General Election 2010

[Barney Rubble]

Then you are a very scary man indeed.

 

A return to the I'm alright and stuff the rest values of Thatcherism would be an absolute disaster for millions of people. I for one dread the thought of trying to get myself a decent job when I am made redundant next year if we are under a government of Eton toffs.

 

Of course, it might not be a disaster for me as I think it would seal the deal for independence when Scotland finally realises that in order to make sure the Tories never rule Scotland again, we have to go it alone.

 

 

That would be the only good thing about the Tories getting in.

[Tam]

D Cameron on the Andrew Marr show now ! F*ckin scary, cuts cuts cuts !. No bad if you've millions in the bank to take the hit.

[jaggybunnet]

D Cameron on the Andrew Marr show now ! F*ckin scary, cuts cuts cuts !. No bad if you've millions in the bank to take the hit.

 

news flash to all daffties who don't think ALL the parties are going to make massive cuts

 

wake up and smell the coffee, we are massively indebt (browns fault) and need to sort it.

its going to hurt what ever way we do it.

[Sandy Gall]

news flash to all daffties who don't think ALL the parties are going to make massive cuts

 

wake up and smell the coffee, we are massively indebt (browns fault) and need to sort it.

its going to hurt what ever way we do it.

 

The problem is that the (we) turkeys don't know that Christmas is coming in late May/early June this year.

 

If the Bank of England reckon that we'll need a 6p on the pound increase in tax to balance the books, why can't the politicians admit it? (rhetorical question ).

[Tam]

news flash to all daffties who don't think ALL the parties are going to make massive cuts

 

wake up and smell the coffee, we are massively indebt (browns fault) and need to sort it.

its going to hurt what ever way we do it.

I will put my testicles in the cupped hands of the Liberals or Labour but NOT the Tories !

[Blackpool Jags]

Let's tax the rich to get us through this crisis that they, largely, created anyway. All this nonsense about them scarpering to foreign lands where they'd pay less tax is just that, nonsense. They're all good patriots after all and would stay here to see their nation through the worst of it, wouldn't they?

[jaggybunnet]

Let's tax the rich to get us through this crisis that they, largely, created anyway. All this nonsense about them scarpering to foreign lands where they'd pay less tax is just that, nonsense. They're all good patriots after all and would stay here to see their nation through the worst of it, wouldn't they?

 

 

hows the brown love in going?

[Blackpool Jags]

hows the brown love in going?

 

Not too well, it would seem.

 

Ideally, we'll scrape past the winning line then bin him.

 

The second part of that is more likely than first, unfortunately.

[Mediocre Pundit]

One for my Liberal Democrat friends...

 

Serious question to LD voters on here: would you say you were a Liberal or a Social Democrat? Because to be fair if they were separate parties I would possibly vote Liberal rather than Conservative, but there's no way I would vote Liberal Democrat when so much of the activist base consists of Social Democrats.

[Mediocre Pundit]

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. It was the onward selling of these collateralized mortgage books (made necessary so that the banks could keep lending to "the poor" without the liability base to underpin this) that then lead to growing default rates causing systemic failure in the financial system.

 

Northern Rock was deemed to be a great bank pre-crisis because it helped "the poor" get on the housing ladder, yet it lent £9 for every £1 it held in deposits. People seem to have forgotten that it was this that caused the crisis, not bankers bonuses, globalisation or speculative traders.

 

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.

[The Devil's Point]

One for my Liberal Democrat friends...

 

Serious question to LD voters on here: would you say you were a Liberal or a Social Democrat?

 

A Liberal

[jimthejagsfan]

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. It was the onward selling of these collateralized mortgage books (made necessary so that the banks could keep lending to "the poor" without the liability base to underpin this) that then lead to growing default rates causing systemic failure in the financial system.

 

Northern Rock was deemed to be a great bank pre-crisis because it helped "the poor" get on the housing ladder, yet it lent £9 for every £1 it held in deposits. People seem to have forgotten that it was this that caused the crisis, not bankers bonuses, globalisation or speculative traders.

 

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.

You must be a torrie with that comment its only the torries that let the rich keep there money and the poor pay more for everything.

[Mediocre Pundit]

You must be a torrie with that comment its only the torries that let the rich keep there money and the poor pay more for everything.

You must be a...well, a bit of a plum with that comment, because that's not at all what my post was about!

 

You're also a bit of a plum if it's only now, upon reading that post, that you've worked out that I'm a Tory!!!

[Mediocre Pundit]

A Liberal

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?

[GrantB]

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. It was the onward selling of these collateralized mortgage books (made necessary so that the banks could keep lending to "the poor" without the liability base to underpin this) that then lead to growing default rates causing systemic failure in the financial system.

 

Northern Rock was deemed to be a great bank pre-crisis because it helped "the poor" get on the housing ladder, yet it lent £9 for every £1 it held in deposits. People seem to have forgotten that it was this that caused the crisis, not bankers bonuses, globalisation or speculative traders.

 

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.

 

 

MP, you truly are a child of Thatcher.

 

And it aint a compliment.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Don't disagree. I've got a degree in Economics and have my own opinions on what good and bad policy is (Thatcherism being largely good, with some bad edges) and am happy to stand by them and have a discussion on them regardless of other people's beliefs.

 

Out of interest, what part of my post that you quoted is untrue?

 

Edit: you could argue that Thatcher sowed the seeds of the sub-prime mortgage crisis with the Right to Buy programme...

Edited May 2, 2010 by Mediocre Pundit

[jaggybunnet]

I will put my testicles in the cupped hands of the Liberals or Labour but NOT the Tories !

 

 

 

so you would keep the party that got us in this mess instead .... truley baffling

[jaggybunnet]

MP, you truly are a child of Thatcher.

 

And it aint a compliment.

 

 

Grantb, lovechild of salmond

 

 

sorry grant

[GrantB]

Don't disagree. I've got a degree in Economics and have my own opinions on what good and bad policy is (Thatcherism being largely good, with some bad edges) and am happy to stand by them and have a discussion on them regardless of other people's beliefs.

 

Out of interest, what part of my post that you quoted is untrue?

 

Edit: you could argue that Thatcher sowed the seeds of the sub-prime mortgage crisis with the Right to Buy programme...

 

So 3M unemployed, social division and the poll tax are largely good?

 

As I said in a previous post, Dave will do more for Scottish indepedence than Alex Salmond could ever hope to do.

 

Grantb, lovechild of salmond

 

 

sorry grant

 

I'm not that big a fan of Salmond. I am a fan of self determination for the Scottish people though.

[Mediocre Pundit]

So 3M unemployed, social division and the poll tax are largely good?

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.

 

I realise you (and a lot of Scotland) will never agree with this and that's fine - opinions is what it's all about. And I suppose I'm lucky in that the changes she made allowed my family to get on the property ladder and buy a washing machine (as interest rates came down and availability of credit increased) and, although my dad is a union man, they both agree (he grudgingly) that some of the measures implemented made the country a much better place.

 

There's always winners and losers. She should have done more to help the losers, but I believe her actions to have been correct.

 

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.

 

These are all Conservative values, which is why I vote Conservative - even though my Labour MP had a 17k majority in 2005 and is going nowhere...

[Sandy Gall]

 

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.

 

So, a flat tax on income with maybe a zero rate for earnings below £10,000?

 

That would be a start, but the basic rate has to go up for everyone.

 

(Liberal)

Edited May 2, 2010 by Sandy Gall

[Mediocre Pundit]

So, a flat tax on income with maybe a zero rate for earnings below £10,000?

 

That would be a start, but the basic rate has to go up for everyone.

 

(Liberal)

Yep, that's the idea. Then maybe 20% on earnings above that. Not that I have any figures to work out feasibility...

[crazy davie]

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.

I've never voted Conservative in my life and I doubt I ever will, but I was 100% behind this policy. Too many people not paying for services they benefitted from.

[GrantB]

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.

 

I realise you (and a lot of Scotland) will never agree with this and that's fine - opinions is what it's all about. And I suppose I'm lucky in that the changes she made allowed my family to get on the property ladder and buy a washing machine (as interest rates came down and availability of credit increased) and, although my dad is a union man, they both agree (he grudgingly) that some of the measures implemented made the country a much better place.

 

There's always winners and losers. She should have done more to help the losers, but I believe her actions to have been correct.

 

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.

 

These are all Conservative values, which is why I vote Conservative - even though my Labour MP had a 17k majority in 2005 and is going nowhere...

 

Conservatives have no values other than making sure the rich and powerful are looked after at the expense of everyone else. I dont believe Cameron will be any different no matter how many Lord Ascroft sponsored billboards try to convince us.

 

I love how you refer to 3M unemployed as some form of colatteral damage. The amount of jobs lost, homes reposessed and general suffering caused to millions were as a direct result of Thatcher's policies.

 

Funny how you say your Dad is a union man, my Dad was as big a Tory as you could ever meet

[Mediocre Pundit]

Funny how you say your Dad is a union man, my Dad was as big a Tory as you could ever meet

 

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.