the election is coming....

[Lt Cdr Data]

well I am not a political person, tbh, I abhor the claim and counterclaim, spin, lies dirty tricks, its a dirty business.

I am traditionally liberal myself, don't mind saying, but I really can't believe the idiot people in this country are going to vote the labour party back in...

liar blair misleads the country, obsessed with image, celebrity and spin, lied over the iraq was

jack straw the liar, too

Geoff hoon won't have a public enquiry into deepcut where someone killed himself by shooting his own chest 5 times, along with 4 other suicides cover up big style

And the dreadful david kelly affair

what does it take for these people to be hourable?

The latest figures on the asylum sham reckons there to be 250,000-500,000 illegals who have no right to be here. BBC 6 o clock news, source.

John Prescott who punches protestors and gets away with it...elected hounable man?

David blunkett the liar who would not resign despite being proved wrong holding onto power

Peter mandelson the slimy toe rag

alistair cambpell, bullying lyar too

These dishonourable lot doesn't deserve to be in charge of anything disgraceful.

Please, I am not political but this bunch is a sham( I liked them in the first term), don't vote the liars back in. This is fact, not political.

This is not a pro-political post in saying vote for so..and so...its highlighting the lies of our present accountable members.

 

[SCIDB]

Hi Ian,

You are very political.

So who do you want in and will they lie any less?

SCIDB

 

[GAZZ]

For someone who isn't very political you have strong opinions. I suppose with you being liberal you will not be voting Conservative?

 

[stumblin]

Alas, I have got to the stage where I am more worried when there are no scandals or lies being revealed. I can't help but think that it just means that they are being efficiently covered up.

Which is worse - a government caught lying, or a government lying but not getting caught?

 

[lordsummit]

At the end of the day is there that much difference. I'd rather have Mr Blair though than the even more distrustworthy Michael Howard. He's sounding increasingly desparate, and is making promises he just can't keep. He can't afford to make tax cuts and increase public services....... so you pays your money and takes your choice.
His constant banging on about asylum seekers amazes me. I found the figures last time it was discussed, and we took less than almost anyone else in Europe. TBH I think as an affluent country we should be doing more. Where are our consciences boys and girl? Why does everything have to come down to what we think will better us?

 

[Matt F]

He can't afford to make tax cuts and increase public services.......

I think you'll find that the Tory's tax/budget/spending plans have been ratified by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Labour and the Lib Dems (unsurprisingly) say Tory plans don't add up.

So, who do you choose to believe - a body of independant financial analysts or the opposing political parties?

Matt.

 

[wadia-miester]

Neither !!!!

 

[lordsummit]

So the Tories plans have been ratified by someone they paid to ratify them? You can be independant and still get paid you know.
If they were to get in, those of us in public service could undoubtably look forward to all the benefits we receive being cut. Pensions being reduced, and lump sum payouts paid for I might add by hefty contributions being removed. Oh and I'll probably be expected to work until I'm 70, which suggests that I'll probably die before I receive my pension.
I'm afraid that cuts in 'beurocracy' to pay for tax cuts just doesn't wash. They might manage to balance the books, but what will the consequences of the balancing be? Would you want your children taught by non-qualified instructors, private security firms being drafted in to help the police, yet more 3rd world nurses being drafted into the health service so wages can be kept low? It's bad enough as it is without having to save money as well. I think if all the Tories have got to offer is some right wing rhetoric about immigration and promises of tax cuts, that will only really affect the richest percentiles (I'd benefit but I'm not actually that bothered about it) they've got very little chance of getting in. To be honest the Liberals offer a more radical and better thought out agenda, which isn't saying much.

 

[7_V]

So the Tories plans have been ratified by someone they paid to ratify them? You can be independant and still get paid you know.
If they were to get in, those of us in public service could undoubtably look forward to all the benefits we receive being cut. Pensions being reduced, and lump sum payouts paid for I might add by hefty contributions being removed. Oh and I'll probably be expected to work until I'm 70, which suggests that I'll probably die before I receive my pension.
I'm afraid that cuts in 'beurocracy' to pay for tax cuts just doesn't wash. They might manage to balance the books, but what will the consequences of the balancing be? Would you want your children taught by non-qualified instructors, private security firms being drafted in to help the police, yet more 3rd world nurses being drafted into the health service so wages can be kept low? It's bad enough as it is without having to save money as well. I think if all the Tories have got to offer is some right wing rhetoric about immigration and promises of tax cuts, that will only really affect the richest percentiles (I'd benefit but I'm not actually that bothered about it) they've got very little chance of getting in. To be honest the Liberals offer a more radical and better thought out agenda, which isn't saying much.

The Liberal 'better thought out agenda' amounts to increasing the taxes and spending more. It is precisely the same 'kindergarten economics' which was rejected when it was the Labour policy throughout the 80s/90s.

It wouldn't work for at least three reasons:

1. Increasing the tax rate for the wealthy simply results in more effort spent avoiding having to pay it. The overall sum collected is unlikely to be more.

2. More spending does not necessarily result in improved services.

3. The higher the taxes, the lower the growth - not very good for the longer term.

As for pensions ...

One of Gordon Brown's initial acts as chancellor in 1997 was to withdraw tax relief on dividends paid in to pension schemes. This has resulted in a cumulative pensions deficit of £5 billion (compounded) for each year since.

It is almost the accepted view that Brown has been a 'great' chancellor. Nonsense. The only thing he did that was genuinely excellent was to give control of the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England. Other than that, with his large tax increases, irresponsible spending increases (without adequately insuring that they brought worthwhile benefits) and robbing of the country's pensions, he has been a disaster.

As for the Tories, I believe that they are in an interim phase at the moment with an interim leadership. Perhaps they will be in some shape to win an election by 2009. The last thing they want is to win the election now. It would mean taking over the economy for the next four years as Gordon Brown's economic shit starts to really hit the fan.

Lordsummit, you say you don't want attempts to be made to cut bureaucracy. Yet this has to be done periodically or bureaucracy just increases year-on-year until it consumes the whole country. Of course school teachers must still be adequately qualified, as should the police. As for the health service, without the generally excellent '3rd world' nurses we wouldn't have one.

 

[Graham C]

Lordsummit, I agree with your sentiments 100% re tax cuts/vs services.

The asylum issues tho are always deliberately mixed up to avoid real debate. The issues I see are:

1 What are the numbers, immigants, asylum seekers OK, asylum seekers not OK, illegal immigrants?

2 Do the rejects get processed - clearly not

3 Do we have a case for choosing immigrants as other countries do - Australia, Canada etc

I dont think you can compare the UK to other countries. We are an island, as is Aus, Canada is a virtual island since people from the US are not trying to sneak into Canada, so we all have the choice to choose our immigration.

Land connected Euro countries have no choice but accept migrant working historically. But they have the trading advantage that we dont, as they are land connected. We have to ship our produce and are at a huge geographical disadvantage for commerce/industry. Why shouldnt we at least have an advantage over immigration?

I think there is a logical argument to say, if you are genuinely fleeing disaster - why do you travel 1/2way round the world to a country 15 degrees colder and wetter, where you dont speak the lingo/religion/etc. It's good that UK does accept genuine asylum seekers, but if we need migrant workers [we dont particularly] there are plenty of Portugese etc who want to come [I have worked with them]. It is not logical to have people from around the world.

Finally the old chestnut about 'there are as many people leaving, more or less, as there are coming in' - sure, but the people leaving are taking their UK made capital, pensions etc and going abroad to spend it. There is a UK brain drain/savings drain/ pensions drain etc. Minimum wage workers from overseas, who may be sending their earnings back home, are hardly helping to compensate.

discuss..

[edit -] I ought to add, that I dont see this as a party political issue. I'm sure the situation would be where we are now, whoever was/will be in power. Politicians by their nature do not want to put clear cases or make decisions.

 

[auric]

I'd vote for Harriet Jones - Flydale North given half a chance

 

[Bob McC]

Howard's campaign has sunk to ever more despicable levels as each day has passed. The man is a slimy toad who deserves the trouncing he is going to get. When the Tories start campaigning and stop resorting to the politics of fear and envy they may have a chance.

Bob

 

[garyi]

I'll vote labour.

 

[Matt F]

So the Tories plans have been ratified by someone they paid to ratify them? You can be independant and still get paid you know.

Let's be honest Richard - no matter who did the analysis and who paid for it you (and all the other anti-Tories) would reject the results if they said the figures did add up.

If they were to get in, those of us in public service could undoubtably look forward to all the benefits we receive being cut. Pensions being reduced, and lump sum payouts paid for I might add by hefty contributions being removed. Oh and I'll probably be expected to work until I'm 70, which suggests that I'll probably die before I receive my pension.

Isn't that what Labour are doing to you anyway i.e. what the threatened strikes are about? Personally I think it's disgraceful that they are doing this BUT it's because they didn't have the balls to do what was needed when they came to power.

What am I on about? Well, for many years now it's been known that final salary schemes have become too expensive to run - basically because the burden on the employer is too great in these days of low investment returns and low annuity rates. Even if the employee is putting in say 6% of salary, the required employer contribution is enormous and this is why they have all but disappeared in the private sector who have reverted to money purchase (i.e. where you have a fund value to buy an income at retirement but no guaranteed benefits).

The trouble with the public sector is that the huge employer contributions required have to come from the tax payer - so the man in the street is effectively paying for the guaranteed retirement benefits of public sector workers whilst struggling to provide any reasonable sort of income for himself (something not helped by Browns annual raid on pension funds to the tune of £6bn).

What should have been done back in 1997 (before the number of public sector workers doubled!) was that they should have said - the final salary scheme is now closed to new members - all new employees will go into a money purchase scheme.

I'm afraid that cuts in 'beurocracy' to pay for tax cuts just doesn't wash. They might manage to balance the books, but what will the consequences of the balancing be? Would you want your children taught by non-qualified instructors, private security firms being drafted in to help the police, yet more 3rd world nurses being drafted into the health service so wages can be kept low? It's bad enough as it is without having to save money as well.

Haven't Labour been doing exactly what you describe above e.g. employing class room assistants and community officers (policemen with no powers)? I would have thought a lot of the non front line jobs could be axed e.g. the legions of advisers, liaison officers, co-ordinators, focus groups - basically the majority of the jobs you see advertised in The Guardian every week.

To me, whilst Labour may have provided some front line jobs, they seem to have wasted a fortune on a load of worthless posts in the middle - if they concentrated a little less on spin and performance league tables and let the people working in those services get on and run them as they know they should be then probably half of these unproductive roles wouldn't be needed anyway.

On a totally different matter - are you behind Pearcy for the Man City Manager's job?

Matt.

 

[lordsummit]

Matt you know we're bound to disagree we obviously have diametric views
I'm busy writing job application letters so I haven't got time to debate much as I would love to. Perhaps tomorrow!
On the other hand I really want Mr Pearce to get the City job, he's a breath of fresh air, and his enthusiasm is uplifting. He's got me off my backside and going to away matches again, and whilst yesterdays match was a poor one, we didn't lose something I think we would have done earlier this season, our teams willingness to scrap for points is a big improvement. I think he'll turn into a Dowie type figure which is just what we need at the moment.

'All we are saying, is give Pearce a chance!'

 

[Lt Cdr Data]

Prediction:

chelsea will beat liverpool, not sure about champs league final. ac milan.

chelsea win the league. man utd lose the fa cup and finish 3rd and ferguson walks.

labour wins the election.

I must be a tad psychic...I guessed portugal would beat england, contentiously!!

and ratzinger would become pope.

maybe I should start betting....!!

 

[Joe]

Howard's campaign has sunk to ever more despicable levels as each day has passed. The man is a slimy toad who deserves the trouncing he is going to get. When the Tories start campaigning and stop resorting to the politics of fear and envy they may have a chance.

You have to laugh though at NuLab accusing the Tories of 'playing on peoples' fears' about immigration, when that's just exactly what NuLab did (and continue to do) wrt to the war against terror. What makes NuLab's position even more laughable is that they accuse the other parties of being 'soft on terror' for not nodding through detention without charge or trial, ID cards etc, yet NuLab, by going to the polls a year early, are the very ones who prevented a considered discussion of such issues.

IMO neither of the two main parties deserve support.