badgerx16

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2010/04/scaremongering-about-immigrants-and.html http://www.fullfact.org/blogdetail/?id=16&sel=blog ( "From this we can deduce that almost 40 per cent of those listed as “foreign born” in the Spectator tables and described by the Mail as “immigrants” are in possession of a British passport" )

Well, that's enough for me; I just can't beleive a word DC says, Cleggy is treading water, and Gordy, whilst manfully fighting his corner, must know it's a forlorn hope. Switched over to watch the scousers.

There was a quote on the BBC radio this morning that went along the lines "The Tories have implied that by cutting waste and making 'efficiency' savings, the net amount to be saved works out to £1700 per household. Surely if that amount was available to be pruned, it would already have happened ?" The RCN alone is talking of thousands of nursing posts being at risk. The idea that you can make the required levels of savings whilst 'protecting' front-line services is hogwash.

To follow on from other posts concerning cutting 'non-jobs' in the cause of efficiency savings; what impact in increased benefit payments and reduced tax yield would the job losses in the public sector have ? Some people have quoted tens if not hundreds of thousands of redundancies as being a good thing.

Take that with the IFS report, and try to map these points to the respective policies - the Tories are even proposing tax CUTS, ( which the IFS state will have to be reversed within a couple of years ). We are being conned by all 3 major parties, and they are insulting us by not admitting to what we already know is the true picture. Let's see what tonight's debate brings.

Heaven forbid that the people get the Government they actually want. ( And yes, that opens me up to the retort 'you get the Government you deserve' ) If, just for 4 years, we had a Parliament that dropped all personality cults and factional bickering, and pooled their undoubted talents into a common goal. But there is too much veneer, too much PR spin, and too much owing to the puppet masters behind the scenes.

amble

The Institute for Fiscal Studies assessment of the three conteners' proposals for managing the national deficit; http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn99.pdf The concluding paragraph: "It is striking that the parties are all aiming to deliver at least two-thirds of their fiscal tightening through spending cuts rather than tax increases, and that they have not announced any measures that would make big savings in welfare spending over this period. Bear in mind that when the last Conservative government faced the need for a significant fiscal tightening in the early 1990s, we estimate that the then Chancellors Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke aimed to split the burden roughly 50:50 between tax increases and spending cuts. This might suggest that all the parties are overambitious in the amount they think they can squeeze out of public services. Whoever forms the next government, that points to greater reliance on tax increases and welfare cuts after the election than the parties are willing to admit to beforehand."

Do you think this event will change how they cast their vote ?

Other than you, does anybody read it ?

You wishy-washy liberal

Every politician insults the electorate every time they say 'trust me, I know best'.

But what did SHE say ? Maybe he's right ! ( Though he should have been more careful )

As they sing in The Producers "A little peace of Poland, a little peace of France".......

The only bit I agree with from the article; “The public are seriously disillusioned, cynical and distrustful of politicians,”.

Bangles

Democracy is 22% of the electorate delivering a 66 seat overall majority. LOL

thunder

Lorenzo

trim

Dune, as I posted on the Electoral Reform thread, the extreme end of FPTP could give us the following; In half the seats Party1 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. In the other half of the seats, Party2 get 51% of the vote and Party3 get 49%. The result of this is that Party1 and Party2 will have half of the seats each, yet will have polled only 25.5% of the total vote, leaving Party3 with 49% of the vote and no seats. Is this acceptable ? If not, why is acceptable to extrapolate it to, for instance, @33% each for the 3 main parties, yet LD get only 10% of the seats. That is hardly in the spirit of democracy. It seems clear that the majority of the public want reform, yet the 'big 2' resist it because the national demographic, with the LD being the only party with a truly national appeal, works in their favour due to the local concentrations of red and blue supporters.

I'd go for that, but depending on how much Labour need LibDem support, maybe another couple of cabinet positions.

fields

irrigation

Dune, rather than lying about BTF ( and I have searched the forums ), try this link; http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/02/team_cameron_ar.html :cool: