JasonR24 Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 I think a lot of people thought that Lab with the SNP could get in & lets face it that would be worst case scenario What we got was my absolute worst case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I appreciate the reply Al, but unfortunately I have an A level in politics so I am well aware of this absolute flawed system. If you look back it has been an ongoing thing for both parties. Before labour sold the gold in desperation the conservatives sold all of the countries publicly owned assets. So basically we have them to thank for the incredible deficit because there's not enough money coming in to make it a surplus. Also we've been EU for a long time and I'm pretty sure the conservatives were in back then when we became a member. So that's their fault too. I never blame who was in power, they are all as bad as each other. The conservatives and labour are like a dirty stagnant smell that is rotting this country and that's what people don't see. We need new parties to keep things fresh and moving along. At the end of the five years we will have more austerity, more invasive laws (the snoopers charter, which they're already trying to push through!), less funding for public services, the same tax dodging loop holes, less equality. The coalition is a good thing. Fairer representation and we want it harder for laws to get through! In a lot of cases! We need to stop laws like the snoopers charter getting through. Governments need to know the people are in charge and not them. Everyone says the torys "finish what they started" Finish what? The GDP is the same now as it was when labour left. The debt has gone to 1.6 billion! I honestly don't know what people want from these sorts of people. To literally turn around and shout that your money goes on private contracts and won't be spent on the people? I can kind of understand the food banks thing. That's something I also don't agree with. It's all about fairness and balance... God I sound like Nick Clegg... But the bloke is right. Down the middle of the political spectrum where the rich pay there way and don't dodge tax but the poor get jobs and get to work. Also the UKIP policy of a points system like Australia would be a great thing. To get the best of the best working here, bringing something to offer. Uncontrolled borders is unsustainable and many people I know who are immigrants agree! They know they've worked hard here's and others should too. Everything has been flawed for years, and because of all the parties involved, and it's all down to each trying to better the others. The only way we will get out of this mess is to get rid of this 2 main party system we keep swapping with. And I agree, that's why I voted UKIP, I think all parties should have a balanced position in parliament, that way everyone gets a say. We need a change, but one good thing about this election, is people have seen how bad the system is, and how biased it all is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 And I agree, that's why I voted UKIP, I think all parties should have a balanced position in parliament, that way everyone gets a say. I felt really sorry for UKIP. They did incredibly well, but the FPTP system defeated them in the end. But I have no doubt that if it wasn't for UKIP, we wouldn't be having a referendum on the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downimpact Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Everything has been flawed for years, and because of all the parties involved, and it's all down to each trying to better the others. The only way we will get out of this mess is to get rid of this 2 main party system we keep swapping with. And I agree, that's why I voted UKIP, I think all parties should have a balanced position in parliament, that way everyone gets a say. We need a change, but one good thing about this election, is people have seen how bad the system is, and how biased it all is. There is sweet FA chance of electoral reform that involves the Tories falling on their own sword. Or Labour get in and they to will protect the system that give them a majority in 5 years time. What I expect will happen is the boundaries of the constituencies will now be changed to help the current Govt retain power next election. This gives more legitimacy when the next lot get in they can just change it to suit them, majorly flawed system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Ideally what you would want would be to put aside/outwardly invest money when the economy is doing well, so that it can be used to stimulate the economy when it isn't doing well. Labour borrowed heavily while we were doing well, and Brown famously claimed to have beaten the bust. When the global financial crisis hit, we had nothing to fall back on. Just look at Norway. They have accumulated an enormous sovereign wealth fund, to the point where it's actually becoming too large. I get that, 'make hay while the sun shines' it makes sense just like a personal rainy day fund, but the U.S. has similar problems to us, does it correlate that we will all then be far worse off in the long run than the people of Norway? on the face of it it appears we are currently getting away with our indiscretions...can we stop our debt growing? Is what is required too unpalatable/political suicide? is it worth trying? Do we even need to? it's hard (for me!) to quantify the long term effects. We had a whole load of debt 5 years ago, now we have a whole lot more, but people are generally happy and quality of life remains good for the general populace, can this continue or are we just storing up future problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 It cannot continue indefinitely, we are currently paying circa £45b a year in interest on our debt. Eventually we will default on our repayments, and that's when the sh*t really hits the fan. The left have hijacked the word 'austerity' and made it toxic. But in my brief economic education, my lecturer would have used words like 'prudence' and 'sustainable'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 It cannot continue indefinitely, we are currently paying circa £45b a year in interest on our debt. Eventually we will default on our repayments, and that's when the sh*t really hits the fan. The left have hijacked the word 'austerity' and made it toxic. But in my brief economic education, my lecturer would have used words like 'prudence' and 'sustainable'. And how much we paying to be in the EU, nearly double that. Paying more then we get in return is also what is killing us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 What we got was my absolute worst case Surly that would have been tories in a power share with ukip;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonR24 Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Surly that would have been tories in a power share with ukip;) Nope as with UKIP they would have at least stopped some dodgy acts and bills going through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoaster Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I just can't believe 5 million votes between greens and UKIP translates to 2 seats, when SNP got 56 seats on not even 1.5 million votes. I'm sorry but that's NOT democracy. Edit: its official, RIP democracy Your comparison is flawed, remember that the SNP contested 59 seats in Scotland and averaged 24651 votes in each of those seats contested, in comparison, UKIP contested 624 seats and averaged 6220 in each seat and the Greens averaged 2152 votes in the seats they contested. Only PR using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) would give a 'fair' representation of the voting habits, this is the system used in the Scottish Parliament and allows the Greens to have an MSP. Incidentally, UKIP received only 47,000 in Scotland, and rightfully, they have no seats under either First Past the Post or PR(STV). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I am told by those far more politically savvy than I that PR would almost certainly result in permanent coalitions. Is that true? And who are Labour going to get to replace Milliband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoaster Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I am told by those far more politically savvy than I that PR would almost certainly result in permanent coalitions. Is that true? Using the Scottish Parliament as an example, as it has always used PR(STV), the first term in 1999 had a Labour majority party, 2003 had a Labour/LibDems coalition, 2007 had an SNP minority government and 2011 had a majority SNP administration, which nothing short of a miracle will change in the next elections in May 2016. Popular governments will still be in charge, but it does give more representation to the smaller parties like the Tories, who managed to get a total of 20 out of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament and have had only one MP in the Westminster elections since 2001, (previous election to that in Thatcher times saw no Tories elected at all!) So the upshot is that PR does not always mean coalition government. And who are Labour going to get to replace Milliband? Someone who sticks to their principles would be a start! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 And who are Labour going to get to replace Milliband? Chucka Ummuna is my bet. For a Labour MP, he seems to have his head screwed on. He is also fairly high profile, without appearing to be one of Milibands inner circle. It seems like the current moto of the Labour party is 'Come back Nu Labour, all is forgiven". Except for it isn't. As soon as Chilcot is published the architects of Nu Labour will be toxic. I don't see how Labour can bounce back from this, I reckon the humiliating defeat will drive a fair amount of their support to the Greens and UKIP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonR24 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Tories work fast: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/conservatives-to-push-forward-on-manifesto-and-scrap-human-rights-act Also http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/theresa-may-revive-snoopers-charter-lib-dem-brakes-off-privacy-election Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 About bloody time, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 As above. it took 8 years to deport Abu Hamza because of the above legislation. Time to get rid. And I don't remember the UK having an awful human rights record prior to its introduction in 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 About bloody time, too. Agreed. It's a costly burden to any swift/required action. It's a veil for many to hide behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonR24 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 I hope you guys are joking. Fair enough amend it.. But scrapping it is a horrendous way to give the government more power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 The UK government, whichever party it may be, is much more accountable to the UK electorate than the European courts or the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 If Mr. Cameron is true to his word and gives us a referendum on being a member of the European Union (yeah, right....), then the ECHR will be an irrelevance anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I hope you guys are joking. Fair enough amend it.. But scrapping it is a horrendous way to give the government more power. This is where you are swayed and led by the media. The media says scrap it, what it really means is we are scrapping the EU policy on human rights. We actually have our own laws on human rights, and will most likely take that back or amend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.