The Politics Thread

[superjohnmcginlay]

Agreed but pubs piss all over libraries from a great height. So I'm sticking with shut all the libraries and open more pubs, we could subsidise the cost of beer with the library money.

[thebish]

Agreed but pubs piss all over libraries from a great height. So I'm sticking with shut all the libraries and open more pubs, we could subsidise the cost of beer with the library money.

hmmm.. but we are getting away with ourselves... councils don't fund pubs.

[Worthy4England]

Agreed but pubs piss all over libraries from a great height. So I'm sticking with shut all the libraries and open more pubs, we could subsidise the cost of beer with the library money.

hmmm.. but we are getting away with ourselves... councils don't fund pubs.

They bloody well should. It quite often costs more than £3.00 for each withdrawal made.

[Bruce Rioja]

My local library has meetings most mornings of the week that I know a lot of old people really find valuable, to get out of the house and just talk to people. It also has a childrens support group on the side of it. Free internet access for people who cannot afford it and do not want it in their homes, again, particularly old people. As for the books, yes, it costs the state a lot per book, but the important thing is that it costs the user nothing or next to nothing. Many many people cannot afford to buy books themselves, and a library is a great place to open one's mind, especially children. I know it's where I first learnt to love reading.

Agreed 100%. Something the Eton rifles in charge will never understand.

What twaddle. Allow me to disabuse you of your romanticised notion. Here's the situation - we're skint and cuts need to be made. The last government overspent massively and now we have to settle the bill, which in turn has led to spending cuts. So - where are you going to make these cuts? Education? Care for the elderly? Looking after the roads? Waste disposal? Or perhaps somewhere that'll have least impact like errrr.................. oh, libraries!

[thebish]

My local library has meetings most mornings of the week that I know a lot of old people really find valuable, to get out of the house and just talk to people. It also has a childrens support group on the side of it. Free internet access for people who cannot afford it and do not want it in their homes, again, particularly old people. As for the books, yes, it costs the state a lot per book, but the important thing is that it costs the user nothing or next to nothing. Many many people cannot afford to buy books themselves, and a library is a great place to open one's mind, especially children. I know it's where I first learnt to love reading.

Agreed 100%. Something the Eton rifles in charge will never understand.

What twaddle. Allow me to disabuse you of your romanticised notion. Here's the situation - we're skint and cuts need to be made. The last government overspent massively and now we have to settle the bill, which in turn has led to spending cuts. So - where are you going to make these cuts? Education? Care for the elderly? Looking after the roads? Waste disposal? Or perhaps somewhere that'll have least impact like errrr.................. oh, libraries!

I think you're being a bit naive to suggest that these are "or" measures.... most councils that have announced the actual cuts have included ALL of these areas... they are "and" measures.

plus - at the risk of repetition - your economic analysis is a bit (dare I say) Daily Mail....

could you explain why not looking after the roads has less "impact" than closing libraries? How are you measuring that?

[Bruce Rioja]

My local library has meetings most mornings of the week that I know a lot of old people really find valuable, to get out of the house and just talk to people. It also has a childrens support group on the side of it. Free internet access for people who cannot afford it and do not want it in their homes, again, particularly old people. As for the books, yes, it costs the state a lot per book, but the important thing is that it costs the user nothing or next to nothing. Many many people cannot afford to buy books themselves, and a library is a great place to open one's mind, especially children. I know it's where I first learnt to love reading.

Agreed 100%. Something the Eton rifles in charge will never understand.

What twaddle. Allow me to disabuse you of your romanticised notion. Here's the situation - we're skint and cuts need to be made. The last government overspent massively and now we have to settle the bill, which in turn has led to spending cuts. So - where are you going to make these cuts? Education? Care for the elderly? Looking after the roads? Waste disposal? Or perhaps somewhere that'll have least impact like errrr.................. oh, libraries!

I think you're being a bit naive to suggest that these are "or" measures.... most councils that have announced the actual cuts have included ALL of these areas... they are "and" measures.

plus - at the risk of repetition - your economic analysis is a bit (dare I say) Daily Mail....

could you explain why not looking after the roads has less "impact" than closing libraries? How are you measuring that?

Simple - everyone uses the roads whereas few use libraries (and no you may not )

[thebish]

My local library has meetings most mornings of the week that I know a lot of old people really find valuable, to get out of the house and just talk to people. It also has a childrens support group on the side of it. Free internet access for people who cannot afford it and do not want it in their homes, again, particularly old people. As for the books, yes, it costs the state a lot per book, but the important thing is that it costs the user nothing or next to nothing. Many many people cannot afford to buy books themselves, and a library is a great place to open one's mind, especially children. I know it's where I first learnt to love reading.

Agreed 100%. Something the Eton rifles in charge will never understand.

What twaddle. Allow me to disabuse you of your romanticised notion. Here's the situation - we're skint and cuts need to be made. The last government overspent massively and now we have to settle the bill, which in turn has led to spending cuts. So - where are you going to make these cuts? Education? Care for the elderly? Looking after the roads? Waste disposal? Or perhaps somewhere that'll have least impact like errrr.................. oh, libraries!

I think you're being a bit naive to suggest that these are "or" measures.... most councils that have announced the actual cuts have included ALL of these areas... they are "and" measures.

plus - at the risk of repetition - your economic analysis is a bit (dare I say) Daily Mail....

could you explain why not looking after the roads has less "impact" than closing libraries? How are you measuring that?

Simple - everyone uses the roads whereas few use libraries (and no you may not )

hmmm... so - fixing roads has a greater impact than fixing the NHS or care for the elderly - not everyone uses those services... so - given that - close them before letting the roads deteriorate? is that the measure?

(also - when was the last time a council spent money on roads - that cut was made long b4 the tories arrived - it did here anyway!)

[thebish]

[BWFC_Insane]

My local library has meetings most mornings of the week that I know a lot of old people really find valuable, to get out of the house and just talk to people. It also has a childrens support group on the side of it. Free internet access for people who cannot afford it and do not want it in their homes, again, particularly old people. As for the books, yes, it costs the state a lot per book, but the important thing is that it costs the user nothing or next to nothing. Many many people cannot afford to buy books themselves, and a library is a great place to open one's mind, especially children. I know it's where I first learnt to love reading.

Agreed 100%. Something the Eton rifles in charge will never understand.

What twaddle. Allow me to disabuse you of your romanticised notion. Here's the situation - we're skint and cuts need to be made. The last government overspent massively and now we have to settle the bill, which in turn has led to spending cuts. So - where are you going to make these cuts? Education? Care for the elderly? Looking after the roads? Waste disposal? Or perhaps somewhere that'll have least impact like errrr.................. oh, libraries!

Bruce could you tell us what would happen if cuts were made more cautiously, more slowly and more carefully?

Would the world implode, would our economy nose dive? What would actually happen.

Because I've heard an awful lot of economists suggest that the damage being done by this sudden, savage and poorly thought through cuts will be greater than that of just leaving things as they are. I'm no global financial expert but I've heard an awful lot of folk who were very happy to vote/back Cameron and his crew but now the cuts and changes are actually taking place are less than happy.

Personally right now the extra on NI sounds mighty attractive compared to a ripping up of public service a decimation of the NHS and millions of extra people unemployed!

[Worthy4England]

Talking of twaddle.

Government spending (and massively overspent) is not entirely correct. As a % of GDP, spending remained low under the previous government and was still below 40% prior to the financial meltdown in 2008. At the minute it's at 44% and has been since 2009. To put that in some perspective, it was over 40% for most of the 1980's and in 1995.

On the debt side of the equation, the story isn't too dissimilar as a % of GDP. Inherited debt at the time of the 1997 election was 42% of GDP. In 2008 it was 39%.

It's now at somewhere around 68%, which is better than many of the major economies - certainly the G7 - we're generally compared with - Japan (196%), US (96%), Germany (75%), France (83%), Italy (118%), Canada (83%) etc.

You may talk all the twaddle you want, but if you don't recognise the impact of a global financial crisis, then economics probably isn't your forte.

[thebish]

Talking of twaddle.

Government spending (and massively overspent) is not entirely correct. As a % of GDP, spending remained low under the previous government and was still below 40% prior to the financial meltdown in 2008. At the minute it's at 44% and has been since 2009. To put that in some perspective, it was over 40% for most of the 1980's and in 1995.

On the debt side of the equation, the story isn't too dissimilar as a % of GDP. Inherited debt at the time of the 1997 election was 42% of GDP. In 2008 it was 39%.

It's now at somewhere around 68%, which is better than many of the major economies - certainly the G7 - we're generally compared with - Japan (196%), US (96%), Germany (75%), France (83%), Italy (118%), Canada (83%) etc.

You may talk all the twaddle you want, but if you don't recognise the impact of a global financial crisis, then economics probably isn't your forte.

indeed - like I said - Bruce's economic analysis was "Daily Mail"...

[Lord Kangana]

John sergeant claimed that the economic situation was worse in the 80's, but spending cuts less severe under Thatcher as a %, on QT a few weeks back. I'm yet to see the evidence with my own eyes, though I hardly think he's likely to blurt something out like that unless he has something to back it up with. Do you know of any sites of interest Worthy?

[Worthy4England]

John sergeant claimed that the economic situation was worse in the 80's, but spending cuts less severe under Thatcher as a %, on QT a few weeks back. I'm yet to see the evidence with my own eyes, though I hardly think he's likely to blurt something out like that unless he has something to back it up with. Do you know of any sites of interest Worthy?

Pretty good site here

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the offish site is here

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_pesa09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

an amusing little piece from Simon Hoggart...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ig-society

We were gathered in Somerset House, London, to hear from David Cameron what the "big society" really means. It was very exciting, as if we had been invited to learn the true mystery of the Da Vinci Code, or the ingredients in the Colonel's secret KFC sauce.

In the end, it was a little vaguer. I felt as if we'd been invited to the end of an Agatha Christie novel, and Hercule Poirot had gathered us together to tell us he hadn't the faintest idea who the murderer was, but was jolly keen to find out.

Dave was passionate about the big society. He kept telling us how passionate he was. It was a very Valentine's Day mood. "Roses are red / Violets are blue / I'm passionate about the big society / But most people haven't a clue," as he didn't actually say.

There are certainly some fine phrases. "We need social recovery to mend the broken society, and that to me is what the big society is all about!"

There were hints about what we might do to help bring it about. Maybe we can band together to start a school, or save our local public house from closing. Or we could set up a "co-op inside the health service". You or I could volunteer as brain surgeons – I assume that's what he meant. Or you might be like him and run a creche "very badly" at Sunday School. Fair enough: the Good Samaritan was one of the earliest members of the big society. And the parable of the talents was entirely about the first banker's bonus.

Businesses could be brought in. Marks & Spencer were doing a marvellous job training people who might not otherwise have jobs. Possibly they call it the Size 18 Society, or in menswear the XXL Society.

There's a great "Let's roll up our sleeves and get to it" air to everything the prime minister says. He was surrounded by people who were mostly big society adherents – heads of voluntary organisations, charities and so forth. Some were enthusiastic; some less so. One man said the problem was medium-term – the cuts meant there was "a sense of devastation and loss".

"Let's deal with that devastation!" Cameron cried. We instinctively shrank back, afraid that a prime ministerial finger might point our way: "You! Get out there and kill that devastation!"

Nothing would damp him down. We have the most enthusiastic prime minister ever. He makes Tigger look like Rip Van Winkle. "This is my absolute passion! It is about a different way of governing, and it is going to get every bit of my passion!"

He wants us to set up "people's supermarkets" where you can volunteer to stack shelves and get cheap groceries. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could set up a People's Osborne & Little where you can buy wallpaper for less than £100 a roll!

One TV journalist ventured that many of his party didn't know what he was talking about. "The reason I talk about it is because I am passionate about it!" he said, before dashing passionately away. The rest of us left, vaguely wondering what he meant, sensing the odd glimpse through the fog of all that passion.

[BWFC_Insane]

Chill out lads we're all in this together.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12461211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One years notice? Bloody hell. Public servants. Draining the country of its wealth. Sack em all. No doubt email is cheaper than face to face meetings. So whats the issue? More savings. Good. Less drain on public money good. One years notice...bad. Waste of money. Get to it Cameron.

[Lofthouse Lower]

[a1]

the guy with the gun is probably gordon brown about 7 year ago.

[TANGODANCER]

The best politics are always those spoken of by the leaders of parties trying for election: Knights in shining armour kicking out the cruel bad guys, promisal visions of glory and living in a wonderful land of milk and honey with peace and prosperity for all.... Yeah. Give me a guy/woman sat at a desk with a coffee (instead of making the speeches from podiums in high places with 200 supporters all tucking into free lunches) who reminds us we still are a great country and have a very decent standard of living, but it's all got into deep shit and needs a lot of work and belt-tightening all round to get it back on track - and tyhe don't have a magic wand to do it with. All before they get in there- then try to do something positive about it when they do, without making promises he/she haven't a cat-in-hell's chance of filfilling.

Bullshit is fine for growing roses for the florists to sell at a fiver each on Valentine's Day. Can't think of any other uses for it apart from being firmly linked with politics.

[BWFC_Insane]

The best politics are always those spoken of by the leaders of parties trying for election: Knights in shining armour kicking out the cruel bad guys, promisal visions of glory and living in a wonderful land of milk and honey with peace and prosperity for all.... Yeah. Give me a guy/woman sat at a desk with a coffee (instead of making the speeches from podiums in high places with 200 supporters all tucking into free lunches) who reminds us we still are a great country and have a very decent standard of living, but it's all got into deep shit and needs a lot of work and belt-tightening all round to get it back on track - and tyhe don't have a magic wand to do it with. All before they get in there- then try to do something positive about it when they do, without making promises he/she haven't a cat-in-hell's chance of filfilling.

Bullshit is fine for growing roses for the florists to sell at a fiver each on Valentine's Day. Can't think of any other uses for it apart from being firmly linked with politics.

Thing is TD what you're asking for is honesty. Which is actually quite hard to define.

Say you start a new job and announce you're going to do X, Y and Z within a year. You might really mean that but over the course of the year X becomes unimportant, Y is no longer possible and Z changes into something entirely different.

Are you being dishonest?

I don't think all politicians are dishonest, they are labelled as such because of the complexity of their jobs and the ramifications their decisions have.

I absolutely agree there is a need for clarity and to be honest the biggest thing that grates on me is their behaviour in the House of Commons. I'd like proper discussion looking at options, evaluating them properly, discussing their relative merits and disadvantages etc. Not a load of folk arguing, here hereing and basically acting like a bunch of children. Politics needs modernising, but sadly it seems happy to stay in the dark ages apart from where it suits!

[TANGODANCER]

Thing is TD what you're asking for is honesty. Which is actually quite hard to define.

Say you start a new job and announce you're going to do X, Y and Z within a year. You might really mean that but over the course of the year X becomes unimportant, Y is no longer possible and Z changes into something entirely different.

Are you being dishonest?

No BWFCI, that's forecasting. Honesty is simply telling the truth as it stands. Anything else is just fortune telling.