The Tories say..

[Jason]

Con would like to reduce NI. The first stage is not to increase it.

TV reporters report what people say to them and I don't doubt Lab and Lib have made a big effort to find bond traders willing to say such things. It remains that the majority of people who are qualified to pontificate on the subject feel that a hung parliament would certainly damage Britain. So too would a weak parliament (minority government or slim majority). But a Conservative minority/small majority government is less damaging than a hung parliament. Least damaging is a Con landslide.

 

[dandelion]

Con would like to reduce NI. The first stage is not to increase it.

Its a lets-pretend gesture.

We won two world wars on coalition governments and insisted Germany adopt a proportional voting system because it is patently fair and prevents extreme governments taking power. Im afraid I think that a few people slected by a party elite and with only the grudging support of a quarter of the population do not make a good government in this age. The leectoral system is virtually designed to exclude voters from any influence at all on how the country is run. That is a fact. It makes a complete farce of claims such as that we invaded Iraq to give them the democracy which we enjoy.

It remains that the majority of people who are qualified to pontificate on the subject feel that a hung parliament would certainly damage Britain.

this is not something we can resolve by debate. It is a fundamental axiom that economics is an art, not a science, and there are no right answers. The best people at applying it are probably all out there making money from their knowledge. Just how many experts are there in the world who do not have a vested interest in lying to the public?


I remain amused by Liberal prime minister Lloyd Georges observation, that bankers are not to be trusted. They shafted us 100 years ago in his time and they are still doing it. But while on the subject of prime ministes, I see Clegg is positioning himself to be the next one. Do you suppose that means Brown will be back as Chancellor?

 

[dandelion]

I see the newspapers have got round to discussing the budget deficit and parties failures to explain how they will close it. Now whats that about tax cuts?

 

[Drifterwood]

I see the newspapers have got round to discussing the budget deficit and parties failures to explain how they will close it. Now whats that about tax cuts?

Utterly fucking ridiculous. We are being treated like moronic lemmings. And that is disrespectful to Lemmings.

We are all going to be a lot poorer for at least the next five years. Labour is wholly responsible for this, yet they realised that they could potentially retain power by buying off those on hand outs and public sector salaries etc.. They managed to derail the real issue by appealing to people's lowest instincts. Dumb wit Cameron took the bait.

I don't really care who wins so long as it isn't Labour. A labour victory would tell the world what a worthless piece of shit this country has become.

 

[B_crackoff]

The crucial difference is that Labour (and Lib) believe in more state powers, more tax, bigger public sector. Conservatives believe in more individual autonomy, less tax, smaller public sector. These ideologies are incompatible. They cannot possibly work together, nor should they.

Both parties pull their punches in order to occupy the centre ground so that we now have the unfortunate misconception that both are much the same. Yet they are ethically, politically and economically completely at odds.

Very, very true!

I'm a little shocked at how weak Cameron's electioneering has been. To me, New Labour is a sitting duck as there are myriad catastrophes to deliver savage political punches with.

33% in the polls is less than Michael Howard! He should stop worrying about upsetting floater voter women, & just be decisive.

Max Hastings blamed it on his teenage backroom staff!:biggrin1:

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

This thread at least illustrates that members here are a pretty moral and ethical lot of people. However, some of you have fallen for the ideologies of corrupt parties. There is actually very little difference between Labour and Conservative, they will both have to bite the bullet and implement the same administration to cope with the banking mess. You and I will pay for it: not the bankers.
And if their ideologies are so different why do they take up directorships with the same companies and serve (self serve) on the same quangos. We don't have a ruling class any longer, we have a political elite. On Friday the 7th May Britain will get what it deserves because Britons go weak at the knees soon as they enter a polling booth.

 

[B_crackoff]

This thread at least illustrates that members here are a pretty moral and ethical lot of people. However, some of you have fallen for the ideologies of corrupt parties. There is actually very little difference between Labour and Conservative, they will both have to bite the bullet and implement the same administration to cope with the banking mess. You and I will pay for it: not the bankers.
And if their ideologies are so different why do they take up directorships with the same companies and serve (self serve) on the same quangos. We don't have a ruling class any longer, we have a political elite. On Friday the 7th May Britain will get what it deserves because Britons go weak at the knees soon as they enter a polling booth.

I couldn't agree more :smile:

 

[dandelion]

We are all going to be a lot poorer for at least the next five years. Labour is wholly responsible for this, yet they realised that they could potentially retain power by buying off those on hand outs and public sector salaries etc.. They managed to derail the real issue by appealing to people's lowest instincts. Dumb wit Cameron took the bait.

Cameron knows his position on the economy is fundamentally weak. Any winner is likely to be forced into the same actions during the next parliament, and either lab or con would have run the country the same for the last term.

I don't really care who wins so long as it isn't Labour. A labour victory would tell the world what a worthless piece of shit this country has become.

you mean, 6th richest country in the world?

Ok. I agree, we squander money like its going out of fashion and ought to become less money-centred. But thats not what conservatives are about. Are you a closet lib dem?

 

[Drifterwood]

Cameron knows his position on the economy is fundamentally weak. Any winner is likely to be forced into the same actions during the next parliament, and either lab or con would have run the country the same for the last term.

you mean, 6th richest country in the world?

Ok. I agree, we squander money like its going out of fashion and ought to become less money-centred. But thats not what conservatives are about. Are you a closet lib dem?

I'm a pragmatic humanist :biggrin1:.

Calling yourself the 6th richest country in the world is like thinking you are a millionaire because you live in a million pound house, but forgeting that you owe £1.2M on it.

 

[B_crackoff]

I'm a pragmatic humanist :biggrin1:.

Calling yourself the 6th richest country in the world is like thinking you are a millionaire because you live in a million pound house, but forgeting that you owe £1.2M on it.

Actually we're 34th per capita!
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

And soon to slide to 9th on Total.

188th on growth!

And worse 2nd on External Debt. I.e $9Tn to pay back in foreign currency loans.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...ok/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=United Kingdom&countryCode=uk&regionCode=eu&rank=2#uk

 

[Jason]

Cameron knows his position on the economy is fundamentally weak. Any winner is likely to be forced into the same actions during the next parliament, and either lab or con would have run the country the same for the last term.

There is a difference in inclination between Con and Lab - Con would have gone for less public spending and therefore less debt. But the argument really doesn't help - we have to deal with the present.

Dandelion I think you are right that any winner is likely to be forced into similar actions. The problem is that they will not face the same problems. A Con administration will get a boost of market goodwill and may well get investment into our industry and jobs from money fleeing the Mediterranean - a virtuous circle. A hung administration will get a sterling crisis, downgrading on ratings, a vicious circle. The problem is the negative reaction of speculators and the ratings agencies to a hung parliament.

If you really believe the policies will be the same, who not vote for Conservatives and prosperity? Lib-Lab poverty is not a nice idea.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

Conservative poverty is a worse idea. I'd rather we all be fucked over than just the working class.

There isn't on Tory policy i have seen that i like.

If you look at the 80's early 90's how much better off were we? The only reason the Tories will get any good will is because they are not labour. The same as Labour got good will ebcause they weren't Conservative.

 

[dandelion]

There is a difference in inclination between Con and Lab - Con would have gone for less public spending and therefore less debt. But the argument really doesn't help - we have to deal with the present.

Arguably thats right, we have to deal with the present, but he who forgets history is doomed to repeat it. The difference between the two is akin to having a whip round in the commons tea room and sending the proceeds to Greece.

Dandelion I think you are right that any winner is likely to be forced into similar actions. The problem is that they will not face the same problems.

at risk of descending into pantomime chants, 'Oh yes they will'. All this debate about hung parlaiments is total rubbish from conservatives who want a conservative government. What matters are the financial imperatives, markets do not care about political colour just so long as you keep paying. This whole election debate is incredibly parochial. Confidence in the UK has more to do with confidence in Greece, and confidence in the world economy than who wins this election.

Tony Blair respected Margaret Thatcher and what she had achieved. Yet Blair fell by hubris. No one in UK government could have prevented the current recession. But had Margaret Thatcher not pushed the national obsession with property ownership we would now be in a dramatically better position with way lower borrowing. Rather sad that her lasting ultimate legacy to the country may now be utter financial collapse. Want them back?

If you really believe the policies will be the same, who not vote for Conservatives and prosperity? Lib-Lab poverty is not a nice idea.

er, if I believe their financial policies are the same then I choose to vote for lib dem prosperity which is just as good as con prosperity. But being as they are all the same, I vote for reform of parliament.

 

[Jason]

I'd rather we all be fucked over than just the working class.

If you look at what is happening in Greece it is the poorest that are being hurt the most. And that is always what happene when an economy crashes.

If we get a hung parliament our economy goes pear-shaped. Don't believe what the FT and the leading entrepreneurs are saying? Don't believe that the Greek problems are causing enormous instability testing economies everywhere? Then vote in a hung parliament and suffer the consequences.

If we get a Conservative government we have a fair chance of some sort of business as usual. This means Britain has a measure of prosperity including opportunities and support for the poorest.

 

[dandelion]

vote in a hung parliament and suffer the consequences..

I'm afraid I find this all rather ridiculous. The conservative argument is becoming, we're crap, but vote for us or our mates will screw you. There is only one thing to be done with blackmailers. Whatever the cost of defying them, it is always worth it in the long run.

 

[B_crackoff]

What working class? What industry.

The unions now in suits, are totally in cahoots with the man!

As for relative poverty. Ha ha . What an ignorant concept unless it actually pertains to those who work for a living.

If you tax everyone more whilst retaining benefit levels, the poverty level drops dramatically - yet no one benefits.

Worst measure ever! Squeeze those who work, brilliant - those bloody bourgeoise!

 

[vince]

We've had many minority governments in Canada over the years. They don't always last long, but they are not always a bad thing. For one, they tend to be less arrogant and more conscious of the need for compromise. Some very good things have come from minority government. Such as national health insurance.

We currently have a minority and last time checked the sky had not fallen on the country. Its books are actually in pretty good shape and I certainly would not want Harper to have majority.

 

[Jason]

Canada does not have a defecit on a par with that of Greece. If it did then a hung parliament would be a problem.

 

[TomCat84]

Meanwhile, here in the states, the Republicans will make huge gains in Congress, because the people are stupid, and the Democrats never let their balls drop. *SIGH*

 

[vince]

Canada does not have a defecit on a par with that of Greece. If it did then a hung parliament would be a problem.

Well we did at one time have horrendous budget deficits, but we did something about that. (slashed spending and raised the hell out of taxes and guess what? In a very few years the deficits were wiped out and the country has had pretty much the best balance sheet in the G8 for years and years)

I don't agree that a minority government necessarily means that Parliament is "hung", as you insist on calling it. If the politicians are forced to cooperate, they may actually make some correct decisions. It has happened before.

In perilous times, sober second thought and consensus of opinion maybe better than giving free reign to politicians. Then again, in the 90's when Canada was a fiscal basket case, the Liberals had a big majority and were able to force-feed us the nasty fiscal medicine. There is no way they could have done that if they had had to rely on the support of the PQ or New Democrats. And btw, it was a Conservative government that had gone crazy with running up the deficits in the 1980's.

Anyhow, no one can know for sure what will happen if one party or the other is the government. I'd like to see a LibDem PM backed by the Tories, but it's far-fetched no?