Be Excellent To Each Other

I think the Lib Dems did just fine and should be congratulated. The thing people continuously fail to appreciate is that as a minority partner they can't *force* anything. They didn't all suddenly just become Tory dupes. As Cavey says, acting as even a slight braking force against silly Tory policy is a pretty good arrangement.

Much better than a Labour/Nationalist combo, anyway.

I love this

Can't they "block" stuff by, I don't know, not voting for it?

yes, but that is not the same as forcing through their own policies.

They got their referendum on alternative votes. That was worth breaking the promise of tuition fees for.

In fairness though Mali, 20/20 hindsight and all that?

Or maybe, having got into government and therefore having to operate in the real world and not fucking lala land, they saw the situation left by Labour necessitated implementing higher tuition fees after all.

The only thing Clegg 'broke', as far as I can see, was this NUS Vote For Students pledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge), unless you expected the Lib Dems to be able to wholly implement a manifesto pledge despite not actually being voted into government?

Nah, much better just to offload hate onto Clegg ad nauseum.

Only to an extent. They signed up to a coalition agreement, so if they rebelled on any point of note, chances are the coalition would be dissolved. Given their popularity rate for the last few years, that would be a bad move for them (on a self-preservation basis).

I think the Lib Dems have been overly harshly judged, but I think that their political naivety has been shown up by the Conservatives. In short, they had a stronger position than they thought they did when negotiating the coalition. No doubt it would play slightly differently if they were to get a similar amount of seats. They won't, though, so it's largely irrelevant.

if people knew tuition fees would go up, they would not have gotten so many seats. It was the main cause of the party's popularity. much more than a shitty referendum.

I think the main source of their popularity was that they weren't Labour of the conservatives, rather than any particular manifesto pledge.

That was basically why I voted for them.

Their popularity was down to Clegg not being a dick in the debates.

"I agree with Gordon"

I thought Cleggmania was ridiculous at the time. Everyone was humping him in the run-up to the election, except it didn't translate into more seats. Then Clegg became the hated whipping boy and literally for the first couple of years of the coalition the media didn't let up on shitting all over him as often as possible.

I feel very sorry for him. He always struck me as a lightweight leader and I think the last few years have been hard on him. If I was him I'd retire and write a book, be a non-exec director of something or other that pays me millions for 'consultancy', bank the proceeds and fuck off to the Caribbean.

I've never liked him, if that helps.

Oh so they allowed all those policies that hurt the vulnerable in society so they could remain in power? Gotcha.

It's called "compromise". It's one of the fundamental parts of negotiation and politics. They get some policies through, but not all. They got all of their "main" front-page ones through but not all of them (e.g. decriminalizing cannabis)

The Pupil Premium was a Lib Dem policy, as was raising the tax boundary. Both very sensible ideas that the Tories have been trying to claim the credit for.

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

Raising the personal allowance is originally a UKIP policy. Follows the basis of how can the government set a threshold of a minimum level of income with the minimum wage and then tax it?

Of course UKIP disagreed with minimum wage at the time so how much of that was game playing at the time I can't recall. Also it doesn't stack up as a theory unless you scrap national insurance at the same level too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32478282

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

And I like this too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32498032

I like what Russell Brand has to say and I reckon Cameron is a cunt. So there you go, balance is restored.

Knowing that by voting I will be pissing Mr Brand off is perhaps one of the few upsides to this election.

"Don't vote"?

You can stay at home then and continue to whine about how other people don't do enough for you.

If you're really that annoyed at the electoral system, vote for the Raving Loonies, or become a goddamn candidate and do something about it yourself.

Russell Brand is a stunning fucking moron and inarticulately demands 'revolution' of some kind. Just some kind of general overthrow of the current system. Into what, he certainly doesn't know. Loud and vague proclamations while saying 'Power to the people' and 'Down with the establishment'. Just total nonsense in every sense. The hero of the average derpy twat that hasn't got a clue themselves.

Nah, the rest of it. For starters, I liked his pieces on the government and medias various agenda in telling simple stories to the masses about complex issues involving the Middle East and the black and white forces of good & evil. Only this morning Cameron was on radio 4 bleating about "evil terrorists" and it was difficult to understand who he was talking about.

They haven't got a candidate in North Bedforshire. There's one in Mid Bedfordshire though, the buggers.

And please, before you start your rants at me, I don't necessarily believe he is the new Jesus and we should all start a revolution etc. I just like some of the things he had to say in his own charismatic way. Just because you 'like' something doesn't mean you prescribe to those viewpoints wholesale.

His YouTube "The Trews" is very watchable although I dare say you've never watched it and just read about what Brand has said reported in the press (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think he is at least sincere, if very detached from reality in terms of what sort of world there could ever be. All his plans seem to rely on it not being chock full of selfish fucking cunts.

Interesting that the economy has slowed its growth for 5 successive quarters now, all of which are below the rate that the coalition inherited it with.

That's hardly a great recovery...

That's some brass neck to talk of "inheritance" (totally false 'dead mans bounce' off the back of obscene borrowing btw). The only thing the current incumbents inherited off Labour was a big ol' Hand of Shite. Just no argument on that score, sorry Curio.

Personally speaking, and I appreciate you'll disagree (which is fine of course), but I think that which has been achieved in less than 5 short years from meltdown is nothing short of miraculous; only just recently another 70,000 jobs created? It does really beg the question: just what would it take to actually satisfy the government's detractors? Like I always say, people have to be realistic - but then, they never are of course.

(Don't even get me started on Russell Brand... that guy whose paella went cold as a result of one of his stunts had it about right I reckon).

Consider yourself corrected, although I did only watch the one episode before deciding it was utter and absolute bollocks.

What would it take to satisfy the detractors?

Austerity policies driven by ideological rather than economical reason to be shelved.

An economy not headed towards recession and deflation whilst those at the top get richer and richer.

Blame for global economic issues and national issues not to be laid at the door of a largely non-existent class of 'scrounged'.

Promotions within the party not based on who your mates are as opposed to competence. Grant Shapps as chairman? If that was Labour then the Tories would never shut up about it. The man's an absolute joke.

Any of those would be a start.

Agreed on Shapps (but then, idiotic appointments and/or nepotism are hardly the sole preserve of the Tory Party, Labour has more than its fair share of joke appointments, recent past and present, including to its front bench, let alone just executive Party roles)

'Unnecessary' austerity measures? Disagree for the most part, albeit that's not to say I don't find many distasteful, as I do. But necessary, in the main, as evidenced by the inarguable recovery - 2 million more people in work, growing economy that's bigger than post 2008 Depression levels etc. etc.

The rich were getting richer as never before under Labour btw, and unlike now, there were far worse levels of youth unemployment even when under the (false banker) boom.

I note you didn't pick up on any of my last points but hey, I'm used to it.

Did anyone see that the Conservatives have promised to find 12 billion extra cash money from savings but wouldn't tell the Institute of Fiscal Studies where they planned on getting the green backs from?

The Con Treasurer was on R4 earlier today and refused to give an answer. 3 times, I believe, he was asked but refused since he didn't want to get into "the fine details" since it's so complex for us spaz. Fucking cop out. WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM, Dave?

Which last points?

(Serious question, not trolling)

That Telegraph small business letter has numerous problems: https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... lectorate/

Including:

- misrepresenting it as being spontaneously written by business people when it was actively compiled by CCHQ
- included several charities, against their will. Charities are not allowed to have political affiliation
- includes numerous (60+) duplicate entries amongst the 5000 signatures -- where someone who owns more than one business has signed the letter more than once
- includes several people who did not consent, and have demanded to be removed
- includes dozens of businesses that have either dissolved or are in liquidation

Also, an independent poll of 1000+ small business owners (as opposed to not-exactly-5,000 picked by the Tories) put the Conservatives ahead of Labour on the question "which party would be most dangerous for the economy" -- likely driven by the Tory commitment to hold a referendum on Europe. UKIP topped this question.

Bit of a shambolic effort, really.

Doesn't matter, though. Unless it hits the headlines on one of the major newspapers, 95% of people are going to think 5,000 small businesses wrote a letter. Which I suppose was the point.

Yup.

Liars gonna lie!

Well, it's customary in a debate to challenge, acknowledge or concede your opponent's principal points before raising further questions. I countered your claim concerning the supposedly fortuitous 'inheritance' bequeathed to a grateful nation by the last outgoing Labour government with the fairly obvious observation that actually, they'd landed us in a full-blown Depression, worst for at least 60 years.

I also mentioned 70,000 new jobs created in the last quarter.

However, I've never thought you are a troll, Curio. In all the many years I've known you, here and WoS before, you've always been a total gent, sir, even though we're poles apart politically speaking. You're most certainly one of the good guys here.

Yeah, but at the end of the day, Gaywood, as ever, dodges the substantive points, which are:

1. Businesses, large, medium and small, tend to be far more supportive of the Conservatives and generally fear a Labour government (and most especially a minority Labour government propped up by an economically illiterate party intent on wrecking the UK, i.e. the SNP)

2. Money markets equally hate said prospect of the Labour government and we would all pay heavily in terms of interest rates levied

It also begs the question WHY.

Of course, I don't defend any misleading bullshit that may well have occurred here, but let's be generous and say that perhaps 100 of those 5000 companies cited are in some way bogus, insolvent or whatever? Um, that still leaves 4900.

So as per, nitpicking, Pyrrhic bollocks over substantive argument and actually grasping the nettle? Political spin doctors in bending the truth shocker; that never happened during Labour's time in office, eh.

Nothing changes; pie chart probably incoming as we speak.

Ah, but if 1,000+ businesses were polled and said that they considered the Conservatives more dangerous than other parties, then that's pretty telling.

(I got into an "argument" on PistonHeads recently because a survey of British Muslims commissioned by Sky News showed that 30% had some sympathy with young Muslims going off to fight in Syria. I found it incredulous that a population of 2.7million could be considered to be "surveyed" from a sample size of 1,001 - only to be well and truly schooled in that statistically, that was actually a high sample size and that they would only have needed to ask around ~300-350 to get a 97% accurate result, or something like that.)

Consequently, 1,000+ businesses out of presumably far fewer than 2.7 million in the country is quite a statistical "balls" to the Tories.

Major like the Guardian? http://gu.com/p/47q48

The Independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06742.html

The BBC? http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7150674

Not online, in print. And on the front page, because that's as far as most people get.

BBC: Tories to pledge new law banning tax rises.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. There's no obligation to raise tax in every budget: you just don't have to include it.
Moreover, not only is it dangerous to limit yourself like that ('events, dear boy, events') but there's nothing stopping the Act being repealed in the same Parliament. Finally, it's the kind of pointless symbolic legislation that wastes Parliamentary time and doesn't achieve anything.

Grrr.

Yep. This is singularly the most bullshit idea I've ever heard on tax policy, and I've seen the detail and effects of a lot over the past 20 years.

(Edit - just remembered the Green manifesto. Second most)

That said however, it does reaffirm my belief on where both the Tories and labour are getting the money from in the next five years without raising the key taxes. Insurance Premium Tax is massively underpriced, and should really quadruple to align with VAT.

George Osborne, Hansard, 2009:



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 6-0009.htm

Superb!

It is a rare day when I agree with the Murphmonster (which timing implies is where you drew this from), but also:



However he then typically eradicates any credibility in his own argument by spouting bollocks in the very next sentence


No he isn't. He's saying no Income Tax, VAT or NIC rises. None of these are green taxes. None of these are putative new taxes.

Murphy often has a point. But to reinforce his point he floats it in a sea of sewage so vast that it sinks under the waves of effluent in the same post.

I got it from Twitter (although I fact checked the quote out of Hansard before posting), not whatever you are quoting. I agree with your disagreement though.