It's a simple deflection, just changing the topic.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
It's a simple deflection, just changing the topic.
Ummmm the only addressing conservatives have done to the naitonal debt is doubling it. Government debt It's at 90% the GDP, it was at 45% in 2008 and we suffered heavily from the crash. Can you imagine what would happen if another crash happens? Where is the money saved for a rainy day?
Labour government Vanity projects? Which ones? Are you familiar with HS2? The coalition went ahead with it despite it not being financially viable (will cost around £80bn instead of the £48bn it was suggested with no viable benefits), and despite 90% of the public and every single environmental body opposing it. There have been over 10 judiciary challenges against it with 1 already allowed and 4 rejected pending appeal. If it actually gets stopped the billions already plunged into it would be absolutely wasted.
We're not an emerging economy where we have to fight for businesses to come here, we're a well established first world economy and businesses actually fight to bring their products and services here.
Last edited:
I shall make an exception this week but it is not my custom to watch QT.
Still, ministers have walked for less than what occurred on Burnham's watch. It does seem rather brazen of Labour to be contemplating his return to the post.
However, with an eye to the catalyst for this little exchange, my point i believe was that Labour's intentions in 2010 could easily have led to similarly straitened circumstances for hospitals. Lansley's reorganisation of the NHS was unnecessary and costly in more ways than one, and call me naive but i don't think it was meant to be either Tory or coalition policy at the outset. Why take so bothersome a mess upon yourself when there is quite enough else with which to contend.
Last edited:
UKIP advert was very tame, was expecting more patriotic gusto. Anything seems tame next to the Green effort I spose
The white paper for the change was released within two months of coming into office. There's no way they dreamed that idea up in that time, its too complex and far reaching (£60Bn budget covering funding to every hospital, GP and community service in the country). So either Lansley had it in his locker and kept it quiet from Cameron then snuck it in under his nose, or Cameron knew but failed to mention it in the run to the election. Not sure which of those two would be better.
They had it planned all along and just lied while campaigning before the election.
You know this tax cut for the poor, how many people who work 30 hours at minimum wage are not on some kind of income support? Is the tax cut just going to end up reducing their benefits and result in no change in income?
Fair to say the right-to-buy pledge isn't going down well. But what matters in the end is what voters in key constituencies think, will they lap it up?
Housing associations say they'll sue if the Tories force them to sell off homes under right-to-buy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html
Its an idiotic policy, and shows a strange lack of understanding of the social housing sector.
What makes the entire sector work is that Housing Associations have one of the safest investments around in their arsenal, houses. They use that status to keep liquidity in the sector by issuing bonds against those assets at often AAA status, which they have done en masse since 2008.
Forcing them to sell their properties against their will puts the sector at risk. They'd presumably lose their AAA status for one thing, since their assets are no longer secure. God knows what would happen if they were building new housing stock when a economic dip hit home. They could easily find themselves unable to repay the bonds they'd issued, which would result in them becoming insolvent.
I'll have to see if i can dig up the Radio 4 programme which referenced it recently. The primary topic was Cameron's style of leadership, and it was argued that this made it easier for Lansley to sneak through the re-structuring policy.
What do you think about the prospect of Burnham potentially becoming Health Secretary again? Knowing what we do of his actions, or mostly lack thereof, would it not be an insult to the victims and their families? On those occasions when i have heard him speak on the matter the contrition could at best be described as grudging.
Being as cynical as I am, I'd say they understand it perfectly well. They just also realise they aren't getting a majority, and know that they can re-use the Lib Dems as a human shield for not implementing this should they garner enough seats collectively to form a government. They can promise the Earth right now, knowing full well they have an easy get-out clause on the things they'd inevitably fail to implement. The risk/reward they take is that the battering they're getting on it right now doesn't stick and it gets them the extra support they need. Labour, by contrast, seem to me to be in a position of under-promising as they'll have no easy excuse on anything they can't implement (even if it's the SNP blocking something, that would rebound largely on Labour).
Just watched that Green broadcast again. Absolutely incredible.
For some peculiar reason my iPad is struggling to read the Green Party's manifesto, the text appears in redacted form with the words obscured.
Based on the Telegraph's summary however:
- Public spending to increase by £177bn p.a. as a means of economic stimulus.
- The Health and Education budgets would go up by £12bn and £11.5bn respective.
- £45bn committed to a national programme of home insulation.
- The tax burden would increase by £198 billion by 2020 – an extra £6,600 for every taxpayer in the UK.
- The working week falls to 35 hours.
- £16bn in taxes on air travel.
- All coal power stations are to be closed by 2023, and "uniquely dangerous" nuclear power stations by 2025.
- Though the party remains steadfast in legalising cannabis, it seems to have shied away from doing so with regard to prostitution.
I can't confirm the reporters interpretation as i said earlier, but the above can be found at this article.
Based on the Telegraph's summary however:
- Public spending to increase by £177bn p.a. as a means of economic stimulus.
- The Health and Education budgets would go up by £12bn and £11.5bn respective.
- £45bn committed to a national programme of home insulation.
- The tax burden would increase by £198 billion by 2020 – an extra £6,600 for every taxpayer in the UK.
- The working week falls to 35 hours.
- £16bn in taxes on air travel.
- All coal power stations are to be closed by 2023, and "uniquely dangerous" nuclear power stations by 2025.
- Though the party remains steadfast in legalising cannabis, it seems to have shied away from doing so with regard to prostitution.
I can't confirm the reporters interpretation as i said earlier, but the above can be found at this article.
It's a start I guess. Get it down to 5 and we're really talking.
Francis' report is pretty clear that Burnham wasn't involved in Mid-Staff. Trying to pin any blame on him is just the usual political machinations & daggers.
HAs are not AAA rated, to be clear. Low AA to A rated.
You are right that it could be a big issue for the sector, but not perhaps for the reasons mentioned. Lots of associations who have had stock transfered from local authorities already are open to Right to Buy, they have no choice.
Is this the 6-ish minute speech from Natalie or is there's something longer that I'm missing?
Yeah just seen that. When we invested via a HA they were AAA but that was a few years back and Ive moved jobs since then so didnt know they'd been downgraded. Probably inevitable I suppose given the things over the last few years.
I think they used to purchase monoline insurance which bumped up the issue rating to AAA. But i dont think the underlying businesses have ever been AAA.
Hmm, don't remember our research suggesting that at the time. That said, its a moot point since they're certainly not now.
If the choice is Burnham or Hunt then I would choose Burnham every time. Hunt is the most unprincipled govt minister the Tories have, as has been shown repeatedly with his dealings with Murdoch. It also a very high bar which he passes with ease. I don't understand the attack when it says that applying for trust status some how means basic care goes up the spout. Choking a patient to death by feeding them breakfast cereals despite notes saying no solids for example.
I believe you hold people to account for policies but I can't see the line here. Its not like outsourcing hospital cleaning which directly lead to dirtier hospitals and thousands of extra infections.
Jaysus, UKIP are really playing to the gallery. Would seriously doubt the maths behind their manifesto but will be appealing to a lot of Joe Soaps in the UK.
Had to chuckle when I saw the pro-smoking policies in the UKIP manifesto. I admire their chutzpah on that one at least, compared to the very PC manifestos by the blues and reds.
I don't think UKIP voters realise that if the door is closed on immigration they'll actually have to go to work as there'll be no reason, excuse or enough money for them to stay on benefits.
You're absolutely right, if you have no intention of working for a living then you're far better off voting for Labour.
Of course, anyone you describe there would be an absolutely tiny proportion of the overall population so their vote is irrelevant.
Seriously?
Smoking is good for the economy as it will reduce the pensions burden.
Rabble rabble
Seriously?
Well, reintroduction of smoking rooms in pubs and reversal of blank cig packaging anyway. Not quite free fags for under 12s, but still, very much against the tide.
Absolutely. Not to mention the tax income from sales. If smoking stopped overnight it would really feck the economy.
That's disgraceful. Nobody should be forced to passive smoke while doing their jobs. Farage really is a parody of himself.
Haven't seen a mention of UKIP's plans for maternity leave in today's fuss about their manifesto. Anyone?
I would like to raise a related matter at this point, that of asylum seekers in the immigration system. How many of you do not feel that they should be allowed to work?
Because there is also this detail:
"Migrants who are awaiting the result of their application to stay are paid only 70% of the weekly jobseekers’ allowance, a figure which explicitly puts them below the poverty line."
Parties can argue the toss so far as what number of economic migrants is most sustainable, however the country has lost its way rather in the dignity it affords refugees (not at all to our credit). As a group they either get lost in the debate outright or viewed as part of some homogeneous mass of humanity. From the manifestos i've read none of the parties are proposing much in the way of reform.
Wait just a damn minute, is a Labour supporter mocking those unfortunate enough to find themselves on benefits? And it's not actually UKIP policy to close the door on immigration is it? They're at the other end to the last Labour Government's unmanaged and exploitative immigration policy i guess.
Because there is also this detail:
"Migrants who are awaiting the result of their application to stay are paid only 70% of the weekly jobseekers’ allowance, a figure which explicitly puts them below the poverty line."
Parties can argue the toss so far as what number of economic migrants is most sustainable, however the country has lost its way rather in the dignity it affords refugees (not at all to our credit). As a group they either get lost in the debate outright or viewed as part of some homogeneous mass of humanity. From the manifestos i've read none of the parties are proposing much in the way of reform.
Wait just a damn minute, is a Labour supporter mocking those unfortunate enough to find themselves on benefits?
And it's not actually UKIP policy to close the door on immigration is it? They're at the other end to the last Labour Government's unmanaged and exploitative immigration policy i guess.
Last edited:
The Guardian saying Clegg's had a PR disaster this morning after inviting journalists and only taking one question that wasn't from a party member.
Also reporting that someone from The Telegraph asked Farage why there was only one black person in the UKIP manifesto which caused some outrage at their launch.
Also reporting that someone from The Telegraph asked Farage why there was only one black person in the UKIP manifesto which caused some outrage at their launch.
Wait just a damn minute, is a Labour supporter mocking those unfortunate enough to find themselves on benefits?
I think there is a fundamental difference between those who are unfortunate to be on benefits and those who blame immigration for all their problems, which includes being on benefits.
That's actually a post by @Nick 0208 Ldn there Mr Bug. That's not to say I want to disassociate myself with his comments, I also thought it was amusing that you decided to castigate people on benefits. I suppose they're only unfortunate if they vote for Labour, if they exercise their democratic right to vote for UKIP then they immediately become dole scum.
So Suzanne Evans blames immigration for the housing crisis but owns two and a third home.