'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if
that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning
capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se?
Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours,
eh-what old bean!!

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card plot - but
I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the Proletariat - a George
Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?

Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a couple
of million pounds a year don't look that good at all - especially as it was
those *******s that got us into the mess that we are in!

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft and his ilk?

I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in deepest
Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred pounds per grave
to try and claw back some of the cuts already taking place there - and that
is just the f*****g start!!

Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf tournament
that's taking place there this year - a matter of priorities eh? Now *THAT*
*IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.

Falco

On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.


That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

The real issue is that Labour 'Investment' wasn't 'Investment' it was
juts 'spending'

Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...

Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:44:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from


You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.


That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

The real issue is that Labour 'Investment' wasn't 'Investment' it was
juts 'spending'


Absolutely. And most of the spending was not value for money. NHS
spending more than doubled yet the resulting increase in output
(patient treatments) was only 17%. Most of the money went on large
pay increases and the employment of an army of administrators with no
prior knowledge of health care.


Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...


Interesting analogy. ;-)


Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.


I's agree with all of that except nuclear power stations. Nuclear
generated electricity is the most expensive form of power generation,
costing even more than wind power which has to be very heavily
subsidised. Nuclear doesn't generate wealth, it consumes it.

The LibDems are opposed to nuclear power. The Tories are opposed to
subsidising it. The generating companies want hefty government
subsidies as in France and other countries, or they won't build new
nuclear stations. We are already critically dependent on imported gas
and the Tories proposed to build more gas fired stations to fill the
energy gap Labour has created. Where do we go from here?

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:44:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:59:50 +0100, "Falco"
wrote:
Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from

You're wrong. The public spending cuts needed are of the order of
£60 billion to £70 billion per year for at least the next three years.

Labour wouldn't admit to it publicly, but Treasury documents show that
Alastair Darling had already planned cuts of £62 billion a year
starting from April 2011.

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.

That's an average cut of £1000 a year per head of population.

Compare and contrast with the total debt of around £50,000 per head of
population. IIRC

The real issue is that Labour 'Investment' wasn't 'Investment' it was
juts 'spending'


Absolutely. And most of the spending was not value for money. NHS
spending more than doubled yet the resulting increase in output
(patient treatments) was only 17%. Most of the money went on large
pay increases and the employment of an army of administrators with no
prior knowledge of health care.


Anyone can claim they invested money in a night out with a prostitute.
But it isn't investment, because there is no pay back.

It does however 'create jobs' for ladies of the night...


Interesting analogy. ;-)


Investment that really does create jobs that generate real wealth is
money spent on things like nuclear power stations, tax relief for export
manufacturing, education that actually teaches people how to think, and
solve problems and do something useful, and the like.


I's agree with all of that except nuclear power stations. Nuclear
generated electricity is the most expensive form of power generation,
costing even more than wind power which has to be very heavily
subsidised. Nuclear doesn't generate wealth, it consumes it.


No, its cost competitive with anything else and 3-10 times cheaper than
wind.

Typical CANDU figures based on a 40 years span and reasonable interest
rates and 15% decommissioning are about 2-4p a Kwh. Depending on the
profit/interest rate.



The LibDems are opposed to nuclear power. The Tories are opposed to
subsidising it. The generating companies want hefty government
subsidies as in France and other countries, or they won't build new
nuclear stations.

No, they don't. They want a guarantee that the policies wont be changed
to suddenly make it impossible to run them, as they did in Germany. Or
they wont get saddled by ridiculous standards of decommissioning.

Nuclear power is highly competitive and should be very profitable, in a
boring long term sort of way. IF its not handicapped by totally
unrealistic demands about how its operated and how the power stations
are finally shut down.

We are already critically dependent on imported gas
and the Tories proposed to build more gas fired stations to fill the
energy gap Labour has created. Where do we go from here?

Settle on a set of rules for nuclear, argue the case for coal, make the
decision and then step back and let private investment build the things.

And stop subsidising windmills. Or subsidise nuclear to the same extent.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

The real issue is that Labour 'Investment' wasn't 'Investment' it was
juts 'spending'

Absolutely.

The stupid backing up the stupid. The spending was stakes in banks.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

£6 billion is just the start, and it is just a tiny fraction of what
is needed to get the economy out of the mess that Gordon Brown left
behind, and told a pack of lies about to conceal it from voters.

More crap from an idiot. He has never heard of the Credit Crunch. He needs
locking up.

Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if
that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning
capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se?
Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours,
eh-what old bean!!

I think its bot quire as simple as that. It is as I understand it, more
like a binding contract between the two parties.

But I might be wrong..

The purpose is for the duration of this parliament, to ensure stability
and continuity. Mindful of the fact that we have some very very
difficult times ahead in the next 2-3 years, and that people with no
brain will be crying out for communism shortly, in the vain belief that
coming off the debt drug will be any better if nursey simply injects
them with crack, and lets them run riot on the streets.

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber. This
isn't exactly a military dictatorship alternative that has replaced it,
but I agree, its in that direction.

I believe it to be the lesser of two evils.

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card plot - but
I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the Proletariat - a George
Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?


The concept of a Proleteriat only exists in the minds of the Left. With
luck, it will be dead ad forgotten in 5 years.

The Tory vision, partly shared by the LibDems, is to give power and
responsibility *back* to the population, not to necessarily impose
anything more than the bare minimum of crap from on high.

This is not the replacement of a Marxist state with a Fascist state.,
Its about the orderly deconstruction of the State itself, in its
present form, before it falls apart entirely under its own spiralling costs.

If you like, the real Labour project was to build a State to do
Everything. It was an impossible fantasy. The Tory vision is to build a
new economic engine that can actually generate wealth, rather than
simply spend it. I suspect the LibDEms want to make sure it gets spent
as carefully as possible, but are mindful of the fact that you cant
spend what you dont have, and that before you can spend money, you have
to actually eran it. A concept the Left has never ever understood.



Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a couple
of million pounds a year don't look that good at all - especially as it was
those *******s that got us into the mess that we are in!


If you are in the private sector and on less than 30k things should be a
little better in terms of income, and a bit worse in terms of inflation.
Overall probably neutral

The real losers will be the marginal public sector workers. Telephone
sanitisers and community lesbian liason officers on 65k. They will find
themselves on the dole probably, and on a pretty restricted dole probably.




Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to come
from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft and his ilk?


Some will, I can assure you. No one is making money out of this. Apart
from Tony Blair, of course.



I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in deepest
Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred pounds per grave
to try and claw back some of the cuts already taking place there - and that
is just the f*****g start!!

Well that's reasonable. No worse than an inheritance tax.



Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf tournament
that's taking place there this year - a matter of priorities eh? Now *THAT*
*IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.


No worse than gay lesbian afro caribbean drop in centers.

The Tory plans are that in general such councils will in time, be able
to raise their own money by local taxes, have a fairly free hand to
raise and spend as they like, but no longer be able to depend on the
central state for funding, and no longer able to evade responsibility
for their actions with their local electorate., That's what all eh
peoples power bit is about. If you don't like it, vote the *******s out,
stand for local election yourself, and manage your own budgets yourselves.

If it looks like local councils actually will have the power to do more
than rubber stamp central government decisions, I am sorely tempted to
do just that.



Falco

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber.

This man is known stupidity on legs.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said
that there are plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the
dissolution of this coalition of idiots for the next 5 years.

This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins,
but if that statement is actually true - what's to stop this
coalition of spinning capitalists bringing out laws preventing
parliamentary elections per se? Now that *WILL* be the start of a
dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours, eh-what old bean!!

I think its bot quire as simple as that. It is as I understand it,
more like a binding contract between the two parties.

But I might be wrong..

Yes, it appears that you were.

The purpose is for the duration of this parliament, to ensure
stability and continuity. Mindful of the fact that we have some very very
difficult times ahead in the next 2-3 years, and that people with no
brain will be crying out for communism shortly, in the vain belief
that coming off the debt drug will be any better if nursey simply
injects them with crack, and lets them run riot on the streets.

By who started the "difficult times" - greedy ******* capalistic bankers -
and they are *STILL* doing it even now!

WE were always heading for some form of police state under Laber. This
isn't exactly a military dictatorship alternative that has replaced
it,

Agreed about the labour twits, and it's really is something that I
prophesised about a Labour government way back in the days when Harold
Wilson ruled the roost.

but I agree, its in that direction.

It will ultimately come that's for sure.

I believe it to be the lesser of two evils.

Why should there be "two evils"?

And they have just announced the "abolition" of the Identity Card
plot - but I wonder what deeper thoughts they have for the
Proletariat - a George Orwell's 2084 (rather than 1984)?


The concept of a Proleteriat only exists in the minds of the Left.
With luck, it will be dead ad forgotten in 5 years.

Well, that word was around a long time before the "left" of any party
existed - in fact to roman times!

The Tory vision, partly shared by the LibDems, is to give power and
responsibility *back* to the population, not to necessarily impose
anything more than the bare minimum of crap from on high.

Responsibility was given "back to the population" under Thatcher - and that
started accelerated the social degeneration, lack of discipline and blame
culture that we have today.

This is not the replacement of a Marxist state with a Fascist state.,
Its about the orderly deconstruction of the State itself, in its
present form, before it falls apart entirely under its own spiralling
costs.

And if you really believe that, well...

If you like, the real Labour project was to build a State to do
Everything. It was an impossible fantasy. The Tory vision is to build
a new economic engine that can actually generate wealth, rather than
simply spend it. I suspect the LibDEms want to make sure it gets spent
as carefully as possible, but are mindful of the fact that you cant
spend what you dont have, and that before you can spend money, you
have to actually eran it. A concept the Left has never ever understood.

I partially accept your view on a the Labour type of state - as for earning
"money before you spend it", that has been my belief for the last 60 odd
years, it was the Tories idea of "spending money" that you didn't earn was
hard to swallow, especially when the anocronym YUPPIE was born and kids
hidden away in the financial system who had never done a days works stared
to 'bend' (and are still doing so) that system to make themselves millions
of pounds to the real detriment of the country - as proven with the events
of the last 18 months or so.

Far fetched - maybe, but things for those of us earning less than a
couple of million pounds a year don't look that good at all -
especially as it was those *******s that got us into the mess that
we are in!
If you are in the private sector and on less than 30k things should
be a little better in terms of income, and a bit worse in terms of
inflation. Overall probably neutral

An that's the majority - the *******s of minority will still benefit
hugely - so we agree!

The real losers will be the marginal public sector workers. Telephone
sanitisers and community lesbian liason officers on 65k. They will
find themselves on the dole probably, and on a pretty restricted dole
probably.
You missed a group or two out there - what about the pensioners who have to
exist on a state pension, those who for legitimate reasons have to exist on
a fixed income - especially as VAT is expected to reach 20 to 25% and
possibly included on food. Rather like the last Tory govenment increasing
VAT from 8 to 17.5% and sticking that on gas and electricity as well. As I
said, only the rich *******s will benefit - and most of them have never done
a days work in their lives having inherited their filthy lucre.

Six billion pounds of cuts to come - now I wonder where that is to
come from, certainly *NOT* from the pockets of the likes of Ashcroft
and his ilk?

Some will, I can assure you. No one is making money out of this. Apart
from Tony Blair, of course.

Not enough to make even a pin-prick in the nation debt, but it will
certainly add to the millions that Cameron and Clegg have inherited.

I read on the 't internet earlier today that a Lib-Dem council in
deepest Wales has increased the cost of burials by several hundred
pounds per grave to try and claw back some of the cuts already
taking place there - and that is just the f*****g start!!

Well that's reasonable. No worse than an inheritance tax.

And you think that a private sector worker on at least the minimum wage will
pay inheritance tax? Now that is a typical Tory response

Oh! But that very same council is spending a fortune on the golf
tournament that's taking place there this year - a matter of
priorities eh? Now *THAT* *IS* the lib dem/tory ethos in reality.


No worse than gay lesbian afro caribbean drop in centers.

But at least that's spreading the wealth where it can do some good - unlike
a Lib/Tory ego building kiddies game.

The Tory plans are that in general such councils will in time, be able
to raise their own money by local taxes, have a fairly free hand to
raise and spend as they like, but no longer be able to depend on the
central state for funding, and no longer able to evade responsibility
for their actions with their local electorate.,

Thatcher took away central funding for local government and introduced the
Poll tax causing riots - and I bet that if the govenment hadn't capped
son-of-poll tax rises to 5% you'd be screaming your balls off at the
unfairness of it - and you really want to go further down that road?

That's what all eh
peoples power bit is about. If you don't like it, vote the *******s
out, stand for local election yourself, and manage your own budgets
yourselves.

And all that would happen is that the *new* politicians will succumb to the
same old system - as those in Parliament have done - and still live high on
the hog to the detriment of others.

If it looks like local councils actually will have the power to do
more than rubber stamp central government decisions, I am sorely
tempted to do just that.

If you have really delved into the realms of local governent (which I really
doubt), you will find that many really would like to be free from central
governments "rubber stamp" but that will not happen in practice - and
freedom from that is, and will be illusory. Thatcher's government gave that
illusion of "freedom", but in practice, strangled local government and in
fact, increased costs hugely as a result whilst "screwing down council's
income from central funding and other sources - she even introduced the
Right to Buy of council housing *AND* then refused to allow the local
authorities to spend the gains off that.

As a matter of further interest, when Thatcher introduced the poll tax, my
rated bill went up from around £160 a year to nearly £450 and my council
services were hugely reduced because central government funding was reduced
to below the income from the poll tax.

No, Tory fiscal control has more to do with funding their rich backers from
wherever they can redirect the money from essential services using the old
smoke and mirrors routine (a routine which is used by all political parties)

Falco

Who by the way, really has no political affiliation and only comments on
what he has experienced over many years.


Posted through x-privat.org as Albasani seems to be down.

Falco wrote:
Thatcher's government gave that
illusion of "freedom", but in practice, strangled local government and in
fact, increased costs hugely as a result whilst "screwing down council's
income from central funding and other sources - she even introduced the
Right to Buy of council housing *AND* then refused to allow the local
authorities to spend the gains off that.


I have one response to you, Falco.

David Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher, and the party is, by and large,
not the same party.

From time to time a/the lunatic ideological wing of a party takes over,
wrecks the party for a generation, and then as it becomes totally
unelectable, is gradually forced out. That happened at the end of
Thatchers time, it has happened with Broon, it happened with Michael
Foot etc..It happened with Bush and the Neocons..

It has taken a generation to clear the handbag swinging hard line 'on
yer bikes' people out of the Tory party and return it to the general
sort of center right area it had under - say - Macmillan.

Ideologues are always dangerous, because to them, the end justifies the
means. Thatcher and Broon are similar, in that they seem to truly
believe their own bull****, and both in their way have damaged the nation.

In addition, they will ally themselves with the worst elements in any
party, in order to get power, and stay in power. Ultimately that
destroys the party in terms of its electability.

The force in play now, is a ruthless but very considered pragmatism
towards specific goals: I suspect Francis Maude is behind it
somewhere..in short to form alliances with who ever is prepared to
genuinely help, and marginalise the ideologues: and the target is more
GDP, and less debt, with as little social friction and tribalism as
possible.

In this contect the coalition is an advantage: it adds credibility to
the alliance, and calms peoples fears of what a full Tory majority might
have led to, swingeing cuts with a rather nasty political bias against
the part of the electorate that voted labour: Namely the North east,
Scotland, Wales and the North west. This would only, after all, be a
reversal on New Labour policies,which has bled the South East dry to
fund the great public sector and unemployed areas (as detailed above).

It is a mistake, however, to project the motives and activities of the
Labour party onto to the new conservatives.,. They learnt the lesson of
Thatcher.

hat is why all this frantic cosying up to e.g. Alex Salmon: Cameron, and
the Toreis need him to be onside, Any Scottish cuts have to be run past
him, and will probably be discussed with him, not because Salmon is ever
going to entirely agree, but because he can if convinced og the
necessity, at least manage his power base so there are no riots in the
streets.

This is the ploy. Whether you regard it as cynical, or simple
pragmatism, or a genuine desire to actually gain some form of cross
party consensus for deeply moral reasons, doesn't matter. The policy
that will be worked out, will not base its validity on 'because its for
the (whatever electorate you command)'s good against (the other lot) but
on the basis that of a set of very bad alternatives, its probably the
least damaging to all.

Its a different interpretation of 'Fair'.

Te basic position is, we need to slash public spending and increase
taxation, and shift the economic activity of the country away from
inward recycling of money through the public sector, and a fat cut off
the financial community, towards genuine *production* of wealth and
especially exportable wealth. That means people will in time have to
come out of the public sector, and enter the private sector, and learn
how to work again. In terms of actual results, not just ticking boxes on
yet another form.

The Thatcher way would have been swingeing cuts and mass unemployment:
the pail of cold water thrown over the workforce. That works if you have
the majority, and its bloody fast, but its socially very divisive. Your
post shows that it has left a deeply felt resentment among those who
never realised why it was necessary, and in fact it led to the demise of
moderate right politics for a generation. You were either a Thatcherite,
or New Labour. New Labour failed. It failed because there wasn't the
competence in the Party to actually achieve any of its (ostensible)
aims, and in the end, it was just a rebranding of the same old dinosaurs
that have been creating a divided nation full of the unemployed
underclass, whilst preaching that they were in fact trying to do the
exact opposite.

So the Cameron way (or Francis Maude way) is to go for a more
co-operative approach: What must be done, must be done, but using such
members of the center left as are prepared to assist in making sure it
gets done with the minimum of pain, is the game.

Thatcher style methods could fix the economy, but they cant heal a
deeply divided nation. Cuts have to be shown to be hurting those in the
Tory shires as much as those in the inner cities. in my case, I don't
mind stumping up a couple of thousand a year as my contribution, but not
if it means my total lifestyle is destroyed forever. And my freedom is
replaced by diktat from Whitehall.

But public sector jobs *have* to go, eventually. And that means pain for
those in them. For a while, more debt will have to be taken on, and more
taxes will have to be levied, and those will and should fall heavily on
the more affluent and the bigger spenders, which is why I suspect VAT
will be the method: But it will be tempered by a lower rate of public
sector job losses, low income ta relief, and a reasonable underwriting
of the social security, to ensure that it doesn't result in really bad
side effects.

That plus cutting out as much unnecessary and unproductive effort in the
form of useless red tape and petty bureaucracy, is the plan.

Thatchers approach to local government was to emasculate it, in order to
stop the ghastly waste of money by left controlled councils, and limit
their powers. A situation that was seized by new Labour to make local
councils the instrument of social engineering polices. It wasn't the
right approach: The way it will *probably* go now, is that local
councils will have freedom of action restored, but the price will be
that they have to raise their own local taxes, and will not be funded
according to central government whim, and they will be made accountable
for their decisions to the local electorate. That way if teh local
council is raping you and spending it all on jollies, and gay lesbian
drop in day centers, you can vote the *******s out and put in someone
who simply collects the rubbish efficiently, and keeps the potholes in
the roads filled.. or whatever is deemed desirable in YOUR local context.

Those who are too young to remember anything other than Thatcher, wont
believe this.

Thos who can remember back to a rather kinder and more paternal tory
party of the 50's will know that Thatcher was an aberration: needed at
the time, but should have been ditched after the job was done, and a
nice sort of John Major figure put in to soothe ruffled feathers.
Unfortunately the Thatcher mania had swept through the party, and she
had knifed any possible contenders for top bitch position in the back.

That situation has been reversed. This is a style of politics we haven't
seen for 50 years, if ever. Don't judge it yet. Give it a chance.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Huge snip of a very good reply

Thatchers approach to local government was to emasculate it, in order to
stop the ghastly waste of money by left controlled councils, and limit
their powers. A situation that was seized by new Labour to make local
councils the instrument of social engineering polices. It wasn't the
right approach: The way it will *probably* go now, is that local
councils will have freedom of action restored, but the price will be
that they have to raise their own local taxes, and will not be funded
according to central government whim, and they will be made accountable
for their decisions to the local electorate. That way if teh local
council is raping you and spending it all on jollies, and gay lesbian
drop in day centers, you can vote the *******s out and put in someone
who simply collects the rubbish efficiently, and keeps the potholes in
the roads filled.. or whatever is deemed desirable in YOUR local context.

This raises a question from me. Just how do councils provide jollies,
gay and lesbian drop in centres, outreach workers and even worse, all
the translators for the influx of immigrants? What is the authority and
mandate for doing so.

Dave

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[snip]

Those who are too young to remember anything other than Thatcher, wont
believe this.

Thos who can remember back to a rather kinder and more paternal tory
party of the 50's will know that Thatcher was an aberration: needed at
the time, but should have been ditched after the job was done, and a
nice sort of John Major figure put in to soothe ruffled feathers.
Unfortunately the Thatcher mania had swept through the party, and she
had knifed any possible contenders for top bitch position in the back.

That situation has been reversed. This is a style of politics we haven't
seen for 50 years, if ever. Don't judge it yet. Give it a chance.

Interesting. But Thatcher was needed to:

1) Put the boot into the Unions (and it may need to be done again).
Those who are old enough will remember that show "The Rag Trade" and
others about industrial relations that were funny at the time because,
like Fawlty Towers, they touched a nerve of truth. They wouldn't be
funny today because all of the rubbish we had to put up with from the
Unions 50 years ago (secondary pickets, demarcation disputes, ...) has
been swept away.

2) Privatise all the stuff that should never have been in the public
sector. Remember when the Post Office ran the phones? I remember arguing
with Post Office suits in 1968 about needing networks at 1Mbps. No, you
didn't need more than 300/2400bps, and that was what you were going to
get. Public officials know better than you what you need, you see.

Yes, that was the job she was elected to do. Poll tax wasn't on the
cards, and neither was mass privatisation of anything that moves as a
matter of principle, even when it defied common sense.


if the poll tax had been rolled in carefully over a 5 year period, it
would have been fine, and the bad side effects fixed to ameliorate any
ill feeling. Instead it was banged in as a once and for all measure, and
really ****ed people off. It was the 'this is right; **** you' attitude
that was so damaging,and led to a labour government thinking it was OK
to adopt the same attitude.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Falco" wrote:


By who started the "difficult times" - greedy ******* capalistic bankers -
and they are *STILL* doing it even now!

They may have been part of it but there have been plenty of people
living beyond their means and borrowing like there's no tomorrow.

I have to admit, largely because the greedy capitalist bankers
encouraged them to, with easy access to unlimited credit at silly
interest rates that didn't reflect the lending risk. It takes two to
make a lender/borrower arrangement.

And the banks SHOULD have gone bust. Except that would have ruined the
thrifty savers as well.

And polayed merry hell with ordinary banking business - helpoing
payments flow around teh commercial world.

Which is why clear dividing lines should,m and we hope will, be drawn
between merchant banking - high risk banking - mortgage loans - medium
risk banking - and consumer deposit accounts which should be low risk.

The travesty was using money that should have been ring fenced -
customer deposits - to finance casino capitalism, for the profit of
shareholders and executives. But not their loss.

Banks have to be made small enough to fail, and to fail without crapping
on investors and depositors on minmal rates of return.


Lets hope we can sort that out.

Huge wrote:
On 2010-05-14, Falco titan@runnny-honney wrote:

By who started the "difficult times" - greedy ******* capalistic bankers -

Rubbish. The UK's problems were caused by Gordo, who has been spending
beyond our means for years.

It was an unhloy allieance.

Banks could happily lend to Gordo, who could spend it on 'job creation'
wrongly called 'investment' and buy yet another electoral bloc with it,
without fear of default. Governments don't default, do they? Triple A
rated debt is government debt..

Except of course, we are in a world where banks fail, and governments do
default.

That's the whole issue with the greek situation. You cannot have
countries borrowing at a european wide single rate, without imposing
european wide fiscal policy across the nations states. The Euro menan,
has to mean, that you are running Europe as a single economic policy.
You cant have it both ways. Either the European economy is run as a
single unit, or its not.

Today, its not integrated enough politically for that, but there is a
single currency. Its a situation that cannot last.


Whether the tanks roll into Athens, or Greeces leaves the Euro, is the
issue.

On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup

On 13/05/10 22:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there
are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup


Although, I wonder if a Government with a massive majority could "no
confidence" itself when convenient?

My cynicism is only matched by the scumminess of politicians.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 22:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/10 22:59, Falco wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

Problem is, "that is not all", nor does "the deal look good" - from
what I
heard on the early news this morning William Haig has said that there
are
plans afoot to "pass a law" preventing the dissolution of this
coalition of
idiots for the next 5 years.

My understanding is this means the PM cannot request a dissolution of
Parliament *when it suits him* but he must stay the full 5 years,
*unless* there is a vote of no confidence in the Government, in which
case 55% or more MP could vote to force an election.


I think you are correct, and I think I like that too.

Seems perfectly sensible to me. Fixed election, no fiddling the dates
and the ultimate sanction remains - and note, they are not increasing
the term of Government. If they had, that may well look dodgey.

Yup


Although, I wonder if a Government with a massive majority could "no
confidence" itself when convenient?


Normally it just dissolves parliament and calls an election: That is the
governments prerogative. Here they have ceded that prerogative in
exchange for a guarantee that the LibDems wont force the issue with a no
confidence vote.

My cynicism is only matched by the scumminess of politicians.

I dunno. I've seen scummy politicians all my life, and although there is
a slight veneer of slime on Cleggover, I think Cameron plays with a
fairly straight bat, smart enough not to need to lie. Cant really think
of a PM that I feel was more honest..John Major maybe, but he was never
given a chance.

I could be wrong, but I wasn't about T Bliar. He stank of bull**** from
the first. I really hoped Broon would be better, but although he was
more principled, he was terminally stupid, and extremely boring and dull
and he knew it and hated it and took it out on everyone around him.

It's taken a long time for the Tories to repair the damage Thatcher did.
She fixed the country, but she destroyed the conservatives for a
generation. There are still a few blow hards that need slinging out,
even now.

Falco twisted the electrons to say:
This was not repeated a far as I can tell in later news bulletins, but if
that statement is actually true - what's to stop this coalition of spinning
capitalists bringing out laws preventing parliamentary elections per se?
Now that *WILL* be the start of a dictatorship in this "fair" land of ours,
eh-what old bean!!

The "coalition of spinning capitists" wouldn't need to bring out a law
preventing parliamentary elections per se, because the previous "bunch of
alleged socialists" already did that in back in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.
Let's hope that they can sort it.
Cheers
Don

Donwill wrote:
On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

That is all....

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.
Let's hope that they can sort it.

My fear is that it is unsortable, actually.

But I believe we have the best chance with what we now have. I don't
rate the LibDems much, but they carry 23% of the vote, and that gives
the whole shebang more perceived legitimacy, and may in effect allow
them to be MORE drastic than the Tories alone would ever have dared.

It's one thing to come up with measures and have a bloc that commands
more votes than you, shout you down: But to have two parties agreeing
that its the only way, with a minority whingeing from across the
benches, is a lot easier to deal with.

I believe this is why Cameron and the boys made such an insanely
generous offer to get the coalition. They truly believe its necessary,
and that if they couldn't entirely convince the electorate, they could
at least convince the LibDems.

I also truly believe that for a time at least, tribalism has been set
aside for the good of the nation. And that is probably really what we
voted for, after all.

Until such time as it reappears, I am in support of the current arrangement.

This is uncharted territory, but at least we have some pragmatic brains
on the case.

Not a bunch of troughing dinosaurs whose sole claim to power is that a
bunch of community wurkahs and unemployed smack heads reckoned they were
a softer touch than anyone else.


Cheers
Don

On 13/05/10 08:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But I believe we have the best chance with what we now have. I don't
rate the LibDems much, but they carry 23% of the vote, and that gives
the whole shebang more perceived legitimacy, and may in effect allow
them to be MORE drastic than the Tories alone would ever have dared.

It's one thing to come up with measures and have a bloc that commands
more votes than you, shout you down: But to have two parties agreeing
that its the only way, with a minority whingeing from across the
benches, is a lot easier to deal with.

I believe this is why Cameron and the boys made such an insanely
generous offer to get the coalition. They truly believe its necessary,
and that if they couldn't entirely convince the electorate, they could
at least convince the LibDems.

I agree. This carries teh notion that unpleasant policies (unthinkable
even) will have a broader political concensus in the eyes of the public.

Lets have a look at the "working manifesto" if you can call it that,
from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677088.stm

THE ECONOMY
===========
snipped expected oridinary stuff

* Measures to promote financial stability and support business growth

Bit meaningless without details

* Next year's 1% National Insurance tax rise to be partly scrapped

* Substantial rise in income tax allowances for lowest paid from April 2011

Presumably with a higher tax rate at the top ends? Otherwise this is a
voter-happy measure that adding more debt...

* New ministerial committee to look at "structural" banking reform

Something's needed - wonder what they have in mind?

* New tax on financial transactions, clampdown on "unacceptable" bonuses

That is different. SWMBO wonders if it will afect her company, which is
an internet payment service provider, or whether it is aimed at the high
end like investment banking?

snip

EDUCATION

* Investment to reduce class sizes for children from poorer backgrounds

Spending money?

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

snip

POLITICAL REFORM

* Referendum on the Alternative Vote system for general elections

* Fixed-term Parliaments - next election in May 2015
55% of MPs required to bring government down in confidence vote

I agree with those. Note sure AV is the best system, but it seems better
than FPTP and is obviously more palatable to the Tories.
Fixed term in office seems to be a good thing.

* Committee to look at fully PR-elected House of Lords

"Look at" != "will happen". It seems more democratic, but what will it
achieve? The benefit and at teh same time, the problem with the Lords is
long term office without representation. "Good and wise lords" do not
need to electioneer so spend more time contributing wisdom to the
process. "Bad lords" would serve the interests of the rich and powerful
without regard for the ordinary man. I really cannot see much point in
an elected 2nd house. Why not make the best of the 1st house and scrap
the Lords if they really are perceived to be a problem? Personally I
think the review but limited powers of the Lords is fine as it is.

* Cut in number of MPs and equal size constituencies

Agree.

* Right of the public to "recall" corrupt MPs

Excellent - but how hard will it be for the constituents to recall the
fellow?

* Statutory register for lobbyists

Good.

* Scottish Parliament to get more powers under Calman proposals
* Referendum of devolution of further powers to Welsh assembly
* Review of Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation

Agree, as long as the 3rd point is there.

* Ban on "non-doms" sitting in Parliament
* Reform of political donations and party funding

Good.

snip


FOREIGN POLICY/EUROPE


snip

* No further powers ceded to EU without referendum

About time!

* UK not to join euro in lifetime of Parliament

No one in their right mind would join the Euro right now.

* Work to limit application of EU Working Time Directive in UK

Typical tory. This is one of the few good things to come from the EU IMO.

HEALTH

* NHS spending to rise in real terms every year of the Parliament

Hmm, more spending. Good, but where's the money coming from?


CIVIL LIBERTIES

* Great Repeal Bill including abolition of ID cards

Excellent. How far will it go though?

* Safeguards for use of personal details on the DNA database

Vague.

PENSIONS AND WELFARE


snip expected stuff

* Benefits to be conditional on willingness to work

Has been since I worked in the JobCentre in 1991. They have always been
able to stop benefits of people "not available" to work. Dole queue is
still full of scroungers though.

IMMIGRATION

* Cap on immigration from outside the European Union

Why not just go for a points system like everyone else?

ENVIRONMENT

* Aviation passenger duty replaced by plane tax

Interesting.

* No new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted

They're going somewhere else presumably?

* New nuclear power plants (Lib Dems able to abstain on issue)

Hallelujah... Seem to have reached a reasonable gentlemen's agreement
with the Libs who would rather gut themselves than touch anything
nuclear. If this is the spirit of the coalition it might just work. Now
all they need is a time machine so they can start work in 1990.

* Creation of a green investment bank.

* High-speed rail network to be built

And yet they've appointed a potential "slasher" and non train
enthusiast as transport secretary?

* No new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage

OK.

* Increased target for share of energy from renewable sources

As long as it takes the wider view and isn't a few windmills to appease
the tree shaggers.


FAMILIES


* Tax break for married couples and civil partners (Lib Dems able to
abstain)

Seems fairer.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:48:12 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:


Lets have a look at the "working manifesto" if you can call it that,
from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8677088.stm

snip

EDUCATION

snip

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

I'm all for that.

--
Frank Erskine

On 13/05/10 15:00, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:48:12 +0100, Tim wrote:

* New independent schools in state sector - "free schools" - to be set up

Maintained grammar schools again?

I'm all for that.


AOL Me too /AOL

Just wondered if that is what they actually meant...

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.


Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

That means that, on some days of the week, peak power will coincide
with peak demand. On most other days, it won't. The cycle repeats
exactly every 14 days, with 27 tides per fortnight.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.


I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

Nice idea, but ahem, a drop in the ocean....Ok I'll get my coat..but it
is really nowhere near enough.

On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

More details he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8677933.stm

I won't quote all of it, except the civil liberties bit:

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
permission.

The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide
greater transparency.

Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

Further regulation of CCTV.

Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal
offences.

.....

Bloody excellent. Wonder if "unnecessary Building Regs" will be included
in the "proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences"?

Anyway, I love that. Some semblance of a return to the Britain of my
youth in the 70's - ie bankrupt and useless, but at least the coppers
weren't fingering you for trivia!

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

More details he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8677933.stm

I won't quote all of it, except the civil liberties bit:

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
permission.

The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide
greater transparency.

Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

Further regulation of CCTV.

Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal
offences.

....

Bloody excellent. Wonder if "unnecessary Building Regs" will be included
in the "proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences"?

Anyway, I love that. Some semblance of a return to the Britain of my
youth in the 70's - ie bankrupt and useless, but at least the coppers
weren't fingering you for trivia!

yup.

Actually I think more the 80s myself. Bloody awful hard work, but there
did finally seem to be a future to work FOR.

On 5/13/2010 12:45 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


Is this anything other than advanced willy-waving? It struck me as
significant that it cost £6billion to build 60 miles from St Panc to
Dover - this is a very crowded country. Also, when I once had to go
Cambridge-Glasgow, it cost something like £60 on EasyJet and £300 by
train. Given the huge subsidies for the trains, that hints to me that
trains consume much more of society's resources to provide the same
service, although I have no numbers here.


Train prices vary wildly - a couple of weeks ago, I travelled from
London KingsX to Inverness, in first class, for 52.80. (Standard would
have been about 40.00, so I splurged.)

On 13/05/10 13:29, S Viemeister wrote:
On 5/13/2010 12:45 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


Is this anything other than advanced willy-waving? It struck me as
significant that it cost £6billion to build 60 miles from St Panc to
Dover - this is a very crowded country. Also, when I once had to go
Cambridge-Glasgow, it cost something like £60 on EasyJet and £300 by
train. Given the huge subsidies for the trains, that hints to me that
trains consume much more of society's resources to provide the same
service, although I have no numbers here.


Train prices vary wildly - a couple of weeks ago, I travelled from
London KingsX to Inverness, in first class, for 52.80. (Standard would
have been about 40.00, so I splurged.)

Going to London from Robertsbridge costs a bleeding fortune in the
morning. But last week, 2 adults, and one half fare to Hastings cost 8
quid in a nice comfortable Electrostar 375. Not as good a deal as yours!
But 8 quid for 2.5 people for both ways on a 25 minute journey is
definately in my band of "acceptable" - beats driving as I live on top
of the station

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 5/13/2010 12:45 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


Is this anything other than advanced willy-waving? It struck me as
significant that it cost £6billion to build 60 miles from St Panc to
Dover - this is a very crowded country. Also, when I once had to go
Cambridge-Glasgow, it cost something like £60 on EasyJet and £300 by
train. Given the huge subsidies for the trains, that hints to me that
trains consume much more of society's resources to provide the same
service, although I have no numbers here.


Train prices vary wildly - a couple of weeks ago, I travelled from
London KingsX to Inverness, in first class, for 52.80. (Standard would
have been about 40.00, so I splurged.)
Well I know
a very hiugh up person iuna very large train company, and the way he
explined it is this.

"Franchises vary, as do subsidies. Train operator A has a franchise on a
main line from London to the North. He paid a bloody lot for it, and so
its not subsidised, its taxed. It gets commuter traffic, so its
profitable and humongous ticket prices, BUT its the only train to get
into London for 9 a.m.

However operator B has a completely different franchise. He is operating
a local service out of grimy Northern town on branch line C. He is
subsidised to ensure that local train services exists. His trains,
however, can escape onto the main line and go to london, 'as part of the
local service' He charges almost nothing for the tickets, because he
doesn't need to: He gets paid to run trains, not carry passengers'

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

But I believe we have the best chance with what we now have. I don't rate
the LibDems much, but they carry 23% of the vote, and that gives the whole
shebang more perceived legitimacy,

No one won the election. All lost. Some lost less than others. Like those
in mid-table at the end of the football season. They did not win the title,
but never lost as they were not relegated. It is like Stoke City, Fulham
and Sunderland arguing who was best in the league this season. Only a few
points apart yet some scored more goals and some had better goal difference.
Rather petty to argue about pedantic details in mid-table.

Labour never lost in that they could have been in power if they wanted to -
but at a price. The price to them was not worth it. The Tories were
prepared to pay that price.

In the sordid shameless dealings Labour won. The Tories did not implement
fully what they wanted - they mainly represent the top 5-10% of the
population and their gift to them, inheritance tax, was not delivered, as
was many others. You could say they partially lost, but not by much.


For 4 consecutive elections the Tories failed to get a majority. And they
are in power. As Lord Faulkner said the Tories didn't give much away.

The Lib Dems sold out on PR,which would have stopped the likes of the Tories
getting in power again.

Donwill wrote:
On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.

Interesting times...

If it holds for the full five year term the lib-dems have a chance
that they really do want to be a serious party of government, the
conservatives have their liberal side reinforced and decontaminated
of the daily wail faction , and labour's payroll vote will disappear
with cuts in public expenditure. On the other hand lib-dems show
they really want only to be dreamers, conservatives tears apart etc

--
djc