George's Autumn Statement

[Bold Seagull]

Not all but a very substantial part of the problem was caused by the last government which, amongst many other things, created employment in the public sector where such a move was certainly not indicated given that productivity in the non-manual areas of public sector are far lower than in the private sector. Presumably, or possibly, that was done to massage the employment or unemployment figures.

Suggest you read Bozza's post (and technically I acknowledge that we do not necessarily have a Conservative government), a coalition at that point in time was probably the best result for the electorate. Indeed the coalition have involved some Labour MPs in the process.

Given that, post-election, the Labour adminisistration even admitted they had spent the cupboard bare, it is unimaginable what they would have inflicted on this country had they somehow retained power.

Further, much has happened since the election outwith UK control to make the situation worse than it might have been.

It would be nice, if following 18 months of power we could discuss this administration on the decisions it has made. Not on party politics, not on your team is better than my team, but on the decisions and strategy they are taking. Frankly at the moment, they appear to be missing all their targets, and it is looking frighteningly obvious that any growth potential of 6-9 months ago has evaporated.

The question here is not to blame a previous administration, but to ask whether the budgets set by this administration have achieved the goals for which they have been set - I think the answer is no. There is credit in believing that less savage cuts, would have meant more people in work, more people paying tax, more people buying stuff and using services, would have led to similar borrowing levels that we're facing anyway. The cuts had to be made, no doubt about that, but as deep as they have, that is surely the debate.

 

[paddy]

You understand the difference between 'most' and 'majority' I take it? Or did you think Cretin Clegg was made Deputy Prime Minister because Cameron liked his ties?

Indeed I do. The idea that to win an election in the UK you have to win an absolute majority is simply wrong. The winner of the election is the individual who can command the confidence of the Commons. That person is then, by convention invited to form a government and becomes the PM. A individual does not need a majority to command the confidence of the Commons (e.g. there could be a confidence and supply deal whereby the individual who controls the most seats is supported by another party leader(s) only on issues of confidence - for the rest of the time the individual controls a minority of seats). Therefore, to win an election in the UK you do not need to win an absolute majority of seats.

Just because Cameron decided to go into a Coalition does not mean he did not win the election - it is likely he could have commanded the confidence of the Commons in a variety of other ways (e.g. confidence and supply/an agreement with the Northern Irish parties). In fact, if he ditched the Lib Dems now and called a vote of confidence he would win - there are sufficient numbers in the opposition parties who don't want an election at this moment to give him a majority.

 

[paddy]

Seems to me it's now all about maintaining the UK's credit rating and not panicking the flock of trader sheep. Beyond that, everybody in the global finance sector is making it up as they go along. Nobody knows anything. Everybody talks a good game, but nobody knows how or when things will get back on an even keel.

Very much this.

 

[glasfryn]

Indeed I do. The idea that to win an election in the UK you have to win an absolute majority is simply wrong. The winner of the election is the individual who can command the confidence of the Commons. That person is then, by convention invited to form a government and becomes the PM. A individual does not need a majority to command the confidence of the Commons (e.g. there could be a confidence and supply deal whereby the individual who controls the most seats is supported by another party leader(s) only on issues of confidence - for the rest of the time the individual controls a minority of seats). Therefore, to win an election in the UK you do not need to win an absolute majority of seats.

Just because Cameron decided to go into a Coalition does not mean he did not win the election - it is likely he could have commanded the confidence of the Commons in a variety of other ways (e.g. confidence and supply/an agreement with the Northern Irish parties). In fact, if he ditched the Lib Dems now and called a vote of confidence he would win - there are sufficient numbers in the opposition parties who don't want an election at this moment to give him a majority.

time for him to get both feet in his mouth then

 

[Bold Seagull]

Indeed I do. The idea that to win an election in the UK you have to win an absolute majority is simply wrong. The winner of the election is the individual who can command the confidence of the Commons. That person is then, by convention invited to form a government and becomes the PM. A individual does not need a majority to command the confidence of the Commons (e.g. there could be a confidence and supply deal whereby the individual who controls the most seats is supported by another party leader(s) only on issues of confidence - for the rest of the time the individual controls a minority of seats). Therefore, to win an election in the UK you do not need to win an absolute majority of seats.

Just because Cameron decided to go into a Coalition does not mean he did not win the election - it is likely he could have commanded the confidence of the Commons in a variety of other ways (e.g. confidence and supply/an agreement with the Northern Irish parties). In fact, if he ditched the Lib Dems now and called a vote of confidence he would win - there are sufficient numbers in the opposition parties who don't want an election at this moment to give him a majority.

The winner of an election is whoever forms a government, in this case the Conservatives and Liberals. Hypothetically, Labour could have formed a coalition with the Libs and a few others, neither of whom would have 'won' the election on having either the most seats or a majority, but could have commanded the House.

The purpose of an election is to elect a government. The winner therefore is not how many seats, by who forms that government. The fact Cameron when into a coalition is definitive proof he and his party did not win it on their own.

 

[paddy]

The purpose of an election is to elect a government. The winner therefore is not how many seats, by who forms that government. The fact Cameron when into a coalition is definitive proof he and his party did not win it on their own.

Have to disagree - we do not elect governments in this country. We elect our legislature and our legislature chooses the government by either voting with it on confidence motions or voting against it. When you go to the ballot box you do not vote for David Cameron/Gordon Brown or Labour/Tories. You vote for an MP to exercise their personal judgement and legislate - by either voting for or against the Queen's Speech at the start of the year, it is the MPs who decides the government. It is the MPs who call ministers to Parliament, demand they answer questions, and push for their resignation. There have been many cases where MPs of a particular party have been thrown out at an election even where there party seemingly does well, because the local voters do not believe them to be an appropriate legislator for whatever reason (Eastbourne at the last election being a good example)

The winner is not a party, but an individual - the individual who becomes PM. In fact, technically, the winner is simply the individual who controls the most seats (i.e. the leader of the biggest party). This is why Cameron was actually appointed PM before the Coalition Agreement had been concluded and the support of the Lib Dems had been guaranteed.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Have to disagree - we do not elect governments in this country. We elect our legislature and our legislature chooses the government by either voting with it on confidence motions or voting against it. When you go to the ballot box you do not vote for David Cameron/Gordon Brown or Labour/Tories. You vote for an MP to exercise their personal judgement and legislate - by either voting for or against the Queen's Speech at the start of the year, it is the MPs who decides the government. It is the MPs who call ministers to Parliament, demand they answer questions, and push for their resignation. There have been many cases where MPs of a particular party have been thrown out at an election even where there party seemingly does well, because the local voters do not believe them to be an appropriate legislator for whatever reason (Eastbourne at the last election being a good example)

The winner is not a party, but an individual - the individual who becomes PM. In fact, technically, the winner is simply the individual who controls the most seats (i.e. the leader of the biggest party). This is why Cameron was actually appointed PM before the Coalition Agreement had been concluded and the support of the Lib Dems had been guaranteed.

This has actually made me chuckle. Seriously, if you could split atoms as well as you do hairs, you could solve the world energy crisis!

 

[Billy the Fish]

Seems to me it's now all about maintaining the UK's credit rating and not panicking the flock of trader sheep. Beyond that, everybody in the global finance sector is making it up as they go along. Nobody knows anything. Everybody talks a good game, but nobody knows how or when things will get back on an even keel.

This is the crazy world we live in. Our whole monetary system has grown into a monster that nobody understands or can control - the politicians or the people who work in it. It only seems to serve a few incredibly rich corporations, if we're still around in a few thousand years I'm sure whatever society exists will look us us like we're complete retards for coming up with this way of life.

If the FTSE drops a few % in a day it's on the 10 o'clock news FFS, everybody shits it but what does it really mean? Nothing to most of us, but people talk about it.

It makes me laugh when you get these marches with 1000s of students/union members/civil servants, and they've all got their little banners with some funny quip about tories or cameron on them or that thing about thew 99%, but really they're wasting their time and energy. The left/right, red/blue argument is a sideshow and won't make any difference to the majority of our lives if it goes either way. The system is wrong, plain and simple and I'm pretty sure only a massive natural disaster or nuclear war will make us change it.

 

[cirC]

Remind me,what did the message Liam Burns left on leaving power after the last election say?

 

[paddy]

This has actually made me chuckle. Seriously, if you could split atoms as well as you do hairs, you could solve the world energy crisis!

Glad to be of service

 

[ROSM]

Remind me,what did the message Liam Burns left on leaving power after the last election say?

It's liam Byrne and he made a comment about the money being all gone. However childish it seems, it is not unusual for ministers at election time to leave messages for the new incumbent. When callaghan took over as chancellor, his Tory predecessor apologised for the mess. He wasn't talking about the state of the office.

In Washington, when presidents leave office, their teams wreck the place. Superglue desks, sellotape staplers etc.

The only difference with the Byrne comment was that David laws told the press. It was so long since a lib dem was in government they clearly didn't know what to expect.