General Election 2010

[Happy Face 29]

 

Just came through my letterbox.

 

[Renton 17767]

First, I thought she was dead. Second, she lives in South Shields?

[Happy Face 29]

She died in Weatherfields, but lives on to fight the political fight.

 

Someone tweeted..

 

Create your own Cameron quote:

 

I once went to [insert town] and I met [insert ethnic minority] who told me [insert terrible story].

 

 

I once went to Whitley Bay and I met Black man called Jonny Decka who told me he had no tabs of his own to smoke.

[ChezGiven 0]

Ideology no longer separate the two parties, instead they just differ in their assumptions about behaviour.

 

When you plan a policy, you need to know how people will react and how they will respond to the new set of incentives that face them. Tax credits, marginal changes in income tax, VAT reduction, additional govt expenditure are all broadly in the Keynesian framework. The govt has a role in managing recessions - something that became de facto policy of right and left when money supply control was no longer feasible with base rates at 0%. The differences now are based on which incentive mechanism is the best one, given the policy objectives. Most economist believe Brown called the policy changes, the new incentives if you like, correctly.

 

New Labour / 3rd way politics was all about setting policy goals that balanced the efficiency/equity trade-off. The free market ideologues believed only the market delivers efficiency and the socialist ideologues would not accept social inequalities. What Labour did was say, lets look at our social and economic objectives on a case by case basis and analyse individual incentive structures to understand how to balance economic growth versus social objectives. New labour re-callibrated British politics and replaced ideology with pragmatism. Blair knew a fundamental economic truth, you have to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.

 

His legacy for me is this new politics, which leaves very little room for alternative approaches to managing the country.

 

One comment in the thread i want to respond to, seen it in another election thread too, is that Labourhave had 13 years to sort the problems out. Very stupid way of looking at the world to think that today's problems existed in 1997 and that the UK's current social and economic climate has been dependent on the current government.

 

Another phrase used above was that the 'banks were callling for change'. Beautifully euphemistic. They were lobbying for change. What this usually involves is a lobbying position carefully crafted by 1000s of man hours of expert work which predicts increased profitability for the business on one side but carefully avoids presenting the real response in behaviour of the industry. The banking lobby were the drivers of change and the politicians were unable to predict or analyse the long term implications of the change. C'est la vie.

[PaddockLad 14585]

Gordon Brown: "I have been saying since the crisis started that we didn't have enough global regulation." Gordon Brown has admitted he made a mistake in not introducing tougher bank regulation when he was chancellor.

 

The PM, chancellor from 1997 to 2007, said that in the 1990s the banks had all been calling for less regulation. "And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he said in an interview on ITV1's Tonight.

 

The Conservatives said Mr Brown had made a "big mistake", while the Lib Dems said his words were "not enough". The prime minister said he should have put the "whole public interest" before the banks but had "learnt" from the experience.

 

Mr Brown said: "In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation'...All the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much'. And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he added. "So I've learnt from that. So you don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us'. You've got to talk about the whole public interest."

 

You dont say Sherlock

 

Is that not somewhat ironic coming from a tory?

 

It's pretty much irrelevent who was in power in the 1990s when it comes to the present recession/credit crunch etc....Labour stuck to tory spending plans when they gained power in 1997.And I doubt if any government in the world could've stood up to the banks in any significant way. They are top of the food chain and pretty much untouchable even now. Some have been saved by huge amounts of public money because they became to big to fail but have you asked any of them for a business loan lately?....

 

The tories would've lead us into this fuckin awful situation in exactly the same way but wouldve done absoloutely nothing to help anyone in the recession, same as in the early 80s and early 90s. It's too early to judge whether Broons policies will be viewed as successful, but he did do something, which for me goes to show he does in some way give a shit, despite all his awful mistakes and shortcomings as a person. I don't know how much the comments of Obama can be taken seriously but he seemed to think that Gordon led the way and showed real leadership in coming up with the "global" policy on recovering from the recession, which all western political leaders led us into, not that you'd hear Cameron admit that. He wants to throw thousands of folk in the public sector on to the dole and increase VAT to 20%. For anyone thinking about voting tory next month, good luck with that

[ChezGiven 0]

Not sure what Clegg was on about here like.....

 

We're wasting money on computer systems and bureaucracy. I want to turn that on its head so we can protect the NHS we all rely on.

 

Computers are faster, more efficient and cheaper in the long run than paper, biros and the post office. Labour have spent money on a system to reap long term savings. I go to see a GP now and there isn't a receptionist. There's a touch screen to greet me that isn't paid a salary. Is that not the savings from cutting beuraucracy he's on about?

 

He's on about the NHS IT / information system project that is billions over budget, even with the consultant (accenture?) bearing the brunt of much of the over-run. Been going on for about 8 years. Fucked up shit.

[Renton 17767]

Ideology no longer separate the two parties, instead they just differ in their assumptions about behaviour.

 

When you plan a policy, you need to know how people will react and how they will respond to the new set of incentives that face them. Tax credits, marginal changes in income tax, VAT reduction, additional govt expenditure are all broadly in the Keynesian framework. The govt has a role in managing recessions - something that became de facto policy of right and left when money supply control was no longer feasible with base rates at 0%. The differences now are based on which incentive mechanism is the best one, given the policy objectives. Most economist believe Brown called the policy changes, the new incentives if you like, correctly.

 

New Labour / 3rd way politics was all about setting policy goals that balanced the efficiency/equity trade-off. The free market ideologues believed only the market delivers efficiency and the socialist ideologues would not accept social inequalities. What Labour did was say, lets look at our social and economic objectives on a case by case basis and analyse individual incentive structures to understand how to balance economic growth versus social objectives. New labour re-callibrated British politics and replaced ideology with pragmatism. Blair knew a fundamental economic truth, you have to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.

 

His legacy for me is this new politics, which leaves very little room for alternative approaches to managing the country.

 

One comment in the thread i want to respond to, seen it in another election thread too, is that Labourhave had 13 years to sort the problems out. Very stupid way of looking at the world to think that today's problems existed in 1997 and that the UK's current social and economic climate has been dependent on the current government.

 

Another phrase used above was that the 'banks were callling for change'. Beautifully euphemistic. They were lobbying for change. What this usually involves is a lobbying position carefully crafted by 1000s of man hours of expert work which predicts increased profitability for the business on one side but carefully avoids presenting the real response in behaviour of the industry. The banking lobby were the drivers of change and the politicians were unable to predict or analyse the long term implications of the change. C'est la vie.

 

I meant to mention as well.

[Craig 6306]

Gordon Brown: "I have been saying since the crisis started that we didn't have enough global regulation." Gordon Brown has admitted he made a mistake in not introducing tougher bank regulation when he was chancellor.

 

The PM, chancellor from 1997 to 2007, said that in the 1990s the banks had all been calling for less regulation. "And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he said in an interview on ITV1's Tonight.

 

The Conservatives said Mr Brown had made a "big mistake", while the Lib Dems said his words were "not enough". The prime minister said he should have put the "whole public interest" before the banks but had "learnt" from the experience.

 

Mr Brown said: "In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation'...All the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much'. And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he added. "So I've learnt from that. So you don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us'. You've got to talk about the whole public interest."

 

You dont say Sherlock

 

Is that not somewhat ironic coming from a tory?

 

Labour and Tories both as bad as each other tbh and this thread helps to prove it.

 

How does this thread prove it though?

 

One thing I can't stand is this lazy belief there's no difference between the parties, it's like you're making an excuse to be apathetic. Of course there's differences - although both parties have moved towards the central ground there's still a clear ideological line drawn between them. We'll find that out soon enough if the tories are elected. Memories are short it appears.

 

Because the Tories (and their supporters) spend the majority of their time slagging off what Labour say and/or do and vice versa.

 

I'm not suggesting there's no differences between them - of course there is, but look at the arguments put across:

 

Tories: "Labour have had 13 years to sort this out..... yadda, yadda, yadda....."

Labour: "Look what the Tories were like in the 80s... ad infinitum..."

 

I want to know what they're going to do now and in the future - not what they fuck they've done in the past. Time and society moves on and politics should evolve with it. If Labour got anything right it was to do away with clause IV and become less militant to appeal to the the central ground. Blair changed the face of the party within 2 years more than anyone else had done in the previous 90 and as a result the Tories couldn't really bat them with the "look what they were like in the 70s..." line.

 

Because of that I think Cameron's Conservative party have fallen short of what they can achieve - they've tried to re-invent themselves somewhat but haven't managed it - certainly not to the degree that Blair did with Labour.

 

Remembering back to 1992 and the 'shy Tories' who reported that they'd voted Tory in '87 but refused to comment on what they had voted in '92 and therefore the exit poll was way off, I think we could easily see a similar situation this time round with Brown actually winning the Election but with a tiny majority. Problem with that is it'll likely lead to a Tory landslide in 2017 but only if they sort themselves out properly.

[Happy Face 29]

Not sure what Clegg was on about here like.....

 

We're wasting money on computer systems and bureaucracy. I want to turn that on its head so we can protect the NHS we all rely on.

 

Computers are faster, more efficient and cheaper in the long run than paper, biros and the post office. Labour have spent money on a system to reap long term savings. I go to see a GP now and there isn't a receptionist. There's a touch screen to greet me that isn't paid a salary. Is that not the savings from cutting beuraucracy he's on about?

 

He's on about the NHS IT / information system project that is billions over budget, even with the consultant (accenture?) bearing the brunt of much of the over-run. Been going on for about 8 years. Fucked up shit.

 

I know what part of the modernisation stick he was using to beat on the government. But what does Clegg intend to do to cut beauraucracy? Start another IT project from scratch? Go back to the way it was before? Both would only increase waste. Neither would cut beauraucracy any more than the system being rolled out (slowly and over budget I agree). All major IT systems have teething trouble, and the accenture one was the biggest outside of the military.

[trophyshy 6434]

 

Just came through my letterbox.

 

 

Could almost be from Michael Owen.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Cameron’s Lexus takes a wrong turn?

 

"I went to a Hull police station the other day. They had five different police cars, and they were just about to buy a £73,000 Lexus."

David Cameron, Leaders debate, 15 April 2010

 

Politicians like to have a go at the police for spending too much time behind a desk and not enough time pounding the streets. But last night, PC Plod got it in the neck over his choice of wheels.

 

During last night’s TV debate, David Cameron suggested the fancy Lexus purchased by the police in Hull was a striking example of public sector waste. But was it anything of the sort?

 

The analysis

Humberside police force don’t deny that they’ve purchased a Lexus IS-F but they certainly haven’t made any secret of the fact that they bought it almost a year ago – in July to be precise.

 

Lexus were so proud that their vehicle was chosen after 12 months of testing that they put out a press release. According to the Sergeant Mike Peck the vehicle was “tested during a 12 month period along with similar vehicles and proved itself to be ideally suited” to operate as part of a Roads Crime Section team.

 

The police told FactCheck today that they use this high performance vehicle as a “grand command vehicle” which leads a fleet as part of the fight against serious organised crime.

 

But did they pay £73,000 for it? Er, no. Lexus confirmed that the on-the-road price of a Lexus IS-F was £53,381 last July but, they said, the police would not have paid that price but something closer to £50,000. The police wouldn’t confirm the exact price but also said they paid less than the list price.

 

To be fair, the car in question carries £30,000 worth of on-board computers and communications equipment so once the police purchased it they souped it up somewhat.

 

Both the police and Lexus told us there are no plans to buy another vehicle at the moment.

 

What’s more, FactCheck can find no record of Cameron visiting Hull since August last year. So when he said “I went to a Hull police station the other day” what FactCheck thinks he really meant to say was “I was in a Hull police station on August the 18th last year”

 

Today a Conservative spokesman told FactCheck: “David Cameron visited a Hull police station and was told that the local police force were on the point of buying a £73,000 Lexus.

 

“He did not seek to single out Humberside Police for criticism, but to make a broader point about the need for value for money in all police procurement.

 

“If Hull police in fact managed to purchase their Lexus for a smaller sum then they are to be congratulated. The Lexus came up in conversation and David Cameron was not made aware of the final purchase price.”

 

The verdict

The Lexus mantra is “the pursuit of perfection”, but David Cameron’s mastery of the facts on this occasion was less than perfect. He wasn’t in a Hull police station “the other day”, but eight months ago.

 

The police aren’t about to buy a Lexus – they already have one. And it didn’t cost anywhere near £73,000, but closer to £50,000.

 

A fleet of other TV debate FactChecks are on the production line – watch this space.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Ketsbaia

[ChezGiven 0]

Not sure what Clegg was on about here like.....

 

We're wasting money on computer systems and bureaucracy. I want to turn that on its head so we can protect the NHS we all rely on.

 

Computers are faster, more efficient and cheaper in the long run than paper, biros and the post office. Labour have spent money on a system to reap long term savings. I go to see a GP now and there isn't a receptionist. There's a touch screen to greet me that isn't paid a salary. Is that not the savings from cutting beuraucracy he's on about?

 

He's on about the NHS IT / information system project that is billions over budget, even with the consultant (accenture?) bearing the brunt of much of the over-run. Been going on for about 8 years. Fucked up shit.

 

I know what part of the modernisation stick he was using to beat on the government. But what does Clegg intend to do to cut beauraucracy? Start another IT project from scratch? Go back to the way it was before? Both would only increase waste. Neither would cut beauraucracy any more than the system being rolled out (slowly and over budget I agree). All major IT systems have teething trouble, and the accenture one was the biggest outside of the military.

 

An excellent point. Not going to score too many political points unfortunately.

 

The NHS information strategy and investment may one day pay for itself if they get it right. Imo.

Edited April 16, 2010 by ChezGiven

[ewerk 26335]

Not sure what Clegg was on about here like.....

 

We're wasting money on computer systems and bureaucracy. I want to turn that on its head so we can protect the NHS we all rely on.

 

Computers are faster, more efficient and cheaper in the long run than paper, biros and the post office. Labour have spent money on a system to reap long term savings. I go to see a GP now and there isn't a receptionist. There's a touch screen to greet me that isn't paid a salary. Is that not the savings from cutting beuraucracy he's on about?

 

He's on about the NHS IT / information system project that is billions over budget, even with the consultant (accenture?) bearing the brunt of much of the over-run. Been going on for about 8 years. Fucked up shit.

 

It's over budget by a tiny percentage isn't it? (from the government's perspective). As I said earlier, the government should be applauded for organising the contracts so they are isloated from the financial overrun.

[ewerk 26335]

But what does Clegg intend to do to cut beauraucracy? Start another IT project from scratch? Go back to the way it was before? Both would only increase waste. Neither would cut beauraucracy any more than the system being rolled out (slowly and over budget I agree). All major IT systems have teething trouble, and the accenture one was the biggest outside of the military.

 

I thought he was saying he would mothball the project until such times we could afford to continue with it?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Gordon Brown: "I have been saying since the crisis started that we didn't have enough global regulation." Gordon Brown has admitted he made a mistake in not introducing tougher bank regulation when he was chancellor.

 

The PM, chancellor from 1997 to 2007, said that in the 1990s the banks had all been calling for less regulation. "And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he said in an interview on ITV1's Tonight.

 

The Conservatives said Mr Brown had made a "big mistake", while the Lib Dems said his words were "not enough". The prime minister said he should have put the "whole public interest" before the banks but had "learnt" from the experience.

 

Mr Brown said: "In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation'...All the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much'. And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more," he added. "So I've learnt from that. So you don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us'. You've got to talk about the whole public interest."

 

You dont say Sherlock

 

Is that not somewhat ironic coming from a tory?

 

Labour and Tories both as bad as each other tbh and this thread helps to prove it.

 

How does this thread prove it though?

 

One thing I can't stand is this lazy belief there's no difference between the parties, it's like you're making an excuse to be apathetic. Of course there's differences - although both parties have moved towards the central ground there's still a clear ideological line drawn between them. We'll find that out soon enough if the tories are elected. Memories are short it appears.

 

 

Thats just waffle tbf... What would be better would be for you to explain how this ideological line manifests itself in actual policy.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Ideology no longer separate the two parties, instead they just differ in their assumptions about behaviour.

 

When you plan a policy, you need to know how people will react and how they will respond to the new set of incentives that face them. Tax credits, marginal changes in income tax, VAT reduction, additional govt expenditure are all broadly in the Keynesian framework. The govt has a role in managing recessions - something that became de facto policy of right and left when money supply control was no longer feasible with base rates at 0%. The differences now are based on which incentive mechanism is the best one, given the policy objectives. Most economist believe Brown called the policy changes, the new incentives if you like, correctly.

 

New Labour / 3rd way politics was all about setting policy goals that balanced the efficiency/equity trade-off. The free market ideologues believed only the market delivers efficiency and the socialist ideologues would not accept social inequalities. What Labour did was say, lets look at our social and economic objectives on a case by case basis and analyse individual incentive structures to understand how to balance economic growth versus social objectives. New labour re-callibrated British politics and replaced ideology with pragmatism. Blair knew a fundamental economic truth, you have to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.

 

His legacy for me is this new politics, which leaves very little room for alternative approaches to managing the country.

 

One comment in the thread i want to respond to, seen it in another election thread too, is that Labourhave had 13 years to sort the problems out. Very stupid way of looking at the world to think that today's problems existed in 1997 and that the UK's current social and economic climate has been dependent on the current government.

 

Another phrase used above was that the 'banks were callling for change'. Beautifully euphemistic. They were lobbying for change. What this usually involves is a lobbying position carefully crafted by 1000s of man hours of expert work which predicts increased profitability for the business on one side but carefully avoids presenting the real response in behaviour of the industry. The banking lobby were the drivers of change and the politicians were unable to predict or analyse the long term implications of the change. C'est la vie.

 

 

Hereditary peers for one

[Craig 6306]

Ideology no longer separate the two parties, instead they just differ in their assumptions about behaviour.

 

When you plan a policy, you need to know how people will react and how they will respond to the new set of incentives that face them. Tax credits, marginal changes in income tax, VAT reduction, additional govt expenditure are all broadly in the Keynesian framework. The govt has a role in managing recessions - something that became de facto policy of right and left when money supply control was no longer feasible with base rates at 0%. The differences now are based on which incentive mechanism is the best one, given the policy objectives. Most economist believe Brown called the policy changes, the new incentives if you like, correctly.

 

New Labour / 3rd way politics was all about setting policy goals that balanced the efficiency/equity trade-off. The free market ideologues believed only the market delivers efficiency and the socialist ideologues would not accept social inequalities. What Labour did was say, lets look at our social and economic objectives on a case by case basis and analyse individual incentive structures to understand how to balance economic growth versus social objectives. New labour re-callibrated British politics and replaced ideology with pragmatism. Blair knew a fundamental economic truth, you have to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.

 

His legacy for me is this new politics, which leaves very little room for alternative approaches to managing the country.

 

One comment in the thread i want to respond to, seen it in another election thread too, is that Labourhave had 13 years to sort the problems out. Very stupid way of looking at the world to think that today's problems existed in 1997 and that the UK's current social and economic climate has been dependent on the current government.

 

Another phrase used above was that the 'banks were callling for change'. Beautifully euphemistic. They were lobbying for change. What this usually involves is a lobbying position carefully crafted by 1000s of man hours of expert work which predicts increased profitability for the business on one side but carefully avoids presenting the real response in behaviour of the industry. The banking lobby were the drivers of change and the politicians were unable to predict or analyse the long term implications of the change. C'est la vie.

 

 

Hereditary peers for one

 

You're going to have to do much better than pulling up the one comment someone has already highlighted...

[NJS 3978]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

 

Who removed restrictions from the bankers

 

Yeah let's ignore responsibility of the public who embraced the credit card/buy to let culture which was the real cause - easier to blame the government.

[Matt 0]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

If you give people the chance to make a fast buck, they'll take it. Doesn't matter if it's dodgy double glazing, 1kg of cocaine or a mythical CDO.

 

Brown lapped up the tax from banks et al for years and completely failed to place any kind of regulation on the industry- it was generating massive tax revenes and helping pension funds backfill their massive funding defecits. He has very much reaped what he has sown.

 

By the way, the Lib Dems have gone very quiet on their 'bash the banks' policy and have as yet, failed to define what they mean by a bank (virtually no mention of it in their manifesto).

[Craig 6306]

Back on the anecdotal nonesense that Cameron was coming out with the other night, I remember him going on about talking to some woman from Crosby who'd been burguled, had everything stolen and then had her sofa set light to from which the fumes killed her son.

 

Crosby is a village on the outskirts of Liverpool which just happens to be where my lass come from. Her folks still live there and her Dad is one of those who knows everything about everything that happens there. Naturally I asked him about it....

 

It happened all right, but it wasn't in Crosby...... it was in Anfield! Anyone who knows the area (Renton?) will know that comparing Crosby to Anfield is akin to comparing Ponteland to Elswick - they're worlds apart!!

 

The undertone of what he had to say (i.e. a burgular who killed someone by setting fire to a sofa could be out within a short space of time) is correct, but FFS get the facts right if you're going to use it in a debate!!

[Guest Barrack Road]

I've been quite ill this week but watched the debate in a bit of a daze, and it struck me how utterly futile and pathetic Gordon Brown is. Some of his bullshit was incredible, "we have reduced the amount of immigrants coming in to the country over the last 12 months", aye when it was already by far the largest amount in Europe and remains so, and hasn't even been reduced by that fucking much! I thought his pathetic jibe at Cameron's advertising failures when it was an hour programme to have serious debate in to the future of the country, was a waste of time and the blokes a fucking idiot. John Major had more character than this bufoon.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

 

Who removed restrictions from the bankers

 

Yeah let's ignore responsibility of the public who embraced the credit card/buy to let culture which was the real cause - easier to blame the government.

 

 

Thats why we have governments and laws. Public would bring back hanging in a flash so that argument is no good.

[Guest alex]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

 

Who removed restrictions from the bankers

 

Yeah let's ignore responsibility of the public who embraced the credit card/buy to let culture which was the real cause - easier to blame the government.

 

 

Thats why we have governments and laws. Public would bring back hanging in a flash so that argument is no good.

Ridiculous comparison tbf.

[Happy Face 29]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

 

Who removed restrictions from the bankers

 

Yeah let's ignore responsibility of the public who embraced the credit card/buy to let culture which was the real cause - easier to blame the government.

 

If the government legalised theft then people would clear the shelves. You can't expect the public at large to restrain themselves when products are offered to them even though you might have the sense to. It's up to the government to regulate the banks so loans aren't available to EVERYONE whatever their circumstances.

[Park Life 70]

Same old Labour. Inherit a fantastic economy, throw money everywhere trying to make things better, leave the country broke. repeat to fade...

 

Errr it was the bankers and financiers that left the country in the state it's in.

 

 

Who removed restrictions from the bankers

 

Name which restriction lifted in the UK and how it affected the pan European/ US financial crisis?

Edited April 17, 2010 by Park Life