That drawing of the queen is... haunting.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That drawing of the queen is... haunting.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
She kind of looks like a female George W. Bush there...
Eww, she does.
That's not remotely the cause of the crisis though.
Yes we had a recession triggered in part by that, but the recession is already over and the banks have already turned around and are back to paying taxes to the government. No the UK governments financial crisis is caused entirely and solely by Gordon Brown, in Downing St since 1997, spending too much money. See the right hand image:
Source: National Statistics Office http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206
Despite having been a boomtime and having inherited a budget surplus from the last Conservative government, we had the UK's debt rising since 2001 and even without financial intervention would have been a disaster anyway, the moment we ever entered a recession.
I'm impressed that your idealogical blinkers are so comprehensive that you would attempt to pin such are large crisis on an individual.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Do you really deny that Brown was responsible for a skyrocketing deficit even during the good times?
Hope is the denial of reality
You won't find me defending Brown. He was at the helm, so he must take ultimate responsibility for the actions of the treasury.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Plus he was directly running the treasury during Blair's time in office...
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, he's a very naughty boy.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Are you serious? He as an individual has had sole responsibility for the Treasury for 13 years.
Why should it be a surprise that he's responsible? And its not a coincidence or accident, Gordon Brown's failure to maintain a surplus was a deliberate and political decision. Brown said that Labour would have to always run a deficit as that way the Conservatives wouldn't be able to campaign at an election for immediate tax cuts, as there'd be no money for it. So for political reasons he deliberately squandered the budget surplus he had inherited and instead ran up a deficit in the good times, that then ballooned catastrophically (surprise, surprise) when the bad times hit.
Brown chose the last 13 budgets. It was his choice and he made it for political reasons against all economic advice. It's not ideological to hold him to account, it's responsible.
I love how you Brits write/speak.
'hold him to account'
It rings so much more intelligent than (that's how you use that Lewk) how we speak on this side of the pond.
I love being patronisingly patted on the head...
Also, in a swift change of tone in this post, i actually love the way americans speak. I would funking love to be a proper deep-south dude with that long slow accent that sounds wise as long as you dont start talking too quickly.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Spawnie, I hope you did not think my tone was patronizing, I honestly do love listening/reading to Brits speak/write.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Hours of fun!
Gah, I loved that thing the last time too except it's a silly propaganda piece for the Liberal Democrats.
Always.
Agreed.He as an individual has had sole responsibility for the Treasury for 13 years.
I believe that he bears a substantial part of the responsibility for the economic crisis, but not all of it.Why should it be a surprise that he's responsible?
I didn't know that. It doesn't affect the chances of me voting labour (already at zero).Gordon Brown's failure to maintain a surplus was a deliberate and political decision. Brown said that Labour would have to always run a deficit as that way the Conservatives wouldn't be able to campaign at an election for immediate tax cuts, as there'd be no money for it. So for political reasons he deliberately squandered the budget surplus he had inherited and instead ran up a deficit in the good times, that then ballooned catastrophically (surprise, surprise) when the bad times hit.
It's not idealogical to hold him account; it is blinkered to hold him alone to be responsible.Brown chose the last 13 budgets. It was his choice and he made it for political reasons against all economic advice. It's not ideological to hold him to account, it's responsible.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Taking on board RandBlades important arguments about the problems of PR:
Who sees nothing wrong with this ?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'll admit I don't see it at first at least. Is it saying that Labour is set to win even if the vote is split into even thirds and no clear party has a popular majority or plurality?
Yes it is coinich
Edit - Is it a coincidence that the tories in this only win in the london orbital (e.g posh) districs and the heartland of posh - bucks and becks and whatnot?
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Indeed, but I am not so concerned about the economic crisis. The economic crisis is already passing. What I am concerned with is Brown's legacy of debt that leaves us over-burdened for the future possibly for generations now.
Yes, I only learnt that recently too, was really annoyed by it. I thought it was just general incompetence - that Brown wanted to spend, spend, spend and genuinely thought that as he'd "defeated boom and bust" there'd never be any comeuppance. Didn't realise it was deliberate and not just incompetent.I didn't know that. It doesn't affect the chances of me voting labour (already at zero).
But I never said he had sole responsibility for everything. I said he had responsibility for the British debt. Would you agree with me on that? Because I agree with you that other areas have shared responsibility.It's not idealogical to hold him account; it is blinkered to hold him alone to be responsible.
The problem with that Steely is that assumes Uniform National Swing. The truth is there hasn't been a UNS in an election in decades.Taking on board RandBlades important arguments about the problems of PR:
Image:
Who sees nothing wrong with this ?
There is a pro-Labour bias in FPTP at the moment, but that's got a few reasons - legitimate and illegitimate.
1: Labour constituencies are on average smaller than Conservative constituencies, so Labour votes count for more. There are historical reasons for some of this (eg more constituencies/capita in Scot/Wales/NI than Eng). All constituencies should be the same size. So yes a problem, but an easily remedied one.
2: Turnout is lower in Labour constituencies. Labour "safe seats", eg inner-city seats, tend to have lower turnout than other seats. Labour supporters are generally less likely to vote. This is a legitimate impact then, as FPTP constituencies are defined by the number of people, not by the number of people that actually bother to vote.
3: In every election recently bar one the winning party has gained many more seats than UNS would predict. "Tactical voting" and other factors hurting the unpopular party. Again this is a legitimate impact. Labour this time will probably lose more seats than UNS predicts.
If the votes really did split 33/33/33 then the seats won won't be even. But they won't be anywhere as uneven as is shown in that graph.
Mostly it has to do with the apportionment of the Scottish vote, something Rand has railed about from time to time, though I suspect experts would find all sorts of things to object to in the calculator's methodology.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not saying the above is a plausible result, but using it to highly the problems with our current system. If the vote was distributed evenly across the country and each major party got 33% of the vote, then it should result in a (roughly) even number of seats in parliament. The reasons you've given aren't "legitimate", they just hide the problem when we get decisive results (which we have, the past few elections). This election by all accounts will be very close. If the make up of the next parliament doesn't at least bare some resemblance to the distribution of the popular vote, don't you think that's a bit of a problem if we are to claim to have a meaningful democracy?The problem with that Steely is that assumes Uniform National Swing. The truth is there hasn't been a UNS in an election in decades.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think I see the problem - when you said 'mess' up-thread I assumed you meant the crisis and subsequent recession, rather than the debt in particular. Apologies. Still, I think the country at large should accept some responsibility. The electorate did return him to office, even after he started the reckless spending. I don't remember the fourth estate drawing much attention to it either.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
According to the Gruaniad, senior Tories are telling Cameron to stop going on about the quoteunquote "Big Society" because it's fucking stupid.
There's no such thing as 'big society', senior Tories tell Cameron
Leader urged to scrap key policy idea as anxiety grips party
A series of anxious shadow ministers have warned the Tory leadership in private that David Cameron's central general election message – devolving power to create a "big society" – is crashing on the doorstep as candidates struggle to explain the idea to voters.
As Cameron's circle intensify their preparations for Thursday's television debate, by issuing pleas at Tory HQ for fresh ideas, shadow ministers have told the leadership that their "big idea" is too vague and needs to be scrapped in favour of practical policies.
The nervous discussions come as party officials experience a rollercoaster ride in the face of conflicting opinion polls. A ComRes poll for ITV/the Independent gave the Tories, on 35%, a nine-point lead over Labour and the Liberal Democrats on 26%. Other polls indicated that Nick Clegg was still on a roll after his success in last week's television debate.
The ComRes poll went some way to soothing frayed nerves among Tories who believe that the apparent Lib Dem surge has highlighted deep flaws in the Conservative campaign. Criticism is focusing on Steve Hilton, the director of strategy, and Oliver Letwin, the shadow cabinet policy co-ordinator, who were the main brains behind last week's Tory manifesto. This was entitled Invitation to Join the Government of Britain and was designed to illustrate the "big society" idea of handing power to people to set up schools and sack police chiefs.
But shadow ministers say the Letwin and Hilton approach is difficult to sell on the doorstep. "Oliver Letwin had this great 'big society' idea, though it might have been an idea to share it with the rest of us," one normally loyal shadow minister said. "People don't really follow Oliver's philosophical discourse."
Another shadow minister echoed this criticism. "The 'big society' needs to be turned into more practical, voter-friendly language. We need to turn Oliver Letwin's Hegelian dialectic into voter friendly stuff."
A third Tory source was even blunter. "The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?"
Tories are agreed that it would be wrong for Cameron to embark on the sort of lurch to the right that destroyed William Hague's leadership. They say that the 'big society' strategy is right but needs to be illustrated with specific policy proposals.
The leadership appeared to respond to these criticisms today by unveiling a hardline poster featuring the party's policies to crack down on benefit cheats.
"Let's cut benefits for those who refuse to work," the poster says next to a picture of Cameron. Tim Montgomerie, the founder of the ConservativeHome wesbite, wrote tonight: "It's good to see the party getting specific about what 'change' means."
The new Tory poster
Cameron himself embarked on a slight change of tactics todaywhen he began a walkabout in the marginal seat of Tamworth, where he said he wanted to answer "the questions real people want to ask".
He took questions about free care for the elderly, immigration, the impact of fuel prices on hauliers and the future of the NHS.
The Tory leader, who will tomorrow visit the Lib Dem stronghold of the south west, gave his strongest warning of the danger of voting for Clegg. A hung parliament would "lead to a sort of stagnation to a sort of haggling and a bickering among politicians and we won't get done what so badly needs to be done in our country".
His tough language will please internal critics who are annoyed that the leadership is not selling flagship policies.
"We have some great policies but we're not talking about them," said one Tory. "I had no idea that we have a great idea to give 1 million more people access to an NHS dentist. What a great idea. Why aren't we shouting about that? … It is a great policy and nobody knows about it."
The criticism of the election campaign came amid the first signs of whisperings about Cameron's leadership. There was disbelief among some Tories when the leader responded to Clegg's strong performance by decreeing last Friday that nothing needed to change.
The leadership embarked on a rethink at the weekend, resulting in a hastily filmed personal statement by Cameron for an election broadcast on Monday night, when the Lib Dems surged in the polls.
One senior figure said: "The project is all about Dave. So if he succeeds it is about him. But if he fails it is about him."
The source was clear about what would happen if Labour and the Lib Dems formed a coalition in a hung parliament to push through electoral reform. "By then we would have murdered our leader and his head would be on a stake. The last week shows how thin our support was. There is no great enthusiasm for Cameron."
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Interesting debate tonight. All 3 seemed to have lifted their socks.
Although the big gaffe potentially seems to have been Gordon Brown called out on a lie. Labour leaflets across the country have been targetting the elderly claiming that the Tories would remove free bus passes for the elderly etc: Cameron said that's simply not true and said it was a "lie - not often that a politician uses the word 'lie'", Brown said he never approved any of those claims.
Hmmm, be a bit embarrassing if it turns out he actually did. Like the fact the claim is in his own personal leaflet for his own constituency? Or the fact that its in Labour's Party Election Broadcast on TV. I wonder if he was involved approving that?
Are they choosing to believe in the existence of society now? Surely that's an improvement?
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
"There is such a thing as society, its just not the same thing as government" - David Cameron, 2005
Good lord! It doesn't seem credible! Next you'll be saying that they want to promote workers' cooperatives.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not because co-operatives are part of the Tory manifesto
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
