General Election 2010

[GrantB]

 

On your other point, 3m unemployed isn't collateral damage, but what if the jobs they were in are just not economically viable anymore? It's not Thatcher's fault that certain jobs were not economic then, just as it is not the next PM's job that he will have to make public sector employees unemployed. We simply can't afford them and don't need the function that they are paid to carry out.

 

What we should do is make sure that we have the government funded training schemes in place to retrain the unemployed for jobs that are economic in this country, and generous short-term benefits to ensure that losing your job isn't financially crippling. But these benefits should go hand-in-hand with embracing the training the government will give you in order to get you back in meaningful employment as soon as possible. That's best for you and it's best for the taxpayer.

 

Oh, and by the way, I guarantee if we did this we would have less immigration. People come to this country because they know that there are jobs that either Britons can't do (lacking training) or won't do (preferring to stay unemployed). Take this away by offering training and cutting long-term unemployment benefits and you'll have less people coming to this economy for employment.

 

I agree about cutting jobs that weren't viable. I was always baffled as a teenager why the miners tried so hard to save their pits. It's a job I would never have done in a million years. The problem with making such savage cuts is not having any alternative employment for the masses that found themselves out of work.

 

You can guarantee that the public sector jobs that Cameron would cut will be in frontline services like education and health. My missus works as a classroom assistant in a special needs school and you can bet that when Cameron slashes the Scottish Parliament's budget, that will be the type of job that will be lost.

 

I really fear a Tory government with good reason.

[Woodstock Jag]

I agree about cutting jobs that weren't viable. I was always baffled as a teenager why the miners tried so hard to save their pits. It's a job I would never have done in a million years. The problem with making such savage cuts is not having any alternative employment for the masses that found themselves out of work.

 

You can guarantee that the public sector jobs that Cameron would cut will be in frontline services like education and health. My missus works as a classroom assistant in a special needs school and you can bet that when Cameron slashes the Scottish Parliament's budget, that will be the type of job that will be lost.

 

I really fear a Tory government with good reason.

 

On exactly what basis:

 

1. Do you hold that to be a guarantee

2. Even if it were a guarantee that it wouldn't happen under the other parties anyway

 

Genuine questions.

[GrantB]

On exactly what basis:

 

1. Do you hold that to be a guarantee

2. Even if it were a guarantee that it wouldn't happen under the other parties anyway

 

Genuine questions.

 

On the basis that the Tories will cut the Scottish budget by scrapping the Barnett formula.

 

Labour wouldn't dare as they know the consequences to the Scottish vote that they rely on.

[The Devil's Point]

Really? I honestly would have thought SD - not sure why I got that impression reading your posts.

 

In that case, in the event of a hung parliament, would you expect Clegg to form a Change Coalition with the Tories? Because Clegg's Liberal instincts are much more aligned to Cameron, even if the activist base of the LD's is more aligned with Labour. And would this be your preference as a Liberal?

 

Socially Democratedly minded, Liberal at heart.

 

We don't need to dance to anyone elses tune

[Mediocre Pundit]

On the basis that the Tories will cut the Scottish budget by scrapping the Barnett formula.

 

Labour wouldn't dare as they know the consequences to the Scottish vote that they rely on.

No idea what will happen apart from that the budget for all sorts of public sector departments will be cut. But I truly believe that the whole strategy behind this is to cut the managerial bureaucratic jobs (and the quangos) that have been created through the target-hitting culture of Labour, and to focus the money on front-line services.

 

Back to basics - empower the people on the front-line to do their job properly (i.e. headteachers, heads of hospitals) and sack the middle-management that presently set targets and deign to tell these people how to do their jobs.

 

Oh, and specifically I would be shocked if the next government chose to cut funding for teaching assistants in special needs schools. That's been proven to help these kids and is one of the last things that should be cut.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Socially Democratedly minded, Liberal at heart.

 

We don't need to dance to anyone elses tune

So you support the Change Coalition?

[The Devil's Point]

So you support the Change Coalition?

 

Electoral reform is on the way, its not going to work like the past anymore......

[Barney Rubble]

 

On your other point, 3m unemployed isn't collateral damage, but what if the jobs they were in are just not economically viable anymore? It's not Thatcher's fault that certain jobs were not economic then, just as it is not the next PM's job that he will have to make public sector employees unemployed. We simply can't afford them and don't need the function that they are paid to carry out.

 

What we should do is make sure that we have the government funded training schemes in place to retrain the unemployed for jobs that are economic in this country, and generous short-term benefits to ensure that losing your job isn't financially crippling. But these benefits should go hand-in-hand with embracing the training the government will give you in order to get you back in meaningful employment as soon as possible. That's best for you and it's best for the taxpayer.

 

Oh, and by the way, I guarantee if we did this we would have less immigration. People come to this country because they know that there are jobs that either Britons can't do (lacking training) or won't do (preferring to stay unemployed). Take this away by offering training and cutting long-term unemployment benefits and you'll have less people coming to this economy for employment.

 

How would you guarantee that, exactly??? David Cameron's quota, maybe??

 

And what would you do about emigration?

[Mediocre Pundit]

How would you guarantee that, exactly??? David Cameron's quota, maybe??

 

And what would you do about emigration?

Err...because economic migrants come here for work? And if there was less available work less people would come. Didn't think I needed to spell that out, but okay...

 

Don't like the quota idea - I'm all for the free movement of labour.

 

And emigration? Dunno - didn't think we needed to do anything to it at all to be honest.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Electoral reform is on the way, its not going to work like the past anymore......

Answer the question Mr Pedestrian. I agree that the price of Lib Dem support in a hung parliament should be electoral reform (the one good thing that should come out of the likely hung parliament) but my question is: who do you think they should support?

[GrantB]

No idea what will happen apart from that the budget for all sorts of public sector departments will be cut. But I truly believe that the whole strategy behind this is to cut the managerial bureaucratic jobs (and the quangos) that have been created through the target-hitting culture of Labour, and to focus the money on front-line services.

 

Back to basics - empower the people on the front-line to do their job properly (i.e. headteachers, heads of hospitals) and sack the middle-management that presently set targets and deign to tell these people how to do their jobs.

 

Oh, and specifically I would be shocked if the next government chose to cut funding for teaching assistants in special needs schools. That's been proven to help these kids and is one of the last things that should be cut.

 

That doesn't answer my worry about the Tories scrapping the Barnett formula.

 

Although I 100% agree on cutting quangos and middle management jobs.

[The Devil's Point]

Answer the question Mr Pedestrian. I agree that the price of Lib Dem support in a hung parliament should be electoral reform (the one good thing that should come out of the likely hung parliament) but my question is: who do you think they should support?

 

To be honest, Labour

 

Its difficult to think of anything progressive that the Tories have ever done.

[Mediocre Pundit]

To be honest, Labour

 

Its difficult to think of anything progressive that the Tories have ever done.

You Social Democrat you!

[Blackpool Jags]

On the other point, "the rich" alone did not cause this crisis - you could argue that "the poor" did even more. If "the poor" hadn't demanded that they be allowed to borrow more than they could afford to get on the housing ladder, leading to banks allowing high LTV's, high income multipliers, self-certification and all other manner of things that allowed "the poor" to over-leverage themselves then we would never have had the boom in house prices and the subsequent financial meltdown caused by "the poor" not being able to keep up mortgage payments.

Anyone that says that this crisis was simply caused by "the rich" and that we should tax "the rich" to make up for it is either classist or simply does not understand how finance, and the financial crisis, works.

 

1) "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

 

2) I don't mind admitting to being 'classist', that's what being a socialist is all about.

 

People blame Thatcher for the savage cuts to the economy, when they were only required due to past incompetence of government. Her reforms got this country back on it's feet. No matter how hard they were for some people, they were required for the common good of the country.

 

 

And Poll Tax - well, there's a certain fairness in all paying the same for services that we all use equally. I argued for a flat tax on the old forum aswell, and I still do - it's more efficient. This doesn't mean "**** the poor" - it means let the Inland Revenue focus on getting tax paid simply, take business away from the accountants that find loopholes in progressive taxation, and better target benefits and rebates to those who need it. And use public money to provide training to the losers of globalisation so that they can get back into a job that they enjoy and feel value in.

 

 

1) Sure they did, as the devastated coal-mining communties and dislocated, deprived sections of society will attest to.

 

2) Virtually everyone outside of this greed first, anarchic, capricious and undemocratic capitalist model.

[GrantB]

Make no mistake, a vote for the Tories is a vote to let these kind of people into Government.

[Woodstock Jag]

On the basis that the Tories will cut the Scottish budget by scrapping the Barnett formula.

 

Labour wouldn't dare as they know the consequences to the Scottish vote that they rely on.

 

Hmm right. Hysteria.

 

The Tories want the Barnet Formula to be reviewed because it was a stop-gap solution that's been allowed to persevere for decades. Any replacement wouldn't guarantee a cut in the Scottish block grant, and even if it did, it would still be the choice of the Scottish Executive to choose how they spend that money, what with health and education being devolved issues. Only Labour is in favour of keeping the Barnet formula in its current form, with most of the other parties openly advocating a review on distribution of funds to Devolved institutions. It's worthwhile remembering that the Scottish block-grant was half what it is now back in 1999 but Donald Dewar and co seemed to do quite well with what they were given.

 

In any case, to deal with your specific example, Cameron has guaranteed that Health spending (and its associated part in the Barnet formula) will be protected from front-line cuts and will increase in real terms over the next Parliament. He's not made the same guarantees for education generally, but he's encouraged a platform for greater choice and more investment in special needs provisions in schools. Obviously that applies to England, but it's likely that any Scottish Executive would prioritise spending to those front-line services.

 

In short, your concerns are completely unfounded and even if they were, they wouldn't be exclusive to the Tories.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[jimthejagsfan]

Err...because economic migrants come here for work? And if there was less available work less people would come. Didn't think I needed to spell that out, but okay...

 

Don't like the quota idea - I'm all for the free movement of labour.

 

And emigration? Dunno - didn't think we needed to do anything to it at all to be honest.

why do nothing about imigration there is far to many coming here taking our jobs i can't find a job just now because there are far to many of them willing to do it for less money i say stop them and send them home.. jobs for british people first ..

[Mediocre Pundit]

Has Brown done anything but scaremonger on the campaign trail by the way? I know it's against common protocol but can Cameron not just call him a liar and be done with it?

 

Edit for spelling...

Edited May 3, 2010 by Mediocre Pundit

[GrantB]

Hmm right. Hysteria.

 

The Tories want the Barnet Formula to be reviewed because it was a stop-gap solution that's been allowed to persevere for decades. Any replacement wouldn't guarantee a cut in the Scottish block grant, and even if it did, it would still be the choice of the Scottish Executive to choose how they spend that money, what with health and education being devolved issues. Only Labour is in favour of keeping the Barnet formula in its current form, with most of the other parties openly advocating a review on distribution of funds to Devolved institutions. It's worthwhile remembering that the Scottish block-grant was half what it is now back in 1999 but Donald Dewar and co seemed to do quite well with what they were given.

 

In any case, to deal with your specific example, Cameron has guaranteed that Health spending (and its associated part in the Barnet formula) will be protected from front-line cuts and will increase in real terms over the next Parliament. He's not made the same guarantees for education generally, but he's encouraged a platform for greater choice and more investment in special needs provisions in schools. Obviously that applies to England, but it's likely that any Scottish Executive would prioritise spending to those front-line services.

 

In short, your concerns are completely unfounded and even if they were, they wouldn't be exclusive to the Tories.

 

 

Not hysteria, experience.

 

You haven't lived long enough to experience life under a Tory government.

 

What is worth remembering is that Scotland contributes far more to the UK economy thn it gets back. In fact we are the only country in the world to have discovered oil and become poorer for it.

 

I see no one on the Tory side seems too concerned about the raging homophobic underbelly in the Conservative party that they are trying to keep quiet from the voters.

[Woodstock Jag]

why do nothing about imigration there is far to many coming here taking our jobs i can't find a job just now because there are far to many of them willing to do it for less money i say stop them and send them home.. jobs for british people first ..

 

Rubbish... people from abroad get jobs here because either they will do it for less or can do it better. The indigenous people don't have a "right" to employment; they have to earn it by offering something that other applicants cannot. That is meritocracy at its purest.

 

I'd impose no restrictions on immigration, personally.

 

Not hysteria, experience.

 

You haven't lived long enough to experience life under a Tory government.

 

What is worth remembering is that Scotland contributes far more to the UK economy thn it gets back. In fact we are the only country in the world to have discovered oil and become poorer for it.

 

I see no one on the Tory side seems too concerned about the raging homophobic underbelly in the Conservative party that they are trying to keep quiet from the voters.

 

I lived for 6 years of a Tory government, and it was fine, thank you very much.

 

The oil argument is pretty rubbish, to be honest. Not only is it getting more expensive to drill, but also a lot of the infrastructure of North Sea oil is actually piped and refined in England! We've certainly not "become poorer" for finding oil; certainly Scotland has not reaped the maximum economic benefit, but instead we've seen that wealth spread to the benefit of all in the UK.

 

It's worth remembering that Scotland gets quite a bit more than either Wales or England per capita under the Barnett formula, and generally gets a higher proportion back from the taxpayer relative to what it pays than most regions. There is no suggestion that the Barnett formula being reviewed would actually lead to a notable deduction: indeed if it were needs based, it might actually lead to an increase long-term.

 

There is a problem with homophobia in the Conservative Party, and it's evidence of persisting attitudes from a bygone era. As I've said many times, though, I'm pretty sure it's not a Tory exclusive problem, but they're just not very good at covering it up like Labour is. In any case, the Cameron brand of Conservatism would actually persist with putting civil partnerships on a de facto equal footing to marriage, which can hardly be considered homophobic.

 

The comments made by the Shadow Home Secretary were unhelpful in that regard, but it's worth remembering that the Tories supported the Civil Partnership Act and has shown no indication among their leadership that they would do anything to recreate old prejudices. Again, I get a strong hint of hysterical "Tories hate everyone and we're all going to die" without people actually looking at what they are proposing to do over the next Parliament compared with the other parties.

 

Edit: I say this as someone who was initially convinced they were going to vote Tory, but who has now (at least tactically, although also on some issues of principle) switched my vote to Liberal Democrat. I just don't like the negative hysterical anti-Tory politics that persists (particularly in Scotland) based largely on what they did at least 13 years ago, and mostly a good 20-30 years ago.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[northernsoul]

I just don't like the negative hysterical anti-Tory politics that persists (particularly in Scotland) based largely on what they did at least 13 years ago, and mostly a good 20-30 years ago.

 

Oh boo hoo. Get used to it. It's so easy for someone like yourself to say that, when they didn't live under Thatcher's term of Office.

[arnus68]

I think the fact that there are no Tory MP's in Scotland speaks for itself.

[arnus68]

I wouldn't be too upset if they ousted that tosser Jim Murphy on Thursday though.

[GrantB]

I lived for 6 years of a Tory government, and it was fine, thank you very much.

 

The oil argument is pretty rubbish, to be honest. Not only is it getting more expensive to drill, but also a lot of the infrastructure of North Sea oil is actually piped and refined in England! We've certainly not "become poorer" for finding oil; certainly Scotland has not reaped the maximum economic benefit, but instead we've seen that wealth spread to the benefit of all in the UK.

 

It's worth remembering that Scotland gets quite a bit more than either Wales or England per capita under the Barnett formula, and generally gets a higher proportion back from the taxpayer relative to what it pays than most regions. There is no suggestion that the Barnett formula being reviewed would actually lead to a notable deduction: indeed if it were needs based, it might actually lead to an increase long-term.

 

There is a problem with homophobia in the Conservative Party, and it's evidence of persisting attitudes from a bygone era. As I've said many times, though, I'm pretty sure it's not a Tory exclusive problem, but they're just not very good at covering it up like Labour is. In any case, the Cameron brand of Conservatism would actually persist with putting civil partnerships on a de facto equal footing to marriage, which can hardly be considered homophobic.

 

The comments made by the Shadow Home Secretary were unhelpful in that regard, but it's worth remembering that the Tories supported the Civil Partnership Act and has shown no indication among their leadership that they would do anything to recreate old prejudices. Again, I get a strong hint of hysterical "Tories hate everyone and we're all going to die" without people actually looking at what they are proposing to do over the next Parliament compared with the other parties.

 

Edit: I say this as someone who was initially convinced they were going to vote Tory, but who has now (at least tactically, although also on some issues of principle) switched my vote to Liberal Democrat. I just don't like the negative hysterical anti-Tory politics that persists (particularly in Scotland) based largely on what they did at least 13 years ago, and mostly a good 20-30 years ago.

 

 

So many inaccuracies it is hard to know where to start.

 

You lived from 0-6 years under a Tory government. I doubt that nursery and Primary 1 and 2 covered too many lessons in politics. I certainly dont remember being too concerned about Wilson & Heath.

 

Interesting how you talk about oil revenues being used for the maximim benefit of all the UK. Does that mean the millions wasted on Trident and illegal war in Iraq.

 

At least Mediocre Pundit knows what he is talking about with respect to living under the Tories. While I dont agree with his opinion, I can at least respect it.

[P-R]

I wouldn't be too upset if they ousted that tosser Jim Murphy on Thursday though.

 

Anybody else see his reaction on the Scottish Leaders Debate last night when asked about his "flipping" of homes? He didn't like it one bit.