We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
(Text removed by MSE Forum Team) The Tories/Liberliars
Comments
-
JonnyBravo wrote: »So a system which moves towards votes being "worth" equal amounts would clearly be good?
:rotfl:
Oh I see. You mean the constituencies which result in Labour winning the seat should continue to have fewer people in them as that kind of bias is ok.
No, I don't think anyone has missed the point but you. You like the bias as it currently stands in Labour's favour. You don't like the Tories so see any move towards a more equal system as a wicked plot by the evil Tory overlords.
Oh I'm sure they will swing it as far in their favour as they can, but your inability to see the unfairness in the other direction is laughable and simply makes your argument puerile.
Nonsense - there is such a thing as the Boundary Commission that regulates constituency boundaries and works towards ensuring that these are fair and properly determined. The existing system is not biased in favour of Labour, it's simply the way that the trend has worked out over the years - decades ago the bias was in favour of the conservatives.
What the current government wants to do is impose arbitrary rules that enforce an almost identical population in every consitituiency, regardless of geographical size and town/country mix. This is what is wrong and defeats the point of having distinct areas with similar social mixes.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »Libertarian = new Tory
It really isn't....0 -
-
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »
If the economy grows faster than the interest repayments on debt, then no matter how large the debt, it can safely be serviced. What we need is a government that creates growth, not destroys it.
It maybe that the growth we had in the past for the last 30 years - and to which we all became accustomed to as being 'normal' was actually an aberation. Call it a bubble if you wish.
It maybe be that the current situation of low growth is the new 'normal' - and is going to be like this for the next 30+ years.
The Uk's past growth was in part fueled by North Sea oil which is now declining at a fair old rate and there seem to be some evidence that a rise in growth triggers a rise in world oil prices leading to the said growth stopping. There are also some theories that the 'Arab Spring' was triggered by rising food prices which were themselves a direct result of the USA's current monetary policies.
So it could be that the world economy has flipped into a new economically stable state in the same way that say the climate is supposed to have flipped into an ice age in the past.0 -
ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »It maybe that the growth we had in the past for the last 30 years - and to which we all became accustomed to as being 'normal' was actually an aberation. Call it a bubble if you wish.
It maybe be that the current situation of low growth is the new 'normal' - and is going to be like this for the next 30+ years..
Well, if this is the case then we are in deep trouble. The population keeps growing, largely because of immigration and the high fecundity of immigrant communities, so what are these children going to be doing in 20 years' time? It's the government that needs to stimulate growth by investing and directing the economy. 'Laissez faire' economics doesn't work any more - if it ever did in the first place.ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »The Uk's past growth was in part fueled by North Sea oil which is now declining at a fair old rate and there seem to be some evidence that a rise in growth triggers a rise in world oil prices leading to the said growth stopping. There are also some theories that the 'Arab Spring' was triggered by rising food prices which were themselves a direct result of the USA's current monetary policies.
So it could be that the world economy has flipped into a new economically stable state in the same way that say the climate is supposed to have flipped into an ice age in the past.
Much of past growth was due to reconstruction following WW2 and yes, the oil boom helped as well. The end of the cold war also impacted certain industries. The main problem now is that Western countries cannot compete with low wage developing nations like India, China, etc, so the old tradition of free trade needs to be jettisoned. We need to build a protective wall around us (the EU) and prevent us from being dragged down to developing nation levels. It's not nice, but not being 'nice' could just about save our future.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »I beg to disagree - free market capitalism requires a libertarian outlook to thrive. This is why many on the extreme fringes of the Tories favour legalising cannabis, unlimited immigration, etc.
Eh? I was under the impression that the "extreme" Tories were against either of these. Can you name one who is for these?
The Tories can't be libertarian as they put far too much time and effort in trying to stop liberal social policies, such as same sex marriage.0 -
Having constituencies with similar population has been the idea for a long time.Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »You'ver missed the point. A constituency exists to represent a distinct area with a broadly similar social identity - redrawing boundaries arbitrarily will mix towns with countryside and defeat the entire point of having constituencies in the first place. This is just the Tories changing the rules when they lose the game.
This isnt a radical ideal to get more seats for the tories. The concept of equally populated constituencies was introduced in 1885.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_Seats_Act_18850 -
-
ruggedtoast wrote: »Thata just McCarthyist propaganda.
No, it isn't. I don't see the Eastern European ex-Communist states rushing back to embrace Marxism any time soon.Its silly and does nothing to further mature political discourse.
As opposed to putting up political poster jpegs, obviously.0 -
Eh? I was under the impression that the "extreme" Tories were against either of these. Can you name one who is for these?
The Tories can't be libertarian as they put far too much time and effort in trying to stop liberal social policies, such as same sex marriage.
Cameron, Boris and all the public school toffs are all in favour of same sex marriage and similar ultra-liberal measures. The noises Cameron makes are to appease the Tory grass roots (retired officers in Miss Marple villages and the like).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards