.org/post/486957014/public-accounts-committee-time-and-again-departments

 

[britboy4321]

http://futurefairforall.org/post/486957014/public-accounts-committee-time-and-again-departments

If they hadn't tried to implement IT systems or modernise you'd have been ranting about nurses still having to use 1960s technology and how much money its costing to manually store paper files, compared to installing modern IT systems which Labour should have attempted to do what idiots they are! , and therefore how Labour had caused the NHS falling to peices. Don't pretend you wouldn't.

Labour is 'damned if they do, damned if they don't.' with you .. you're looking through blinkered eyes rather then being reasonable about the fact that a lot of new ideas won't work but are worth trying ... it's called real life.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Labour is 'damned if they do, damned if they don't.' with you .. you're looking through blinkered eyes rather then being reasonable about the fact that a lot of new ideas won't work but are worth trying ... it's called real life.

No it isn't, you blind fool. America can do it. France can do it. Germany can do it. Japan can do it. The Nordic countries can do it SPECTACULARLY well. Why can't we?

Why can't this country modernise with IT without wasting money and never actually achieving anything?

Why has this country fallen 20% behind in terms of public sector productivity and standard of health care, education?

Because of what Labour have done to the public sector. Their stupid 'career progression' plans which see project managers rotating departments every 3-4 years, barring any chance of specialization. Their dumb and institutional encouragement of waste - spend it or lose it next year budgeting for departments.

People barely get to grips with these MASSIVE projects and handle them with no expertise. So they come in, take their fat salaries AND then need to fork millions to consultancy firms to tell them how to do their jobs and how to write specifications, which they ALWAYS get wrong, and then they don't get what they wanted (not surprisingly).

Why do you think that I am trying to say Labour should never have attempted IT projects? I never, ever said that.

It is NOT real life. It is called ****ing up, constantly and repeatedly and I have had enough.

 

[britboy4321]

No it isn't, you blind fool. America can do it. France can do it. Germany can do it. Why can't we?

Because of what Labour have done to the public sector. Their stupid 'career progression' plans which see project managers rotating departments every 3-4 years, barring any chance of specialization.

People barely get to grips with these MASSIVE projects and handle them with no expertise. So they come in, take their fat salaries AND then need to fork millions to consultancy firms to tell them how to do their jobs and how to write specifications, which they ALWAYS get wrong, and then they don't get what they wanted (not surprisingly).

Why do you think that I am trying to say Labour should never have attempted IT projects? I never, ever said that.

So consultancy firms always get 'writing specifications' wrong? So the clients ALWAYS get it wrong even when a consultancy is there to guide them? I think you have a lack of knowledge in what you are talking about.

I'm a consultant. Been both independent and through a consultancy firm. Done work for the council and government. Been a consultant for well over a decade with many, many public and private sector clients. I know more than you about this. Sorry, you're just plain wrong. 'which they ALWAYS get wrong'? Pffft! If that was the case PWC simply wouldn't exist!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I edited my post