General Election 2015

[Hampster Gull]

I'll explain. I never disagreed there was in fighting at the Labour party, especially the Blair/Brown issue. I just pointed out that you don't seem to accept that there is in fighting in the Tory party, and probably all of the parties.

I agree there is infighting in all parties, the Tories canbe shameful at it. The point i was making in my post though, perhaps not clearly enough, was that the reason Clegg didnt match off with Labour was in part that the sentiment was against Labour at the time, part of which included the sourness related tothe infighting.

 

[Hampster Gull]

You forgot to mention the gold.......yawn.

Ah, yes, the gold. Forgot about that

 

[drew]

Sounds like a man too keen to spread the blame as wide as possible. A Guardian article on the twenty five people who lead us into the financial crisis had Mervyn was on the list. According to them he refused to believe it was a crisis that would spread internationally when it first took hold, he refused to bail out banks initially arguing moral hazard and that the Treasury select committee said he should have done more.

Btw Brown was also the list. apparently he was dazzled by the city, applied light touch regulation etc.

And of course your argument that exonerates the Tories is that despite their agenda for even less regulation at the time, they simply weren't in power so hold no responsibility. A sort of stick your fingers in your ears and go ding a ling a ling defence!

 

[Hampster Gull]

And of course your argument that exonerates the Tories is that despite their agenda for even less regulation at the time, they simply weren't in power so hold no responsibility. A sort of stick your fingers in your ears and go ding a ling a ling defence!

The Tories dont need exonerating on this, for many other things yes but not for this! They weren't in charge, Labour where in power for 10 years leading up to the crash. They were in the driving seat, they are culpable. To argue otherwise ignores the facts. We simply do no know what would have happened. Perhap the tories would have done the same, perhaps not, perhaps they would have run a lower deficit in the good times so we had more in the bank....lots of if buts and maybes but the fact is Labour were in charge

 

[drew]

The Tories dont need exonerating on this, for many other things yes but not for this! They weren't in charge, Labour where in power for 10 years leading up to the crash. They were in the driving seat, they are culpable. To argue otherwise ignores the facts. We simply do no know what would have happened. Perhap the tories would have done the same, perhaps not, perhaps they would have run a lower deficit in the good times so we had more in the bank....lots of if buts and maybes but the fact is Labour were in charge

Predictable.

Out of interest, if the deficit was lower there still wouldn't be more in the bank. They would have to have run a surplus to reduce the debt surely?

 

[Ernest]

Labour in front again in tonight's you gov poll

 

[Hampster Gull]

Labour in front again in tonight's you gov poll

Newsnights latest is that neither tories / libs nor lab / snp reach the magic total. Very tight

 

[beorhthelm]

Newsnights latest is that neither tories / libs nor lab / snp reach the magic total. Very tight

so no change from the past few months then.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Basically if you vote Tory you have no heart. If you vote labour you.have no mind.. Voting liberal means you have neither.

 

[larus]

Predictable.

Out of interest, if the deficit was lower there still wouldn't be more in the bank. They would have to have run a surplus to reduce the debt surely?

Simple question to you, Ernest and Herr Tubthumper, if the Tories had been in power when the financial crash happened, would you have said that it wasn't their fault and it was a global problem?

It doesn't take a lot to deduce that you probably wouldn't be saying that. And that's the problem with this endless 'debate' (I'm probably being quite generous in using that word, as it's more a case of a slanging match), in that too many are blinkered that the other side can do no right, and their side can do no wrong.

Now, the recovery isn't perfect, and the distribution of wealth isn't either (understatement probably), but we're doing better in this country than others, and unemployment is lower that would have been predicted when the crisis hit. I accept a lot of people aren't earning great wages, but having some work is better than no work, and limits the government deficit.

People go on about the lack of deficit reduction, yet in the next sentence, moan about cuts to services. I don't see how we can complain about both these, unless you propose huge tax increases, which have been proven time and again to not raise revenue, but stifle investment and the economy.

Are the Tories perfect; hell no. But then, nor are labour. IMO, politics in this country needs an overhaul, and I think the coalition has done a reasonable job. I never wanted PR, but I would seriously welcome a system with a PR component now. The fact the labour can get a majority with a smaller percentage vote due the the effect of boundaries is wrong; again , if this was reversed, certain left wing posters would be whinging about it.

 

[drew]

Simple question to you, Ernest and Herr Tubthumper, if the Tories had been in power when the financial crash happened, would you have said that it wasn't their fault and it was a global problem?

It doesn't take a lot to deduce that you probably wouldn't be saying that. And that's the problem with this endless 'debate' (I'm probably being quite generous in using that word, as it's more a case of a slanging match), in that too many are blinkered that the other side can do no right, and their side can do no wrong.

Now, the recovery isn't perfect, and the distribution of wealth isn't either (understatement probably), but we're doing better in this country than others, and unemployment is lower that would have been predicted when the crisis hit. I accept a lot of people aren't earning great wages, but having some work is better than no work, and limits the government deficit.

People go on about the lack of deficit reduction, yet in the next sentence, moan about cuts to services. I don't see how we can complain about both these, unless you propose huge tax increases, which have been proven time and again to not raise revenue, but stifle investment and the economy.

Are the Tories perfect; hell no. But then, nor are labour. IMO, politics in this country needs an overhaul, and I think the coalition has done a reasonable job. I never wanted PR, but I would seriously welcome a system with a PR component now. The fact the labour can get a majority with a smaller percentage vote due the the effect of boundaries is wrong; again , if this was reversed, certain left wing posters would be whinging about it.

Sorry, you're wrong. If you read my posts you will see that I don't think it would matter who was in power, the global crash would have happened. I don't see how you can deduce that i would be like Hampster and one or two others that can't see that. You will see that in my posts with Hampster I acknowledge there is in fighting in the labour party but I also point out that it goes on in every party, a point he still hasn't acknowledged! I agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph. You highlight the effect of boundaries but there are arguments on both sides. Yes, in a simple world it would seem to make sense that with 650 MPs, there should roughly be one MP per 100k of the population. How does that affect a place like the Isle of Wight? Population of 140k. Surely it is common sense that a place like that has one MP rather than one part of the island has their own MP and the rest have to share an MP with the part of the mainland. Yes, of course it suits Labour to keep it as it is but then if it didn't suit the Tories then they too wouldn't want change. What is odd is that they had the chance to change it and chose instead to keep the hereditary house of Lords in tact. As for PR, you had a chance to vote for a version of it (assuming you were old enough) but presumably didn't. I did.

With regard to deficit reduction, if you recall the Tories had promised to eradicate it by the end of the last parliament. They didn't, thanks to the Libdems putting the breaks on. I don't take the view that the deficit has to be eliminated by a set time. Others might but not me.

As for tax, nobody is advocating massive tax rises however at a time when they were attempting to reduce the deficit, the Tories were giving money back to the rich whilst making it harder for those at the other end of society. Look at the disability assessment shambles and the bedroom tax.

My view of politicians is that I don't trust any of them further than I could throw them. My philosophy for voting is what I think is best for the wider society, not just for my own pocket. What that tends to mean is, sadly, that I vote for who I think is going to be least worse for the country.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Simple question to you, Ernest and Herr Tubthumper, if the Tories had been in power when the financial crash happened, would you have said that it wasn't their fault and it was a global problem?

Any sensible person knows it was a global problem. The test of this is to see how many countries it hit, and how many differing governments it affected. To suggest it was all the doing of a single UK government, of any colour, is utterly absurd.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

so no change from the past few months then.

No change, right up your strasse then

 

[beorhthelm]

...[Boundries] Yes, of course it suits Labour to keep it as it is but then if it didn't suit the Tories then they too wouldn't want change. What is odd is that they had the chance to change it and chose instead to keep the hereditary house of Lords in tact.

point of order here, Labour voted against the Lords and killed the bill, along with a few rebels. the Tory government voted in favour of the Lords Reform bill in its first rounds.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Sorry, you're wrong. If you read my posts you will see that I don't think it would matter who was in power, the global crash would have happened. I don't see how you can deduce that i would be like Hampster and one or two others that can't see that. You will see that in my posts with Hampster I acknowledge there is in fighting in the labour party but I also point out that it goes on in every party, a point he still hasn't acknowledged!.

Groan. See #3567

 

[Hampster Gull]

Any sensible person knows it was a global problem. The test of this is to see how many countries it hit, and how many differing governments it affected. To suggest it was all the doing of a single UK government, of any colour, is utterly absurd.

Of course it ended as a global problem but at the heart of the issue was in light touch financial regulation in NY and London. The impact of this spread globally. To suggest otherwise lacks an appreciation of the financial markets

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Of course it ended as a global problem but at the heart of the issue was in light touch financial regulation in NY and London. The impact of this spread globally. To suggest otherwise lacks an appreciation of the financial markets

This. To suppose that Labour would accept their own argument had the roles been reversed would be ridiculous.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course it ended as a global problem but at the heart of the issue was in light touch financial regulation in NY and London. The impact of this spread globally. To suggest otherwise lacks an appreciation of the financial markets

I agree there was light-touch, or neoliberalist policies as I prefer, in the US and the UK probably at the heart of the matter but banks all around the world were shown up to be non-creditworthy. With hind-site things could have been prevented but this caught numerous countries by surprise. I think it's crazy to blame one party or one county; as Mervyn King said there is shared responsibility for this.

 

[Gwylan]

point of order here, Labour voted against the Lords and killed the bill, along with a few rebels. the Tory government voted in favour of the Lords Reform bill in its first rounds.

That's not true at all. Labour supported the provisions of the bill and voted for it; what Labour voted against was the guillotining of the debate - the coalition tried to push through the bill using emergency procedures and Labour wanted proper scrutiny. What killed the bill was the strength of feeling in the Tory party - nearly a hundred Conservative MPs voted against it and Cameron withdrew the bill before civil war broke out.

It was a bill that could easily have been redrawn and pushed through parliament but Cameron chose not to. I maintain that it was a completely bone-headed decision that could cost him up to 20 seats

 

[drew]

That's not true at all. Labour supported the provisions of the bill and voted for it; what Labour voted against was the guillotining of the debate - the coalition tried to push through the bill using emergency procedures and Labour wanted proper scrutiny. What killed the bill was the strength of feeling in the Tory party - nearly a hundred Conservative MPs voted against it and Cameron withdrew the bill before civil war broke out.

It was a bill that could easily have been redrawn and pushed through parliament but Cameron chose not to. I maintain that it was a completely bone-headed decision that could cost him up to 20 seats

This. Had the Tory party wanted this then it would have passed, after all, they and the Libdems had the majority. However they put the kibosh on this bill so the Libdems reciprocated on the boundary changes. Very much an own goal by the Tories.