The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 1

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

We will only know if it's good news dependent on what he decides to cut back. I again expresses concern they will cut services which do not garner a lot of public attention or sympathy but are none the less important. Social Services and services for people with neurological conditions for example.

Social services which have been prominent in the public eye over recent years (for awful reasons), and neurological conditions like his late son had?

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Well there's a Press Release from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious if ever I saw one.

May I also take this opportunity to applaud Cameron and Osborne for not making firm statements about what they will cut, and where, when they have not yet had access to the detailed information that only the Government can possess.

The well-worn complaint that their plans lack detail are a complete and utter red herring.

That's a very good point Chris, many people have complained about the lack of publicity or the lack of details of Tory policies in the past, while forgetting that most policies they've come out with are nabbed by Labour and then implemented badly (the cynic in me says that's because Labour want them to vote against their own ideas as the reasons behind opposing a bill are rarely dwelled upon) or they simply cannot have access to the information while in opposition.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I am a strong Labout Voter and always have been

Can the mods please add this new party to the vote list

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Social services which have been prominent in the public eye over recent years (for awful reasons), and neurological conditions like his late son had?

They have been there for awful reasons but those examples do not justify cutbacks, if anything they are an example of how important they are and the consequences of what happens if they are not there though either incompetence or cutbacks. Also they cannot be used as a barometer of the entire service.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

I don't use those services but would gladly pay 1% more NI as opposed to cutting back on them. I understand that this is not necessary the choice in front of us but if the choice was smaller government, less tax, but no one to provides services for the disabled, people with learning difficulties, and such or bigger government, more tax, but the services remain then I will go the latter.

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't use those services but would gladly pay 1% more NI as opposed to cutting back on them.

Damien, I don't know whose idle guff you've been inhaling this morning but you really ought to stop. You are far more intelligent than this.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

They have been there for awful reasons but those examples do not justify cutbacks, if anything they are an example of how important they are and the consequences of what happens if they are not there though either incompetence or cutbacks. Also they cannot be used as a barometer of the entire service.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

I don't use those services but would gladly pay 1% more NI as opposed to cutting back on them.

I mentioned them and their prominance to suggest that they are unlikely to be cut.
Under Labour, Social Services have been stretched and overworked so much that they're making mistakes every day, failing to tackle that (ie allowing more children to die by restricting SS' ability to function) would be a huge black eye for the next government.
As someone who lost a child suffeing from a neurological condition, he is unlikely to support cutting services there. From a cynical point of view it would also be a personal black eye for Cameron if the media is able to portray him as using those services for his son, then denying them for other people's children.
He's also made a huge point about government support and cooperation with charities which provide such services.

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, I don't know whose idle guff you've been inhaling this morning but you really ought to stop. You are far more intelligent than this.

I understand that the 1% NI insurance rise is not linked to funding social services, I guess that was a bad example. My point is the idea that services need to be cut back and there is too much spending. I would like to know what services can be cut, because there will be hard cuts, and everyone admits they are needed until it affects a invaluable service to them. Which is why I worry that a minority will have their services cut even though they may be of extreme importance to them.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I mentioned them and their prominance to suggest that they are unlikely to be cut.
Under Labour, Social Services have been stretched and overworked so much that they're making mistakes every day, failing to tackle that (ie allowing more children to die by restricting SS' ability to function) would be a huge black eye for the next government.
As someone who lost a child suffeing from a neurological condition, he is unlikely to support cutting services there. From a cynical point of view it would also be a personal black eye for Cameron if the media is able to portray him as using those services for his son, then denying them for other people's children.
He's also made a huge point about government support and cooperation with charities which provide such services.

Fair enough. However there are different types of care and different types of condition. Most of his son's care was direct from the NHS and not council services wasn't it? There are centres for people, adults, with long term conditions such as autism. Expensive. Not Well Known. Not lots of people use them.

I have absolutely no evidence the Tories will cut this at all by the way, but it is a concern when they talk about cuts because like all politicians they will probably go for the least politically denting ones. It may be the case, as Chris said, that they won't have a clue until after the election. Still I would lean towards tax increases than cutting any real services that people need.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Fair enough. However there are different types of care and different types of condition. Most of his son's care was direct from the NHS and not council services wasn't it? There are centres for people, adults, with long term conditions such as autism. Expensive. Not Well Known. Not lots of people use them.

I have absolutely no evidence the Tories will cut this at all by the way, but it is a concern when they talk about cuts because like all politicians they will probably go for the least politically denting ones.

There's plenty of back office bloat to offload before even considering front line cuts.

The thing is Damien, if you go and look for any of the independent analysis out there (i.e. avoid any of the national Press because it's all partisan as hell right now), the one thing it seems to agree on is that £6 billion isn't very much. In fact it is within the margin of error for a treasury forecast. It is an amount small enough that in certain contexts it may not even exist after all.

Furthermore, it's not even about cuts to services. There are going to be cuts, deep ones, regardless of who wins this election. Gordon Brown raked in billions during the boom times and simply peed it up the wall, so when the hard times came he had no choice but to mortgage all our futures for decades to come. My children will still be servicing that debt when they start earning and paying tax. That makes me angry.

The important issue here is the ideological difference that has been exposed between Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Brown has let it slip that he doesn't consider that money to even be in the economy unless it's the Government that's spending it. That is a dangerously Statist view of an economy. Governments are slow and inefficient. They do not create wealth. All they can hope to do is legislate for the conditions that will allow private citizens to get on and create wealth.

A Labour Government will not, cannot, create those conditions because it is hard-wired to believe that only it can spend money in a way that will get the economy moving, despite the evidence of the last decade, which is that a Labour Government can at best only preside over a booming economy when it is handed to them on a plate and only for as long as the wind remains fair.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

According to media coverage, it has already been leaked that Cameron is going to make cutbacks, BUT he hasn't said where yet.

Leaked by Tory announcements. Months ago. In case you hadn't noticed they have been campaigning on the necessity to reduce the deficit earlier and have even gone as far as saying this would come from an 80:20 ratio of cuts:tax increases. Labour and the Lib Dems have both also noted the necessity to make cuts - basically an admission by Labour that they have been writing public sector cheques with private sector funds that they don't have.

You are beginning to weird me out with this. Do you actually look at any news sources? You seem so horribly misinformed I'm interested in what your source is for this misinformation so that I can make a point of reading it, I could use a good laugh.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't see why this is a problem?
If an MP hasn't got the support, he won't get elected.
If an MP isnt good enough to get the support needed to be elected, then they don't deserve to be elected.

The reason this is a problem is so many MPs get elected by only 30% of those who can vote. With the remaining votes actually cast split between the other candidates & 30% who don't vote at all. Hardly a ringing endorsement of them or their respective parties. Also shows why people are so disconnected from politics.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Just the tax on that £3,530. Still, it sounds like a good idea. Many people on low income will be better off, and I don't mind paying a bit more tax for it.

I do not disagree with that sentiment, but unfortunately not enough agree with paying more taxes. They are quite happy to tell everyone how the tax system should work, as long as they don't have to pay for it.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Angua

The reason this is a problem is so many MPs get elected by only 30% of those who can vote. With the remaining votes actually cast split between the other candidates & 30% who don't vote at all. Hardly a ringing endorsement of them or their respective parties. Also shows why people are so disconnected from politics.

Nothing wrong with that, if another candidate was more acceptable to the electorate then they'd win.
That's one of the advantages of the system.

[Jimmy-J]

in this poll, I've chosen to vote for the BNP, whether I'll actually vote for them on the day of the elections is another matter. I know one thing for certain, it's going to be a choice between the BNP or "none of the above".

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm surprised no one has posted to mention that the Digital Economy Bill has been passed...

After a mere two hours of debate last night during the "wash-up" period before the dissolution of Parliament, and thanks to (Whipped) Labour & Tory support, the Digital Economy Bill passed its final vote in the Commons, and then today passed through the Lords, received Royal Assent, and became the Digital Economy Act 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-bill-internet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-third-reading

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8608478.stm

There were a few Labour/Tory rebels who joined the Lib Dems & other opponents, but it wasn't anywhere nearly enough to block it.

Special mention to Labour's Tom Watson, a former Minister who defied the Party Whip for the first time to vote against the Government on the DEB.

Here is what Stephen Timms MP from the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills thinks an IP address is.


Oh, and...They Work For The BPI


I already know of some people who have changed their voting intentions due to the rushed passage of the DE Act.

Originally Posted by Matt D

I'm surprised no one has posted to mention that the Digital Economy Bill has been passed...

After a mere two hours of debate last night during the "wash-up" period before the dissolution of Parliament, and thanks to (Whipped) Labour & Tory support, the Digital Economy Bill passed its final vote in the Commons, and then today passed through the Lords, received Royal Assent, and became the Digital Economy Act 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-bill-internet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-third-reading

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8608478.stm

There were a few Labour/Tory rebels who joined the Lib Dems & other opponents, but it wasn't anywhere nearly enough to block it.

Special mention to Labour's Tom Watson, a former Minister who defied the Party Whip for the first time to vote against the Government on the DEB.

Here is what Stephen Timms MP from the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills thinks an IP address is.


Oh, and...They Work For The BPI


I already know of some people who have changed their voting intentions due to the rushed passage of the DE Act.

I was voting Lib Dem anyway because of stuff like this. Also credit to David Davies, another principled stand from him, really wish he was leading the Tories