Coalition how long will it last?

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Patrick Kielty was pretty good once. There again, so was Eddie Murphy.

He's actually quite a good standup especially when edgier stuff about the 'Troubles' and terrorism......pity he decided to be Mr Irish TV Presenter instead, suppose the bills need paid.

I don't watch Corrie so I have no idea who Jim is.

Yes you do


He of the made up Norn Irish catch phrases

So it is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDona ... ion_Street)

ga02clr

[quote=
Anywho:

Left -- Left of Centre -- Centre -- Right of Centre -- Right
Ed Miliband
Blair
Clegg/Cameron/Thatcher

Brown

You would think to place Clegg with Ed.[/quote]

Ed is far far more left wing than Clegg or the lib dems of the past 10 or so years. He also now has to be as he got the leadership not through party member votes but the union block votes.

daviesee

dhope wrote:

daviesee wrote:

You are all making the mistake of thinking it is all about policies.

They are all politicians. It is all about greed :evil:

Too lazy an argument to make. Would imagine most could make more than their £65k MPs salary if they were simply looking to be greedy.

I would actually agree that they are underpaid. Their wages are not the problem. It is expenses, gold plated pensions, public speaking (why would anyone pay what they charge? But that's a seperate issue) etc, etc that mean they will do anything to stay in power. Policies be damned. That's my issue. Not anyone wanting to better themselves but politicians going back on their policies once elected. Nothing new but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

EKE_38BPM

TailWindHome wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Patrick Kielty was pretty good once. There again, so was Eddie Murphy.

He's actually quite a good standup especially when edgier stuff about the 'Troubles' and terrorism......pity he decided to be Mr Irish TV Presenter instead, suppose the bills need paid.

I don't watch Corrie so I have no idea who Jim is.

Yes you do


He of the made up Norn Irish catch phrases

So it is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDona ... ion_Street)

I don't watch any soaps, haven't done for years.

PK's 'troubles' era comedy was brilliant, especially considering how it affected him personally.

ga02clr

TailWindHome wrote:

ga02clr wrote:

and how long the funding matrix weighting means English Tax payers subsidise the Scottish and Welsh etc.

Still with this?

So were do you want to draw the lines, which parts of Great Britain do you want to cut off

Asking how long will England tax payers subsidise implies that people in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are somehow scrounging off the rest of Britain.....Balls to that....my tax money goes to subsidise the millions of cheap lager drinking, Jeremy Kyle watching, fag smoking scumbags which make up a large part of your 50 million population.

Also where are you going to draw the line, which bits of Britain are being cut off, just the celtic nations or is the North of England going too? Maybe everywhere outside London. Maybe build a wall at the end of Greg66's street and everyone else can eff off.

Cut NI off if you want....you owe us 600 years back rent and you're keeping Paddy Kielty and Coronation Street Jim

I am not advocating reducing the funding of areas of the UK with a sparser population, ie Scotland, Wales the lake district etc.
It is however a case in point and an area of tension that will be raised when people PERCEAVE there to be inequality in what tax's get you in parts of the country, ie free proscriptions, universities etc.
Personally I would not be at all surprised if the Scottish system decides it can no longer offer free university for all. It will then be interesting to see if English students etc still feel so hard done by (which I think in many cases they are but the issue is with the quality and number of universities and funding weak universities and courses).
Any decision a Government makes will have its objectors. Your point on ‘cheap lager drinking, Jeremy Kyle watching, fag smoking scumbags which make up a large part of your 50 million population’. To try to combat people living in houses that most could only dream of the Government is limiting the rental payments per week to £400 per week. This has been met my wide spread anger in London, Some people seem to think that people who do not earn enough to pay their own way should seemingly be able to live in private rented accommodation that lots of hard working families could simply not afford.

Robstar24

daviesee wrote:

dhope wrote:

daviesee wrote:

You are all making the mistake of thinking it is all about policies.

They are all politicians. It is all about greed :evil:

Too lazy an argument to make. Would imagine most could make more than their £65k MPs salary if they were simply looking to be greedy.

I would actually agree that they are underpaid. Their wages are not the problem. It is expenses, gold plated pensions, public speaking (why would anyone pay what they charge? But that's a seperate issue) etc, etc that mean they will do anything to stay in power. Policies be damned. That's my issue. Not anyone wanting to better themselves but politicians going back on their policies once elected. Nothing new but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

as has been said before, this sort of boneheaded cynicism is rather grinding and dull in the long run. People pay what politicians charge because it makes an event more sellable. I think you're also exaggerating what politicians can make from public speaking. Whilst Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair might be able to get 25-30k per after dinner speech, they were longserving PMs in interesting times who reformed their political parties and changed britain, with the added bonus of being excellent speakers. I doubt that someone like gwyn prosser (ex labour MP for dover, looks like a cross between david bellamy and ricky tomlinson) could charge much more than 25-30 jelly beans for a speech, because who'd listen?

I agree that many politicians showed themselves to be rather free with taxpayer cash when it came to the expenses system, but the whole system was a fudge, designed to compensate MPs for not having higher salaries (which would have led to a public outcry). What the expenses scandal showed was how many MPs live in a world that most UK residents don't know; much as the tabloid press might claim, you cannot afford a house with a moat on an MPs salary, you would need to have made the money elsewhere/inherited it. the main concern these days is how many leading politicians in the UK (i'd include cameron, clegg, osborne and both milibands here) have held a job in the real economy rather than squirreling away for some party connected think tank/research foundation in the westminster village.

on going back on their promises, this is because a) politicians need to cut deals to get things done; it's easy for journalists or the public to criticise but this is how politics works b) they need to do what gets good headlines often. voters have the power to get rid of governments and thus politicians do what gets the best coverage. for instance: cutting fuel duty to appease the motorist lobby and many people who depend on their cars rather than seriously investing in cycling infrastructure to get more people out of their cars with attendant health, road maintenance and environmental benefits, or promoting a flashy new high speed rail link rather than investing in suburban rail links and increasing capacity.

politicians are often wrongly blamed for events beyond their control, such as George Bush's administration for the financial meltdown; it was clinton who repealed the legislation separating investment and retail banking, and in 2005 bush tried to pass regulation to rein in freddie mac and fannie mae but the democrats blocked it, yet bush is blamed for lack of regulation of the financial industry.

closer to home, we call those hire bikes boris bikes even though the idea was actually ken livingstone's. ideas mean little until they're executed.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Incidentally I'm really liking Ed Miliband the intellectual ....

....they seem the lesser of three evils.

God, really? x2

Milliband is from the union payroll and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit. Doesn't his nasal voice make you want to throw things? And as for his speech at the last lot of riots (sorry, protests)....

Labour fecked it up last time, now all they do is complain about the job the coalition is trying to do to clear up their mess. They should be hanging their heads in shame. As it is, they can't even come up with any decent, positive proposals - they just bitch and complain all the time.

I'd rather have the Lib Dems in than Labour. I can't believe people are so quick to forget.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Incidentally I'm really liking Ed Miliband the intellectual ....

....they seem the lesser of three evils.

God, really? x2

Milliband is from the union payroll and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit. Doesn't his nasal voice make you want to throw things? And as for his speech at the last lot of riots (sorry, protests)....

Labour fecked it up last time, now all they do is complain about the job the coalition is trying to do to clear up their mess. They should be hanging their heads in shame. As it is, they can't even come up with any decent, positive proposals - they just ***** and complain all the time.

I'd rather have the Lib Dems in than Labour. I can't believe people are so quick to forget.

Miliband is not on the union payroll. He was the union choice ahead of David Milliband, but that's like saying I asked for an ice cream, but i'd rather genital warts over syphilus given the choice of the two....

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit.

You make that sound like a bad thing

Labour fecked it up last time

No the general population fecked up the economy, the government just went along for the ride.

daviesee

Robstar24 wrote:

as has been said before, this sort of boneheaded cynicism is rather grinding and dull in the long run.

I agree. I don't want it to be this way but time and experience have formed my opinions.
As it is dull, I will leave it at that.

ga02clr

TailWindHome wrote:

W1 wrote:

and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit.

You make that sound like a bad thing

Labour fecked it up last time

No the general population fecked up the economy, the government just went along for the ride.

Firstly a government is by its nature to protect the country and serve the country not the unions....

I think you will find that the Government messed it up not the people, people opperate in the systems dictated by government poilicy and law....

The last Government as any would have, was quite happy to make billions out of tax revenue from the financial services sector that supported the years of growth the UK saw. They created poor control process and encouraged risky practice (because at the time it made them lots of money). Obviously it all inevitably went wrong but it not the Governments fault at all obviously.... (YES LOTS OF SARCASM)
I could raise the point about Gordon Browns investment track history of UK assets.. he sold the gold reserve at a very low price and purchased Euro's. Now his comeback in parliament was that the values of the Euro's had gone up.... Yes but not NEARLY as much as the value of the gold he sold!

Everyone’s favourite Union Stalwart. Bob Crow. For those that think the unions represent the people. This guy makes circa £150k a year. A very good wage. Do I have a problem with someone earning £150k a year, no. If his employers think he is worth it far do’s. Should he be complaining about ‘fat cats’ and the squeeze on the poor while living in a state subsidised housing association house which I am sure we can all agree could have a more needy occupant?!?
Quite clearly hypocritical!

DonDaddyD

All I asked was how long the Coalition was going to last for? Personally I don't it's the most popular Government... and figure it's about time the Libs grow a pair.

Jay dubbleU

DonDaddyD wrote:

All I asked was how long the Coalition was going to last for? Personally I don't it's the most popular Government... and figure it's about time the Libs grow a pair.

Big mistake DDD - politics or religion - both cans of long wriggly things

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Incidentally I'm really liking Ed Miliband the intellectual ....

....they seem the lesser of three evils.

God, really? x2

Milliband is from the union payroll and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit. Doesn't his nasal voice make you want to throw things? And as for his speech at the last lot of riots (sorry, protests)....

Labour fecked it up last time, now all they do is complain about the job the coalition is trying to do to clear up their mess. They should be hanging their heads in shame. As it is, they can't even come up with any decent, positive proposals - they just ***** and complain all the time.

I'd rather have the Lib Dems in than Labour. I can't believe people are so quick to forget.

Miliband is not on the union payroll. He was the union choice ahead of David Milliband, but that's like saying I asked for an ice cream, but i'd rather genital warts over syphilus given the choice of the two....

Hence "from" the union payroll, not on it. They pushed him into power, and they'll want a return on their "investment" soon eough - and feck anyone who isn't a union member (i.e. most of the country).

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

W1 wrote:

and they're only interested in their members' interests, not the rest of the country one little bit.

You make that sound like a bad thing

Labour fecked it up last time

No the general population fecked up the economy, the government just went along for the ride.

Rather depends if you're a union member or not.

And Brown has finally admitted he fecked up. Obviously the blame doesn't lie completely there, but Labour were the ones p!ssing money up the wall in the good times, bloating out the public sector and leaving the country with an almost impossible debt. And of course, leaving all the problems to someone else....

rjsterry

Blimey! Who'd have thought it: trade unions promote their members interests rather than those of the general public. And this is different from, say, the CBI or any other Advocacy group because...? Were you hoping for an advocacy group for the 'general public'?

Bikequin

Ed Milibland is just about the best thing to happen to the Conservatives since erm..... Gordon Brown.

Between him and that odious little man called Sadiq Khan they're taking the labour back to where they were before Blair scrubbed Clause 4 from the Labour manifesto - and hopefully at the same-time are making them completely unelectable, seeing as the labour party in its original guise became redundant somewhere around 1970.

rick_chasey

Bikequin wrote:

Ed Milibland is just about the best thing to happen to the Conservatives since erm..... Gordon Brown.

Between him and that odious little man called Sadiq Khan they're taking the labour back to where they were before Blair scrubbed Clause 4 from the Labour manifesto - and hopefully at the same-time are making them completely unelectable, seeing as the labour party in its original guise became redundant somewhere around 1970.

Love it when the right go rabid.

TheStone

Bikequin wrote:

Ed Milibland is just about the best thing to happen to the Conservatives since erm..... Gordon Brown.

Between him and that odious little man called Sadiq Khan they're taking the labour back to where they were before Blair scrubbed Clause 4 from the Labour manifesto - and hopefully at the same-time are making them completely unelectable, seeing as the labour party in its original guise became redundant somewhere around 1970.

I don't mind the Milibands or Khan. Way, way better than Brown and Balls!

bigmat

Bikequin wrote:

Ed Milibland is just about the best thing to happen to the Conservatives since erm..... Gordon Brown.

Between him and that odious little man called Sadiq Khan they're taking the labour back to where they were before Blair scrubbed Clause 4 from the Labour manifesto - and hopefully at the same-time are making them completely unelectable, seeing as the labour party in its original guise became redundant somewhere around 1970.

What's wrong with Sadiq? Strikes me as one of the good guys, and a good constituency MP.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where the hell are the Liberal Democrates?

Awesome.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Blimey! Who'd have thought it: trade unions promote their members interests rather than those of the general public.

Indeed, and do you think that's a good way to "elect" the leader of the opposition?

W1

Bikequin wrote:

Ed Milibland is just about the best thing to happen to the Conservatives since erm..... Gordon Brown.

Between him and that odious little man called Sadiq Khan they're taking the labour back to where they were before Blair scrubbed Clause 4 from the Labour manifesto - and hopefully at the same-time are making them completely unelectable, seeing as the labour party in its original guise became redundant somewhere around 1970.

I wouldn't be so sure. There are plenty of voters who have short memories or no sense.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Blimey! Who'd have thought it: trade unions promote their members interests rather than those of the general public.

Indeed, and do you think that's a good way to "elect" the leader of the opposition?

I think it's up to the Labour party who and how they elect their leader. If I wanted to change how it was done, I'd join the party and try and make my views heard. So trade unions got organised enough in the late 19th and early 20th century to form a political party - good for them. It's not exactly surprising that they still exert such a big influence over the party that they founded is it? I don't see how they can have 'too much' influence over something they created - it's like saying that wealthy businessmen and landowners have too much influence over the Conservative party.

Stevo_666

The alternative is the Labia Party - do you really want the left wing idiots back who got us into the economic mess we are in now?

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Blimey! Who'd have thought it: trade unions promote their members interests rather than those of the general public.

Indeed, and do you think that's a good way to "elect" the leader of the opposition?

It's a good way to elect the leader of a LABOUR Party

It's then up to the electorate to decide who becomes the largest parlimentary party and as a consequence who becomes PM

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

And Brown has finally admitted he fecked up. Obviously the blame doesn't lie completely there, but Labour were the ones p!ssing money up the wall in the good times, bloating out the public sector and leaving the country with an almost impossible debt. And of course, leaving all the problems to someone else....

No the British Public pi55ed the money up against the wall

They borrowed and spent

They bought big screen TVs and threw away the old one, they bought 2nd and 3rd properties and rejoiced as the property market went up and up, not realising that it was only their own greed sustaining it. They 'released the equity' in their properties and splashed it on holidays and an endless stream of consumer goods they didn't need but had to have.

Labour spent on the Public sector, the Tories would have cut taxes....the end result would have been the same. No one was going to turn off the music while people were still dancing.

Greedy bankers only made money from a greedy public.


The really sad thing is we all got a warning only a decade before when the dot coms went tits up

'Please God just one more bubble'

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where the hell are the Liberal Democrates?

I think they play in the Brazilian 2nd division

sketchley

You forgot the "who cares they are all the same" option that is increasing becomming my opinion of all politicians.

EKE_38BPM

Sketchley wrote:

You forgot the "who cares they are all the same" option that is increasing becomming my opinion of all politicians.

Ain't that the truth!
Bunch of power hungry to$$ers the lot of them. All out for power and trying to keep their job/take their bosses job/take their opposite number's job rather than doing what would be in the best interest of the general public/country.

I always vote, but the outcome of the last election has left me with a strong feeling of apathy (if that is possible).