General Election 2015

mr_goo

PBlakeney wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I have always wondered why the Tories wanted to get into power in 2010. The country was screwed financially due to mismanagement of the treasury since 1997. So why didn't the Conservatives just bide their time, run a benign campaign and sit in opposition for another 4-5 years?
With Labours inability to management money greater than the intake of a church bazaar the treasury would have dried up. Money for social security and NHS would have disappeared, the population on the lower wage spectrum would really have been hit hard (and they think they have it tough now?). Social unrest would have seen people taking to the streets in protest. With their anger directed at the very people that purport to fight their corner. It would have meant that Labour would become a totally un-electable party in 2014/15.

I think that you have answered your own question.
And the Labour party were evidently unelectable in 2010 so why wait for 5 years to inherit an even worse Country?

Yes, but not so un-electable to the point that we have to endure a coalition.

DeVlaeminck

They wanted to get into power because that is what political parties do. The idea that a party might sit back and try and let the opposition in speculating on a more complete win next time round is bizarre - especially when that party haven't been in power for over a decade. Even if it were possible to control the outcome of an election and the future in that way it ignores the dynamic of individuals with their own political ambitions - it would require some to sacrifice their political careers for some imagined greater good.

That apart they probably realised that a very large part of the economic meltdown was caused by international economic conditions and there was every chance of Labour subsequently benefiting from any economic recovery.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

Whether £65k is reasonably of not depends on what you do to earn it and the level of responsibility. Given that MP's are charged with reperenting us and running the country then a salary equivalent to a professional vocation seems about the right sort of level to me.

Agree with the point above about coalition deals making us like Italy eventually. We can only hope the Miliband survives and ruins any reamining credibility/electability for Labour, the Lib Dems get wiped out as many predict and people think long and hard before voting UKIP in a general election. Then the resulting Tory majority can avoid doing any shabby coalition deals and get things done

Accepting that you're clearly a Conservative supporter...
Do you really think a weak opposition benefits anybody?
In my lifetime I've seen both sides run amuck with reckless policies due to an unelectable opposition. Not something that I'm keen to see repeated.

morstar

And on a more partisan note, what constitutes getting things done for a Conservative majority government.
The last term in office of a Conservative majority government produced nothing other than a squabble over eu membership. I wonder how long it will be until that rears its head?... doh!

All we face for the next 5 years with a Con / Ukip government is paralysis over Europe. Not quite getting things done in my book. But I'm not a leftie, I prefer the idea of capitalism with social responsibility.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I have always wondered why the Tories wanted to get into power in 2010. The country was screwed financially due to mismanagement of the treasury since 1997. So why didn't the Conservatives just bide their time, run a benign campaign and sit in opposition for another 4-5 years?
With Labours inability to management money greater than the intake of a church bazaar the treasury would have dried up. Money for social security and NHS would have disappeared, the population on the lower wage spectrum would really have been hit hard (and they think they have it tough now?). Social unrest would have seen people taking to the streets in protest. With their anger directed at the very people that purport to fight their corner. It would have meant that Labour would become a totally un-electable party in 2014/15.

I think that you have answered your own question.
And the Labour party were evidently unelectable in 2010 so why wait for 5 years to inherit an even worse Country?

Because they are clearly not doing for the love of the job as people would like to think is the ideal.
who would become an MP because of love of the local people ? there are plenty of other ways to give your time and do more.

Likewise, you won't attract the people who are stern enough to run a council in a financially viable way because those type of people won't work for £65k Its a never ending circle.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Whether £65k is reasonably of not depends on what you do to earn it and the level of responsibility. Given that MP's are charged with reperenting us and running the country then a salary equivalent to a professional vocation seems about the right sort of level to me.

Agree with the point above about coalition deals making us like Italy eventually. We can only hope the Miliband survives and ruins any reamining credibility/electability for Labour, the Lib Dems get wiped out as many predict and people think long and hard before voting UKIP in a general election. Then the resulting Tory majority can avoid doing any shabby coalition deals and get things done

Accepting that you're clearly a Conservative supporter...
Do you really think a weak opposition benefits anybody?
In my lifetime I've seen both sides run amuck with reckless policies due to an unelectable opposition. Not something that I'm keen to see repeated.

They are by far the best of a fairly poor bunch - IMO of course.

Given a choice between a clear mandate and the sort of semi-paralysis and deal cutting seen in the current coalition, I'll take a clear mandate for the Tories as the lesser of two evils - given my political preferences. In the end the 'elephant in the room' is what we owe as a nation (both now and in terms of future liabilities such as pensions) and I cannot see any other single party or coalition permutation getting anywhere near getting it back down to more manageable levels. Problem is, I am not sure Cameron has the balls to do enough even with a clear mandate - it takes someone of Thatcheresque cojones to do that sort of thing (flame suit on ).

mm1

My experience of working with ministers is that increasingly they are the sort of bossy egotists who ran rag week at university. Any politician who told the truth about the mess we're in would never be elected. Unfunded tax cuts anyone?

Stevo_666

mm1 wrote:

My experience of working with ministers is that increasingly they are the sort of bossy egotists who ran rag week at university. Any politician who told the truth about the mess we're in would never be elected. Unfunded tax cuts anyone?

To some degree true in my experience about politicians generally, especially career ones.

Re: 'unfunded' tax cuts - see my recent post in the Miliband/Mansion tax thread...

VTech

Stevo 666 wrote:

mm1 wrote:

My experience of working with ministers is that increasingly they are the sort of bossy egotists who ran rag week at university. Any politician who told the truth about the mess we're in would never be elected. Unfunded tax cuts anyone?

To some degree true in my experience about politicians generally, especially career ones.

Re: 'unfunded' tax cuts - see my recent post in the Miliband/Mansion tax thread...

Again this is where IMO corruption comes into play.
We need to adopt the methods of countries like Singapore where government contracts as paid well but punished mercillesly if not kept too. We simply can't afford waste which is the real problem.
If you removed the waste I would guess that our taxes would cover the bills.

We owe a lot of money right now so we need to pay more and pay it quickly, thats the rule.

Charging more tax to the rich isn't the way forward as it makes people look for open doors. I am a firm believer that it would be better if tax was reduced the more you earn which would stop the need for people looking for loopholes.

I am a true believer that you should always be better off working and for that to happen and for a wage earner to remain in a position where he gets the most of his wages, he/she should always go home with at least 51% of his/her earnings after tax and NI.

Mccaria

At the moment I struggle to see any one party being able to form a workable majority.

Looks like the SNP will take seats from Labour in Scotland, LibDems will be reduced and how do you gauge the impact of UKIP which could be on a mid-term protest vote high, or could take seats or votes from any of the other parties. At present it looks to be heading toward coalition, but no idea which one.

earth

DeVlaeminck wrote:

VTech wrote:

Lets see what we could quickly do.

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.

2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.

3) Increase MP's wages
a) I would like to think that if they were paid a salary equal to those in business of their level they would feel more comfortable in doing the job they were empowered to do and look at less "fruity" options.

As the poster above said the idea of making people pay for drink and drug related costs is unworkable - what do you do when people can't pay - let them die ? put them in jail ?

The first option.

Particularly with smoking. It is now a proven carcinogen and the packs clearly show the risks. Unlike alcohol, the addicts are not physically dependent so there is no reasons why they should not be able to quit.

I knew someone who was diagnosed with the last stage of smoking related cancer. For some reason they were given NHS treatment and while being treated they continued to smoke. Then their head swelled up to the size of a beach ball, then they died.

ballysmate

earth wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

VTech wrote:

Lets see what we could quickly do.

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.

2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.

3) Increase MP's wages
a) I would like to think that if they were paid a salary equal to those in business of their level they would feel more comfortable in doing the job they were empowered to do and look at less "fruity" options.

As the poster above said the idea of making people pay for drink and drug related costs is unworkable - what do you do when people can't pay - let them die ? put them in jail ?

The first option.

Particularly with smoking. It is now a proven carcinogen and the packs clearly show the risks. Unlike alcohol, the addicts are not physically dependent so there is no reasons why they should not be able to quit.

I knew someone who was diagnosed with the last stage of smoking related cancer. For some reason they were given NHS treatment and while being treated they continued to smoke. Then their head swelled up to the size of a beach ball, then they died.

Bet you love a story with a happy ending.

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

earth wrote:

I knew someone who was diagnosed with the last stage of smoking related cancer. For some reason they were given NHS treatment and while being treated they continued to smoke. Then their head swelled up to the size of a beach ball, then they died.

Bet you love a story with a happy ending.

The irony first they bury their head in the sand then their head swells to size of a beach ball