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
-
angrypirate wrote: »Having constituencies with similar population has been the idea for a long time.
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_1885
My point is that the proposed legislation is unnecessary because there isn't such a huge difference in population size between constituencies anyway. There are some anomalies, like the Isle of Wight and some rural areas in Scotland, but these are only a few exceptions.0 -
Isnt necessary? The tories got a higher % of votes than labour did in 2005 and labour got a big majority and you brush it off saying a change is unnecessary? You are Red Ed and i claim my £5Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »My point is that the proposed legislation is unnecessary because there isn't such a huge difference in population size between constituencies anyway. There are some anomalies, like the Isle of Wight and some rural areas in Scotland, but these are only a few exceptions.0 -
Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »Exactly, and Blair happily went along with it because he was the US' lapdog.
As would any Prime Minister in this country."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »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).
But they're not on the extreme fringes! Which is it?0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »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.
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.
We are in deep trouble. We have been since the 70s,. successive Governments have just sold off the countries best assets and remortgaged the remainder several times over. They even encouraged the populace to take on debt to keep the sinking ship a float a little longer. We are saturated in debt. If the country were an individual with rising debt, assets with limited current value, and falling income with no realistic improvement visible it would no doubt be called bankrupt.
Some form of protectionism will need to be adopted but it won't be called that officially. That is until we, the west and east, percolate to and reach the same universal level decades hence."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
angrypirate wrote: »Isnt necessary? The tories got a higher % of votes than labour did in 2005 and labour got a big majority and you brush it off saying a change is unnecessary? You are Red Ed and i claim my £5
The same happened in 1974 when Heath was turfed out of office and I don't recall the same fuss being made then. The British electoral system is based on the number of seats you win, not having the most votes - the American system is similar. It might appear unfair, but that's how it is.0 -
BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »Hopefully it will be another 20 years before they win again :T
Because you think the Labour party did an amazing job while they were in power?!?!? :eek:Every generation blames the one before...
Mike + The Mechanics - The Living Years0 -
-
Ruggedtoast - do you work in a poster museum?0
-
...because it isGracchus_Babeuf wrote: »It might appear unfair,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