spring hall convert
Well-known member
About the only coalition not yet ruled out is a Labour/Tory one.
It was all down to non Labour supporters in the audience sticking the knife in deeper to Miliband than non Tory supporters doing the same to Cameron. Cameron was reminiscent of Chamberlain returning from Munich in 1938 waving a scrap of paper that was worthless but Miliband missed out on the trick by not waving about the letter Maudling left in the Treasury for Callaghan in 1964 which basically said the same thing.
About the only coalition not yet ruled out is a Labour/Tory one.
Labour wouldn't allow a vote on Europe.
Well=,appreciate your answer Herr Tub,but really...are we paying £60billion a year so we can limit bikes on trains and it makes life easier for you...or as you say,they help the clinical studies....I'm sure £60bn would cover that and a lot more besides...does that really make up for the loss of our fishing grounds...we vote for a parliament to make our rules and laws...and the EU overule our choice,be it Labour or Tories...the EU is the most undemocratic organisation ever to rule..they do not write off their accounts..it is rife with nepotism and fraud and corruption..you cannot vote on which Italian,German,French politician you want. We import from the EU more than we export to them,we lose out either wayThere's lots of benefits, both macro and micro, and economically and for everyday relatively small things, which when all added up come to a great sum. I did once try and make a case for this but the anti-EU people picked on the really small items and ridiculed them. It's often these small things which I like as they're aimed fairly and squarely at making joe-public's life easier.
One issue UK residents have is the fact is the UK vetoes a lot of these everyday small things so you don't get the benefit. One example which for some reason sticks in my head was an EU vote on the minimum number of bicycles which have to be carried on trains. This came in some time ago and is supported by virtually every nation except England which vetoed it for 15 years. I concede this is not a big deal on it's own but when aligned with numerous other rulings it creates a rather easy environment for me to live my life. And one does have to ask why the UK didn't support this. But someone will say "what, we pay 60bn a year for Herr Tubthumper to be able to carry his bike on a train?" I could also tell you about the funding the EU provides for clinical studies into areas which are not lucrative enough for big-Pharma to get involved in. And if you want to talk economics there's a lot to be said in this area as well; my industry is something the UK can be proud of and benefits hugely and enormously from stream-lined pan-EU wide legislation.
I'll happily make a good case over a beer but I cannot be arsed to do it on here anymore.
Well=,appreciate your answer Herr Tub,but really...are we paying £60billion a year ...
Before the global meltdown the UK economy was booming, but Labour didn't pay any of our debt off, it kept growing. I don't think that was good.Ok, fair enough. I agree what you say about Miliband et al and the cost of living. However my point is that you would be better judging it on what they did before a global meltdown.
I don't think it is contempt. Neither side can predict the future economy, so neither know how much they'll have to borrow/cut, and if either come up with figures now they'll get cross examined and made to look silly and lose votes.The Labour Party won't tell us how much they are going to borrow, the Tories won't tell us what they are going to cut. This is the contempt that the mainstream political parties have for us.
They didn't leave a mess, that is just Tory propaganda and listening to Clegg LibDem propaganda, another Greece indeed, what a load of old rubbish that was and seen through straight away
Good point. The largest economic crisis in 100 years under labours watch was all conservative propoganda. Lol
OK, the world was in a mess, a mess not the fault of the incumbent UK government. But no doubt your blue tinted specs will determine otherwise.
There was a simpleton on the radio today who said he was going to base his vote on whether he was better off now then he was in 2010! Perhaps he should exhibit some intelligence and look at whether he was better off in 2008 than he was in 1997. Perhaps then he can make a reasoned judgement.
You haven't got a clue have you ? Is your name George Osborne ?
So would you have let rbs and Lloyds go to the wall? What about northern Rock?
A bit like the 1 (4 max) that UKIP will hold will have much sway either.
Why it’s so hard for Cameron to win
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/29/why-its-so-hard-cameron-win/
So, Labour only need 270 seats to get in. The Tories need 290. Shows what nonsense FPTP is.
Just read that, how on earth are our young people ever going to understand politics and the way that we vote. I would sooner a clear Labour majority than what is likely.
Lovely exchange on Politics Show with BNP leader and Andrew Neill and BNP saying they could have the next PM, now that would cause a binfest