Has Ed Miliband shot himself in the foot?

[revolution saint]

  hypochondriac said:

The degree system and the sense of entitlement that todays young people have p*sses me off. I went to university because everyone else did and it seemed like the thing to do but did I really NEED to go? No not at all. Now doctors, lawyers people like that are the ones who NEED university, they should be the ones who go for free. University should be for the brightest and best, not to be used as an excuse to go and get p*ssed up for three years and do some noddy course like surfboard science.

 

The system should be that places are restricted with only the very best qualifying for a course. Noddy courses should cost a lot and if you want to do it then you should pay to do it whilst those courses most valuable for the country should be free with people encouraged into these professions. I went because I was bright enough but also just because I could but under the system I proposed, people like me wouldn't go to university. It should the minority who go on to higher education not for everyone who fancies it. I strongly believe that.

 

I largely agree with you on this and would put myself in the same class of having gone to University but probably didn't need to. However I saw "Inside Job" the other day and it brought up an interesting point about how to replace manufacturing jobs that disappear to developing countries. The argument was that 1st world countries would need to try and invest in "knowledge markets" and other new technologies which would require higher education. Take the gaming industry in the UK, by all accounts it's doing pretty well, and it's this type of industry that may provide opportunity and wealth in the future. Of course I'm not arguing that every current degree being offered is useful but it was a good point about how we might be able to compete in the future. We won't be able to compete with developing nations on costs so we'll need to concentrate on quality and innovation and in that instance Higher Education could be invaluable.

[trousers]

  Fuengirola Saint said:

Left wing media? Could you please tell me where it is please?

 

As per my earlier post, I had a quick look through the Guardian and Mirror. They mentioned his appearance in passing but they weren't shouting about it from the rooftops. If it was that inspirational I'd have expected to have read more about it today. Just an observation, not scientific by any means.

[Verbal]

  trousers said:

As per my earlier post, I had a quick look through the Guardian and Mirror. They mentioned his appearance in passing but they weren't shouting about it from the rooftops. If it was that inspirational I'd have expected to have read more about it today. Just an observation, not scientific by any means.

 

No, I'm just not seeing it: saying 'butchers' and reading working folk newspapers. I have you down as Alex from the Torygraph.

[Fuengirola Saint]

  Thedelldays said:

the jibes at the "toffs" and the like

 

Your ****in arm must be killing you with all that cap doffing you do :-/

[Saintandy666]

  trousers said:

Sorry to Labour the point (pun intended), but what numbers are we talking about here? How many job losses were the people on the march advocating? (rough numbers will suffice - say, to the nearest 10,000). I don't remember seeing any speeches where specific numbers were read out...

 

cheers.... ;-)

 

Well, one sizeable contingent were only advocating other measures like tightening up the tax system and raising tax and so on. A lot of people there were primarily there against the NHS reforms as well.

 

The point of the 'no cuts' mantra though doesn't mean they want no cuts, but it means that they will campaign against all cuts in order to get the best deal possible for everyone because otherwise you have to start choosing.

[Victor]

  badgerx16 said:

62% of those on the electoral role did not vote for this Government, tbf.

 

!00% of those on the electoral role did not vote for this government. It is an invention of Clegg and the boy David so that they can seize power. I think we should be approaching the UN to get a resolution to enforce a "no-fly zone" for when the people wake up and try to seize back power for this undemocratic government.

 

Trouble is, we'll end up supplying most of the arms to enforce the resolution against ourselves, using all that money we've saved by sacking nurses to pay for it.

 

Funny old world.

[Saintandy666]

  Victor said:

!00% of those on the electoral role did not vote for this government. It is an invention of Clegg and the boy David so that they can seize power. I think we should be approaching the UN to get a resolution to enforce a "no-fly zone" for when the people wake up and try to seize back power for this undemocratic government.

 

Trouble is, we'll end up supplying most of the arms to enforce the resolution against ourselves, using all that money we've saved by sacking nurses to pay for it.

 

Funny old world.

 

A coalition is more democratic than a government which only has the support of the plurality of voters.

 

It is a disgrace that a government can get a comfortable absolute majority in the houses of parliament when only 35% of the vote went their way.

[Victor]

  Saintandy666 said:

A coalition is more democratic than a government which only has the support of the plurality of voters.

 

It is a disgrace that a government can get a comfortable absolute majority in the houses of parliament when only 35% of the vote went their way.

 

No it isn't more democratic. No-one voted for a coaltion; they were not even given the choice of voting for one. A hung parliament was what was voted for and a coalition was only formed because certain people went back completely on the policies and pledges given that people voted for and ignored the vote of the people. Where is the democracy in that?

 

And you are wrong to bring the Lords into your arguement; that is a different kettle of non-democratic fish altogether and is more the subject of gerrymandering.

[SuperMikey]

  Saintandy666 said:

A coalition is more democratic than a government which only has the support of the plurality of voters.

It is a disgrace that a government can get a comfortable absolute majority in the houses of parliament when only 35% of the vote went their way.

 

Not if the minority party has a minimal say on decision-making and heading up departments. 18 Conservatives in the cabinet compared to 5 Lib Dems (23 Tories if you include those who attend meetings) doesn't seem particularly equal to me for a coalition.

[Thedelldays]

  SuperMikey said:

Not if the minority party has a minimal say on decision-making and heading up departments. 18 Conservatives in the cabinet compared to 5 Lib Dems (23 Tories if you include those who attend meetings) doesn't seem particularly equal to me for a coalition.

 

but it was not an equal vote....lib dems are the (very) minority partner...for years and years and generations, the dreamt of getting a sniff of power...they get a bit and their voters are ready to leave them......oh well, talk about fecking yourselves up.......

[Jonnyboy]

  SuperMikey said:

Not if the minority party has a minimal say on decision-making and heading up departments. 18 Conservatives in the cabinet compared to 5 Lib Dems (23 Tories if you include those who attend meetings) doesn't seem particularly equal to me for a coalition.

 

Oi, get back to Bill Hicks ;-)

[SuperMikey]

  Thedelldays said:

but it was not an equal vote....lib dems are the (very) minority partner...for years and years and generations, the dreamt of getting a sniff of power...they get a bit and their voters are ready to leave them......oh well, talk about fecking yourselves up.......

 

True that it wasn't an equal vote, but idealistically a coalition government should be equal in terms of MPs. Split it down the middle, two parties, one half each. It's no secret that the Lib Dems are getting arsef*cked on a regular basis by the Tories over policy, they're being appeased by having some minor policies implemented while the majority of the other policies inacted by the coalition have been almost exclusively Tory. If the coalition goes on much longer, the Lib Dem leaders will come under a lot of pressure from other MPs in the party to withdraw from the coalition. However, like you say, they get a sniff of power and they're happy to be bent over by Cameron et al. just so they get a notepad with 'Minister of blah blah' or 'Secretary of State for blah blah' at the top of it.

 

  Jonnyboy said:

Oi, get back to Bill Hicks ;-)

 

I have it on in the background, that way it'll soak into my unconscious mind

[Thedelldays]

  SuperMikey said:

True that it wasn't an equal vote, but idealistically a coalition government should be equal in terms of MPs. Split it down the middle, two parties, one half each. It's no secret that the Lib Dems are getting arsef*cked on a regular basis by the Tories over policy, they're being appeased by having some minor policies implemented while the majority of the other policies inacted by the coalition have been almost exclusively Tory. If the coalition goes on much longer, the Lib Dem leaders will come under a lot of pressure from other MPs in the party to withdraw from the coalition. However, like you say, they get a sniff of power and they're happy to be bent over by Cameron et al. just so they get a notepad with 'Minister of blah blah' or 'Secretary of State for blah blah' at the top of it.

 

even having minor policies brought in...mansion tax being the next one....is better than just talking about or should I say, DREAM about getting ONE policy brought in....the libdems are actually getting their ideas across and getting a few of their ideas come to fruition..not bad for a party for generations woudl just dream of doing so..

 

clegg and his party are gone from talking over the side of the the commons to the front bench of government....yet his voters are going to ensure their views will NEVER be heard of again...

 

odd

[SuperMikey]

  Thedelldays said:

even having minor policies brought in...mansion tax being the next one....is better than just talking about or should I say, DREAM about getting ONE policy brought in....the libdems are actually getting their ideas across and getting a few of their ideas come to fruition..not bad for a party for generations woudl just dream of doing so..

 

clegg and his party are gone from talking over the side of the the commons to the front bench of government....yet his voters are going to ensure their views will NEVER be heard of again...

 

odd

 

Of course it's great to see some Lib Dem policies being inacted, but they're being drowned out. People will still vote Lib Dem, they just need to establish themselves in this coalition rather than being 'the other guys' in order to give their voters the confidence to vote in them again. The reason that people are becoming disillusioned with the Libs is that they feel that they're losing their identity as a party by constantly having to agree, agree, agree, I agree with David, agree, agree, we support this notion, agree etc in order to get a few policies across. They're getting a raw deal as far as i'm concerned, and i'd rather have a coalition where the politicans involved had the balls to stand up and say "We don't agree with this policy" rather than becoming faux-Tories just for the sake of the illusion of peace within the government. I'd rather have a coalition that's honest about their opposition to policy than one which is going against its principles by backing massive cuts etc. which it has vehemently protested against for decades.

 

Rant over, i'm going for a cigarette.

[bridge too far]

  SuperMikey said:

Of course it's great to see some Lib Dem policies being inacted, but they're being drowned out. People will still vote Lib Dem, they just need to establish themselves in this coalition rather than being 'the other guys' in order to give their voters the confidence to vote in them again. The reason that people are becoming disillusioned with the Libs is that they feel that they're losing their identity as a party by constantly having to agree, agree, agree, I agree with David, agree, agree, we support this notion, agree etc in order to get a few policies across. They're getting a raw deal as far as i'm concerned, and i'd rather have a coalition where the politicans involved had the balls to stand up and say "We don't agree with this policy" rather than becoming faux-Tories just for the sake of the illusion of peace within the government. I'd rather have a coalition that's honest about their opposition to policy than one which is going against its principles by backing massive cuts etc. which it has vehemently protested against for decades.

 

Rant over, i'm going for a cigarette.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369771/Nick-Cleggs-banter-microphone-gaffe-Ant-Dec-British-politics.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Thedelldays]

How a man can stand up infront of 250k+ people and seem to agree with them, be on their level and back up their ideals, whilst having a very savage set of cuts line up himself is rather hypocritical if you ask me..

[scotty]

  Thedelldays said:

How a man can stand up infront of 250k+ people and seem to agree with them, be on their level and back up their ideals, whilst having a very savage set of cuts line up himself is rather hypocritical if you ask me..

 

The same type of man who would pull the rug from under his entirely more capable brother by a backdoor deal with the unions, I guess.

[Thedelldays]

Much of these protest are just anti Tory union mud slinging.

 

Where were these protests when the labour party brought in tuition fees, dishing out knighthoods to the rich and super rich, de regulating the banks to a level maggie herself would not dare to do... Where were these people when we bloated the public sector on borrowed money???

 

No where, that is where these union types were

 

 

To stand up on a soap box and compare a protest like this to racial murderous struggle is ridiculous.. More so when he has his own set of savage cuts lined up!!!!

[trousers]

  Saintandy666 said:

Well, one sizeable contingent were only advocating other measures like tightening up the tax system and raising tax and so on. A lot of people there were primarily there against the NHS reforms as well.

 

The point of the 'no cuts' mantra though doesn't mean they want no cuts, but it means that they will campaign against all cuts in order to get the best deal possible for everyone because otherwise you have to start choosing.

 

Nope. Lost me there. So was the rally, that the leader of the Labour party endorsed, advocating 'no cuts' or 'some cuts'?

 

(apologies, I'm now genuinely confused by what seems like a mixed message protest)

 

Perhaps it would help if I asked the question from another angle: How many people who attended the rally back Labours plans to retain 4/5ths of the proposed ComDem cuts?

[Saintandy666]

  trousers said:

Nope. Lost me there. So was the rally, that the leader of the Labour party endorsed, advocating 'no cuts' or 'some cuts'?

 

(apologies, I'm now genuinely confused by what seems like a mixed message protest)

 

Perhaps it would help if I asked the question from another angle: How many people who attended the rally back Labours plans to retain 4/5ths of the proposed ComDem cuts?

 

Some will be saying no cuts. Raise taxes etc

Others will be saying less cuts.

[Saintandy666]

  SuperMikey said:

Not if the minority party has a minimal say on decision-making and heading up departments. 18 Conservatives in the cabinet compared to 5 Lib Dems (23 Tories if you include those who attend meetings) doesn't seem particularly equal to me for a coalition.

 

But in fairness, the Lib Dems had 23% of the vote and the Tories 35%. I think the power within the coalition should be decided on roughly that basis. Though if it were to be done on that basis the Lib Dems would have 40% of cabinet seats, not 20% as they have now.

[Saintandy666]

  Victor said:

No it isn't more democratic. No-one voted for a coaltion; they were not even given the choice of voting for one. A hung parliament was what was voted for and a coalition was only formed because certain people went back completely on the policies and pledges given that people voted for and ignored the vote of the people. Where is the democracy in that?

 

And you are wrong to bring the Lords into your arguement; that is a different kettle of non-democratic fish altogether and is more the subject of gerrymandering.

 

It is more democratic than a government which obtained 35% in the House of Commons(smartarse) elections as governments have in the past be able to then dictate absolutely to everyone else. Representative democracy will never be democratic in its literal meaning(rule of the people or rule of the mob if you want to be exact), you just need to find the least worst arrangements.

 

On a side note, rule of the plurality is wrong, hence why we should switch our voting system to AV as then every candidate will have had the blessing of 50% of voters within a constituency. That will go some way to putting this wrong right.

[dune]

  Thedelldays said:

Much of these protest are just anti Tory union mud slinging.

 

The private sector have been hit really hard these past few years but we just got on with it, but now the precious public sector bods are being asked to take their share of the pain it's a different story.

[trousers]

  Saintandy666 said:

Some will be saying no cuts. Raise taxes etc

Others will be saying less cuts.

 

Ok. Thanks. We're getting somewhere now.

 

So, concentrating on those who are for "some cuts", what figures are we talking about? (no doubt there'll be subsets within the "some cuts" camp so stating a range of values will be fine - maybe best to specify this has a percentage of the cuts proposed by the ConDems to put it into best perspective)

 

Once we have that information we'll then be able to deduce how many protesters agree with the Labour policy on cuts.

 

Cheers :-)

[alpine_saint]

  badgerx16 said:

62% of those on the electoral role did not vote for this Government, tbf.

 

Less than a majority voted for the previous one too.

 

Leave it out with the ZanuLabour-cum-Marxist Today rhetoric, FFS

[badgerx16]

  alpine_saint said:

Less than a majority voted for the previous one too.

 

Leave it out with the ZanuLabour-cum-Marxist Today rhetoric, FFS

Real World to Alpine Saint : I was engaged in a game of tit-for-tat statistics chucking, and I am perfectly well aware of the iniquities of our 'democratic' system and it's propensity to create majority Governments from a minority share of the vote -which you would be aware of if you ever bothered to actually read a thread through, ( something that dunce, for all his faults, actually manages). And for the record I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of ANY political party.

So if you've got nothing of interest or value to add, go and troll somewhere else.

 

Oh forgot ----- FFS !

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

  Thedelldays said:

Much of these protest are just anti Tory union mud slinging.

 

Where were these protests when the labour party brought in tuition fees, dishing out knighthoods to the rich and super rich, de regulating the banks to a level maggie herself would not dare to do... Where were these people when we bloated the public sector on borrowed money???

 

No where, that is where these union types were

 

 

To stand up on a soap box and compare a protest like this to racial murderous struggle is ridiculous.. More so when he has his own set of savage cuts lined up!!!!

 

Maybe you were submerged but I can well remember large scale protests when Labour introduced tuition fees and again when they introduced top-ups. Do you not remember the union backed 1 million march to protest against the Iraq War?

[Kingsbridge Saint]

One of my reasons for emigrating was what Brown was doing to the country. Balls would have been, and still could be, even worse. Cameron might not be the man to sort it completely, but he's the only show in town. A lot of pain ahead for the UK if the Unions and public sector workers don't wind their necks in. And before you think I'm a right wing fascist I would nail the fcking bankers too. Fcking disgrace to capitalism. Bring back Tyburn for those bstards.

[trousers]

  anothersaintinsouthsea said:

Maybe you were submerged but I can well remember large scale protests when Labour introduced tuition fees and again when they introduced top-ups

 

Link? Cheers

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

  trousers said:

Link? Cheers

 

do it yourself lazy boy!

[trousers]

  anothersaintinsouthsea said:

do it yourself lazy boy!

 

Despite being National Google Champion 2007, I've searched high-and-low and failed to find any reference to these "large scale" anti-Labour protests. As you seem to have your finger more on the pulse about these rallies I simply assumed you'd have the links to hand. Actually, Hyperlink World Champion 2008 - 2011 (Bridge Too Far) might be a good port of call here..... ;-)

[Saintandy666]

  trousers said:

Ok. Thanks. We're getting somewhere now.

 

So, concentrating on those who are for "some cuts", what figures are we talking about? (no doubt there'll be subsets within the "some cuts" camp so stating a range of values will be fine - maybe best to specify this has a percentage of the cuts proposed by the ConDems to put it into best perspective)

 

Once we have that information we'll then be able to deduce how many protesters agree with the Labour policy on cuts.

 

Cheers :-)

 

As I am not every protester I could not deduce exact figures. Sorry

[scotty]

  anothersaintinsouthsea said:

Maybe you were submerged but I can well remember large scale protests when Labour introduced tuition fees and again when they introduced top-ups. Do you not remember the union backed 1 million march to protest against the Iraq War?

 

The anti-war march would have had the same numbers regardless of union backing imo, there was a genuine widespread public opposition to it. That was more a case of the unions bandwagon-jumping.

[trousers]

  Saintandy666 said:

As I am not every protester I could not deduce exact figures. Sorry

 

So, in conclusion, no one knows what level of cuts any of the protesters are actually accepting of?

 

Hmmm....now that's what I call convenient (volume 87)

 

;-)

[dune]

  Kingsbridge Saint said:

A lot of pain ahead for the UK if the Unions and public sector workers don't wind their necks in.

 

Whilst private sector workers rolled their sleeves up and got on with it begrudgingly accepting the situation the country was in, we always knew the precious public sector workers considered themselves superior beings deserving of special treatment and that they'd kick off when they were asked to take their share of the pain.

 

The government need to stick to their plan in the knowledge that those of us in the private sector don't want to pay higher taxes to subsidise the Socialist system of non jobs and waste in the public sector. The Tories need to stand firm and push ahead with the plan without deviation because that's what I believe most people in this country want to see happen.

[trousers]

Somewhat of a tangent, but good to see the private sector deliver the Olympic stadium early and under budget.

 

A fine example of how profit and taxpayer value can sit comfortably side-by-side...

[dune]

  trousers said:

Somewhat of a tangent, but good to see the private sector deliver the Olympic stadium early and under budget.

 

A fine example of how profit and taxpayer value can sit comfortably side-by-side...

 

Just imagine if the public sector had been building it - they'd have blackmailed the govt with threats of strikes to get exactly what they wanted.

[bridge too far]

  dune said:

Just imagine if the public sector had been building it - they'd have blackmailed the govt with threats of strikes to get exactly what they wanted.

 

Except that all major building projects for the public sector are contracted out to the private sector and have been for many, many years.

[dune]

  bridge too far said:

Except that all major building projects for the public sector are contracted out to the private sector and have been for many, many years.

 

Thank god. The more we break up the public sector and get rid of the unions the better. While the rest of us get on with our jobs they think they're something special and deserve to be treated differently.

[LGTL]

  trousers said:

Somewhat of a tangent, but good to see the private sector deliver the Olympic stadium early and under budget.

 

A fine example of how profit and taxpayer value can sit comfortably side-by-side...

 

The Private Sector sure did a great job with Wembley too didn't they...!

[trousers]

  Le God - The Legend said:

The Private Sector sure did a great job with Wembley too didn't they...!

 

That's because they didn't have a Tory (Lord Coe) holding them to account.... ;-)

[badgerx16]

  dune said:

Thank god. The more we break up the public sector and get rid of the unions the better. While the rest of us get on with our jobs they think they're something special and deserve to be treated differently.

So, there are no unions in the private sector, are there ?

 

Try getting rid of that massive chip on your shoulder, being able to stand up straight will give you a whole new perspective on life.

[dune]

  badgerx16 said:

So, there are no unions in the private sector, are there ?

 

Try getting rid of that massive chip on your shoulder, being able to stand up straight will give you a whole new perspective on life.

 

It's your Commie Union Public Sector Wallors that have a chip on their shoulder. Expect them to take a pay freeze/cut like the private sector have and they expect to be treated differently which really does take this ****** given that it's their bloody Labour lot that left the country up to its eyeballs in debt. F/ck em is what I say, let the layabouts march and waste their money doing so and then just carry on with the cuts.

Edited 30 March, 2011 by dune

[Window Cleaner]

Is this thread about his forthcoming marriage then? I wouldn't fancy her to be sure.

[Saintandy666]

  trousers said:

So, in conclusion, no one knows what level of cuts any of the protesters are actually accepting of?

 

Hmmm....now that's what I call convenient (volume 87)

 

;-)

 

But we do know they ask for lower and slower cuts.

[bridge too far]

  Window Cleaner said:

Is this thread about his forthcoming marriage then? I wouldn't fancy her to be sure.

 

No doubt the feeling will be mutual

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

  scotty said:

The anti-war march would have had the same numbers regardless of union backing imo, there was a genuine widespread public opposition to it. That was more a case of the unions bandwagon-jumping.

 

the point I was making was that the Unions came out against Labour on this issue and did so in a big way.

[badgerx16]

  dune said:

It's your Commie Union Public Sector Wallors that have a chip on their shoulder. Expect them to take a pay freeze/cut like the private sector have and they expect to be treated differently which really does take this ****** given that it's their bloody Labour lot that left the country up to its eyeballs in debt. F/ck em is what I say, let the layabouts march and waste their money doing so and then just carry on with the cuts.

Do you feel better now dearie ?

 

And just to help, they are not MY union members, as I'm not in a union, and haven't been since about 1988.

Edited 30 March, 2011 by badgerx16

[trousers]

  Saintandy666 said:

But we do know they ask for lower and slower cuts.

 

But that gives us a range of 1 pence to £62,999,999,999....so, no, we don't "know" anything about what they are asking for....

 

Maybe the better question to ask the protesters would be: "How much of the £120m DAILY interest payment on the debt are you happy for this country to keep paying and for how long?".

 

Once we have the answer to that one I can then work backwards from those figures to arrive at the amount of cuts they would need to endorse to achieve their desired reduction in the debt interest payments.

 

This pretty picture may help focus the mind:

 

Edited 30 March, 2011 by trousers

[Window Cleaner]

  trousers said:

But that gives us a range of 1 pence to £62,999,999,999....so, no, we don't "know" anything about what they are asking for....

 

Maybe the better question to ask the protesters would be: "How much of the £120m DAILY interest payment on the debt are you happy for this country to keep paying and for how long?".

 

Once we have the answer to that one I can then work backwards from those figures to arrive at the amount of cuts they would need to endorse to achieve their desired reduction in the debt interest payments.

 

This pretty picture may help focus the mind:

 

 

 

95 million a day for the crap the UK's schools are turning out nowadays....you're having a laugh.