General Election 2015

[Batman]

Those sure start centres helped a lot of single parents in poorer areas actually. But either way, spending more in 4 years than 13 doesn't seem like a very clever way of cutting anything.....Unless they're lying.....

maybe we should cut loads more

[Hockey_saint]

maybe we should cut loads more

 

What would you suggest?

[hypochondriac]

Those sure start centres helped a lot of single parents in poorer areas actually. But either way, spending more in 4 years than 13 doesn't seem like a very clever way of cutting anything.....Unless they're lying.....

 

Those sure start centres lost money hand over fist and we're rightly shut down. Trust me I know what I'm talking about because I had to deal with them on a weekly basis (still do sometimes.) So are you saying that labour would have spent a lot less then? Because all I've been hearing for five years was what a terrible policy the Tories have and how they are cutting too much.

[bridge too far]

What would you suggest?

 

He would suggest that children of disadvantaged families cease to get the support they need to help them become less likely to be obese, to be less likely to be subjected to violence and abuse, to be less likely to have parents that try to help them.

 

But then again, there'd be even more of them entitled to free laptops, wouldn't there Batman?

[hypochondriac]

He would suggest that children of disadvantaged families cease to get the support they need to help them become less likely to be obese, to be less likely to be subjected to violence and abuse, to be less likely to have parents that try to help them.

 

But then again, there'd be even more of them entitled to free laptops, wouldn't there Batman?

 

Disadvantaged families should get help (early years pupil premium is being introduced soon for example which is something even if it's not enough). Sure start was never the answer.

[Batman]

What would you suggest?

 

I am voting conservative. That is my suggestion

[Hockey_saint]

Those sure start centres lost money hand over fist and we're rightly shut down. Trust me I know what I'm talking about because I had to deal with them on a weekly basis (still do sometimes.) So are you saying that labour would have spent a lot less then? Because all I've been hearing for five years was what a terrible policy the Tories have and how they are cutting too much.

 

That's fair enough....It's just slightly dodgy in the scheme of things since their target audience wouldn't normally vote conservative.

[hypochondriac]

That's fair enough....It's just slightly dodgy in the scheme of things since their target audience wouldn't normally vote conservative.

 

No idea if their closure was politically motivated but regardless of the reason it was the right thing to do. So many staff members and so much waste for what amounts to only a small benefit. So do you think of labour had been in power they would have spent less and cut more? Because clearly they would have spent more and not cut a lot which has shown would not have been the right approach.

[Millbrook Saint]

I assume you ignored the unfortunate and verifiable facts that Farage pointed out about how this government have borrowed MORE than Labour did in their whole term of office and STILL the deficit is rising? but hey, don't let doctrine get in the way the facts.

 

No I understand that completely, even labour have said there will need to be big cuts, none of us know how much a labour government would have borrowed if they had been in government, trouble is I don't trust them, come on Balls for ****s sake, he just comes across as a bully boy, he's already failed once, do we just give him more goes until he gets it right. Trouble is with labour they love spending and they have to get the money from somewhere, either higher taxes or more borrowing as I see it, until they show me different it's how I feel I'm afraid.

 

i.m just speaking from experience has someone who has voted since the 1970s and seen the same old arguments time and time again. to be fair they are all bu ll sh itters and i think people take a lot of there news from newspapers owned by rich vested interests and distort the news for their own agendas. i still remember when cameron was regarded has week and his hug a hoody phase.i don,t mind who gets elected has theres not much difference between them all apart from farages party who would do great damage to the britsh industry with his childish policys but thats never going to happen thank god and agree cameron with clegg in another coalition would be the best outcome of the election.

 

I have to agree with all you say, the trouble is politicians from both sides will tell you different things, only one of them can be right, meaning the other is lieing, that should never be allowed to happen, we need a publication we can all read which just states facts, no agendas, no opinions just hard facts.

 

The other thing I think we should be doing is running the country like a huge conglomerate, buying up companies from around the world and running them with sole aim of making money for the British tax payer I'm sure the Chinese do a similar thing but probably not ditributing the wealth very well. If I could see us borrowing money to do that I'd be more open to borrowing than I to borrow to pay the bills

[Hockey_saint]

No idea if their closure was politically motivated but regardless of the reason it was the right thing to do. So many staff members and so much waste for what amounts to only a small benefit. So do you think of labour had been in power they would have spent less and cut more? Because clearly they would have spent more and not cut a lot which has shown would not have been the right approach.

 

It's tricky; I agree there was a lot of wastage in Labour's term. The PFI agreements were a complete and utter waste of money (and a very profitable bit of business for the companies involved). A lot of people I know would suggest this is all smoke and mirrors anyhow since banks can create money out of thin air or you simply change your currency is another quick way of getting out of this theoretical debt.

 

I think a lot of what goes on is politically-minded. I just think that there are more savings to be made by targeting rich pensioners for example and tax-dodgers than those with little or nothing and it just seems to me that these groups are the first ones to be hit.

Edited 3 April, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[hypochondriac]

It's tricky; I agree there was a lot of wastage in Labour's term. The PFI agreements were a complete and utter waste of money (and a very profitable bit of business for the companies involved). A lot of people I know would suggest this is all smoke and mirrors anyhow since banks can create money out of thin air or you simply change your currency is another quick way of getting out of this theoretical debt.

 

I think a lot of what goes on is politically-minded. I just think that there are more savings to be made by targeting rich pensioners for example and tax-dodgers than those with little or nothing and it just seems to me that these groups are the first ones to be hit.

 

OK I think that's a fair comment. I just can't bring myself to vote labour at the moment because I don't find ed either believable or credible so really the only other option for government is the Tories.

[saint si]

I assume you ignored the unfortunate and verifiable facts that Farage pointed out about how this government have borrowed MORE than Labour did in their whole term of office and STILL the deficit is rising? but hey, don't let doctrine get in the way the facts.

 

In absolute terms, perhaps. As a percentage of GDP, the budget deficit is falling and the national debt is levelling off.

[bridge too far]

It's tricky; I agree there was a lot of wastage in Labour's term. The PFI agreements were a complete and utter waste of money (and a very profitable bit of business for the companies involved). A lot of people I know would suggest this is all smoke and mirrors anyhow since banks can create money out of thin air or you simply change your currency is another quick way of getting out of this theoretical debt.

 

I think a lot of what goes on is politically-minded. I just think that there are more savings to be made by targeting rich pensioners for example and tax-dodgers than those with little or nothing and it just seems to me that these groups are the first ones to be hit.

 

From the outset, let me declare that I worked on 3 hospital PFI schemes. I was, and still am, against PFI but everyone should be aware that it was John Major's government that introduced the idea, not Labour.

 

Having said all that, it's fair to say the the NHS estate is far more efficient and much better able to deliver the care needed in the 21st century. The backlog maintenance bill to bring the many old, often Victorian, buildings up to scratch would have been huge because of underinvestment in the previous years.

 

For example, one scheme I worked on comprised nissan huts built during WW2. The huts were on a sloping site that required two porters to wheel patients through draughty exposed walkways. The savings on manpower alone by building fit for purpose new wards was immense on its own

[bridge too far]

Hmmmm very interesting blog from a Tory

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?1428057164

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Hmmmm very interesting blog from a Tory

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?1428057164

 

What's quite strange is that those 3 claims haven't been particularly prominent, in fact I haven't heard the claim that it was the biggest debt etc, and having a quick scout on the net I can't see that it has ever been said by the Tory party...It seems he's kinda made up claims to back his arguments.

[bridge too far]

What's quite strange is that those 3 claims haven't been particularly prominent, in fact I haven't heard the claim that it was the biggest debt etc, and having a quick scout on the net I can't see that it has ever been said by the Tory party...It seems he's kinda made up claims to back his arguments.

 

Osbourne and Cameron have both rattled on about our debt being as bad as Greece's when they took office. This blog puts that 'claim' into perspective on two fronts.

 

1. Big economies can run bigger debts in the same way (as he implied) as a millionaire can get more credit than can you or I.

 

2. The UK (and the US) suffered more in the financial crisis because both are centres of financial business

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Osbourne and Cameron have both rattled on about our debt being as bad as Greece's when they took office. This blog puts that 'claim' into perspective on two fronts.

 

1. Big economies can run bigger debts in the same way (as he implied) as a millionaire can get more credit than can you or I.

 

2. The UK (and the US) suffered more in the financial crisis because both are centres of financial business

 

I heard them say it was as big as Greece's, which is correct isn't it? But don't know where they made the actual claims written in that blog, but I am happy to be corrected if you can find them.

 

And your points above are pretty obvious - we all knew that. Not sure why that needs to be explicitly said.

[bridge too far]

I heard them say it was as big as Greece's, which is correct isn't it? But don't know where they made the actual claims written in that blog, but I am happy to be corrected if you can find them.

 

And your points above are pretty obvious - we all knew that. Not sure why that needs to be explicitly said.

 

You may not fall for Osborne's spin and I certainly don't but a lot of people take what he says as fact without seeing the bigger picture and get frightened. And, BTW, they're the Tory blogger's points specifically and not mine.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You may not fall for Osborne's spin and I certainly don't but a lot of people take what he says as fact without seeing the bigger picture and get frightened. And, BTW, they're the Tory blogger's points specifically and not mine.

 

Yeah, sorry, wasn't pushing them on you!

 

I think the problem is its an article that didn't really need to be written (in 2012, certainly), and that he has 'adapted' George's claims to enable him to write that blog. To be fair, I wouldn't expect any better from the Huffington Post as it is.

[Jonnyboy]

I am voting conservative. That is my suggestion

 

Last year it was UKIP UKIP UKIP from all you boys.

[hypochondriac]

Last year it was UKIP UKIP UKIP from all you boys.

 

Who are you boys?

[Jonnyboy]

Who are you boys?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them.

[badgerx16]

I heard them say it was as big as Greece's, which is correct isn't it?

 

“Here we sit today with a budget deficit bigger than Greece.”

David Cameron, Conservative leader, BBC Today programme, 9 April 2010

 

The OECD put the UK deficit at a 12.6 per cent of GDP – not bigger as Cameron alleged, but strikingly similar. It mirrors the figure the government set out in the pre-budget report in November last year.

But the Treasury revised this number for the UK deficit down in the budget last month, placing it at 11.8 per cent of GDP for 2009/10. That suggests there’s a more comfortable leeway between us and Greece.

 

( Source http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/uk-deficit-bigger-than-greece-not-yet-its-not/1236 )

[hypochondriac]

I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them.

 

So made up nonsense from you then. Correct?

[bridge too far]

“Here we sit today with a budget deficit bigger than Greece.”

David Cameron, Conservative leader, BBC Today programme, 9 April 2010

 

The OECD put the UK deficit at a 12.6 per cent of GDP – not bigger as Cameron alleged, but strikingly similar. It mirrors the figure the government set out in the pre-budget report in November last year.

But the Treasury revised this number for the UK deficit down in the budget last month, placing it at 11.8 per cent of GDP for 2009/10. That suggests there’s a more comfortable leeway between us and Greece.

 

( Source http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/uk-deficit-bigger-than-greece-not-yet-its-not/1236 )

 

Quite. From the blog I linked:

 

"Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?"

[Jonnyboy]

So made up nonsense from you then. Correct?

 

Don't make me dig up the evidence.

[hypochondriac]

Don't make me dig up the evidence.

 

I'll take that as a yes. I suspect some posters voted for ukip in the European elections and expressed their support for certain policies (I probably did) . Doesn't mean they are supporters of ukip or that they are obliged to vote for them in an election.

[Batman]

Don't make me dig up the evidence.

 

Meh, changed my mind.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Peter Hitchens was spot on about the debt and deficit on QT last night . He gave both establishment parties clog , but was particularly hard on the Tory economic plan . For the record he also had a dig at Nigel , so I'm not posting out of any bias . If he didn't have such an annoying condescending manner , he talks quite a lot of sense . People are put off by the 20% Christian nonsense he spouts and the manner he spouts it , but he nails the established way of thinking time and time again . Him and mark littlewood are head and shoulders above other commentators IMO . Littlewood edging it because he's a big saints fan .

[Coxford_lou]

Don't make me dig up the evidence.

 

Oh please do.

[Hamilton Saint]

Three questions from an interested outsider:

 

Are the majority of UKIP supporters people who would usually vote Conservative? (Meaning that UKIP-support splits the right-wing vote.)

 

Is it at all likely that a Conservative-UKIP coalition (after the vote) could form a minority government? Would an alliance of the other parties be enough to stop that? (Assuming that the results on Election day matches roughly the current polling numbers.)

[Jonnyboy]

Meh, changed my mind.

 

How come?

[CB Fry]

Three questions from an interested outsider:

 

Are the majority of UKIP supporters people who would usually vote Conservative? (Meaning that UKIP-support splits the right-wing vote.)

 

Is it at all likely that a Conservative-UKIP coalition (after the vote) could form a minority government? Would an alliance of the other parties be enough to stop that? (Assuming that the results on Election day matches roughly the current polling numbers.)

UKIP made gains in the Euro elections in no small part due to gains from working class Labour voters. But primarily they are a right wing party for right leaning anti-EU types. They might nibble into Tory majorities in Tory safe seats but more likely to do Labour a favour in Tory/Labour marginals by splitting the right vote.

 

Personally I think UKIP will get about 4 MPs.

 

Faced with a minority government, Id think the Tories more likely to hook up with Clegg again than give in to UKIP for thimble full of MPs, two of which were Tory MPs about a year ago anyway.

Edited 3 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Jonnyboy]

I wonder if Cleggy would switch to a coalition with labour if he got the chance?

[CB Fry]

I wonder if Cleggy would switch to a coalition with labour if he got the chance?

Possible but likely to be too much of a mish mash between Lab/SNP/Plaid/Lib Dem part coalition, part unofficial support deals.

 

If Labour and Lib Dems get enough between them, then yes. But they won't.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

“Here we sit today with a budget deficit bigger than Greece.”

David Cameron, Conservative leader, BBC Today programme, 9 April 2010

 

The OECD put the UK deficit at a 12.6 per cent of GDP – not bigger as Cameron alleged, but strikingly similar. It mirrors the figure the government set out in the pre-budget report in November last year.

But the Treasury revised this number for the UK deficit down in the budget last month, placing it at 11.8 per cent of GDP for 2009/10. That suggests there’s a more comfortable leeway between us and Greece.

 

( Source http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/uk-deficit-bigger-than-greece-not-yet-its-not/1236 )

 

Where does he say that the debt is the biggest in the developed world though?

[Hockey_saint]

Possible but likely to be too much of a mish mash between Lab/SNP/Plaid/Lib Dem part coalition, part unofficial support deals.

 

If Labour and Lib Dems get enough between them, then yes. But they won't.

 

I don't know. I think it's pretty darn safe to say no one will be asking the Liberals to help form a coalition.

[Hamilton Saint]

UKIP made gains in the Euro elections in no small part due to gains from working class Labour voters. But primarily they are a right wing party for right leaning anti-EU types. They might nibble into Tory majorities in Tory safe seats but more likely to do Labour a favour in Tory/Labour marginals by splitting the right vote.

 

Personally I think UKIP will get about 4 MPs.

 

Faced with a minority government, Id think the Tories more likely to hook up with Clegg again than give in to UKIP for thimble full of MPs, two of which were Tory MPs about a year ago anyway.

 

Thanks.

 

Any chance of Clegg and his party switching allegiance to Labour? (After election day, of course.) Would that provide a viable coalition to lead a minority government?

[CB Fry]

I don't know. I think it's pretty darn safe to say no one will be asking the Liberals to help form a coalition.

Is it?

 

If they get anywhere near 40 MPs then both parties would be more than happy to. Personally I think they walk away from the last five years having done a decent job in the circumstances.

 

They are going to get hammered in the polls but that's mainly because a) they can't pull off their usual trick of making Tory-lite promises in seats like Cheltenham and Labour-lite promises in seats like Brent. b) they can't do the "we're the alternative to the old politics" stuff having been in government for half a decade c) they've lost the idealistic student vote.

 

Despite that, what they've done in government, I think, has been pretty good.

Edited 3 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Hockey_saint]

Is it?

 

If they get anywhere near 40 MPs then both parties would be more than happy to. Personally I think they walk away from the last five years having done a decent job in the circumstances.

 

They are going to get hammered in the polls but that's mainly because a) they can't pull off their usual trick of making Tory-lite promises in seats like Cheltenham and Labour-lite promises in seats like Brent. b) they can't do the "we're the alternative to the old politics" stuff having been in government for half a decade c) they've lost the idealistic student vote.

 

Despite that, what they've done in government, I think, has been pretty good.

 

Even Clegg's seat isn't safe. I suspect that they'll virtually be wiped out in the election. What have they done that's actually stopped right wing conservatives from doing what they please then because to most people I know it appears to be virtually nothing.

 

I know these articles date from way back in October but I think they pretty consistently agree that you may be fairly off the pace if you think the liberals have a chance of being a reasonable enough size to partner in a coalition...

 

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/macer-hall/518696/Inside-Politics-Lib-Dems-are-on-the-brink-of-annihilation

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/09/liberal-democrats-face-bigger-wipeout-than-expected

 

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/opinion/columnists/jennifer-dempsie/clegg-needs-to-face-up-to-possible-wipe-out-1.823893

 

For brevity, I've included a few from left and right.

 

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

 

A predicted swing of -31 is pretty heavy.

Edited 3 April, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[aintforever]

I don't know. I think it's pretty darn safe to say no one will be asking the Liberals to help form a coalition.

 

Of course they would, if the liberals have any seats left that is.

[badgerx16]

Where does he say that the debt is the biggest in the developed world though?

 

 

'Call me Dave' may not have done, but listen to Georgie Porgie in the first embedded audio clip ;

 

https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/audio-blog-the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics/

 

"

George Osborne makes a similar claim, with regard to National Debt this time, in a Press Release on the Conservative Party website with regard to the National Debt:

“Responding to the release of ONS figures showing the true scale of UK national debt, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne said: ‘It’s official – Britain now has the highest national debt in the developed world.'”" ( Funnily enough the linked document is one of many that have mysteriously disappeared from the Tory's website ).

[Unbelievable Jeff]

'Call me Dave' may not have done, but listen to Georgie Porgie in the first embedded audio clip ;

 

https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/audio-blog-the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics/

 

"

George Osborne makes a similar claim, with regard to National Debt this time, in a Press Release on the Conservative Party website with regard to the National Debt:

“Responding to the release of ONS figures showing the true scale of UK national debt, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne said: ‘It’s official – Britain now has the highest national debt in the developed world.'”" ( Funnily enough the linked document is one of many that have mysteriously disappeared from the Tory's website ).

 

So as I said, Cameron's not said it. So the article was ******** when it was written, and it's ******** now it's been resurrected.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Ouch, not good for Ed. As an aside I think this guy would do a better job leading the Labour Party:

 

[Hockey_saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html

 

That's clearly a made up story which completely goes against what she's said in public about never backing a Tory coalition.

 

Quick quote....:

 

 

"LFrench consul general tells @GdnScotland no such views given by @NicolaSturgeon "absolutely no preference was expressed" on #GE2015 outcome

 

.@simon_telegraph your story is categorically, 100%, untrue...which I'd have told you if you'd asked me at any point today

 

Oh dear, Johnson and the Telegraph caught lying again."

Edited 3 April, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[badgerx16]

So as I said, Cameron's not said it. So the article was ******** when it was written, and it's ******** now it's been resurrected.

 

No, you queried whether the 'Tory party' had said it :

What's quite strange is that those 3 claims haven't been particularly prominent, in fact I haven't heard the claim that it was the biggest debt etc, and having a quick scout on the net I can't see that it has ever been said by the Tory party...It seems he's kinda made up claims to back his arguments.

 

And there is plenty of evidence that DC has blethered on, incorrectly, about the UK deficit being the biggest in the G7, G20, developed world ( delete as appropriate ).

[Lord Duckhunter]

Three questions from an interested outsider:

 

Are the majority of UKIP supporters people who would usually vote Conservative? (Meaning that UKIP-support splits the right-wing vote.)

 

Is it at all likely that a Conservative-UKIP coalition (after the vote) could form a minority government? Would an alliance of the other parties be enough to stop that? (Assuming that the results on Election day matches roughly the current polling numbers.)

 

As previously posted UKIP's base are dissatisfied Tories . However , they've picked the low hanging fruit and are now seeking to be an alternative to labour in labour heartlands outside of Scotland and London . You can see this by their shift in policy towards nhs spending & they seem to be moving away from some of the radical ideas they used to believe in .

 

A Cameron led Tory party will not do any sort of deal with ukip , no chance IMO .

 

Euro scepticism when ukip was formed was always about sub section x of section y of some obscure eu directive , meaning the eu superseded the British parliament . This used to allow the established parties to claim Europe was way down on peoples concerns . What Nigel Farage has done is link unskilled unlimited EU immigration to EU membership , and as it is clearly linked , the mainstream parties cannot dismiss it as an unimportant issue . As someone whose opposition to the EU is the democratic deficit , I was hoping that he would expand this and link other ills as well ( eg tax , policing and justice ) . People like tony benn and bob crow were anti EU , but they would never be ukip members . The situation is that you have nobody to vote for except ukip if you're anti EU and it's the kiss of death for your front bench career if you want to leave the eu .

 

I always vote UKIP in the European elections , and are more than likely to this time . This is not because I'm racist or a little englander , but because I want to leave the EU and passionately believe that Grammar Schools should be part of parental choice in education .no other party has those 2 policies . I also want a smaller state and believe that UKIP stand for that , although they are watering this down in their chase for labour votes .

Edited 3 April, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter

[Hockey_saint]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/03/nicola-sturgeon-denies-saying-she-wanted-david-cameron-to-win-election

[Hamilton Saint]

As previously posted UKIP's base are dissatisfied Tories . However , they've picked the low hanging fruit and are now seeking to be an alternative to labour in labour heartlands outside of Scotland and London . You can see this by their shift in policy towards nhs spending & they seem to be moving away from some of the radical ideas they used to believe in .

 

A Cameron led Tory party will not do any sort of deal with ukip , no chance IMO .

 

Euro scepticism when ukip was formed was always about sub section x of section y of some obscure eu directive , meaning the eu superseded the British parliament . This used to allow the established parties to claim Europe was way down on peoples concerns . What Nigel Farage has done is link unskilled unlimited EU immigration to EU membership , and as it is clearly linked , the mainstream parties cannot dismiss it as an unimportant issue . As someone whose opposition to the EU is the democratic deficit , I was hoping that he would expand this and link other ills as well ( eg tax , policing and justice ) . People like tony benn and bob crow were anti EU , but they would never be ukip members . The situation is that you have nobody to vote for except ukip if you're anti EU and it's the kiss of death for your front bench career if you want to leave the eu .

 

I always vote UKIP in the European elections , and are more than likely to this time . This is not because I'm racist or a little englander , but because I want to leave the EU and passionately believe that Grammar Schools should be part of parental choice in education .no other party has those 2 policies . I also want a smaller state and believe that UKIP stand for that , although they are watering this down in their chase for labour votes .

 

Thanks for the clarification. So, you'll go with the party that wants to leave the EU and support Grammar Schools. That's a pretty narrow programme!