"Tory scum, here we come"

First topic message reminder :

I was at the DEMO in Manchester 29th September, my thread title was the chant from around 80,000 people, 40,000 inside the park and 40,000 OUTSIDE. We were kettled so we could not get into the park. IMHO the police were on instructions from the Tory gov't so people would not see 'THE TIDE TURNNG' against this VILE NASTY gov't.   People came from Aberdeen to Somerset and everywhere else in between and we were WELCOMED by the people who live in Manchester and some even joined in the march. There were BANNERS flying high from every Union within the UK; one which really caught my eye was from the N.U.S. from HALLAM SHEFFIELD, Cleggy's seat. (Just in case some on here may not know what NUS stands for it's 'National Union of Students'.)  It's been three & a half years and they have not forgot what the Prostitute party did to them with their signed photo pledge.
 
I myself want to thank the Unite Union here in Glasgow, Jack, Angela, Jackie, Sandra and everyone else on the coach from John Smith House to Manchester, this was my first DEMO and there are plenty more to come. I hear there is one in October and I will be there by hook or by crook because it gave me hope that at last the people in the UK 'HAVE AWAKENED FROM THEIR SLEEP'. There are some posters on here who have thought "would they wake in time?" My answer is a very loud "YES they have". They may have stopped us from getting into the park but we did not miss the Tories outside their conference. They heard us and we made sure with loud hailers, Brass Bands. whistles, rattles and of course our VOICES. They heard us FINE and no doubt Cameron will be worried today, but that is no one else's fault but ours. We were quiet for too long, so I am wondering if there will be more TOILET PAPER used today at their conference??:yeahthat:

oftenwrong wrote:Today, some media royalty appear at The old Bailey.

The next five months will no doubt produce a few more examples of Managed News in our daily diet.

I just wonder OW if Cameron will get his hands dirty for his "CHIPPING NORTON SET"?:yeahthat: 

I understand your attempt to offer football examples to back up your theories, Bell
and Dan. However, please try not to have this take us off topic. There exists a sports
thread if you wish to to visit.

Mel wrote:I understand your attempt to offer football examples to back up your theories, Bell
and Dan. However, please try not to have this take us off topic. There exists a sports
thread if you wish to to visit.

To use a rugby metaphor.... nice sidestep  

Players don't like the ref pointing out the rules which eventually leads to a yellow card. 

I can see your point Dan, when you explain that you live in a strong Labour constituency, when you say more or less"it's not worth bothering to vote."

IMO we should have a voting system based upon EVERY persons vote should be taken and counted as a total count for each political party. Perhaps those who feel their vote is not worth the bother, would bother in that event.
Simples, yet will never happen no doubt.
 
Can you offer reasons why this could not work, Dan or Bell?

Mel wrote:I can see your point Dan, when you explain that you live in a strong Labour constituency, when you say more or less"it's not worth bothering to vote."

IMO we should have a voting system based upon EVERY persons vote should be taken and counted as a total count for each political party. Perhaps those who feel their vote is not worth the bother, would bother in that event.
Simples, yet will never happen no doubt.
 
Can you offer reasons why this could not work, Dan or Bell?

I thought that was being discussed in a different thread, Mel.  
In any case, given the fact I've demonstrated that I support a PR-based electoral system, I'm not sure why you're asking me for a reason why it wouldn't work. I suppose the arguments against what you propose (which I would actually be more than happy with) would be that MPs represent their constituents and the views, concerns and opinions of them. In theory at least. A constituent can then go to a surgery and see their 'local' MP etc. I don't agree with that as a set of reasons not to have PR but there you go. And while we're at it, seeing as we're talking electoral reforms and the country needs to tighten its collective belt and we're all in this together, lets cut the ridiculously large amount of MPs in Parliament at Westminster.

Couldn't agree with you more on that subject Dan. 

Mel wrote:I can see your point Dan, when you explain that you live in a strong Labour constituency, when you say more or less"it's not worth bothering to vote."

IMO we should have a voting system based upon EVERY persons vote should be taken and counted as a total count for each political party. Perhaps those who feel their vote is not worth the bother, would bother in that event.
Simples, yet will never happen no doubt.
 
Can you offer reasons why this could not work, Dan or Bell?

Basically that is what the regional list does. I think that a mixture of PR and regional list would be my favoured option... It would, as you think, mean that there would be more purpose in a vote.

a mixture of PR and regional list

44 million political parties - one for each elector

oftenwrong wrote:a mixture of PR and regional list

44 million political parties - one for each elector

Franchise is quite an amusing take on this issue...

The text I found here.

Mel wrote:"Collect the taxes owed by thieving businesses, for a start. But, no - the bankers' parties all support the bankers and the other rich, alas.."

Hear, hear!!!

Not forgetting some MPs who have set up businesses to pay there Westminister salaries into so instead of paying 40p in the £ they only pay 20p in the £.

Redflag wrote: Not forgetting some MPs who have set up businesses to pay there Westminister salaries into so instead of paying 40p in the £ they only pay 20p in the £.

 
That is actually quite difficult to do now. I used to do that as a contractor in the late 90s but the law changed. they would have to show to HMRC that this was not their primary source of income and as a public disclosure that would be deeply and probably terminally embarrassing. The thing they need to stop is the employment of wives and children./ This also changed BUT they simply employ a company now who happen to employ the wife, children etc... Very corrupt and not a party political divide either!?

A cynic might wonder about the swarm of "outsourcing" companies which now do so much of the work of Government. How many Politicians (or their close associates) are investors?

oftenwrong wrote:A cynic might wonder about the swarm of "outsourcing" companies which now do so much of the work of Government.  How many Politicians (or their close associates) are investors?

Again they would have to declare these on the register of members interests BUT, as Tony Blair showed, there is nothing to stop them giving a leg up to a friend as distinct from family. Capita only existed because Tony helped out his mate.

The Tories tend to be more indirect but the effect is the same. Jobs for the boys when they retire from politics. IMHO this is a serious scam...

Tony Blair's relationship with Bernie Ecclestone and the money the latter and Max Moseley donated to the Labour party and the subsequent decision to allow Formula 1 an exemption from banning the advertising of tobacco products was purely coincidental. Also, Blair made a genuine mistake when he claimed the decision to allow tobacco advertising had taken place two weeks after the same meeting where Ecclestone pledged £1m to Labour, even though it was actually decided at that meeting.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LEND US MONEY WHEN WE ARE SIMPLY SLIPPING FURTHER INTO DEBT?

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LEND US MONEY IF WE ARE SIMPLY NOT PREPARED TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY?

Bellatori. Please stop shouting. We don’t do things like that on this forum. Notice that I haven’t been screaming because you ignored my last post and failed to say if you understand ‘the paradox of thrift’.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right
 

If we had stuck to the 2001-2 net borrowing would we have been in the same mess when the proverbial hit the fan in 2008 or would we have been like Canada and able to ride out the storm?

 
We would still have been in a mess. The UK is more dependent on financial services than Canada, and in case it escaped your notice, it was bankers, not Gordon Brown, who caused a global meltdown. It’s not “an excuse”, it happened, the worst financial crisis to hit the world since 1929.
 
If we’d kept to spending limits set by the Tories, schools and hospitals would have continued to be starved of funds and fallen into further disrepair. We have enough people now moaning that Labour didn’t do enough with its massive majorities in 1997 and 2001 – a point of view with which I have some sympathy – but if your idea had prevailed, Labour rule would have been indistinguishable from the rubbish that had gone before.
 
As a statistician, I’m sure you’re quite adept at using only those figures which fit your argument. Producing statistics from this government, which include an estimate of borrowing into 2016, isn’t likely to impress anyone. Osborne has been wrong on every prediction that he’s made. You conveniently ignore the fact that the GDP of the UK grew from £830.013 billion in 1997 to £1458.452 billion in 2010:-
 
http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
 
The chart on page 6 of this document shows that the UK’s growth in GDP between 1997 and 2010 was faster than in every other G6 country:-
 
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/conference_papers/15b_11_2011/151111_UK_Business_slides_final.pdf
 
According to these statistics, UK debt was 41.93% of GDP in 1997, but only 36.61% in 2008, when the global meltdown occurred:-
 
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1997_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2008&chart=G0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP
 
I groaned when you used that tired old Tory phrase about “mortgaging our children's future”. I suggest the chart here on UK government debt since 1692 might help you to keep things in context:-
 
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
 
Our debt as a percentage of GDP was, because of wars, far higher in 1815 and the 1940s than it is now. I haven’t worried about, or even noticed, that I’d apparently been saddled with the debts of an earlier generation, and I doubt if the next generation will.
 
As to your first question: the phrase “we are simply slipping further into debt” is a tacit acknowledgement that austerity isn't working. It would be far better if the government borrowed to promote growth rather than to shore up the deficit in tax receipts.  As Polly Toynbee remarked: “A national mortgage for an asset (such as house building) is not the same as splurging on a big night out."
 
Who does lend money to our government? Most government debt is bought by financial institutions such as pension funds, building societies, investment trusts and private individuals. Therefore, the interest payment is paid to those who buy the government bonds and gilts.
 
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/627/economics/who-lends-the-government-money/
 
Maybe your second question should have been: “Why should anyone lend us money when we have a chancellor who knows nothing about economics, and who lost us our AAA status after saying that it was the benchmark on which he wanted to be judged?”

oftenwrong wrote:A cynic might wonder about the swarm of "outsourcing" companies which now do so much of the work of Government.  How many Politicians (or their close associates) are investors?

 
Sorry OW the only one that I know about is OUR NHS which the Tories are trying to privatize, most of the Tory MPs have shares in the private health sector most of whom have being given contracts to our NHS so not will they only get their huge salary increases they will be getting their dividends off their private health care shares.:yeahthat:

Ivan has made it clearer than I did, in his message above, Redflag.

Our debt levels are at 73% of GDP. High? yes. However, other countries have a much bigger debt situation. Japan has a National debt of 225% and Italy is over 100%.  The Yankee debt around 75% of GDP. UK has had much higher national debt in the past, as in the late 1940s, UK debt  was over 180% of GDP.

As I have said so many times before most countries borrow fairly heavily at most times.
The lack of borrowing under Thatcher did nothing for the man in the street, surprise, surprise and this lot are complete austerity animals. The real reason is because they prefer to hit the masses to fund tax relief for their rich friends who on top of that put their cash overseas in tax havens. The bit they do have to pay to make it look good, the Tories help them at the expense of the majority with tax reductions, as we have seen now, even in times when the poor and the middle classes are suffering badly.

The Lib Dems have allowed so much Tory ideology to be implemented without question. The should be ashamed of themselves. Are they? the hell they are.

I groaned when you used that tired old Tory phrase about “mortgaging our children's future”. I suggest the chart here on UK government debt since 1692 might help you to keep things in context:-

Hello Ivan, do you remember whenever the "that tired old Tory phrase about “mortgaging our children's future” was mentioned our late friend Bow Bells used to say, she didn't once wake up thinking or worying over the debts we found ourselves in after WW2, we simply got up and got on with the day.

Dan Fante wrote:-
The country needs to tighten its collective belt and we're all in this together, lets cut the ridiculously large amount of MPs in Parliament at Westminster.

 
I think reducing the number of elected MPs is wrong on two counts. Firstly, it makes MPs more remote from their constituents if they have to represent even more people. There is a common misconception that all MPs do is shout at each other on Wednesday lunchtimes and maybe attend a few committee meetings. It’s true that MPs employ assistants to do much of the donkey work for them, but some, especially those in inner cities or deprived areas, often have many problems to sort out.
 
Secondly, every government usually requires 80-85 MPs – cabinet, ministers, under secretaries, personal private secretaries etc. Reducing the number of MPs means that there are fewer backbenchers to hold the government to account.
 
Cameron tried to reduce the number of elected MPs from 650 to 600, not because he wants to save money, but because he wanted to gerrymander the system. The Tories find it unfair that 36% of the votes only gave them 47% of the seats, but they don’t want to change the way we elect MPs.
 
Cameron promised in the last election to “cut the cost of politics”. What he’s actually done is to boost the number of unelected lords to 838, which means there are even more members of the House of Lords than before most of the hereditary peers were axed. It also means that the House of Lords is larger now than the European Parliament.

Ivan wrote:
I think reducing the number of elected MPs is wrong on two counts. Firstly, it makes MPs more remote from their constituents if they have to represent even more people. There is a common misconception that all MPs do is shout at each other on Wednesday lunchtimes and maybe attend a few committee meetings. It’s true that MPs employ assistants to do much of the donkey work for them, but some, especially those in inner cities or deprived areas, often have many problems to sort out.

 
I think 650-ish is a ridiculously large amount of MPs. I also don't think 85-ish MPs are needed for government. That's just more jobs for the boys as well. Also, do you think the fact that many of them have other jobs (which shouldn't be allowed) suggests the numbers could be significantly trimmed?

Dan Fante. I agree to a point - the French manage with only 501 MPs representing a slightly larger population than ours (66 million to 63 million).
 
However, I'd rather reduce the number of parliamentarians by 838 by abolishing the House of Lords. Dear old Tony Benn used to argue that a second chamber is not necessary and that bills could be given a fourth reading in the House of Commons if necessary.

".... Tony Benn used to argue that a second chamber is not necessary and that bills could be given a fourth reading in the House of Commons if necessary."

An over-worked phrase, but applicable, "Marking their own homework".

Several notably daft Commons proposals have sensibly been wrecked on the shoals of the Second Chamber during the modern era. What the Americans describe as "Checks and balances" in their political system.

The House of Lords has been known to wreck some decent proposals, notably Home Rule for Ireland in 1912. Their lordships used their two-year delaying power, and then the First World War broke out and the bill was never passed.
 
If there is a need for a second chamber, it should, in our so-called 'democracy', be elected, maybe using a different voting system. Or maybe the percentage of votes cast in a general election could be used to allocate seats in the Lords proportionately - one election, two results. It would mean that 'wasted' votes for the Commons would still count towards representation in 'the other place'.
 
What is absurd in the 21st century is a chamber with 91 people who are there purely because of accident of birth, while the rest are defeated politicians or cronies who have made generous donations to party funds. 'Cash for peerages' is very much alive and well, as the case of John Nash demonstrates. He bunged the Tories £300k, then IDS gave him a large contract, Cameron gave him a peerage and now Gove has made him a schools minister. Nothing short of blatant corruption.

The House of Lords needed reforming but I don't think Labour went about it in the right way. They obviously wanted to make it more representative, especially since hereditary peers were overwhelmingly Tory, but they should have taken the opportunity to form an elected Upper House in my view.

Ivan wrote:...

       

Nothing I did not know and nothing that approaches an answer to the question. Everything you have written including the 'anti-thrift' Keynesian argument are predicated on one thing - Lenders keep on lending. My question was WHY SHOULD THEY?. If you look at your list then something like a third of all lending to the Government comes from foreign sources. It would require only a small loss of confidence to cause a complete collapse. Do you think they lend because they don't care if they get there money back?  Why do you think the EU had to change the rules for the Central Bank so it could be lender of last resort?

Once again you extol Gordon Brown. I wonder how long he has thought of himself as an ex-politician. . Probably since 2007?!  You point out that there was sustained growth and GDP increased dramatically. It is actually your weakest point because it makes the borrowing even less excusable. Had we not kept up the borrowing we would have been £170Bn less indebted and that would have covered the crash.

I enjoyed your various snide comments including the one about statistics. My graphs were from the treasury which is vetted by the OBR. Fantasists all I'm sure.

Dan Fante wrote: I think 650-ish is a ridiculously large amount of MPs. I also don't think 85-ish MPs are needed for government. That's just more jobs for the boys as well. Also, do you think the fact that many of them have other jobs (which shouldn't be allowed) suggests the numbers could be significantly trimmed?

 
Yes - double the number and give ALL the stolen powers back to democratic local government.   Dictators are always incompetent and loathsome.

Ivan wrote:The House of Lords has been known to wreck some decent proposals, notably Home Rule for Ireland in 1912. Their lordships used their two-year delaying power, and then the First World War broke out and the bill was never passed.

I agree with the premise BUT you can hardly blame the HoL for WW1.  
 

Ivan wrote:If there is a need for a second chamber, it should, in our so-called 'democracy', be elected, maybe using a different voting system.

Absolutely however...

Ivan wrote: Or maybe the percentage of votes cast in a general election could be used to allocate seats in the Lords proportionately - one election, two results. It would mean that 'wasted' votes for the Commons would still count towards representation in 'the other place'.

could end up with a regional list which will still be stuffed with cronies. When you vote I feel it is important to know who you are voting for.
 

Ivan wrote:What is absurd in the 21st century is a chamber with 91 people who are there purely because of accident of birth, while the rest are defeated politicians or cronies who have made generous donations to party funds. 'Cash for peerages' is very much alive and well, as the case of John Nash demonstrates. He bunged the Tories £300k, then IDS gave him a large contract, Cameron gave him a peerage and now Gove has made him a schools minister. Nothing short of blatant corruption.

Absolutely sucks but then I have always thought that the Two (and a half) Party system was essentially corrupt. They like to help their friends though. Look at TB and CAPITA.

Bellatori wrote:
When you vote I feel it is important to know who you are voting for.

Quite so. At least one form of PR voting passes "surplus" votes down the chain of candidates.

oftenwrong wrote:Bellatori wrote:
When you vote I feel it is important to know who you are voting for.

Quite so.  At least one form of PR voting passes "surplus" votes down the chain of candidates.

Yes, the single transferable vote. But you get to nominate who (if any) your alternatives are. I always liked this idea.

Ivan wrote to Bell " You conveniently ignore the fact that the GDP of the UK grew from £830.013 billion in 1997 to £1458.452 billion in 2010:-"
Incedentally it must be also remembered that Darling had growth on the mend at the time the Coalition (the Tories) took over.
 
Bell replied to Ivan.
"You point out that there was sustained growth and GDP increased dramatically. It is actually your weakest point because it makes the borrowing even less excusable."
 
That was NOT a weak point at all Bell. You have jumped to the words "less excusable" without giving proper thought.
If you consider the £628 billion that was derived during 14yrs of New Labours tenure in office would have been anywhere near sufficient to fund ALL including that that the outgoing Thatcher's/ Major Tory government had left undone, then you live in cloud cuckoo land, with respect.
As a said statistician, you surprise me.

Ivan wrote:Dan Fante. I agree to a point - the French manage with only 501 MPs representing a slightly larger population than ours (66 million to 63 million).
 
However, I'd rather reduce the number of parliamentarians by 838 by abolishing the House of Lords. Dear old Tony Benn used to argue that a second chamber is not necessary and that bills could be given a fourth reading in the House of Commons if necessary.

I think both houses need a trim the HOL down to 150-200 HOC down too around 500, we could save us the taxpayer a fortune but the expenses need to be cut to a sensible level and no SECOND homes unless you live more than one hour & half away from the HOC.:yeahthat: 

The numbers elected for a given point of view are rapidly trumped by the Parliamentary whip.

Mel wrote:Ivan wrote to Bell " You conveniently ignore the fact that the GDP of the UK grew from £830.013 billion in 1997 to £1458.452 billion in 2010:-"
Incedentally it must be also remembered that Darling had growth on the mend at the time the Coalition (the Tories) took over.
 
Bell replied to Ivan.
"You point out that there was sustained growth and GDP increased dramatically. It is actually your weakest point because it makes the borrowing even less excusable."
 
That was NOT a weak point at all Bell. You have jumped to the words "less excusable" without giving proper thought.
If you consider the £628 billion that was derived during 14yrs of New Labours tenure in office would have been anywhere near sufficient to fund ALL including that that the outgoing Thatcher's/ Major Tory government had left undone, then you live in cloud cuckoo land, with respect.

Of the two of us I would suggest that actually I did give this thought. You, on the other hand, are of the view, as is Ivan, that a 'what the hell' attitude to spending because they will keep lending' is OK.

In spite of economic growth there was highly significant borrowing throughout the Labour government period and this left us in a poor position when it came to the crash. Once again we have someone promulgating the idea that debt is good without understanding that lending is not an open ended and philanthropic enterprise.

Mel wrote:As a said statistician, you surprise me.

If you are going to make snide comments like that then I suggest you omit fatuous bits of apparent politesse such as 'with respect'. It does not enhance your argument . The fact that you seem to have a very poor grasp of negative numbers and their implications - perhaps I should then ask if you passed O-level or GCSE Mathematics. Personally I think such discourse adds little to the discussion but there we are.

oftenwrong wrote:The numbers elected for a given point of view are rapidly trumped by the Parliamentary whip.

The voting system is incredible archaic. Why not press a button and/or have a secret ballot on bills being passed? At least it would allow MPs to vote with their conscience.

Dan Fante wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:The numbers elected for a given point of view are rapidly trumped by the Parliamentary whip.

The voting system is incredible archaic. Why not press a button and/or have a secret ballot on bills being passed? At least it would allow MPs to vote with their conscience.

Problem with that is that MPs are not averse to 'terminological inexactitudes' when replying to questions.

Bellatori. You’re hardly in a position to lecture members of our staff about “snide comments” when you’ve made a remark (30.10.13, 19:19) about the “sanity” of one of our most respected members. She isn’t an armchair know-all, but someone who has travelled from Scotland to Eastleigh and Manchester in order to do something positive in support of her beliefs.

"If you are going to make snide comments like that"
 
Bell I apologise if you consider my comment as "snide", it was not meant in that way. Never the less I have already agreed with you that debt was high under NL. The problem is that you refuse to take on board, as explained before the reasons for the high borrowing.
1/ Although growth under NL was good, it was insufficient to fund what was drastically needed to address ALL the failings of the previous administration and in particular what happened and didn't happen under the long period of destruction, carried out by Thatcher. (This you utterly refuse to accept when is is fact}
2/One does not have to be a statistician to realise that it was absolutely necessary to take Britain and its downtrodden majority under the Tories (just as it is today) to a situation where the people and indeed industry (albeit mainly the financial sector) prospered.
 
This was perhaps a calculated risk by Brown, that he could address all the failings of Thatcher and Co by borrowing (as all countries do and have done so) and to repay (as he was doing) the debt before the 5hit hit the fan, which he realised years ago could happen, if he could not get international agreement on bank regulation. However, he did not calculate that it would happen so soon and with such prolific destruction. After all, who including Brown could have thought that Lehmans would ever go bust?

Dan Fante wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:The numbers elected for a given point of view are rapidly trumped by the Parliamentary whip.

The voting system is incredible archaic. Why not press a button and/or have a secret ballot on bills being passed? At least it would allow MPs to vote with their conscience.

If my plan for Global Domination comes to fruition, I will cut-out the middle-man altogether and arrange for all Law to be passed by universal plebiscite, by means of the internet. In the meantime, that curious Westminster tradition of dragooning MPs through the lobbies at least has the virtue of providing an indelible record of who voted for what.