Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 troy_tempest wrote:
What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.

I firmly believe that the best kind of politicains are the ones that stand out; not just on policies, but oratory skills, the ability to inspire confidence, to be able to convince you that they are right. And frankly, I don't think any of the current crop have that in any kind of abundance.

Cameron: About as typical Tory-boy as you can get, arrogant, at times pretty petulant, and just dull. I can't think of a single moment during his tenure where I've heard him speak and not been left doubtful. Take the recent EU-debt debarcale. The EU spring a bunch of debt on us because our ecnonomy has basically done 'too well', and Cameron says 'we won't pay a penny'. Next thing you know it's 'We'll consider a deal', before it finally comes down to us paying it all back. Way to go on the 'having a spine' front, DC!

Clegg: A sellout. Since the last election he's been reduced to the No10 tea-making boy, again I can't think of any particular moment he's stood out or a single pre-election promise he's even tried to keep. Wouldn't vote for him or the LDs in their current state in a million years.

Milliband: Policy-wise, I'm more in his camp than anyone else's, but something about him gives me doubts. He can sit there and claim he can do a better job, but I'm not sure he's a strong enough leader for the Party, and were he to win, I think the pressure would soon have him backing out of promises or failing to follow through on policies. It would be a headline-writer's dream, but I think they'd do better with Ed Balls in charge. Milliband just doesn't inspire confidence, sadly.

Farage: Plays a very clever game, trying to be 'all things to all men', at once the 'perfect candidate' for disillusioned voters on both sides of centre, but break that facade and there's very little behind it. His Party basically have one policy when it comes down to it, and Farage is too careless in who he lets in, resulting in spending more time backtracking/covering/apologising for his candidates' blunders or incompetence. I appreciate the effect he's having in shaking up the system a little (which neede doing, even if it's just unfounded scare-mongering), but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Can't say I've seen enough of Sturgeon or the Welsh or Green leaders to comment on them. I always felt Salmond was rather arrogant and stuck-up, though

 troy_tempest wrote:
What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.

A charismatic leader is not a must. But a leader has to project an air of competence at the least.

And that's something that Ed Miliband just completely falls down on. He's a clever man in an academic sense, but he looks, and sounds, like a moron. His political moves are always a step behind everyone else, and they tend to be kneejerk badly thought out reactions the majority of the time. He's a second rate politician, and has no real political views that don't change with the wind/press in the hope of getting votes. He barely has control of his own party, constantly scrapping with Ed Balls and the Unions as he does.

David Cameron is an ex spin-doctor himself, so he rarely makes obvious gaffes or major political blunders. He's a reasonably savvy political operator, he's managed to more or less keep the Tories in line (no mean achievement in itself), and he's a competent statesman. But he's a distinctly average public speaker, and is often perceived to be leading from the rear instead of the front. In other words, he's more or less the definition of one of those general, mediocre, and forgettable Prime Ministers that will only be remembered in exceptionally boring political books in a century's time.

Nick Clegg is the best public speaker of the lot of them. He's quick on his feet vocally, intelligent, well travelled, and cultured. He's not a particularly skilled political operator though, most likely due to being a Lib Dem (they're not used to having actual responsibility or power). If he'd been in a different party or time, he would have had the makings of a solid Home or Foreign Secretary. As things stand however, Cameron has successfully used him as a shield in the public eye, and he'll most likely be discarded at the end of this administration. One gets the feeling that if he'd matured a bit more as a politician, and been in his current position in fifteen years, he wouldn't have screwed it up as badly as he has.

Nigel Farage is an opportunist. Pure and simple. He's quite good at spinning the media wheel, but has no real political leanings he's willing to declare beyond mild xenophobia. His capacity for picking lieutenants and general political organisation is very sub-par. He's actually in serious danger of losing control of his own machine, and spends most of his time trying to hide that fact. Unless he develops the necessary skills soon, Farage and his party will be dead and buried politically in seven years time.

 troy_tempest wrote:
What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.

Salmond isn't the SNP leader any more, Nicola Sturgeon is; if he gets elected to Westminster it will be as an ordinary MP, maybe WM group leader although frankly I think that would be a mistake, Salmond's too toxic. It's unfair, IMO, because frankly I think the general opinion that he's smug and/or dishonest is more fueled by politically-opposed newspaper editorials that portray him in that way than his own actual behaviour, but it is what it is. Better to shuffle off Angus Robertson, shift Stewart Hosie up to the leadership, and install Salmond as Deputy in his place if he must be given a "position".

As for the broader question, Ketara has it just about bang on; Miliband would probably be vaguely competent in office but comes off as a bumbling numptie, Cameron projects an air of competence but it's hollow and robotic, Clegg is just a shell of a man now and if the voters don't crucify him his own party will, and Farage is a shapeshifting lizard-banker currently assuming the form of "pub-going everyman" who doesn't seem to have anything but projected traits.

I would not say Cameron is a particularly good statesman actually. Well I suppose it depends on your definition of statesman. I think he looks out for English interests well enough, but is absolutely disinterested in the other parts of the UK. I think his behaviour on Scotland is very poor and will lead to a less stable UK down the line, and it was mostly a calculated vote winner. That is not the behaviour of a statesman. I'll admit he looks pretty good though. I mean he photographs well and he looks like you think a prime minister should. I think he's also a pretty good politician.

Milliband has an unfortunate face and manner and he hasn't got any strong opinions for fear of losing a vote. Would not want him leading the party I was going to vote for.

The Green leader had a fairly high profile mess up recently didn't she?

Farage is as others have said a populist, but they all are to some degree. Salmond came off pretty well to me, as far as a nationalist goes.

Don't know about the Welsh parties unfortunately.

Gerry Adams is a total liability for Sinn Féin but I think because they are so cult like and military in their organisation, they will not be getting rid of him for a long time. In fairness, he's the only person they have who is recognizable on both sides of the Border and in the rest of the UK, even if it is for terrible reasons.

Peter Robinson is dogged by scandals with expenses and his wife's activities, but he's popular enough with his own party. They're also a pack of intolerant bigots, but at least none of them are murderers that I'm aware of.

Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.

EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.

I would rather vote for the Tories with Osbourne or Boris at the helm than for what constitutes the Labour party. I really should be an ardent Labour supporter but I find The Tories dishonesty and their acts of skulduggery much more...honest.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.

I would rather vote for the Tories with Osbourne or Boris at the helm than for what constitutes the Labour party. I really should be an ardent Labour supporter but I find The Tories dishonesty and their acts of skulduggery much more...honest.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Labour these days, but I'd still rather chew off my own thumbs than vote Tory. Labour might be a bit gak, they might be vacuous weather vanes that point wherever the tabloid winds blow, in many cases they might even be just plain old Red Tories, but at least I can still yet(barely) believe their rhetoric about the disabled and unemployed etc is naked political opportunism, rather than the genuine disdain I know the Tories hold most of the populace in.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.

EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext

If the EU gets to do it, why not the UK government too?

I mean it is not like scottish politicians make a big deal about the things that are funded for scottish people but not those in the rest of the uk... like university, prescriptions, etc...

Interesting perspectives on the leadership, I've come full circle on miliband - when he got installed I though liability, unelectable etc, then the daily mail thing happened and I thought actually I can see this working. I voted Tory last time and think they have done ok, but will be voting labour this time. But I expect that if labour somehow get in, miliband will not last the parliament. Which is a pity, because I'd like to see him succeed.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.

As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.

I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.

Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.

EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext

If the EU gets to do it, why not the UK government too?

Am I allowed to think it's moronic in both cases?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I mean it is not like scottish politicians make a big deal about the things that are funded for scottish people but not those in the rest of the uk... like university, prescriptions, etc...

Wait, whut? How are the two things related?

Silvermk2 QFT as they say. The scottish government has been light years ahead of Westminster in terms of branding, sexiness etc. Someone in their media comms & branding strategy team ( 'Torquil?', 'Angus?') knows what they are doing. During the referendum, the nationalist leaflets and communications were so far ahead it was embarassing.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wait, whut? How are the two things related?

Really?

Both are cases of governments highlighting and branding projects they feel will sway people to think positively on those in power.

"Look at the new school funded by the EU, maybe they are not just a massive black hole for our money and we do get something back"

"Look at that bridge - funded by UK government - well, it is good they finally decided to do something to improve the traffic around here"

"We give free university places to everyone but the English because really, screw them!" - "That is awesome, because really, screw the English!"

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wait, whut? How are the two things related?

Really?

Both are cases of governments highlighting and branding projects they feel will sway people to think positively on those in power.

"Look at the new school funded by the EU, maybe they are not just a massive black hole for our money and we do get something back"

"Look at that bridge - funded by UK government - well, it is good they finally decided to do something to improve the traffic around here"

"We give free university places to everyone but the English because really, screw them!" - "That is awesome, because really, screw the English!"

Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities compared to the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded projects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.

This is what the UK government do for projects undertaken abroad using foreign aid money ffs, to remind those dastardly foreign sorts who to be appropriately grateful to.

As for your wee joke; give it a rest with the "is it cuz I is English lulz" stuff. It might be funny in another time, but we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English, and it's just fething tiresome now even in jest.

 Yodhrin wrote:

As for your wee joke; give it a rest with the "is it cuz I is English lulz" stuff. It might be funny in another time, but we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English, and it's just fething tiresome now even in jest.

I would be interested to hear how it could be justified that people from Europe should receive free degrees in Scotland, and the Scottish also, but the English must pay their way.

That is one specific policy that has always struck me as absurdly discriminatory, and lends much credence to the 'feth the English' perspective of the SNP within England.

Not sure about the policy, and it seems pretty unfair alright, but it might be a pragmatic policy. There's so many English people who would avail of the free fees that it would hedge scottish people out of the closest universities to them.

 Da Boss wrote:
Not sure about the policy, and it seems pretty unfair alright, but it might be a pragmatic policy. There's so many English people who would avail of the free fees that it would hedge scottish people out of the closest universities to them.

That's the thing though. If it was applied evenly to everyone outside of Scotland, I could (with ill grace) accept that. It's the specific exclusion of English/Welsh/Irish students that sticks in my craw. I mean, seriously? A French person can grab a free degree in Scotland using taxpayer funding, but an English person can't? That just stinks of racism to me, and the ludicrous amount of twisting and turning required to try and make it into something rational is simply absurd.

If we started making it so that Scottish people had to pay for GP appointments in England, there would be outrage, and rightly so.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities comparto the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded pjects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.

They are putting "paid for by your tax money" on things. As much as you would wish it otherwise you live in the UK, and the UK government, for the most part, decides on what to spend tax money on.

we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English

Hyperbole much? Having read the articles a number of scottish friends linked to in the referendum, from some (apparently) fairly.mainstream scottish news sources, the only frothing I saw was on the part of rabid nationalists intent on English blood.

Personally my parents are from the uk, with half of my family from the far north and some straddling into scotland. I was born overseas (though have always been a uk citizen) and have lived all over the world. I have little love of politicians or the londoncentric view that seems to exist in politics. I genuinely dont care if parts of the uk want to break away, as long as the breakup is fair and everyone gets a say. I will say that a break probably isnt a great idea in an age of globalisation and the formation of large political and trading unions...

I hope the mods don't mind that I re-activate this old thread. The UK general election campaign started today, so instead of creating a new thread, I'll just push this one back into play.

Also, could a mod change the title of this thread to: The Political junkie thread - UK edition GE election page 4 onwards (or words to that effect).

Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
38 days of wall to wall coverage. I like UK politics as much as the next man, but this is going to be a real test, even for me

Title changed, no need to worry the mods!

The next 38 days will be... entertaining... or mind-numbing.... or just infuriating.

If anyone has seen the event last week where Cameron and Milliband got Paxman'ed, what are your thoughts on that? Personally, I think Milliband came across a lot stronger, especially vs Paxman, and I'm actually leaning towards voting his way now. While I strongly disagree with some Labour policies, he does seem to 'get' the Party ethos better than some, and it's refreshing to see a party leader stand up and say 'Yes, my Party has made mistakes in the past, but that wasn't me, and I want to fix them." It gives a far better impression than just refusing to see where previous incarnations of one's Party have messed up.

Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.

 Paradigm wrote:
Title changed, no need to worry the mods!

The next 38 days will be... entertaining... or mind-numbing.... or just infuriating.

If anyone has seen the event last week where Cameron and Milliband got Paxman'ed, what are your thoughts on that? Personally, I think Milliband came across a lot stronger, especially vs Paxman, and I'm actually leaning towards voting his way now. While I strongly disagree with some Labour policies, he does seem to 'get' the Party ethos better than some, and it's refreshing to see a party leader stand up and say 'Yes, my Party has made mistakes in the past, but that wasn't me, and I want to fix them." It gives a far better impression than just refusing to see where previous incarnations of one's Party have messed up.

I honestly thought Miliband came across as the geeky kid in the playground trying to act like the tough guy. I cringed. Cameron was equally as bad.

I think the most revealing point was the lack of policies or ideas being discussed. I couldn't care less about Ed or Dave's kitchens. What are their visions for the country in the next 5 years? We never got any of that.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.

New Labour had almost bugger all to do with the economic problems. The Tories has almost bugger all to do with fixing the economy. Most of it was down to the markets and global trade. It irritates me intensely when political parties pretend they have much influence over the economy. They do have SOME, but it is minimal, especially since the Bank of England started setting interest rates. The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.

So we can safely assume a Labour/SNP deal would be your worst nightmare?

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.

Last thing the government wants is a rise in interest rates. If it goes up then so does the interest on that lovely 1.4 trillion debt bomb. We are already paying about 40billion a year on interest. Imagine what that would be if the interest rates were 3-4-5 e.t.c %.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities comparto the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded pjects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.

They are putting "paid for by your tax money" on things. As much as you would wish it otherwise you live in the UK, and the UK government, for the most part, decides on what to spend tax money on.

we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English

Hyperbole much? Having read the articles a number of scottish friends linked to in the referendum, from some (apparently) fairly.mainstream scottish news sources, the only frothing I saw was on the part of rabid nationalists intent on English blood.

Personally my parents are from the uk, with half of my family from the far north and some straddling into scotland. I was born overseas (though have always been a uk citizen) and have lived all over the world. I have little love of politicians or the londoncentric view that seems to exist in politics. I genuinely dont care if parts of the uk want to break away, as long as the breakup is fair and everyone gets a say. I will say that a break probably isnt a great idea in an age of globalisation and the formation of large political and trading unions...

Take another look. The recent polling has browned the knickers of the political and media establishment, we're back to being a "threat to democracy", we're intolerable assassins of decency, the very idea that we might vote for a party that will have any actual impact on the UK political process beyond warming benches will apparently enrage the English to the point that the Thames will be flowing with "metaphorical rivers of blood". If you looked at the media during the referendum and would seriously argue that the only vileness on show was from supporters of independence, you didn't look very hard.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.

Hogwash. New Labour were, in her own words, Thatcher's greatest achievement; neoliberal doctrine in the hollow husk of social democracy, a political parasitic wasp. Even now, with the supposedly "red in tooth and claw" Milibungler in charge(and even that I question; Balls is the one pulling most of the strings, and he's Osborne in a red tie), Labour are a right-authoritarian party just like the Tories, and given Osborne's "economic miracle" is dependent on desperate and colossal borrowing to fund mortgage welfare for the middle class, and the continuing charity of the BoE keeping interest zeroed and the Quantitative Easing flowing, the idea that a Tory government would have dealt with the global financial crisis any better is farcical.

Spending is one of the government's most powerful tools for generating economic growth, and it is growth that will enable us to deal with the debt, not cuts; taking money out of the pockets of low-income families and benefits recipients is totally counter-productive, as is forcing the unemployed and disabled into poorly paid zero-hours "jobs", because poor people spend money when they get it. We're back to an economy balanced precariously on consumer debt and a housing bubble in the SE of England just as we were before the GFC, only this time come the crash we'll be in worse shape since the Tories have spent the last five years hollowing out public services and the social security system and many people are in far less stable employment.

The genuine hilarity of this election is that the best hope for the UK's economic recovery is the SNP.

I think we can agree to disagree on "the evils" of the media.

I would tend to agree thay spending on tangible infrastructure is the way to both put more money in circulation and improve the nation while sorting out the ecconomy. Personally I think the political parties had very little to do with either the ressession or recovery. Labour could have proofed the financial market better, certainly, but it was a collapse of western financial markets, not national policies which caused that.

The tories have done a little to improve things but imo any improvement is simply that naturally felt as global markets pick up again. I feel a reasonable "spend to mend" policy would have got us back quicker rather than the slash and burn we have had.

The SNP do not seem, to my mind, have done anything much for scotlands ecconomy above and beyond what the economy would have done left to itself.

SNP are as bad as the rest of the political parties. It was only recently that the Telegraph revealed their figures on oil revenues were inflated BY 90 PER CENT (wtf). The Scottish First Minister even admitted they'd done it. Scotland would've been in deep, deep gak from the starting block if they'd gone independent. On the other hand, if Scotland had gone independent, Labour would lose A LOT of seats in the House of Parliament. So much so in fact, there would probably never be another Labour-run government again.

Anyways, 2 celebs have now endorsed Labour- The Hobbit's Martin Freeman and Dr Who's David Tennant. Kinda saw the latter coming from a mile away, but didn't expect the former at all. Outside of acting, I can't say I like either of them any more. Look at the bloody mess we're in (yes, yes I know some of it is down to global markets etc) after 13yrs of Labour leadership.

Lib Dems just may as well not even bother being in parliament anymore. Teeny tiny party now.

 Optio wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.

Last thing the government wants is a rise in interest rates. If it goes up then so does the interest on that lovely 1.4 trillion debt bomb. We are already paying about 40billion a year on interest. Imagine what that would be if the interest rates were 3-4-5 e.t.c %.

I read somewhere that there's a real danger the economy could start deflating

You know, as well as I do, that for all the talk of economic recovery, the housing bubble is going to burst 2-3 years from now (I'd put money on it) and we'll be back to square one again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think we can agree to disagree on "the evils" of the media.

I would tend to agree thay spending on tangible infrastructure is the way to both put more money in circulation and improve the nation while sorting out the ecconomy. Personally I think the political parties had very little to do with either the ressession or recovery. Labour could have proofed the financial market better, certainly, but it was a collapse of western financial markets, not national policies which caused that.

The tories have done a little to improve things but imo any improvement is simply that naturally felt as global markets pick up again. I feel a reasonable "spend to mend" policy would have got us back quicker rather than the slash and burn we have had.

The SNP do not seem, to my mind, have done anything much for scotlands ecconomy above and beyond what the economy would have done left to itself.

The SNP are always operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There's only so much you can do with the pocket money Westminster gives Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
SNP are as bad as the rest of the political parties. It was only recently that the Telegraph revealed their figures on oil revenues were inflated BY 90 PER CENT (wtf). The Scottish First Minister even admitted they'd done it. Scotland would've been in deep, deep gak from the starting block if they'd gone independent. On the other hand, if Scotland had gone independent, Labour would lose A LOT of seats in the House of Parliament. So much so in fact, there would probably never be another Labour-run government again.

Anyways, 2 celebs have now endorsed Labour- The Hobbit's Martin Freeman and Dr Who's David Tennant. Kinda saw the latter coming from a mile away, but didn't expect the former at all. Outside of acting, I can't say I like either of them any more. Look at the bloody mess we're in (yes, yes I know some of it is down to global markets etc) after 13yrs of Labour leadership.

Lib Dems just may as well not even bother being in parliament anymore. Teeny tiny party now.

Even without the oil, Scotland does well for itself. Oil has always been a bonus. Out of all the UK regions, only London makes more money than Scotland.

Agree with you about the Lib Dems. Can't wait to see Clegg getting the proverbial boot up the backside.