The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

Personally, I'm looking forward to negative equity, record unemployment, lack of investment in public services and Victorian values. Still, at least we've got some more oil that can be sold off on the cheap to fund a few tax cuts for their mates, eh?

Put George Osbourne in charge of this mess? Don't make me laugh, he's not even the best Chancellor in his own party.

Reminded me of a John Lennon quote: "Ringo, the best drummer in the world? He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles."

[as]

My 'political' mate has organised an election night party round his, to celebrate democracy.

Sounded pretty dull, but then I found out what it involves.

Labour win a seat - line of bing
Tories win a seat - shot of Vodka
Lib Dems win a seat - toke on a joint
Independents win a seat - all three in quick succession

That's how you celebrate another lying t**t getting into power

[hisroyalgingerness]

As a person who has never voted, nor ever had much interest - is there an idiot proof table drawn anywhere for comparing each party, highlighting their basic policies, their plus points, their neagtive points, stuff like that? so folk can just read it and make clear minded decision?

for me at the moment, i just wouldnt bother, simply becasue both party leaders come across as complete dogwankers.

I couldn't find one, and frustratingly every major party's site and policy docs is different so it's quite tough to compare and contract.

[Worthy4England]

As a person who has never voted, nor ever had much interest - is there an idiot proof table drawn anywhere for comparing each party, highlighting their basic policies, their plus points, their neagtive points, stuff like that? so folk can just read it and make clear minded decision?

for me at the moment, i just wouldnt bother, simply becasue both party leaders come across as complete dogwankers.

I couldn't find one, and frustratingly every major party's site and policy docs is different so it's quite tough to compare and contract.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... efault.stm

One here, but pretty high-level..

[a1]

Put George Osbourne in charge of this mess? Don't make me laugh, he's not even the best Chancellor in his own party.

isnt alistair darling a solicitor by trade ?

one side has too many money figureouters , the other has too many lawyer types.

[Little Green Man]

Put George Osbourne in charge of this mess? Don't make me laugh, he's not even the best Chancellor in his own party.

isnt alistair darling a solicitor by trade ?

So to sum up, in a time of grave economic crisis, the prospective Chancellors of the three main parties are a solicitor/advocate (hushed tones: Labour), a data entry clerk/failed journalist/career politico (hushed tones: Conservative) and a ex-Chief Economist for Shell who has a Phd in Economics and who has held several other posts in the broad field of economics (hushed tones: Liberal Democrat).

Well, looks like it's the Natural Law party for me, again...

[ratbert]

Put George Osbourne in charge of this mess? Don't make me laugh, he's not even the best Chancellor in his own party.

isnt alistair darling a solicitor by trade ?

So to sum up, in a time of grave economic crisis, the prospective Chancellors of the three main parties are a solicitor/advocate (hushed tones: Labour), a data entry clerk/failed journalist/career politico (hushed tones: Conservative) and a ex-Chief Economist for Shell who has a Phd in Economics and who has held several other posts in the broad field of economics (hushed tones: Liberal Democrat).

Well, looks like it's the Natural Law party for me, again...

Does yogic flying qualify you to run the economy?

[Little Green Man]

Put George Osbourne in charge of this mess? Don't make me laugh, he's not even the best Chancellor in his own party.

isnt alistair darling a solicitor by trade ?

So to sum up, in a time of grave economic crisis, the prospective Chancellors of the three main parties are a solicitor/advocate (hushed tones: Labour), a data entry clerk/failed journalist/career politico (hushed tones: Conservative) and a ex-Chief Economist for Shell who has a Phd in Economics and who has held several other posts in the broad field of economics (hushed tones: Liberal Democrat).

Well, looks like it's the Natural Law party for me, again...

Does yogic flying qualify you to run the economy?

I believe it may help when the time comes to float the publicly owned banks.

[BWFC_Insane]

So the Tories are talking about making 40,000 public sector employees unemployed.

Fantastic. Of course they dress this up as "not replacing jobs as they come up as part of the natural lifecycle" bollocks.

Net result is up to 40,000 less jobs in the public sector and therefore, more people unemployed.

And of course you can just get rid of 40,000 people and services won't suffer at all! Of course you can!

Genius.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Or possibly there's too many people employed in the public sector?

[Gary the Enfield]

Or possibly there's too many people employed in the public sector?

Sssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!

You'll wake 'em up. They knocked off at 12.00!

[as]

Or possibly there's too many people employed in the public sector?

Sssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!

You'll wake 'em up. They knocked off at 12.00!

Cracking reply!

[Gary the Enfield]

Or possibly there's too many people employed in the public sector?

Sssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!

You'll wake 'em up. They knocked off at 12.00!

Cracking reply!

Gracias.

[Athers]

Not exactly a vote winning move for anyone working in the public sector.

[Worthy4England]

So the Tories are talking about making 40,000 public sector employees unemployed.

Fantastic. Of course they dress this up as "not replacing jobs as they come up as part of the natural lifecycle" bollocks.

Net result is up to 40,000 less jobs in the public sector and therefore, more people unemployed.

And of course you can just get rid of 40,000 people and services won't suffer at all! Of course you can!

Genius.

Worthy said

I think you're right, it's all about how you go forwards. My view is that neither party is going to be well positioned from where we are so it's going to be tough either way. Frankly I don't trust the Tories to help in any dramatic way either - although there may well be a transfer of where job losses occur from the private to the public sector. There's still going to be blood on the carpet somewhere.

[Hoboh]

I'd be happy if they froze tax like Labour plan freezing wages.
Some taxes should go, like tax on insurance policys, road tax can be added to the cost of fuel then those who drive more and add to road deteriation would pay more andif you made a active effort to use your car less you could actually save, hauliers could claim some rebate to offset larger fuel bills.
Inheritence tax really does stink to hell, why save, invest, build up a pot for your kids and grandkids then have the goverment rip it away from you after you've more than likely paid a lot of tax in one form or another whilst acumilating your wealth.
A local income tax instead of poll tax (alright council tax ) sounds good but the figures are too hazy and would encourage people to still stay at home dodging having to pay it.
Unemployment benefit should be paid for no more than 6 months and you should have to have an employment record of 2 year before it's paid out again, same for rent rebates etc. Its too feckin' easy to sit around doing nowt blaming everyone else! why should kids leaving school automatically get cash from the state? Thats plain wrong, I know some houses were the adults and 2 or 3 kids are claiming as much if not more than I do for working and sit doing nowt and have all the latest sky etc! someone tell me why this is right? Before anyone starts on training, one word to the layabouts, its Bollocks!
Now I half expect BWFCI and a few others telling methey are poor unfortunates to be out of work and they would love to be working, have they got a sister who worked in the DHSS claims dept for 10 years whose seen it all first hand?
While I'm on one I might as well get it off my chest, WHEN will someone please explain to local councils they are there to look after and supervise local ammeanities not be property developers!!!
Best give over I'm getting a bit nowt now!

Just to pick up on this. How far would you have to raise tax on fuel in order to recoup the same amount that you would from the current system? I have no idea, but I imagine its a lot. Would it not make petrol prohibitively expensive for a lot of people?

Secondly road tax allows SOME checking on insurance and MOT's. It provides a limited check in terms of needing these to obtain tax but then further the police can very quickly indentify untaxed cars, and these are usually the ones without an MOT and insurance. Under your scheme you'd take that mechanism away, which either means introduction of a whole new mechanism that would inevitably cost lots, or less checking and ultimately less safety on the roads.

I take it then you are not quite up to speed with the lovely gizmo's fitted to plods cars or hanging from bridges these days that read your plate and loads of other drivers too which wake up the big brother computers at the DVLA database that tells Mr plod you are not insured nor have a valid MOT? when they can be arse d using them of course.
Road tax costs a lot to administer and yes fuel would go up quite a bit but a least you will be unable to doge paying and if you use your car less you save and the planet gets saved! I thought that bit was right up your street.
Me I'd go and rob the Arabs blind and give us all fuel for next to nowt

[Bruce Rioja]

So the Tories are talking about making 40,000 public sector employees unemployed.

Fantastic. Of course they dress this up as "not replacing jobs as they come up as part of the natural lifecycle" bollocks.

Net result is up to 40,000 less jobs in the public sector and therefore, more people unemployed.

And of course you can just get rid of 40,000 people and services won't suffer at all! Of course you can!

Genius.

I have to say, Worthy, I cringed when I heard Cameron playing the natural wastage card this morning, assuming that none of the 40,000 people that leave the public sector every year hold anything other than expendable positions. Not a smart move at all.

[BWFC_Insane]

Or possibly there's too many people employed in the public sector?

There might well be.

But it might also be a case of people not always understanding the complexity of the public services that are offered.

Equally given all these cuts the Tories are proposing to the public sector, there will inevitably be a massive knock on effect to the private sector where they hold contracts with public sector bodies. The inevitable knock on is 40,000 job losses from the public sector, reduction of services and reduction of private sector contracts (which the Tories admit) and therefore loss of jobs in the private sector.

The end result is a rise in unemployment and it WILL be as per usual under Tory governments the lower paid people who on average will be more at risk than those that are earning more.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So the Tories are talking about making 40,000 public sector employees unemployed.

Fantastic. Of course they dress this up as "not replacing jobs as they come up as part of the natural lifecycle" bollocks.

Net result is up to 40,000 less jobs in the public sector and therefore, more people unemployed.

And of course you can just get rid of 40,000 people and services won't suffer at all! Of course you can!

Genius.

Aren't all parties talking about public sector job cuts?

Perhaps we can't afford for public services not to suffer a bit?

[Bruce Rioja]

The end result is a rise in unemployment

Not if we disguise the actual jobless figure though, eh?