General Election 2015

[seagullsovergrimsby]

So is your betting guide for an outright win, minority government or a coalition - 326 being the magic number to rule us all

Sinn Fein don't take their seats at Westminster , so 322 is the more accurate magic number. A Lab-LibDem pact with support from SNP is more than enough from those projections.

 

[Hampster Gull]

We're all qualified to talk in this field, but it would be useful if you could reign in the hyperbole and plain bullshit. You seem to have backtracked on this stupid idea that Labour left the country "in an absolute mess" in 2010, because clearly they didn't. They left a level of debt some were uncomfortable with, and the solution appears to have been to slash the benefit state which has unfortunately left many people in dire straights if those food bank figures are anything to go by.

And please, read what I wrote. I didn't say there was no place for you here, I said there was no place for your scaremongering clap trap on this thread. So wind your neck in, put your knickers back on, and refrain from attempting to take the moral high ground on me.

You are very aggressive. Why the abuse? Have you requested my ban yet? Let me know

 

[Hampster Gull]

Simster has addressed 2010 but this myth also needs to be examined too. The UK had been borrowing from the IMF to meet shortfalls (or to pay its bills as HG puts it) since the Tory government of 1956, so it's not just a Labour phenomenon (see here for some detail)

Admittedly the 1976 crisis was a bigger scale of borrowing and for a longer period but that's an indication of the deep malaise in the UK economy at the time. However, Balogh, the chief economic adviser to the Wilson government suggested that applying to the IMF would probably be necessary in December 1975, just a couple of months after Wilson had his majority government. The idea that any government, Labour or otherwise, could reduce an economy to penury in just a few weeks is laughable. Balogh pinned the blame on the boom-bust policies of the Heath government - in particular on Barber.

It's true that Healey's talk of squeezing the rich until their pips squeak would have scared off investors and not helped the economy and it's true that the unions were pushing for inflation busting pay rises. But the Labour government was doing pretty well in bringing inflation down and the IMF loan provided some stability for the process.

The Labour government wasn't the total disaster that people seem to think it was. Thatcher won a narrow victory but that was almost certainly due to the levels of industrial action in the winter of that year (and the exceptionally harsh winter). Don't forget that opinion polls at the end of 1978 had Labour narrowly in the lead, scarcely a reflection of economic chaos

I agree it wasnt good under the tories in the early 1970s. The union barons had taken a grip on the state and economy through the 1970s. By the end of it we were known as the "sick man of europe". We had rubbish not collected and piling up in the steet, picketing of cemetries that resulted in bodies being pilled up in a factory, nurses striking, 3 day weeks, ambulance striking, BBC taken off air through strikes and then ITV and so on.

I do not believe this will repeat under another Labour government by the way. That said the union still hold significant influence. the reason Labour are lead by Red Ed not his brother, who is far more electsble (actually my guess is Labour would be ahead by now with him in charge), is because of affiliated (incl union) votes. Both the party members and the MPs voted for David.

 

[Titanic]

Latest YouGov poll (02 Apr):
CON - 37% (+1)
LAB - 35% (+1)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (+1)

 

[Hampster Gull]

Latest YouGov poll (02 Apr):
CON - 37% (+1)
LAB - 35% (+1)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (+1)

A continuation of tories and lib colation would mean a far more assertive liberal party. No bad thing

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Too hard work for them? Bless.

It was.

 

[drew]

I agree it wasnt good under the tories in the early 1970s. The union barons had taken a grip on the state and economy through the 1970s. By the end of it we were known as the "sick man of europe". We had rubbish not collected and piling up in the steet, picketing of cemetries that resulted in bodies being pilled up in a factory, nurses striking, 3 day weeks, ambulance striking, BBC taken off air through strikes and then ITV and so on.

I do not believe this will repeat under another Labour government by the way. That said the union still hold significant influence. the reason Labour are lead by Red Ed not his brother, who is far more electsble (actually my guess is Labour would be ahead by now with him in charge), is because of affiliated (incl union) votes. Both the party members and the MPs voted for David.

When exactly did the nurses go on strike (as opposed to a work to rule)?

 

[Bozza]

Latest YouGov poll (02 Apr):
CON - 37% (+1)
LAB - 35% (+1)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (+1)

It's very difficult to believe the results of this poll.

Just where are these idiots that would vote Labour? ("Ooop North, but not in Scotland as they know better" is not a valid answer)

 

[Soul Finger]

It's very difficult to believe the results of this poll.

Just where are these idiots that would vote Labour? ("Ooop North, but not in Scotland as they know better" is not a valid answer)

Oi!

 

[Bozza]

Oi!

See - if you'd come back to mine for cider, gin and lounge football I'd not have posted that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Just where are these idiots that would vote Labour?

Im on my sofa at this precise minute, why?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Ed wins again.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-labour-miliband-conservatives-david-cameron

I didn't watch the debate but I understand Cameron used his dead son as political capital again. That's pretty low.

 

[Hampster Gull]

When exactly did the nurses go on strike (as opposed to a work to rule)?

The Nursing Times talkes about nurse strikes in the 70s. They were the least militant though.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Ed wins again.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-labour-miliband-conservatives-david-cameron

I didn't watch the debate but I understand Cameron used his dead son as political capital again. That's pretty low.

The Guardian declares victory for Ed . Not from what i saw. He was fine, nothing to write home about either. Just about sums him up.

 

[drew]

The Nursing Times talkes about nurse strikes in the 70s. They were the least militant though.

Got a link because you haven't really answered the question!

According to a report in the Mail, there hasn't been a national nurses strike since 1916. The RCN has never had a national strike and that is by far and away the biggest union for nurses. There has been some action by members of other unions such as Unison but you need to remember that it is very carefully managed so that wards are covered. What might be affected are elective surgery procedures. It is not the same as an 'all out' strike that you might get at a factory or the mines etc.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Got a link because you haven't really answered the question!

According to a report in the Mail, there hasn't been a national nurses strike since 1916. The RCN has never had a national strike and that is by far and away the biggest union for nurses. There has been some action by members of other unions such as Unison but you need to remember that it is very carefully managed so that wards are covered. What might be affected are elective surgery procedures. It is not the same as an 'all out' strike that you might get at a factory or the mines etc.

Im qouting as you are! Just search that and 1970s. On an ipad and struggle with links. Agree completely it is different to all out. Interestiingly inthose days other unions could strike on your behalf and i understand the nurses got support that way.

 

[drew]

Got a bit fed up with Clegg. First he claims that the voters voted for a coalition last time. They didn't. Maybe there should be a selection on the ballot paper as to which combination of parties you would want to run a coalition gov if 1st past the post fails to deliver a government. There isn't that option so you can't vote for it.

He also made a comment about borrowing money you don't have. Isn't that the point of borrowing?

Overall, I thought the whole thing was a waste of time. Sturgeon came across well but I thought Bennett only piped up with the odd comment and didn't really try and impose herself. Farage was his normal bloke down the pub self and will continue to appeal to anyone who wants to blame good old johnny foreigner for everything. Didn't think there was much between the two main protagonists, both more carefully not to concede rather than score. Cameron's use of his son is appalling and the fact that he ignores anything about the national debt whilst Milliband;s continually talking to the questioner and then deliberately turning to the camera (which Cameron also did a few times) was so staged.

It was probably the result that Cameron, or more importantly his advisers, were hoping for. No damage done, no risk of damage being done. I believe CDM would have loved a head to head with Milliband as he is arrogant enough but I suspect he advisers could see he has more to lose than gain.

A two hour head to head would have been better.

 

[Titanic]

 

[melias shoes]

The Guardian declares victory for Ed . Not from what i saw. He was fine, nothing to write home about either. Just about sums him up.

Now there's a surprise. The guardian backing milliband. Wonders never cease .

 

[beorhthelm]

[Clegg] also made a comment about borrowing money you don't have. Isn't that the point of borrowing?

i thought his point was very good in putting the deficit/debt in to everyday context. you have to pay your debts back. its a shame that anyone needs this spelt out after 6 years of being discussed. i believe the current interest payments on the debt are £48bn. £48bn, let that sink in a bit, thats more than the defence budget, or about half the eduction budget. thats rather alot of tax revenues that could be better spent elsewhere more productivly.