Reviewing the Coalition

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I agree, we should have had more austerity and also saved a few quid but getting rid of the gross inequality of the Barnett formula - hopefully going forward with no Scottish MPs in the ruling coalition there will be no blockers to restoring fairness

Giving the Scots FFA would cut the deficit by c£15bn pa, cutting it from £107bn to £92bn at a stroke.

IveSeenTheLight

crash123 wrote: »

If it is as good as you say it is the Conservatives should be miles ahead in the option polls.

Is it possible that this is reflective of Conservative constituencies?

That said, they are polling to lose seats today

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm missing your point entirely I'm afraid to say. As isolating a period of time tells us absolutely nothing. Far too simplistic. To save money costs money. As the savings come longer term. While short term borrowings rise as a result of cancelling contracts.

Good attempt at misdirection, but surely we should have seen over the term and reduction in the overall spending.
If not, how long is it expected to see the fruits of these decisions?

I'd be keen to understand and see examples you have where it costs money to save money and what those overall savings are.

what specific contracts can you refer to and what did they put in place.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Giving the Scots FFA would cut the deficit by c£15bn pa, cutting it from £107bn to £92bn at a stroke.

So, are you pro union or not?
The Conservatives you report are pro union, so will we ever see FFA or Devo Max in a conservative government?

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Plenty of people oppose the 'bedroom tax' (aka getting people with subsidised homes to live in an appropriately sized house)

If you use biased enough wording then anything sounds reasonable. It is aka known as taking money off thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable in society for no other reason than the council not having any smaller properties for them to move to

Clearly the coalition hasn't dropped any absolute clangers. I do find it amusing how the thing most often held up as their best change, raising the basic rate tax threshold, was a policy the conservatives were adamant could not possibly be afforded before the last election; and which they now can't stop going on about.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm missing your point entirely I'm afraid to say. As isolating a period of time tells us absolutely nothing. Far too simplistic. To save money costs money. As the savings come longer term. While short term borrowings rise as a result of cancelling contracts.

The Conservative manifesto of 2010 was to reduce the bulk of the deficit by now. Hadn't they considered the cost of cancelling all these contracts and the effect on short term borrowings if it's so obvious?

N1AK

MumOf2 wrote: »

So what do you hear in the media - that people don't feel that they're benefitting. Well, you can say anything for the camera, you can 'feel' anything you like. But the reality is there for all to see.

And what's going to happen in this ultra marginal?

I like how you dismiss other people's anecdotals as 'saying anything for the camera' but share your equally anecdotal experience as though it should somehow be treated differently :rotfl:

I also like how you paint a picture of your local area as the land of milk and honey, there for all to see. Then highlight that the electorate is likely to vote out a member of the government that supposedly brought about these bountiful times... it's almost as if they don't share your opinion.

IveSeenTheLight

N1AK wrote: »

I like how you dismiss other people's anecdotals as 'saying anything for the camera' but share your equally anecdotal experience as though it should somehow be treated differently :rotfl:

I also like how you paint a picture of your local area as the land of milk and honey, there for all to see. Then highlight that the electorate is likely to vote out a member of the government that supposedly brought about these bountiful times... it's almost as if they don't share your opinion.

It's not the first contradictory anecdote spouted in here

Sapphire

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

I really think we should have done more internationally. We really scaled back on fighting overseas during the last 5 years because everybody was terrified to end up being called a war criminal like Tony Blair. But look at ISIS, they could have been destroyed in a weekend if we'd have been willing to commit troops to Iraq instead of pulling them all out to save money, who knows what the future will bring to our shores there. Look at
Syria and Lybia, now we have hundreds of migrants a week dying as they attempt to flee. Then there's Russia.

In this day and age you can't just sit back and hope that somebody else deals with all of this.

What you say is absolutely true. However, given the accusations of 'colonialism' and so on from the champagne socialists/so called humanitarian liberals in this country, I think that any British government is now extremely wary of intervening in situations abroad.

I don't think there could be military intervention Russia without there being a major conflict. The Russians are a hard people, who would not hesitate to go to war. They are not like us.

With regard to migrants, the solution for them lies in their countries of origin, not in Western Europe – and many of the people arriving from Africa are economic migrant, who should be discouraged from coming to the West. European taxpayers cannot afford to bear the burden of this number of people. Our hospitals, for example, are groaning at the seams with the already huge influx of non-indigenous people – in London, I see this regularly with my own eyes. No one is tackling the situation. Instead, poor elderly people, many of whom participated in the Second World War, and paid their taxes throughout their lives, are being shortchanged and used as scapegoats for the shortfalls in the NHS as a result of (to a great extent) immigration.

crash123

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is it possible that this is reflective of Conservative constituencies?

That said, they are polling to lose seats today

Not sure as my area is blue. All I know is that my trade ( antiques and used items) is not good. I know a number of people in other trades that are selling a few things on eBay as their trade is not good so my trade is being squashed. Obviously because of this we are all spending less on other things. I don't have a mortgage or rent but we dine out less and less. Knock on effect on the local economy