Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Tonights debate on Sky

Ministers debate

         

Matthew1980

8:36 pm on Apr 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Hey Everyone,

Just finished watching the leaders debate on Sky news, Nick Clegg is doing well IMHO, I must say that up to yet I have been impressed with these debates - but I wonder how the press will react to this now.

But I think as Mr Clegg is going to be getting some more voters since this has happened, there are a lot of people out there who just don't know which way to turn.

Overall though, well done to all three, lets see what May 6th brings.

Cheers,
MRb

BeeDeeDubbleU

8:12 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



But I think as Mr Clegg is going to be getting some more voters since this has happene


And that is the really sad thing. Their policies have not changed since the debates began and many people will be voting for a television performer rather than a PM.

engine

8:50 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Yes, we're not voting for a president (or PM), it's the policies which count, and that's what the decision should be made from.

Matthew1980

9:08 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Hi all,

The true test will be in the comming months/years when we start to see the impact in our everyday lives, remember the revoking of the 10p tax...

Cheers,
MRb

piatkow

10:55 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



The whole thing is far too "presidential" for my liking these days and takes far too much attention away from our own constituency candidates.

Old_Honky

11:37 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I love it. It is much more interesting to compare personalities than policies especially now that all 3 parties are crammed into the centre ground. They are trying vainly to show how different they are but when it comes down to it they all have very little room to manoeuvre and whoever gets the seat in no 10 will carry on much the same way as the previous occupant.

I think for the next debate they should bring in the UKIP guy (the swivel eyed loony - I can't remember his name) he would be really entertaining.

IMHO the constituency candidates, unless they are standing as independents, are pretty much irrelevant as they all vote as their masters tell them.

dertyfern

11:47 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Great debate, I personally had it tied between Cameron and Clegg.

I would have loved a feature allowing us to text our votes of who was winning during the debate...displayed on screen.

Matthew1980

11:55 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



^^

Thats going into Davina McCall territory!

No, I hope that it's between Brown & Clegg, I personally think as Cameron is just too out of touch with Joe Bloggs. Also I think that we need Labour in for another term ,just so that the mess that was inherited from the last time we had tories in. Again, just my opinion, I'm no expert in politics...

Cheers,
MRb

dazz

11:59 am on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



im voting for my friends dad as hes an MP....id of voted for him no matter which of the main partys he was with!

BeeDeeDubbleU

12:16 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I'm with you Matthew ;)

kaled

1:59 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Matthew, in what way was the country in a mess in 1997?

Granted, the Tory Party was in a mess, but the country was doing OK by today's standards. Of course, the NHS and education budgets are far greater today but the performance is much the same (probably worse for education). Any idiot can raise taxes, throw money around and talk about "prudence" whilst spending money like water and running a structual deficit during boom years when money should have been set aside for the inevitable bust.

As I've said before, you didn't need to be smart to know that a bust would come eventually, you needed to be stupid to believe it would not. So, do you really want a spend-thrift idiot as Prime Minister given that he also tells big fat festering lies? For instance, the Tory proposal to cancel the National Insurance increase does not equate to taking money out of the economy any more than lowering the rate of VAT did. Of course, this does raise the question of why the Tories haven't called Gordon out on this lie - I have no answer for that.

The Libs do have some sensible policies and the Tories do have some daft ones and these could be argued about from now until the end of time, but wanting another five years of Gordon is, well, TOS prevent me from saying what that is.

In thirteen years, I can only think of two policies that were thought through and well implemented by Labour.
1) The gerrymandering of constituency boundaries to give themselves a six point advantage over the Tories.
2) The tax-payer funded spin machine tasked with running down all opposition at every turn. Let's not forget that tax-payers' money is paid to "special advisers" who are classed as civil servants whose sole job is to hide bad news and generally distort the truth. Fair play to Labour - they did a damned fine job on this.

Kaled.

kaled

2:15 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



To underline my point about education...
im voting for my friends dad as hes an MP....id of voted for him no matter which of the main partys he was with!

Should read...
I'm voting for my friend's dad as he's an MP.... I'd have voted for him no matter which of the main parties he was with!
I make that eight elementary mistakes in one sentence.

Sorry Dazz, but you are clearly a victim of our miserable education system.

Kaled.

Matthew1980

2:42 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Kaled,

Nice grammar corretions ;), this is a testament to the youth of today and the complete lack of understanding of grammer that the "text" generation has spawned. My particular bug bears are: "M8" & "Thx", this shows complete idleness IMHO. We all make spelling errors from time to time, but there is no need at all to do it intentionally.<Rant over>

WRT: "1997"

Un-employment, crime, healthcare?

I was talking about the Thatcher era, not the Major era, but they both have left their own legacies, namely the coal industry. Only a handlful exist now, the one I lived by was levelled in 1997 and there is now a housing estate there.

Again I don't profess to know a lot about politics I only started working at the end of the Major years, therefore I only know being employed under the Labour government. I got made redundant in March last year after working for a CNC machining company - a direct result of the car market crash, 170 of us went. Happily though I am now re-employed, just in a different sector.

Maybe a change is what this country needs, we shall see on May 6th. May the best man win, and may the public vote on substance and not TV ratings.

Cheers,
MRb

kaled

3:57 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Un-employment, crime, healthcare?

Unemployment is higher today (and rising) than in 1997 when it was falling. The recession of the early nineties was caused in large part by our membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. This was supported by Labour and the Libs and we only went in against Thatcher's wishes - she was right!

Crime is perceived to be higher today (but we'll never know because nobody believes government statistics any more). The courts frequently dish out pathetic sentences to criminals whilst punishing people who defend their lives and property. And the police have to fill in endless forms instead of doing real work. If you get burgled today, all you'll likely get is a crime number - there's not much chance of fingerprints being taken etc. anymore.

The healthcare budget has increased by about 30% but the only real improvement is shortening of waiting lists. Whilst Labour would like to claim all the credit for this, the reality is that such things as improved surgical techniques account for much of this. And let's not forget just how bad hospital acquired infections got under a target-driven NHS that's been reorganised, on average, once every two years or so (and that's not cheap).

Let's also not forget that in 1997 we had an annual trade deficit of around £12 billion which is currently somewhere in the region of £50 billion (rather more I think). How long can that be supported? To put that in perspective, it means that the UK is spending about a thousand pounds more than it earns every year for every man woman and child.

By absolutely every meaningful measure, things are far worse today than in 1997. However, things seem better in large part because of improvements in technology that make our lives easier. Any improvements that this Government can claim credit for have been at vast expense and these improvements will vanish due to the need to reduce expenditure (whoever wins).

Gordon is fond of claiming that he saved us from a far worse recession. There may be some truth in this but he printed £200 billion and borrowed even more to achieve this - payback is inevitable. In reality, Gordon has merely spent all this money to postpone the worst effects until after the election.

There is much discussion about whether the UK will loose its Triple-A credit rating - this is rather nonsensical since we have already lost it in all but name. The last I heard, it cost three times as much to insure a loan to the UK against default as it does countries like Germany. If Gordon remains in power (with the help of the Libs) you can expect interest rates to go up to at least 7% fairly quickly and inflation will probably do the same. The pound will fall further and fuel prices will rise further.

Sadly, whilst all this is as clear as crystal to those of us that follow these things (and understand them) the Tories are hopeless at explaining this stuff and the Libs are more interested in opposing the Tories than the Government.

Kaled.

BeeDeeDubbleU

6:45 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



the NHS and education budgets are far greater today but the performance is much the same

I think you will find that the NHS performance is better now than it was in '97 and I think the stats will prove it.

Crime is perceived to be higher today

Don't you read the news? Crime figures are falling dramatically.

The healthcare budget has increased by about 30% but the only real improvement is shortening of waiting lists.

Oh right, hardly worth mentioning then eh? Unless of course you are waiting for an operation.

By absolutely every meaningful measure, things are far worse today than in 1997.

Sorry, you are wrong. By mymeasures I am much better off then I was in 1997 and that is quite meaningful to me. ;)

kaled

10:17 pm on Apr 23, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



If you wish to measure things individually, and believe statistics, the rich have been the biggest beneficiaries of thirteen years of New Labour. In particular, bankers have done very well. Remind me again, what is it exactly that they make (televisions, cars, shoes) it's completely slipped my memory! Personally, I look at the bigger picture - I look at what's good for the country rather than what's good for me. That may well be the reason for our difference in perception.

Labour keep attacking the Tories for their planned cut in inheritance tax but they don't seem to realise that you have to die first before you benefit. OK, I'm being silly and I happen to think the Tories have gotten this one wrong given the mess the books are in. I would have changed the system so that inheritance tax is paid by the recipient (above £150,000 allowance or whatever) that would encourage estates to be split up which, hopefully would lead to greater fairness. This way, £900,000 could be split 6 ways with no tax being paid, but if it were all left to one person a pretty huge tax bill would follow.

Oh yes, returning to the NHS, if you were to compare health care in 1997 to 1979, you would also find it had improved dramatically (under the Tories). I don't recall them getting any credit for that though. Money was so tight in 1978 that even nurses went on strike - that was another Labour bust that required a bout of money-printing which lead to inflation that peaked at about 28% (and also help from the IMF).

Of course, the biggest trick New Labour ever managed was to convince people that they were different to Old Labour. In reality, both raised taxes and tried to solve problems with money and bureaucracy - a strategy that's tried, tested and guaranteed to fail. The only real difference between Old Labour and New Labour is style, spin presentation and the stealthiness of new taxes (of which there have been many).

For the record, I happen to agree with more Liberal policies than Tory policies, but the Libs behave as opportunistic attack dogs and lack anything resembling principles. Back in the eighties, they kept banging on about a carbon tax. That was a good policy, but when Norman Lamont introduce VAT on fuel, they voted against it and, of course, that policy was forgotten.

Kaled.

BeeDeeDubbleU

8:15 am on Apr 24, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Kaled, I suspect that you are from the south east?

I live in the south west of Scotland in a town that once had about 10,000 manufacturing jobs. It now has less than 500. Traditionally these jobs and industries were damaged by conservative government policy. This has happened throughout the south west of Scotland and other industrial areas of Britain. The fact that these are still labour strongholds is no coincidence. Labour traditionally did more to keep people employed (rightly or wrongly).

Having said that, I am disillusioned by the labour party. I am disillusioned by the lot of them and their policies never seem to make much sense to me. I have been voting since the 1960s and AFAIC recall I have never failed to vote in a national election. This time I honestly do not want to vote for any of them. Even my nationalist sympathies have been damaged by the SNP's nanny state policies.

Unless one of them does or says something really dramatic I have decided to vote but spoil my paper.

kaled

1:06 pm on Apr 24, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



It's not so much Tory policies that have seen the decline of old industries but more the protectionism, subsidies and support given to similar industries in other countries. In addition, unions don't exactly embrace and encourage modernisation which typically requires new working practices and a smaller workforce. Add to that a reluctance by banks to lend necessary monies and you have the decline we have all witnessed. Old Labour attempted to prop up ailing industries but they were never very successful. New Labour has never bothered*, so in that regard there's not much to choose between the parties.

*There have been small exceptions, esp when elections were due, such as when £20 million was given to Rover - that was money down the drain.

Kaled.