You are confusing Osborne with Brown and Darling. Would you really trust the people who created this mess to fix it? If we do end up like Greece, it won't be because of anything Osborne does.
Poll: The Last Leaders Debate – Live tonight at 2030 BST on BBC One
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
You are confusing Osborne with Brown and Darling. Would you really trust the people who created this mess to fix it? If we do end up like Greece, it won't be because of anything Osborne does.
I stand corrected, you've clearly displayed at least 5 concrete points where the Conservatives would 'screw the working man'. Just as I thought, when you actually push someone on how the Conservatives will be bad for the lower earners you get nothing. Still, i'll leave now and let the little Nick Clegg love in, that is this thread, continue...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Short brunette girls? Completely unnatural I tell you.
You've got me there, is there anything I can do about this unfortunate situation? Quite frankly it can be decidedly inconvenient since they're short and I'm not...
It's for this reason, if for no other, that I think arguments against homosexuality not being natural fall down - we don't consciously choose who we find attractive or what features are most attractive. However it's almost certainly too complex to ascribe to nature or nurture alone, I'd suspect that both play their role in the issue.
I'm really not. Osborne is totally out of his depth as evident by the Chancellor's debates. The problem with an inexperienced chancellor like George is that he might do something stupid like the last Conservative government did in the events leading up to Black Wednesday - and who was helping then Chancellor Norman Lamont in the Treasury? Why none other than the leader of Conservative party Dave Cameron. I hope he's learnt his lesson, but by sticking with Osborne it doesn't look like it.
There's no reason why the current state of the British economy can't be corrected in a sensible and reasonably painless way. The biggest threat to this country is swingeing public spending cuts causing a detrimental effect on public services leading to lack of investment.
Somewhat different given the ERM situation...
We need to reduce the budget deficit by £160bn or so (because our national debt is getting big enough that we really need to start running a surplus at some point). Increased Taxation doesn't work very well for reducing deficits or for stimulating economies in the long term. The only option that makes any sense long term is spending cuts, the question is how we do it. Don't forget the Lib Dems want to achieve the deficit reduction by a greater portion of spending cuts than the Tories do...
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Fine, give me five concrete reasons why i should believe that the Tory's won't just repeat the same mistakes they have done every time they've been in power for the last 60 years or so?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
You don't need five, just one:
There is nothing to suggest the Tories, now a completely different party, *will* be the same as they were 60 years ago, which is comparatively an alien time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
FiveThirtyEight's incredibly intricate and aggressive seat forecasting model has some interesting results:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/labour-danger-uniform-swing.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/labour-danger-uniform-swing.html
Looks like a decent result - hung Parliament and also the issue of the Lib Dems getting more votes but considerably less seats than Labour just to really push through the case for reform - not to mention the Tories and Lib Dems being separated by 5% in the popular vote yet having over twice as many seats.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
While I'd agree with you that times have changed and the Conservatives also does this not somewhat belie the assertion that they should be expected to demonstrate superior fiscal responsibility than any of the other parties based on past precedent? Or to put it another way if they've changed in so many ways what makes it likely that they won't have changed in this important way?
It just seems a little lopsided to rely on the past for the good points yet dismiss the bad points from the same time without knowing for sure that change has been effected on those points. It is, of course, perfectly possible that the Conservatives (or whoever) have learnt from their more questionable policies and are now much improved but only selectively acknowledging positives doesn't seem totally balanced.
Umm, that's not how it works, it's not a personal allowance on what you inherit, it's an allowance for the person who died. How did you not know that?
Were you as vocal in 1997, 2001 and 2005 about the mismatch between the popular vote and seat allocation?
The burden of proof isn't on me.
I'm not the one going round spouting unfounded nonsense.
I'm still none the wiser as to why people cant accept that the country doesnt generate the kind of money required to pay for the public services that labour want to give us.
It simply doesnt, its all right saying there are more nurses and doctors and sure start centers, but we cant afford them, the country has in effect, been living a Walther Mitty life where money can simply be borrowed ad infinitum and doesnt have to be paid back for the past 13 years.
Gordon Brown has been repeated warned (even in the good times) about the consequences of his ridiculous fiscal policies since labour came into power, and he has ignored everyone form the bank of england, to the treasury, to his own party and this is why we are where we are.
Its one mans fault, not the global economic crisis, just Gordon Brown's.
It simply doesnt, its all right saying there are more nurses and doctors and sure start centers, but we cant afford them, the country has in effect, been living a Walther Mitty life where money can simply be borrowed ad infinitum and doesnt have to be paid back for the past 13 years.
Gordon Brown has been repeated warned (even in the good times) about the consequences of his ridiculous fiscal policies since labour came into power, and he has ignored everyone form the bank of england, to the treasury, to his own party and this is why we are where we are.
Its one mans fault, not the global economic crisis, just Gordon Brown's.
This. With the addition that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. Look how its been spent? A ton of useless middle management and paper pushing.
LOL. So throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. Fair enough, I agree. So how else do you solve a problem? get more people to manage it is one way that would work, but you've ruled that out too. So what's left?
I swear that they must be putting something in the water for so many people to have such short memories if they're prepared to accept Conservative rule. The NHS might not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was in 1997. I guess people will find that out again in the next 5 years.
Fix the structural flaws in the setup, abolish the massive, monolithic centralised services, decentralise and free the service providers, and create a situation where better service, rather than worse service, is rewarded with a greater income. move the state to an access, rather than provision, role, and enjoy much better services as a result.
You keep presenting Labour's investment as if it was sustainable and efficient, it was neither. Labour more than doubled the national debt, excluding the bank bailout, in 8 years, and it was rising rapidly long before the recession started.
It's quite simple, Labour have made a bad situation many times worse by their fiscal irresponsibility over the last thirteen years. Voting for them to continue what they are doing (after what they have done already) is absolutely ludicrous.
The Liberal Democrats are ready to step up to the plate and make the cuts required to try and drag us out of this mess. Unfortunately they also happen to have some 'deal breaker' policies which mean most people wont vote for them (nuclear power/weapons, the euro, immigration).
That leaves the Conservatives, who might not have a perfect selection of policies, but most policies they have are on the right side of where things need to be. They don't really have a 'deal breaker' either, unless you want to continue to moan about Thatcher, the Poll Tax or Black Wednesday.
The future cuts we will have to endure will not be popular, but the gravy train is finished, things have to change. It's simply not possible for us to continue on the current Labour path.
It may well get worse, but at least the country might avoid bankruptcy?
The truly sad part of all this is, if the Conservatives get in, roll up their sleeves and start tackling the problem head on they are going to end up to blame for the 'suffering' endured as a result of the cuts needed to save the country.
It's all well and good criticising Osbourne for being inexperienced and a potential 'risk', but you only have to look at the incompetence of the experienced Brown to reassure yourself about Obsourne I think.
Anyone that says that not putting up income tax 1% and funding it via other cuts is 'taking money out of the economy' shouldn't be anywhere near the chancellor role, let alone be Prime Minister.
Labour have been like an irresponsible gambler, spending more and more money chasing their losses. They haven't even reached the 'admit you have a problem' stage of their gambling problem. For that reason alone, they shouldn't be voted for on Thursday.
The Liberal Democrats are ready to step up to the plate and make the cuts required to try and drag us out of this mess. Unfortunately they also happen to have some 'deal breaker' policies which mean most people wont vote for them (nuclear power/weapons, the euro, immigration).
That leaves the Conservatives, who might not have a perfect selection of policies, but most policies they have are on the right side of where things need to be. They don't really have a 'deal breaker' either, unless you want to continue to moan about Thatcher, the Poll Tax or Black Wednesday.
The future cuts we will have to endure will not be popular, but the gravy train is finished, things have to change. It's simply not possible for us to continue on the current Labour path.
It may well get worse, but at least the country might avoid bankruptcy?
The truly sad part of all this is, if the Conservatives get in, roll up their sleeves and start tackling the problem head on they are going to end up to blame for the 'suffering' endured as a result of the cuts needed to save the country.
It's all well and good criticising Osbourne for being inexperienced and a potential 'risk', but you only have to look at the incompetence of the experienced Brown to reassure yourself about Obsourne I think.
Anyone that says that not putting up income tax 1% and funding it via other cuts is 'taking money out of the economy' shouldn't be anywhere near the chancellor role, let alone be Prime Minister.
Labour have been like an irresponsible gambler, spending more and more money chasing their losses. They haven't even reached the 'admit you have a problem' stage of their gambling problem. For that reason alone, they shouldn't be voted for on Thursday.
- Status