British Elections
- 主题发起人 omzdog
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
We should see how this coalition is going to work out for now before we start making conclusions on how the party platforms will pan out in public policy.
I predict that the conservatives will be strong, but their power will be reformed by the Lib-Dems and checked often by Labor in all regards. So it all comes out to a good balance which is good for pubic policy. I don't want to hear all the whining from the Left because they know it could have gone a lot worse they way Brown ****ed up his campaign.
I predict that the conservatives will be strong, but their power will be reformed by the Lib-Dems and checked often by Labor in all regards. So it all comes out to a good balance which is good for pubic policy. I don't want to hear all the whining from the Left because they know it could have gone a lot worse they way Brown ****ed up his campaign.
Coalitions rarely end well, most end within the few months and others die a fiery death.
I'll remain sceptic, for now but undeniably, they looked good yesterday. Great speeches from both of them and although they hardly delved into policy (remarking the standard rhetoric, for the most part), from what I've seen, their policies look reasonable. The lib dems have done a good job negotiating, it seems (I've heard Chris Huhne, in particular, was excellent - no surprises) and they've muscled some decent changes in. I can't say that I miss too much from the Labour manifesto.
Can't see electoral reform going ahead but that's to be expected.
It was actually quite nice to see the back of Gordon. I don't miss him one bit.
Not huge, just the usual dourness 
Since Holyrood has effectively been divided between the SNP and Labour it means instead of facing up to their incompetence all we'll get whenever something ****s up is that the English did it. Given they're talking about devolving tax responsibility to Holyrood this does not fill me full of confidence.
Not to mention they're highly likely to band together to vote down any attempt to curtail spending in Scotland. So while Westminister starts making sensible cuts to curtail the rampant deficit, expect to see them voted down by a coalition of Scottish MP's who insist we simply cannot do without subsidised bus services like the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Tories were already talking about blocking Scottish MP's from voting in Westminister before the election. I'd like to ask Mr Cameron if he could see his way to extending that policy to Scotland too.
Since Holyrood has effectively been divided between the SNP and Labour it means instead of facing up to their incompetence all we'll get whenever something ****s up is that the English did it. Given they're talking about devolving tax responsibility to Holyrood this does not fill me full of confidence.Not to mention they're highly likely to band together to vote down any attempt to curtail spending in Scotland. So while Westminister starts making sensible cuts to curtail the rampant deficit, expect to see them voted down by a coalition of Scottish MP's who insist we simply cannot do without subsidised bus services like the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Tories were already talking about blocking Scottish MP's from voting in Westminister before the election. I'd like to ask Mr Cameron if he could see his way to extending that policy to Scotland too.
captain lust 说:
I'll remain sceptic, for now but undeniably, they looked good yesterday.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I think this government can only be good for the Labour party. It gives them time to regroup, it's pretty unlikely to see out a five-year term and they've finally got rid of Brown. Now if they can just elect one of those nice Millibands and pretend the last four years never happened, all the mums will vote for them again.
Earl_of_Rochester
Archonsod 说:
Are you trying to blame the problems of today on a government that was in power 20+ years ago?
Labour & only Labour are to blame for this:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnormantebbit%2F100029917%2Fbritain-2010-a-land-of-quangocrats-and-hereditary-welfare-junkies%2F&h=f5ad1
EoR
Rabid Potatoe
Master Knight
Can't verify what he's saying, but long term effects tend to take place in the long term.
Um no. The "welfare dependents" and chavs of today tend to be school leavers of low - mid academic performance, of the type that would have formerly been employed by the manufacturing industry in their millions. Except of course we have no manufacturing industry, and the service industry that replaced it doesn't have quite the same demand for unskilled work. Like I said, you didn't see chavs, nor for that matter was welfare dependency an issue, in the seventies. Too busy actually working.Earl_of_Rochester 说:
Earl_of_Rochester
Oh pls, we had no industry of that sort left anyway nor any need for miners. The problem with chavs these days are that they're bone idle. My facebook is full of cretins who can't be bothered to work & are only too happy to sit at home playing their Xbox on the dole or have 5 kids & expect the taxpayer to cover the bill. These people have no work ethic, I've done everything from bin man, telesales, door to door, labouring, cruise line work & working in a shop. Now I'm a project manager, these oiks on the other hand expect to be handed it on a plate & won't take responsibility for themselves or their decisions. It's the Labour government who pay for their lifestyle from the taxes of people like me who pull their sorry ass out of bed at 5am in the morning to keep this country running.
Bollocks. The British shipyards had order books worth several million pounds when they were closed, because Thatcher had agreed to reduce shipbuilding capacity in Britain with Europe. Was the same story with the British car manufacturers, deal with Europe to avoid competing with Germany despite being worth millions to the economy. Even the mines, again a deal with Brussels to lower our coal output. Farming, deal with Europe to avoid competing with central Europe on agricultural exports. All apart from mining (in which Germany was outcompeting us, to be fair) in rude health.
And of course in order to do that, she also brought down the unions, leaving the several million unemployed nothing else to do but turn to the state. And unless we find another means of employing several million unskilled workers in the economy, that's where they're likely to stay. It's not exactly rocket science, shift to a skill based economy and the thousands of people who are unskilled will have problems finding a job.
And of course in order to do that, she also brought down the unions, leaving the several million unemployed nothing else to do but turn to the state. And unless we find another means of employing several million unskilled workers in the economy, that's where they're likely to stay. It's not exactly rocket science, shift to a skill based economy and the thousands of people who are unskilled will have problems finding a job.
Earl_of_Rochester
Archonsod 说:
Nigh on twenty years ago! It doesn't take 20 years to get a new job so you can't blame the present situation on Maggie.
Sounds pretty fair to me, you want a job you go out & get one!
Labour have had 13 years to sort this country out, what have they achieved?
They've created a society with no incentive to be the best, brightest and honest. They've ruined school sports days, made being unemployed & lazy a suitable & comfortable way of life & made being a criminal even easier. They've made it so a university education is now a waste of time and money. To summarise, without incentive to come top people are just happy being "Equal." Which brings me on to my next point.
Labour have changed the meaning of the word equal. Now equal means that if you are white, male & under 25 you are at the bottom of the pile. There is nothing "equal" about positive discrimination. There is nothing "Equal" about pensioners not being able to heat their homes whilst unemployed criminals drive BMW's. There is certainly nothing equal about the fact that if I had fiddled my expenses I'd have been out of a job & possibly imprisoned. Lastly there is nothing equal about sending our soldiers to war on £15,000 a year when "Community, Diversity and cultural awareness monitoring teams" earn £28,000.
EoR
It does take a job to be created in the first place. Key difference between manufacturing and service industries is in how many they employ; a small factory will employ a thousand or so staff on site, and several thousand more in related industry. A call centre on the other hand tends to employ a few hundred on site, and virtually none in secondary industries. The government did try to replace industry with service in the North East, until it was pointed out you'd need to convert virtually the entire region into call centres in order to come anywhere near the same employment levels manufacturing had in a small town.Earl_of_Rochester 说:
Ah yes, the "no such thing as society" speech. I'm sure the senile old bat will be willing to stand by her words once we turf her out of her home and withdraw her pension. She was after all a housewife for most of her life.
How precisely did they do that? Beyond their idiotic idea to get 50% of the populace university educated without actually looking at how many jobs required it, with the result that graduates are even competing for burger flipping jobs?
Wouldn't know, I'd left school before labour came to power. Bit of an odd argument though, I don't recall sports day being particularly assisted by Tory policies. Admittedly, nobody's dad was a Tory MP at our school.
Technically that was the Tories too. Labour brought in the New Deal which, theoretically at least, forces you to either get a job or get training after a period on the dole. Under the Tories you merely had to return to the jobcentre every other week to sign a declaration you were still looking for work.
True, but then they hold the record for the most legislation passed by a single parliament. Although at the same time, I don't think making it a criminal offence to detonate a nuclear device has necessarily made it much easier to break the law.
It always was to a certain extent. Unless you particularly wanted to go into academia all university did was make up for a lack of practical experience. Labour's education policies have reversed that to an extent, but again the economy also factors into this; why pay top dollar for a British engineering graduate when you get two Indian ones for the same price?
You always were. The difference is Labour only greased the ladder you used to climb to the top. Thatcher on the other hand made the pile higher. Take your pick.
Entitlement programs are never a good thing for a government to hand out as if they are free meals, and we all know there is no such thing as a free meal. Entitlements soften the incentive of workers whom grow like lazy cancerous fools sucking public monies.
In America, Congress is deciding on whether to extend unemployment benefits to 2 years, which is unheard of here. 2 years of getting free money. Anybody should be able to find a job in 2 years, thats just unacceptable.
Medicare here is bankrupt because we keep lowering the age to retire and the population of old people keeps getting bigger. Of course, the instance of some entitlements are essential, but for the most part they are useless to a well run society.
In America, Congress is deciding on whether to extend unemployment benefits to 2 years, which is unheard of here. 2 years of getting free money. Anybody should be able to find a job in 2 years, thats just unacceptable.
Medicare here is bankrupt because we keep lowering the age to retire and the population of old people keeps getting bigger. Of course, the instance of some entitlements are essential, but for the most part they are useless to a well run society.
Suspect-Device
Yup, benefits are £51 a week, if you work an 8 hour shift job on minimum wage, 5 days a week you would get well over 200 pounds.
