Hung parliaament - phew

Grumpycupple

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Cameron and Clegg haven't been elected either other than to serve their constituencies.

We don't elect leaders, the Parties elect leaders - we vote for Members of Parliament.

GG

I did wonder whether anyone else would notice this.

Bullfighter

fc123 wrote: »

Mr Humphrey may pop up over the next few days...he works on 'The Inside' and has written very eloquently on the differences bewteen state debt and personal debt.

Your post is a very big generalisation.....I know someone who has loved off the doel for 2 decades and voted Cameron on Thursday.

Generalising is dangerous and you can miss stuff...the invisible stuff.

I have no Beans, no Gold nor a Gun and but I do have a roll of tinfoil in tne drawer just in case;)

You're right, I am generalising.

However the point remains that if a government creates a million public sector jobs and engenders a benefits culture amongst a swathe of the country and then campaigns on a platform of 'no public sector cuts' then they are assured a large % of votes from those people.

A._Badger

carolt wrote: »

AFAIK, she received less than Blair, and Brown can't be compared, as he was never elected.

It depends, of course, on what you are measuring. But in 1989, the Tories won 43.87% of the popular vote. In 1983, they won 42.4%, while in 1987 it was 42.2%.

Either way, talk of 'dictatorship' is simply juvenile.

Really2

Bullfighter wrote: »

However the point remains that if a government creates a million public sector jobs and engenders a benefits culture amongst a swathe of the country and then campaigns on a platform of 'no public sector cuts' then they are assured a large % of votes from those people.

I kind of made this point on a poll on here.

Considering we are far deeper poop than we ever were with Thatcher. I just found the vote for labour being so high odd and concluded (I believe) it had to be related to public sector expenditure.

Look what happened to greece and the damage an overblown public sector and stupid perks for such workers (retire at 53) do to a country.

Voting for this to carry on was a vote for your children to be poorer so you can live better IMHO.

A._Badger

Really2 wrote: »

I kind of made this point on a poll on here.

Considering we are far deeper poop than we ever were with Thatcher..... <sinnped>

There are plenty of people who like to castigate Margaret Thatcher who, during the 'winter of discontent' were more bothered about having their nappies changed regularly than what was going on outside. Or who were not born at all - and who certainly know little history.

"Thatcher" has just become a meme. In the 19th century, mothers used to threaten their children with 'Old Boney'. As an analysis of Napoleon Bonaparte's role in European history , it has about as much validity as having 'Thatcher!' spat in your face by the political equivalent of a poo-flinging monkey.

Bullfighter

A._Badger wrote: »

There are plenty of people who like to castigate Margaret Thatcher who, during the 'winter of discontent' were more bothered about having their nappies changed regularly than what was going on outside. Or who were not born at all - and who certainly know little history.

"Thatcher" has just become a meme. In the 19th century, mothers used to threaten their children with 'Old Boney'. As an analysis of Napoleon Bonaparte's role in European history , it has about as much validity as having 'Thatcher!' spat in your face by the political equivalent of a poo-flinging monkey.

What should be scaring the living cr&p out of most anti-tory people is that Thatcher did not cut public spending, in fact the only period in recent history when core public spending has been cut in real terms was in the mid ’70s under Labour.

Party politics aside, we are proper f*cked.

Wookster

Bullfighter wrote: »

The truth is whoever is in charge is going to have to make £50bn in cuts this year. Nice it won't be.

I rather doubt we'll see £50BN this year.

But the scale of the crisis a coalition government would be much better placed to make the sort of cuts required.

I heard read that a rise in the VAT rate from 17.5% to 25% would fill one quarter of the deficit.

If true, this shows just how serious the crisis is.

baby_boomer

Wookster wrote: »

a coalition government would be much better placed to make the sort of cuts required

I see where you're coming from - but don't entirely agree.

British politicians won't come together to cut our deficit. They have too much to lose.

They'll only do it after the markets have trashed the £ and everyone can see that they have no choice. At that point a coalition may be best.

Once everyone can see that we're all *******.

Wookster

baby_boomer wrote: »

I see where you're coming from - but don't entirely agree.

British politicians won't come together to cut our deficit. They have too much to lose.

They'll only do it after the markets have trashed the £ and everyone can see that they have no choice. At that point a coalition may be best.

Once everyone can see that we're all *******.

The way I see it, the Torys will cut because that's in their nature. The Lib Dems will cut the deficit because Cable is an educated economist.

Labour just don't get it, and Gordon will keep on harping about "Tory cuts vs Labour investment" until the cows come home.

Bullfighter

Wookster wrote: »

I rather doubt we'll see £50BN this year.

But the scale of the crisis a coalition government would be much better placed to make the sort of cuts required.

I heard read that a rise in the VAT rate from 17.5% to 25% would fill one quarter of the deficit.

If true, this shows just how serious the crisis is.

Maybe, but since VAT is a consumption tax, people will just stop consuming.

Their are no silver bullets.