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!
Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely
Comments
-
The to 1% of earners already pay at least 25% of total income tax.
It's admirable that you want to pay more though (I'm assuming by your statement that you're one of the "better off" & volunteering to pay more yourself - not just someone spouting how someone else should pay for everything).
It's a seductive promise: soak the rich, bash the scroungers, take from everyone except me. It's what drove Labour's massive expansion of tax credits and the welfare state: it meant any changes to redistribution of income would be an attack on the majority, even those whose income was being redistributed back to themselves.0 -
So why did the Tories vote down Lords reform when they must have known the Libs would then vote down this Legislation??0
-
So why did the Tories vote down Lords reform when they must have known the Libs would then vote down this Legislation??
That appears to be a massive strategic blunder by the Tories. It's pretty clear the deal was that the Libs would get a vote on AV in return for the Tories gerrymandering. Then when the Libs got a good kicking in the AV vote they moved the goalposts & are now claiming the deal was in return for Lords reform.
Very foolish of the Tories to allow the vote on AV and block the Lords reform when there was still plenty of time for the Libs to screw them over on boundary changes.0 -
That appears to be a massive strategic blunder by the Tories. It's pretty clear the deal was that the Libs would get a vote on AV in return for the Tories gerrymandering. Then when the Libs got a good kicking in the AV vote they moved the goalposts & are now claiming the deal was in return for Lords reform.
Very foolish of the Tories to allow the vote on AV and block the Lords reform when there was still plenty of time for the Libs to screw them over on boundary changes.
See post #35No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
They wouldn't be calling the shots, but the biggest party would have to negotiate with them. This is the norm in most countries. The trouble is that the British political system is too adversarial - it's too much of an 'us and them' mentality. There is common ground between all the major parties.
If you think that them and us is going to end any time soon then you are irrationally idealistic. Politicians are now full time professionals chasing their own career advancement -- being in office represents career success and vice versa. They will say and do what they think it takes to get elected or re-elected. That includes a heavy dose of slagging off the other lot all the time. The electorate is partly to blame for being so gullible, short-termist, and easily swayed by spin and propaganda. It works, so politicians keep doing it.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Yay, it a victory for the self interest of MPs over democracy.
Regardless of political persuasion the principle of one man one vote is generally accepted as a good one. It becomes pretty meaningless when one persons vote is worth less than someone living in a different area whos MP is elected on a much smaller constituency.
The principal is sound but it was the present Government that skewed the decision making by pre-determining that the IOW. population of 110K should elect two MPs when the average constituency in the UK was 71K.
If you play politics you deserve to have politics played on you.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
cameron needs to increase his % of the popular vote to win in 2015,no govt in modern times has done that
THis election will have other factors to consider including UKIP - Tory fights and the impact in Scotland of the outcome of the 2014 independence vote.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I disagree.Thrugelmir wrote: »Vote for what? Putting politics aside. No single party has anything to offer the electorate. The sweet shop is empty. All that's left is a credit card bill that needs paying every month.
The party that wins the next election will need to be honest. As in the next 2 years. A whole generation are going to understand what recession actually means. As all they've experienced previously is booming house prices, cheaper goods in the shops and rising wages. Thanks to rapid advances in technology, loose credit lending conditions, cheaper labour in Asia and excess money in the economy due to a buy now pay later culture.
Days of these are numbered. A new dawn is on the horizon. We may sit on an island but we are not immune to global influences.
I spent New year in Scotland. Drove carefully and slowly over the pothole-scarred roads read in the papers how the college sector is getting a kicking, and also heard worries about how merging and closing schools is increasing pupil travel costs and times. How amalgamating the emergency services (making them more efficient is how that's marketed) is decreasing local democracy and so on.
The reason - so the Scottish government (ie the SNP) can subsidise flagship policies that the public wants them to prioritise like free university education and prescrptions.
Of course you can swallow the myth that this is using money stolen from English pockets if that makes you feel better but it's actually really down to clever handling of a budget to pander to public desires while making cuts under the radar that people will happily bear. If you find politicians that are clever enough that they can do that then vote them into power.
Polls show that the voters would vote them in now with the same majority they had a few years ago even though (a) they've been in power for 6 years and (b) they're under a constant hostile media onslaught and (c) currently only a minority are interested in their flagship policyThere is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards