FAO David Cameron (oh and Johnny Bognor)

[GenevaSaint]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

Edited 29 April, 2010 by GenevaSaint

[Gemmel]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for the you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

 

 

You need one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1SS-NyohKI

[LGTL]

As I have said time and time again, if the tories don't win the election with a majority and an absolute landslide, then it will be one of their most embarassing performances at an election to date.

[CB Fry]

It is bizarre that after all that has happened all Cameron has acheived is to just about get the Tories to where Labour were in 1992.

 

Not a complete embarrassment, but just not enough to get the casual voter to fully back them. Not enough for people to think "I'll stick with the incumbents, even though I don't really like them either". And Brown is more hated than Major was.

 

The Tories will win, but it won't feel like a win if all they can muster is, at best, a majority of ten seats.

[GenevaSaint]

You need one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1SS-NyohKI

 

LOL.

 

I think plastic Dave will need one if they don't get a majority!

[Johnny Bognor]

I've managed to stop laughing after yesterdays comedy gold and was only talking about this issue with the missus this morning.

 

I agree that with the worst prime minister in history, coupled with the worst economic crisis in history and the biggest mess for generations, the tories should be polling 45%+ and they are not (or 40%+ at the very least)

 

Perhaps it is down to the calibre of the front bench team, perhaps it is down to the general publics dislike of the main parties / MP's expenses (with which Clegg has played a blinder).

 

If Chris Patten was leading the party, with Ken Clarke as Chancellor, William Hague as Foreign Secretary and Portillo as Home Secretary, the tories would probably be polling 50%+ and so that says a lot about the current tory team.

 

Yes, I don't think the current team are all that (Hague and Clarke excluded), but having said that, they are the only party that will support the entrepreneurs, small businesses and wealth creators of this once great nation and therefore give us the best hope for future economic prosperity for all and for that reason they have my support.

 

Not an ideal situation, but you can only vote for what is put in front of you.

Edited 29 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[View From The Top]

Perhaps it is down to the calibre of the front bench team, perhaps it is down to the general publics dislike of the main parties / MP's expenses (with which Clegg has played a blinder).

 

Without a doubt. Apart from the MPs you mention I don't know the shadow cabinet. They are featherweights.

 

The tories haven't recovered from moats and duckhouses as well as the publics general mistrust of them.

 

If Chris Patten was leading the party, with Ken Clarke as Chancellor, William Hague as Foreign Secretary and Portillo as Home Secretary, the tories would probably be polling 50%+ and so that says a lot about the current tory team.

 

There is no way the rank and file tory party would have that. Far too left wing for them and way, way, way to European.

 

Yes, I don't think the current team are all that (Hague and Clarke excluded), but having said that, they are the only party that will support the entrepreneurs, small businesses and wealth creators of this once great nation and therefore give us the best hope for future economic prosperity for all and for that reason they have my support.

 

Forgive me if I laugh at that.

 

Not an ideal situation, but you can only vote for what is put in front of you.

 

Too many career politicans. Bland, empty and in it for all of the wrong reasons.

[Dangerous Albert]

I agree that with the worst prime minister in history, coupled with the worst economic crisis in history and the biggest mess for generations

[Dangerous Albert]

If you really think that then you either have selective memory loss or too young to remember.

 

Try having 15% plus interest rates up yer chuff...

[OldNick]

The Tories have not got enough of their best people in the jobs to make them palatable for the majority.

Clarke and hague are not at the ofrefront and so the average man cannot take to them Gove is oily.

Brown has pumped billions into the economy with his quantative easing, that was an economic and election gamble. We will be paying for it for generations

[Joensuu]

Traditionally a large amount of the Tory support has come from pensioners. As the more liberal baby boom generation are starting to retire, are we seeing a reduction in the number of people who would actually consider voting blue? Might the core right-wing support literally be dieing?

 

Might this be one of the last elections that the Tories have a hope of being competative in? And this is despite Camerons desperate appeals to the liberals with his green and friendly retoric...

[thesaint sfc]

I'd have no problem voting Conservative if Cameron wasn't such a c*nt.

[CB Saint]

Without a doubt. Apart from the MPs you mention I don't know the shadow cabinet. They are featherweights.

.

 

For me Obsourne is my biggest concern. Why DC didn't choose Ken Clarke, even if for a year past the election, is beyond me.

 

The other alternative isn't much better. If you remove Vince Cable and Clegg, what have the Libs got?

[solentstars]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

 

good post his party started the election at over 40 % and have gone back to their core support of 34 %.

i believe people can see its the same old tories using different language,they have a major tax avoider paying for all their adverts and mail shots and all the major papers backing them.

we all know it will be the super rich and bankers who shafted the general public who will get their payback in time .

[buctootim]

For me Obsourne is my biggest concern. Why DC didn't choose Ken Clarke, even if for a year past the election, is beyond me.

 

The other alternative isn't much better. If you remove Vince Cable and Clegg, what have the Libs got?

 

If you cherry picked the best people from the front benches of each of the parties you would just about have enough to make one decent cabinet imo. Pretty sharp indictment of the quality of people going into politics currently.

[Scummer]

they have a major tax avoider paying for all their adverts and mail shots

 

As do the Lib Dems, while most of Labour's funding comes from the Unions who are trying to bring the country to a standstill. None of the parties are sqeaky-clean when it comes to funding.

[benjii]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

 

I know, it's tragic how many Labour voters will blindly adhere to their mantras rather than embrace what is evidently a better alternative.

[jeff leopard]

Dear Dave,

 

The funniest thing in this election, for all Browns faults highlighted by various people on Saintsweb, you still can't seem to walk away with this election. A hung parliment is a disasterous result for you personally and the Tory party if it does occur.

 

Worst recession since 1940's, unpopular war, unpopular PM, high inbound migration, bigotgate and still the public are **** scared about voting Tory.

 

It would seem that people really do have long memories and can see past the PR and are wondering have the Tories really changed. What happens when we remove the veneer, will we expose the same old Tory party?

 

 

Behold Thatcher's true legacy, a generation of people who would rather die than vote Tory. And its a beautiful thing.

 

This election could still swing either way (apart from towards Labour of course), but anything other than a massive Tory victory is a monumental slap in the face for posh boy Cameron.

 

[benjii]

Behold Thatcher's true legacy, a generation of people who would rather die than vote Tory. And its a beautiful thing.

 

This election could still swing either way (apart from towards Labour of course), but anything other than a massive Tory victory is a monumental slap in the face for posh boy Cameron.

 

 

What a sad, bitter, hate-filled, self-loathing, ugly little post.

[GenevaSaint]

If you cherry picked the best people from the front benches of each of the parties you would just about have enough to make one decent cabinet imo. Pretty sharp indictment of the quality of people going into politics currently.

 

mmmmm well we couild well be heading there buctootim with the hung parliament.

 

It would be really good to get some cross party consensus on the big issues we as a nation need to deal with.

[GenevaSaint]

Behold Thatcher's true legacy, a generation of people who would rather die than vote Tory. And its a beautiful thing.

 

This election could still swing either way (apart from towards Labour of course), but anything other than a massive Tory victory is a monumental slap in the face for posh boy Cameron.

 

 

Careful Jeff, don't upset Benji with your Labour mantra when there's a much better option available. The top option is so great that still only roughly a third of people will vote for it.

[jeff leopard]

What a sad, bitter, hate-filled, self-loathing, ugly little post.

 

oh benji-wenji...what a bitter pill the truth can be :lol:

 

don't worry, you'll get used to it, you'll have years and years to get used to it.

[View From The Top]

What a sad, bitter, hate-filled, self-loathing, ugly little post.

 

Because the tory ones have all been bunny rabbits, rainbows a lollipops haven't they?

 

Nothing sad, bitter, hate-filled or full of self-loathing in any of them. Nope, not those happy, loveable, well balanced tories.

[GenevaSaint]

What a sad, bitter, hate-filled, self-loathing, ugly little post.

 

Benji, like it or not, if there isn't a massive majority for the Tories it's not a good result. Everyone keeps banging on about the failings of Labour, but the Tories cannot capitilise on them, that's a poor campaign in my eyes.

 

Personally I lived through the 80's, schools in choas due to striking teachers, lack of resources, front line services cut. I don't want the schools or NHS to return to those bad old days under the Tories.

 

I'm sure there will be cost cutting in both areas by all parties, I really don't believe everything will be ring fenced, but cuts in moderation not a fecking great axe being taken to the departmental budgets.

[View From The Top]

It would be really good to get some cross party consensus on the big issues we as a nation need to deal with.

 

Which is what people seem to want.

 

It's as if they want a government of national unity to sort the mess out as oppossed to the same old tired rubbish from all sides.

[Johnny Bognor]

Benji, like it or not, if there isn't a massive majority for the Tories it's not a good result. Everyone keeps banging on about the failings of Labour, but the Tories cannot capitilise on them, that's a poor campaign in my eyes.

 

Personally I lived through the 80's, schools in choas due to striking teachers, lack of resources, front line services cut. I don't want the schools or NHS to return to those bad old days under the Tories.

 

I'm sure there will be cost cutting in both areas by all parties, I really don't believe everything will be ring fenced, but cuts in moderation not a fecking great axe being taken to the departmental budgets.

 

 

I hate to break it to you Geneva, but the cuts that are due, irrespective of who gets in, will be greater and deeper than the cuts under Thatcher.

 

That is why I almost don't mind a Lib-Lab pact - fail to make the cuts and the IMF have to bail us out making them look like a bunch of ****s or make the cuts which makes them look bigger ****s than Thatcher - a win-win situation IMO.

 

 

Taken from the FT....

 

Analysis from the Financial Times also suggests the next government will have to "cut public sector pay, freeze benefits, slash jobs, abolish a range of welfare entitlements and take the axe to programmes such as school building and road maintenance."

 

The FT has developed an online simulator, using government figures, which suggests that in order to save the £30bn-£40bn necessary to acheive their goal, the next government would have to:

:: Cut public sector pay by 5%;

:: Freeze benefits for a year;

:: Means-test child benefit;

:: Abolish winter fuel payments and free television licences;

:: Cut prison numbers by a quarter;

:: Axe the two planned aircraft carriers;

:: Withdraw free bus passes for pensioners;

:: Delay Crossrail for three years;

:: Halve roads maintenance;

:: Stop school building;

:: Halve spending on teaching assistants and NHS dentistry;

:: And cut funding to Scotland and Wales by 10%.

 

We haven't even started to feel the pain of things yet.......

Edited 29 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[GenevaSaint]

I hate to break it to you Geneva, but the cuts that are due, irrespective of who gets in, will be greater and deeper than the cuts under Thatcher.

 

That is why I almost don't mind a Lib-Lab pact - fail to make the cuts and the IMF have to bail us out making them look like a bunch of ****s or make the cuts which makes them look bigger ****s than Thatcher - a win-win situation IMO.

 

 

Yeh I know they are, we all do, I just don't think we need to cut as savagely as I believe the Tories will. Ultimately, it all depends on where the cuts are made, I trust Labour/Libs more in where the cuts are made compared to the Tories.

 

Whomever wins we're in for a bumpy ride, with VAT upto 20% no doubt :-(

[Johnny Bognor]

Yeh I know they are, we all do, I just don't think we need to cut as savagely as I believe the Tories will. Ultimately, it all depends on where the cuts are made, I trust Labour/Libs more in where the cuts are made compared to the Tories.

 

Whomever wins we're in for a bumpy ride, with VAT upto 20% no doubt :-(

 

 

Being serious for a minute, my main fear for a hung parliament is that all will agree that cuts are to be made, but that is where the agreement ends. Each will try to stick to their election promises and as such we could have inaction or little action, both of which could be disastrous.

 

I have said it before, I would rather a Labour majority than a hung parliament if given the choice.

[badgerx16]

Which is what people seem to want.

 

It's as if they want a government of national unity to sort the mess out as oppossed to the same old tired rubbish from all sides.

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.

[John B]

I have said it before, I would rather a Labour majority than a hung parliament if given the choice.

 

Totally agree with you for once you are now showing some sense at last

[badgerx16]

The FT has developed an online simulator, using government figures, which suggests that in order to save the £30bn-£40bn necessary to acheive their goal, the next government would have to:

:: Cut public sector pay by 5%;

:: Freeze benefits for a year;

:: Means-test child benefit;

:: Abolish winter fuel payments and free television licences;

:: Cut prison numbers by a quarter;

:: Axe the two planned aircraft carriers;

:: Withdraw free bus passes for pensioners;

:: Delay Crossrail for three years;

:: Halve roads maintenance;

:: Stop school building;

:: Halve spending on teaching assistants and NHS dentistry;

:: And cut funding to Scotland and Wales by 10%.

 

We haven't even started to feel the pain of things yet.......

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.

[John B]

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.

 

Although I agree with your last paragraph are you sure that 50% of the electorate understand the issues as I am not sure.

 

 

The Tories are playing politics with Inheritance Tax and NI rise.

 

I doubt if they can find £6 billion this year to fund their NI reduction next and may possibly harm the economy as well

 

95% do not pay any inheritance tax at the moment anyway

[Johnny Bognor]

Totally agree with you for once you are now showing some sense at last

 

 

Obviously I would ultimately prefer a tory majority, but if not, a Labour one would have to do. Anything else would be a disaster.

 

Recently the Mother of Socialists on SWF (BTF) admitted that if Labour could not win the election outright, then a tory majority would be more preferable.

 

There are tough decisions to be made and I think they can only be made with a mandate.

[John B]

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.

 

I dont think they know the true picture because unemployment never reached 3 mill so they are currently unsure how much benefit is to be paid and how much tax income they will get as well as not knowing the true figure for growth.

 

 

In March Tax Revenue was higher than expected

[buctootim]

Obviously I would ultimately prefer a tory majority, but if not, a Labour one would have to do. Anything else would be a disaster.

 

Recently the Mother of Socialists on SWF (BTF) admitted that if Labour could not win the election outright, then a tory majority would be more preferable.

 

There are tough decisions to be made and I think they can only be made with a mandate.

 

I disagree. Under current economic circumstances any party with a majority, likely a slim one, would be reluctant to take the tough decisions necessary fearing they will be blamed and drummed out of office for a generation (look at how Thatcher is still reviled by many). A coalition where everybody shares the blame (should be the credit) could work well.

[buctootim]

I dont think they know the true picture because unemployment never reached 3 mill so they are currently unsure how much benefit is to be paid and how much tax income they will get as well as not knowing the true figure for growth.

 

 

In March Tax Revenue was higher than expected

 

Also the big unknown is economic growth over the next five years. Return to 3% growth quickly and we might be able to escape with small tax rises and public spending freezes.

[John B]

Obviously I would ultimately prefer a tory majority, but if not, a Labour one would have to do. Anything else would be a disaster.

 

Recently the Mother of Socialists on SWF (BTF) admitted that if Labour could not win the election outright, then a tory majority would be more preferable.

 

There are tough decisions to be made and I think they can only be made with a mandate.

 

Yes I was only joking - I dont think in essence what we want from a political party is very different I have loyally supported the Labour Party (because their ideals and roots are different from the priviledge of the Tories) almost as long as my support of SFC

[badgerx16]

I dont think they know the true picture because unemployment never reached 3 mill so they are currently unsure how much benefit is to be paid and how much tax income they will get as well as not knowing the true figure for growth.

 

 

In March Tax Revenue was higher than expected

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.

[John B]

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.

 

If you cut jobs you obviously make savings but may have to increase benefits and lose tax revenue.

 

 

It is not easy but the Tories dont seem to think that Waste is a bad thing usually Waste means cutting somebody's livelihood

 

 

These businessmen supporting the reduction of NI have no qualms about sacking people so that profits are made.

[View From The Top]

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.

 

Anyone working in or with the public services knows how many non-jobs exist, usually pulling down good money.

 

I'd happily get rid of one non-job on £40K a year so save genuine front line jobs.

[John B]

Anyone working in or with the public services knows how many non-jobs exist, usually pulling down good money.

 

I'd happily get rid of one non-job on £40K a year so save genuine front line jobs.

 

Perhaps people on higher salaries should have their salaries reduced

 

Mind you I have just received a letter from somebody at the Council that my hedge has grown three inches from the boundary and I need to cut it back

[buctootim]

Anyone working in or with the public services knows how many non-jobs exist, usually pulling down good money.

 

I'd happily get rid of one non-job on £40K a year so save genuine front line jobs.

 

I think the point he was making is how much would actually be saved by axing that one £40k pa job.

 

Very roughly the gov would save the £40k salary, 11% employers NI and pension - maybe £48,500pa. They would lose c£12,000 in tax and NI. Probably another £2,000 in VAT, £4,000 in unemployment benefit and might have to pay out another £16,000 in housing and other benefits if the employee has a family - total about £34,000pa. Nett saving only about £14,500.

[GenevaSaint]

I disagree. Under current economic circumstances any party with a majority, likely a slim one, would be reluctant to take the tough decisions necessary fearing they will be blamed and drummed out of office for a generation (look at how Thatcher is still reviled by many). A coalition where everybody shares the blame (should be the credit) could work well.

 

Have you been reading the Guardian buctootim, Mervyn King is quoted as saying exactly that.

[buctootim]

Have you been reading the Guardian buctootim, Mervyn King is quoted as saying exactly that.

 

No I havent. Must admit I like a paper to challenge my views, not reinforce them. Do like Merv though, Ill google it.

[John B]

I think the point he was making is how much would actually be saved by axing that one £40k pa job.

 

Very roughly the gov would save the £40k salary, 11% employers NI and pension - maybe £48,500pa. They would lose c£12,000 in tax and NI. Probably another £2,000 in VAT, £4,000 in unemployment benefit and might have to pay out another £16,000 in housing and other benefits if the employee has a family - total about £34,000pa. Nett saving only about £14,500.

 

So that is one of the reasons I support Labour as they are attempting try to stimulate the economy so as to produce higher growth and more Tax Revenues as well as tax increases and public sector cuts whilst the other two parties want cuts only.

 

The emergency budget the Tories want to have fills me with dread

[John B]

No I havent. Must admit I like a paper to challenge my views, not reinforce them. Do like Merv though, Ill google it.

 

Prominent economist David Hale has repeated some stark words from the Bank of England's governor Mervyn King, reports the BBC's chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym. Apparently, Mr King suggested that whoever wins the election will be "out of power for a whole generation" because of the scale of cuts they will be required to make. Those views have not been confirmed by the Bank.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10091952.stm

Edited 29 April, 2010 by John B

[View From The Top]

I think the point he was making is how much would actually be saved by axing that one £40k pa job.

 

Very roughly the gov would save the £40k salary, 11% employers NI and pension - maybe £48,500pa. They would lose c£12,000 in tax and NI. Probably another £2,000 in VAT, £4,000 in unemployment benefit and might have to pay out another £16,000 in housing and other benefits if the employee has a family - total about £34,000pa. Nett saving only about £14,500.

 

Better that than losing a couple of front line jobs and doubling the expediture.

[badgerx16]

Anyone working in or with the public services knows how many non-jobs exist, usually pulling down good money.

 

I'd happily get rid of one non-job on £40K a year so save genuine front line jobs.

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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 Labour party have always, and will always be incapable of running things efficiently. They have poured money into the unreformed public sector despite promising to reform them first. Gordon Bean stopped every one of Tony Blair's reforms. NHS Managers increased 5 times the rate of nurses last year (whilst we were in recession). NHS productivity fell by 3 per cent, or 0.4 per cent a year on average, since 2001. There is not one Private Company that would accept figures like that. Tesco or Unilever wouldn't accept pouring millions into extra Managers, and productivity going down and yet we taxpayers are expected to do so.

 

There is plenty of cuts that can be made, it justs needs someone with the will to do it.

[Gemmel]

Prominent economist David Hale has repeated some stark words from the Bank of England's governor Mervyn King, reports the BBC's chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym. Apparently, Mr King suggested that whoever wins the election will be "out of power for a whole generation" because of the scale of cuts they will be required to make. Those views have not been confirmed by the Bank.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10091952.stm

 

I was having this conversation yesterday and without saying it's right, it's worth a thought.

 

I think that the cuts that need to be made, to keep this county afloat, will affect absolutely everybody and hit us all very hard. No party has really detailed how they purpose to make up the shortfall or level of cuts that are required and because of that whoever wins will come in for huge public criticisim, growing unrest, which quite often spills over into public disorder, increased crime levels and may be even riots.

That might well be an exageration and I hope it is, but the next prime minister will, be like the next Man Utd manager............

They can only fail and fail they will - (Tory, Labour or Liberal)