General Election 2015

[Batman]

A labour woman from the shadow cabinet was on, talking up the disaster of proposed deep tory cuts, then about a minute later when pressed, admitted they would make similar deep cuts to various departments

Edited 19 April, 2015 by Batman

[saintbletch]

But Marr is biased, always has been. I hate the TV interrogators who ask a question and then refuse to let their interviewee answer it. By all means prevent them indulging in a party election broadcast, but it isn't very good technique to hector people in that way. And Cameron does himself no harm in claiming that Marr didn't hector his other interviewees in the same way, provided that people see that to be the case. Does it make Cameron weak, standing up to an attempt to bully him? Surely he would look weaker letting Marr bulldoze him to his own agenda.

 

Yep, I can see that point of view, but I'm talking more about my reaction to the interview. Bearing in mind that I can see that Marr set out to bully and hector the PM, and I acknowledged his potential bias, I was analysing my own reaction to seeing the PM react that way.

 

I'm not dealing in an abstract or academic analysis of how interviewers that approach interviews, Wes.

 

I'm telling you what I saw in this interview.

 

Did you see it? What did you think?

 

I think my surprise stems from becoming used to watching the PM handle PMQs in effective the way he does/did.

 

You know, avoiding answering specific questions, the reliance on triplets of positives from the economy whilst banging the despatch box with a cheering chamber behind him. Then, if Miliband does manage to land the odd glancing blow, the PM hits him with the "I won't be lectured by the party that left us in this mess" donkey punch.*

 

I don't find that particularly edifying, but you can't help but acknowledge that the PM has owned Miliband using these tactics throughout his tenure.

 

Now that I'm watching David Cameron attempt the same sort of sleight of hand and obfuscation with proper interrogators, only to see him not allowed to get away with it (perhaps due to bias), I've found myself looking at our Prime Minister afresh.

 

He looks like a parliamentary candidate, and one that gets flustered - just like Miliband.

 

Personally, I actually love interviewers that won't let politicians settle into a pre-rehearsed, rhetorical rhythm. I like to see how they react under pressure. I like to see the option of the soundbite and the party line removed from their arsenal. I don't even mind bias (it's a fact of life) - as long as I can see it for what it is, and that the same bias isn't overtly represented across the wider media.

 

I also acknowledge your view that Cameron might have looked even weaker had he let himself be bullied, but when he said what amounted to - "I'm finding this interview difficult, my tactic of repeating policies and slating opponents isn't working, please let me stop answering difficult questions and instead give me the chance to repeat policies and slate opponents.", I found that I expected better from our Prime Minister. I expected better from David Cameron.

 

*I'd acknowledge that you have to give 'credit' for those positive economic figures in the first place. I'd also acknowledge that it would likely be no different under any other government or leader.

[saintbletch]

Andrew Marr is a self-important little weasel apparently...

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-accuses-andrew-marr-of-personal-bias-1-3342579

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10704063/Cybernats-Andrew-Marr-called-self-important-little-weasel-after-independence-comments.html

 

I think Marr just hates all right-wingers like Salmond.

[shurlock]

Not many complaints from Les et al. when Paxman went all tabloid and fatuous on Miliband.

[aintforever]

Do you mean equal in area or equal in population?

 

Wouldn't make any difference though would it? UKIP could still come second in every single constituency, get 25% or whatever of the vote, and still get no seats. While the SNP get to hold the balance of power with a fraction of the vote.

 

Welcome to the crazy world of the FPTP system.

[aintforever]

An interesting 'piece' by Katie Hopkins on her approach to illegal immigration...

 

 

What a vile viewpoint, I'm not surprised though, people today care more about money that other people, she says so herself at the end. Today's world is just sick with greed, greed is the new norm.

[trousers]

right-wingers like Salmond.

 

Try saying that in front on my SNP adoring chums and see if you come out alive

 

He was gonna change Scotland into a socialist utopia, don't cha know....

Edited 19 April, 2015 by trousers

[Batman]

Communities can't live together unless they all speak english

you need to speak english to come to the UK and for the NHS to work

Immigrants driving down work standards and wages

 

 

lastest comments in the election debate

[Whitey Grandad]

Communities can't live together unless they all speak english

you need to speak english to come to the UK and for the NHS to work

Immigrants driving down work standards and wages

 

 

lastest comments in the election debate

 

And speaking English is one of the reasons so many want to come here...

[saintbletch]

Try saying that in front on my SNP adoring chums and see if you come out alive

 

He was gonna change Scotland into a socialist utopia, don't cha know....

 

I know, trousers.

 

I had my bags packed, and had completed my citizenship application form too.

 

I guess I was trying to, somewhat sarcastically, point out the many and varied sides of Andrew Marr's bias.

[trousers]

Our future PM nails it again....

 

You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? It would not normally occur to you to interview a convicted jewel thief for the post of custodian of the Tower of London.

 

You would not dream of asking a fox to look after the henhouse or a temperance campaigner to run a brewery or Attila the Hun to work as a doorkeeper for the Roman senate – and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with a bunch of voracious weevils to protect the lovely old timbers in the tower of the local church. Would they?

 

Any such course of action would be totally nuts. So can someone tell me why in the name of all that is holy there are some apparently rational people who are even contemplating the elevation of the Scottish Nationalist Party to a position of effective dominance in the government of the United Kingdom – an entity that they are sworn to destroy?

 

That is their charter, their aim, their ambition, their mission statement: to overturn last year’s referendum, and to break us up. They want to end Britain, to decapitate Britannia, to cause a constitutional upheaval that would gravely weaken this country, a rupture that has provoked horror in Britain’s friends around the world – and a silent chuckle among those who do not wish us quite so well.

 

And yet it is now clear that it is only with the help of the SNP – a party that is literally anti-British – that Ed Miliband can have any hope of governing this country. The Labour implosion in Scotland means that his chances of forming a majority government are now put at less than 1 per cent.

 

If Miliband is to occupy Downing Street, he will have to do it either by means of a formal coalition with Salmond/Sturgeon, or with an arrangement called confidence and supply, by which the Scots Nats agree to help knock his legislation through the Commons.

 

It is therefore obvious to every serious political analyst that he would be in many ways the plaything of the SNP. Unless he has the support of that 40-plus bloc of Scottish secessionists, he will be stymied. If Miliband somehow manages to form a minority government, he will be peeping from Alec Salmond’s sporran like a baffled baby kangaroo. He would be the vacillating Macbeth, pushed hither and yon by Lady Macbeth, in the form of Nicola Sturgeon.

 

Did you see her the other night, telling him to man up, to screw his courage to the sticking place – to do what she told him to do because “you are not strong enough on your own”? The awful truth is that she is right. Without her help and her say-so, and without the support of Salmond and his troops in the Commons, there is not a single bill that Labour could get through. It is a recipe for chaos; and worse than chaos – because the SNP has changed over the years.

 

The reason they have lampreyed the life out of Labour in Scotland is that they have become ever more Left wing. Miliband is already the most Left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot, promoting an agenda that seems to be avowedly hostile to wealth creation and “predatory” capitalism. The SNP are Lefties on steroids. They want to abandon any attempt to get the deficit under control, and indeed the Treasury has calculated that they would borrow another £148 billion.

 

They think taxes are far too low in Britain, and would seek new “progressive” taxes on top of what Labour is already proposing. They would scrap Trident, denuding Britain of its nuclear deterrent and sending future prime ministers naked into the conference chamber. The SNP would junk all attempts to reform the welfare system – even though they have the support of most voters in this country, and indeed most Labour voters.

 

They seem to dislike anything to do with America or free trade, and so would ditch the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, even though the deal would be good for the UK economy. On many of these issues they would of course be opposed, initially, by many Labour MPs. But what could they do? Unless Miliband plays ball, he will be powerless to legislate. He would lose the confidence of parliament, and he would be chucked out.

 

Yes, he will be sitting in the driving seat, pretending to be steering the car – but all the time he will have clever Nicola next to him, whispering in his ear, and perpetually yanking the steering wheel to the Left. Eventually there will be another terrible crash, just as there was in 2008/9.

 

But why should the SNP care a hoot about that? There is a grim sense in which the worst outcome for the UK is also – for a party that wants to break up the UK – the best.

 

Miliband’s proposed deal with the Scots Nats is like the fable of the frog that agrees to carry the scorpion across the river. In the end he will get stung – because that is the nature of the beast.

 

The risk is that by the end of this calamitous partnership there will be so many people in England who are cheesed off by the SNP’s behaviour that they will be only too happy to bid Scotland goodbye; and anybody thinking of voting Ukip should realise that by putting in a Labour/SNP alliance they are going to turn the UK into the Former UK, and their party will have to be called FUKIP.

 

Keep the Tories and you keep the Beefeaters guarding the Tower; you let farmers protect their chickens with their own shotguns; you keep out Attila and other roaming Eastern European criminals with tougher immigration controls; you keep Britain’s booming breweries and distilleries exporting overseas with ever-greater confidence; you repair the church tower with the VAT refund introduced by George Osborne – and as for the crèche that was in danger of being run by Herod, you fund ever better child care with the 30-hour free care announced in the manifesto.

 

Vote Tory to stop a Labour/SNP coalition from wrecking the country – a choice, as I may have mentioned before, between competence and chaos.

[View From The Top]

Our future PM nails it again....

 

 

Thing is, the scare tactics aren't working.

[badgerx16]

Our future PM nails it again....

 

 

So why aren't the Tories nailed on for a dominant majority ? Because they are running such a negative campaign it's making people question everything that comes out of Conservative Central Office, and in doing so they realise there is no substance - as they ask in the USofA "Where's the beef ?".

[trousers]

So why aren't the Tories nailed on for a dominant majority?

 

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-austerity brigade?

[Batman]

So why aren't the Tories nailed on for a dominant majority ? Because they are running such a negative campaign it's making people question everything that comes out of Conservative Central Office, and in doing so they realise there is no substance - as they ask in the USofA "Where's the beef ?".

 

why isnt labour odds on. Given that we live in such a poor state at the moment (apparently)

[Johnny Bognor]

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-austerity brigade?

 

Hate the word "austerity". This should read...

 

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-living-within-your-means brigade

[badgerx16]

why isnt labour odds on. Given that we live in such a poor state at the moment (apparently)

 

The perception of 'Red' Ed ?

Bias in the printed media ?

Maybe some people believe the sort of thing Boris posted ?

The SNP taking seats in Scotland ?

Voter apathy ?

[trousers]

Hate the word "austerity". This should read...

 

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-living-within-your-means brigade

 

[Special K]

why isnt labour odds on. Given that we live in such a poor state at the moment (apparently)

 

Good point. Labour are going into this election against a weak Conservative party that has a mixed record with their last government and whose manifesto sets out policies, some of which are baffling and ill-conceived. They should be odds on for a win and indeed they would be, if only they had a decent campaign, a strong shadow cabinet and a statesmanlike leader. None of which they appear to have in full. Credit to Miliband, he has improved as the campaign has progressed, but will he be able to do enough leading up to polling day to pull off a majority? The Conservative Party seem to be doing their level best to dissuade voters with their negativity and poorly managed campaign.

[Millbrook Saint]

Thing is, the scare tactics aren't working.

 

Because most people can't seem to see past 'Those bloody posh tories, let's give them one on the nose' reverse snobbery at its best.

 

Deep inside you know milliband propped up by the snp would be a disaster for this country, but I guess peoples prejudices against these 'Eton posh boys' running the country will allow them to let their hearts rule their heads.

 

Whether you like the people at the top or not, you know spending has to be cut, sacrifices have to be made, even labour admit that, trouble is can you really trust labour with the economy, even worse can you trust labour propped up by the snp with the economy.

 

There is no way labour will win outright so you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country

[badgerx16]

There is no way labour will win outright so you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country

You are entitled to your opinion.

[aintforever]

Because most people can't seem to see past 'Those bloody posh tories, let's give them one on the nose' reverse snobbery at its best.

 

Deep inside you know milliband propped up by the snp would be a disaster for this country, but I guess peoples prejudices against these 'Eton posh boys' running the country will allow them to let their hearts rule their heads.

 

Whether you like the people at the top or not, you know spending has to be cut, sacrifices have to be made, even labour admit that, trouble is can you really trust labour with the economy, even worse can you trust labour propped up by the snp with the economy.

 

There is no way labour will win outright so you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country

 

So if Labour are also making the same cuts what specific policy of theirs will ruin the economy?

[Millbrook Saint]

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Fair enough, I'm no expert but as far as I can tell labour need most of the seats in scotland to win, the snp look to getting most of these, so without these scottish seats then labour can't get a majority, is that right? I'm not trying to cause an argument with you but that's how I see it, if I'm wrong then fair enough

[View From The Top]

Fair enough, I'm no expert but as far as I can tell labour need most of the seats in scotland to win, the snp look to getting most of these, so without these scottish seats then labour can't get a majority, is that right? I'm not trying to cause an argument with you but that's how I see it, if I'm wrong then fair enough

 

 

The fact that Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP seems to have passed you by.

[Whitey Grandad]

Hate the word "austerity". This should read...

 

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-living-within-your-means brigade

 

 

Exactly. Those of us who lived through the 50s know austerity when they see it.

[badgerx16]

Fair enough, I'm no expert but as far as I can tell labour need most of the seats in scotland to win, the snp look to getting most of these, so without these scottish seats then labour can't get a majority, is that right? I'm not trying to cause an argument with you but that's how I see it, if I'm wrong then fair enough

It was the second part of your sentence that I was commenting on ;

"..you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country".

Where in their manifesto does it state their commitment to 'ruining' the UK ?

Plus, as has been pointed out many times, Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP.

[JackFrost]

Hate the word "austerity". This should read...

 

Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-living-within-your-means brigade

 

Exactly.

 

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

[Wes Tender]

Yep, I can see that point of view, but I'm talking more about my reaction to the interview. Bearing in mind that I can see that Marr set out to bully and hector the PM, and I acknowledged his potential bias, I was analysing my own reaction to seeing the PM react that way.

 

I'm not dealing in an abstract or academic analysis of how interviewers that approach interviews, Wes.

 

I'm telling you what I saw in this interview.

 

Did you see it? What did you think?

 

I think my surprise stems from becoming used to watching the PM handle PMQs in effective the way he does/did.

 

You know, avoiding answering specific questions, the reliance on triplets of positives from the economy whilst banging the despatch box with a cheering chamber behind him. Then, if Miliband does manage to land the odd glancing blow, the PM hits him with the "I won't be lectured by the party that left us in this mess" donkey punch.*

 

I don't find that particularly edifying, but you can't help but acknowledge that the PM has owned Miliband using these tactics throughout his tenure.

 

Now that I'm watching David Cameron attempt the same sort of sleight of hand and obfuscation with proper interrogators, only to see him not allowed to get away with it (perhaps due to bias), I've found myself looking at our Prime Minister afresh.

 

He looks like a parliamentary candidate, and one that gets flustered - just like Miliband.

 

Personally, I actually love interviewers that won't let politicians settle into a pre-rehearsed, rhetorical rhythm. I like to see how they react under pressure. I like to see the option of the soundbite and the party line removed from their arsenal. I don't even mind bias (it's a fact of life) - as long as I can see it for what it is, and that the same bias isn't overtly represented across the wider media.

 

I also acknowledge your view that Cameron might have looked even weaker had he let himself be bullied, but when he said what amounted to - "I'm finding this interview difficult, my tactic of repeating policies and slating opponents isn't working, please let me stop answering difficult questions and instead give me the chance to repeat policies and slate opponents.", I found that I expected better from our Prime Minister. I expected better from David Cameron.

 

*I'd acknowledge that you have to give 'credit' for those positive economic figures in the first place. I'd also acknowledge that it would likely be no different under any other government or leader.

 

As usual from you, a very fair and well-reasoned response. Having watched the programme, I also read the transcript, just to refresh my memory of it.

 

My overall thoughts remain that the quality of interviewer and the techniques they employ has deteriorated over the years. In the case of Marr as an example, it might have suited him to attempt to rattle Cameron in order to weaken his appeal to the electorate. But surely the purpose of the interview is fundamentally to question the party leaders on their manifesto policies, and there was precious little of that because of the very nature of the interview, which wasn't at all conducive to constructive debate.

 

I accept that Cameron, like all politicians will try and obfuscate his responses, or to get across some positive message outlining the things that they consider they have achieved which are vote winners, but a good interviewer could curtail that tactic by pointing out that the question had not been answered and demanding an answer. What comes across as ruining the debate is the interviewer asking a question and then not having the decency to allow that question to be answered before butting in rudely and combatively, often being arrogant enough as to answer the question himself.

 

As you rightly point out, Prime Minister's questions has become a bear-pit of yah-boo arguments and does not reflect well on any of the parties. The televised debates have followed much the same path towards the sensational and the trivialised sound-bite, so that the emphasis is switched more heavily towards the image of the main protagonists, rather than their abilities. It is as if the media have decided that the ordinary voter is too thick to comprehend the issues, so there is little point in debating them sensibly.

[Johnny Bognor]

Exactly. Those of us who lived through the 50s know austerity when they see it.

 

The word austerity is used as if it is something bad, evil even. It is used as an excuse for not doing something about living beyond our means.

For those amongst us that fight for social justice, may I ask if passing debt onto our children is moral? Right? Just?

 

Luckily as individuals, our debts are written off when we die. But if this were not the case, would you be happy to run up debts for your living now and pass them on to your kids and expect them to pay them off later?

[aintforever]

The word austerity is used as if it is something bad, evil even. It is used as an excuse for not doing something about living beyond our means.

For those amongst us that fight for social justice, may I ask if passing debt onto our children is moral? Right? Just?

 

Luckily as individuals, our debts are written off when we die. But if this were not the case, would you be happy to run up debts for your living now and pass them on to your kids and expect them to pay them off later?

 

Under the Conservatives our national debt has gone up by about £0.6 trillion to £1.36 trillion.

 

That's £1360,000,000,000 (I think). How do you suppose we pay that back?

[View From The Top]

If governments were bothered about paying down debt they wouldn't be wasting billions and billions on Trident, HS2 etc.

 

As per usual there is no coherent thought given to cuts. For example young people need to stay in education until they're 18 unless they are working but the FE budget has been slashed again and again to the point where it's almost the perfect storm. Guidelines tell us that they must all be doing English and maths regardless of previous results but there is such a chronic shortage of maths teachers that FE institutions are having to use unqualified staff. Next year all students without a GCSE C grade in maths and English have to re-do them so that's 100s of extra kids doing them but our budget is cut by 28% by London meaning we cannot actually do it, we simply don't have enough staff to teach the subjects.

 

This means class sizes go up and up, behaviour deteriorates as kids are forced to do something they really don't want to do and results suffer and so do the kids. Turning E & F grades into C grades in one year when you have 100s of extra bodies but less people to do it isn't the result of a thought out strategy, it's slash and burn.

[Wes Tender]

It was the second part of your sentence that I was commenting on ;

"..you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country".

Where in their manifesto does it state their commitment to 'ruining' the UK ?

Plus, as has been pointed out many times, Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP.

 

Of course there is no mention in their manifesto of their desire to ruin the Country (by which presumably you mean the UK). But that is probably what they would achieve, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Yes, Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP, but it is naive in the extreme to believe that as the price for supporting them as the party of government, (when it is almost certain that Labour will not achive that on their own account), the SNP would not exact their pound of flesh in return. In the event that Labour do form a government supported by the SNP and other minor parties, the SNP will operate on a vote by vote basis and their manifesto places them quite a bit to the left of the most left-wing Labour hierarchy for many years. The SNP rejects austerity measures, but thankfully Labour would have the support from the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP over the need for some austerity measures, so it should not be a problem making cuts to some services. But the SNP will not favour cuts to public services and would prefer to take punitive measures against the wealthy through raising taxation. This is where they are dangerous.

 

The ideal solution would be to let the Scottish Parliament raise their own taxes and an English Parliament could raise taxes in England. Then we could have the wealthy Scots emigrating to England to escape punitive Scottish taxation and to enjoy our fairer tax regime, bringing their wealth with them.

[Johnny Bognor]

Under the Conservatives our national debt has gone up by about £0.6 trillion to £1.36 trillion.

 

That's £1360,000,000,000 (I think). How do you suppose we pay that back?

 

 

When you inherit a mess, it takes time to sort it out. The difficulty is that cuts have to be balanced, so as not to de-stabilise economic recovery. It makes sense to start with balancing the economy (GDP growth, low inflation, falling unemployment), which have all been achieved. Then you can start to bring the defecit under control in a steady but deliberate fashion. When you have a surplus, you start paying back. Simple really.

 

... and I know that you know that Labour know this too. They criticise the tories for the cuts they propose, when they KNOW they have to do the same too. But making the tories out to be nasty wasty howwible people (when in fact they will have to be nasty wasty too), show it's a load of old ******** really.

 

When you look at charts below, total debt will continue to grow until 2018. Only then will it be possible to start paying back....

 

 

 

 

[Millbrook Saint]

So if Labour are also making the same cuts what specific policy of theirs will ruin the economy?

 

I didn't say labour are making the same cuts, I said they have said that cuts have to be made, trouble is they don't say where, (maybe they have but it hasn't been put across to me). Most likely scenario they'll make the cuts where they see fit if they get into power, or the unions tell them. So they may be making cuts, but I certainly don't trust them not to borrow more money or not raise taxes. Add in to that the snp and you have chaos whether people admit it or not, or whether some posh tory boy says it or not.

 

Anyway 3 posts for the day all gone now bye

[Saint86]

Yet your language gives you away. Why is it BS then? to want a fairer society or is it ok to keep lifting the ladder up on people and if that's an irrational prejudice then call me on it but stop spouting nonsense.

 

I am puzzled why the coalition's move to increase the bottom tax bracket (affecting all equally) isn't fair... But labours plan to lower the 40p tax bracket straight after the election is fair?

 

You may not like it, but the vast majority of people in this country all had the same start in life and some worked harder and made a better use of it financially (industry dependant), so now, after they have raised them self up they should be taxed more for it? Despite the fact that they are already giving more of their salaries to the government and serving a more prominent role in the countries economy anyway?

 

I have never understood a system which punishes success. It breeds mediocrity and promotes it for future generations with the belief that they can laze around and let society foot the bill.... All good until society runs outa money and gets broken (insert near unlimited examples of last labour government).

 

Also, what is up with the god damn eton bash against specifically Tories? People who do this are delusional, do they actually know the background of labour politicians? Or do they simply just ignore it? Bizarre and very naive.

 

If you vote labour into power you will to it to the detriment of the country, the UK, yourself and your children. Sadly/Gladly you have that choice; that is democracy.

 

And re your above posts... yes, saints have a hell of a lot of Tory (and UKIP) voters. Does that make us worse fans because we chose a state that fundamentally gives more power to the people rather than high taxes and a big brother/nanny state system? I wonder if you have ever looked at the voting proportions for Southampton, the new forest and the surrounding areas... I mean, if you consider that nearly 50% of the population poll as Tory/UKIP, and the support of those parties is focussed in the south and south west, how many of the people you see in SMS do you think are Blue/Purple? Certainly isn't a tiny minority matey.

[Johnny Bognor]

If governments were bothered about paying down debt they wouldn't be wasting billions and billions on Trident, HS2 etc.

 

As per usual there is no coherent thought given to cuts. For example young people need to stay in education until they're 18 unless they are working but the FE budget has been slashed again and again to the point where it's almost the perfect storm. Guidelines tell us that they must all be doing English and maths regardless of previous results but there is such a chronic shortage of maths teachers that FE institutions are having to use unqualified staff. Next year all students without a GCSE C grade in maths and English have to re-do them so that's 100s of extra kids doing them but our budget is cut by 28% by London meaning we cannot actually do it, we simply don't have enough staff to teach the subjects.

 

This means class sizes go up and up, behaviour deteriorates as kids are forced to do something they really don't want to do and results suffer and so do the kids. Turning E & F grades into C grades in one year when you have 100s of extra bodies but less people to do it isn't the result of a thought out strategy, it's slash and burn.

 

But you still need to invest in infrastructure, despite the cuts that will have to be made (and we all know that).

 

However, with some creative thinking, you can still target funds to where they are needed. One of Labour's key policies is to reduce tuition fees for all to £6000 (which is good, especially where the tories are doing nothing). However, if there is a mass shortage of maths teachers, why not selectively waive tuition fees for the areas where there is more need? If the country needs more maths teachers, what about waiving tuition fees for maths graduates who go on to teach? Same for English. It's not rocket science.... although waiving tuition fees on rocket science, would create more rocket scientists. Why are we churning out more media studies graduates than the industry can support? It should be everyones right to study what they want, but the tax payer funding of it should be based on the needs of the nation.

 

To me that is just common sense. Something that ALL political parties seem to lack!!!

[View From The Top]

But you still need to invest in infrastructure, despite the cuts that will have to be made (and we all know that).

 

However, with some creative thinking, you can still target funds to where they are needed. One of Labour's key policies is to reduce tuition fees for all to £6000 (which is good, especially where the tories are doing nothing). However, if there is a mass shortage of maths teachers, why not selectively waive tuition fees for the areas where there is more need? If the country needs more maths teachers, what about waiving tuition fees for maths graduates who go on to teach? Same for English. It's not rocket science.... although waiving tuition fees on rocket science, would create more rocket scientists. Why are we churning out more media studies graduates than the industry can support? It should be everyones right to study what they want, but the tax payer funding of it should be based on the needs of the nation.

 

To me that is just common sense. Something that ALL political parties seem to lack!!!

 

I've advocated it on many an occasion and I've been present when it's be said the Secretary for State for Education.

[View From The Top]

I am puzzled why the coalition's move to increase the bottom tax bracket (affecting all equally) isn't fair... But labours plan to lower the 40p tax bracket straight after the election is fair?

 

You may not like it, but the vast majority of people in this country all had the same start in life and some worked harder and made a better use of it financially (industry dependant), so now, after they have raised them self up they should be taxed more for it? Despite the fact that they are already giving more of their salaries to the government and serving a more prominent role in the countries economy anyway?

 

I have never understood a system which punishes success. It breeds mediocrity and promotes it for future generations with the belief that they can laze around and let society foot the bill.... All good until society runs outa money and gets broken (insert near unlimited examples of last labour government).

 

Also, what is up with the god damn eton bash against specifically Tories? People who do this are delusional, do they actually know the background of labour politicians? Or do they simply just ignore it? Bizarre and very naive.

 

If you vote labour into power you will to it to the detriment of the country, the UK, yourself and your children. Sadly/Gladly you have that choice; that is democracy.

 

And re your above posts... yes, saints have a hell of a lot of Tory (and UKIP) voters. Does that make us worse fans because we chose a state that fundamentally gives more power to the people rather than high taxes and a big brother/nanny state system? I wonder if you have ever looked at the voting proportions for Southampton, the new forest and the surrounding areas... I mean, if you consider that nearly 50% of the population poll as Tory/UKIP, and the support of those parties is focussed in the south and south west, how many of the people you see in SMS do you think are Blue/Purple? Certainly isn't a tiny minority matey.

 

Thank you The Daily Mail.

[Wes Tender]

If governments were bothered about paying down debt they wouldn't be wasting billions and billions on Trident, HS2 etc.

 

As per usual there is no coherent thought given to cuts. For example young people need to stay in education until they're 18 unless they are working but the FE budget has been slashed again and again to the point where it's almost the perfect storm. Guidelines tell us that they must all be doing English and maths regardless of previous results but there is such a chronic shortage of maths teachers that FE institutions are having to use unqualified staff. Next year all students without a GCSE C grade in maths and English have to re-do them so that's 100s of extra kids doing them but our budget is cut by 28% by London meaning we cannot actually do it, we simply don't have enough staff to teach the subjects.

 

This means class sizes go up and up, behaviour deteriorates as kids are forced to do something they really don't want to do and results suffer and so do the kids. Turning E & F grades into C grades in one year when you have 100s of extra bodies but less people to do it isn't the result of a thought out strategy, it's slash and burn.

 

Thank you The Daily Mirror

[Johnny Bognor]

I've advocated it on many an occasion and I've been present when it's be said the Secretary for State for Education.

 

Fair play, but most lefties want free education for all. In an ideal world, this would make sense, but it is not an ideal world. So, in my view, if the taxpayer is to fund FE and HE, then it is only right that it is done so where the taxpayer gets the best return.

 

Out of interest, what was the Secreatary of State's response?

[View From The Top]

Thank you The Daily Mail.

 

 

So HS2 is deeply loved by the right? Better tell my local Tory MP that as he's campaigning against it, not to mention UKIP who have pledged to stop it.

 

You'll also notice I say governments. plural. I'm equally scathing of the left when changes/cuts are incoherent. It's to do with being at the coalface and seeing the impact.

[saint si]

It was the second part of your sentence that I was commenting on ;

"..you know what has to be done to prevent the snp ruining the country".

Where in their manifesto does it state their commitment to 'ruining' the UK ?

Plus, as has been pointed out many times, Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP.

 

http://www.snp.org/about-us

 

First sentence: "The SNP is a social democratic political party committed to Scottish independence. "

 

The UK in its current form (principally a union of England and Scotland) would cease to exist.

 

Just because Sturgeon is turning on the charm during the TV debates, does not mean that they have abandoned this goal. The referendum last year? A mere starting point.

[Johnny Bognor]

http://www.snp.org/about-us

 

First sentence: "The SNP is a social democratic political party committed to Scottish independence. "

 

The UK in its current form (principally a union of England and Scotland) would cease to exist.

 

Just because Sturgeon is turning on the charm during the TV debates, does not mean that they have abandoned this goal. The referendum last year? A mere starting point.

 

Don't worry Si, she won't ruin the UK by breaking it up, she'll bankrupt it by increasing spending. WTF???

Edited 20 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[hypochondriac]

Still haven't heard from one person who cn explain to me how spending even more money will be good for the country right now. We are on the road to economic recovery, why put that in jeopardy by increasing spending?

[Johnny Bognor]

Still haven't heard from one person who cn explain to me how spending even more money will be good for the country right now. We are on the road to economic recovery, why put that in jeopardy by increasing spending?

 

Unless you want to raise some cash, spend it all on Scotland, bankrupt the UK and then **** off under independence, with some extra cash stuffed under the pillow.

Under these circumstances, I can see exactly why the SNP want to increase spending

[hypochondriac]

Unless you want to raise some cash, spend it all on Scotland, bankrupt the UK and then **** off under independence, with some extra cash stuffed under the pillow.

Under these circumstances, I can see exactly why the SNP want to increase spending

 

Yes but then why is everyone else so accepting of the snp?

[aintforever]

When you inherit a mess, it takes time to sort it out. The difficulty is that cuts have to be balanced, so as not to de-stabilise economic recovery. It makes sense to start with balancing the economy (GDP growth, low inflation, falling unemployment), which have all been achieved. Then you can start to bring the defecit under control in a steady but deliberate fashion. When you have a surplus, you start paying back. Simple really.

 

... and I know that you know that Labour know this too. They criticise the tories for the cuts they propose, when they KNOW they have to do the same too. But making the tories out to be nasty wasty howwible people (when in fact they will have to be nasty wasty too), show it's a load of old ******** really.

 

When you look at charts below, total debt will continue to grow until 2018. Only then will it be possible to start paying back....

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think we will come close to paying it off regardless of who is in government. Even by those rather optimistic guesses the debt will be knocking on to £2trillion before we even start paying it back. Any sort of sustained growth means an interest rate rise which makes paying it back even harder. The whole system is f*cked anyway, we are just treading water by printing **** loads of new money.

 

Regardless of that I just think we can deal with debt by making the richer people pay more. I'm relatively well off and all 'austerity' has meant for me is lower mortgage repayments and lower inflation, I haven't been effected in the slightest yet many of our poorest are having really hard time and our services are in a bad state.

 

Unfortunately people nowadays are just naturally greedy, there is more than enough money to go round so that everyone can live a half decent life.

[View From The Top]

Yes but then why is everyone else so accepting of the snp?

 

Perhaps because we understand that they're not going to be in government.

[hypochondriac]

Perhaps because we understand that they're not going to be in government.

 

But they will be kingmaker and hold the deciding votes for everything.

[Johnny Bognor]

Yes but then why is everyone else so accepting of the snp?

 

Because some people are so blinkered, that anything but the tories is acceptable. Would rather a Labour majority over a Lab / SNP pact (however it is formed/worded) any day of the week

Edited 20 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor
(just to show I am not blinkered)