Incantation Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The next government will not dare push too hard. The people who elect them are becoming angry, some are becoming very angry. Governments like to control, but when electorates become uncontrollable governments lose control. Power to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 No. Because I do not start from the premise that the LibDems have 'no hope of forming a government'. Nothing to do with " the previous tory administration that was voted in eighteen years ago". If anything, if the current crop of conservative was anything even remotely like that "previous tory administration", then I wouldn't be thinking about giving the LibDems a chance, but I'd default back to the Conservative (reasonably confident that they would do what's needed to yet again fill up the empty coffers ...ready for Lab to blow it yet again next time, etc, etc.). The problem is, or at least as I perceive it (simplistic as it may be...but why over-complicate it?), that I can't really tell one side (Cons) from the other (Labs) politically and economically (such as parties are now, not 18 years ago with Maggie and her brass balls) So why not let the little guy with a 'mind of its own' and everything to prove, to itself and onlookers, have a go. Simple as. So.... what are the liberals' brass balls policies that will wrench us from this situation. Dithering?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 So.... what are the liberals' brass balls policies that will wrench us from this situation. Dithering??What are Cameron's? What are Brown's? If you're going to ask rethorical questions, be prepared to get yours answered with some more, as I'm not particularly interested (nor partisan of any side - I've said it before, I can't vote...so what do I care ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 What are Cameron's? What are Brown's? If you're going to ask rethorical questions, be prepared to get yours answered with some more, as I'm not particularly interested (nor partisan of any side - I've said it before, I can't vote...so what do I care ) Cameron wants to reduce the structural deficit soon Brown will wreck the economy further by not cutting the deficit enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Cameron wants to reduce the structural deficit soon. Brown will wreck the economy further by not cutting the deficit enough. And these do not class as "dithering" Cutting the deficit is a given, all 3 parties would have to do it. I meant policies. P-O-L-I-C-I-E-S. How they're going to go about it, for real, do what within what timescale and with what impact and effects. None of this [vacuous political vaporware]'we will do this, we will do that'[/vacuous political vaporware]. So, I'll ask again: what are Cameron and Brown's respective policies which (and I quote) "will wrench us from this situation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Well over the course of a 12 year period of Labour government unemployment has risen by around half a million And that's just those officially listed as unemployed. Remember, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit went from 700,000 in 1979 to 2.5 million by 1997 and has been rising by 50,000 a year ever since (link). Just as Gordon Brown used PFI to take his profligate spending "off budget", so the roughly 5 million unemployed are similarly disguised. Incapacity Benefit claimants now outnumber the 825,000 claiming unemployment benefits by a factor of more than three to one. (link) Or are we just getting sicker as a nation? And let's not forget that the cost of paying for these benefits now exceeds the income from income tax and National Insurance combined. (link) Still, we can always print some more money to pay for it. After all, it worked so well in Zimbabwe didn't it? And Argentina. And Weimar Germany. Enjoy living in "beans on toast" Britain won't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I wouldn't be surprised if the Cons get in, if unemployment rose to 4 million+ as a second recession would be caused by their public spending cuts. Public spending cuts are already underway mate under Labour make no mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 60,000 public sector jobs to go in Yorkshire: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8571793.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pondlife Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 To answer the title of this thread. God only knows. What I do know is that unemployment will shoot up massively if Cameron and his Eton pals get in. God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 To answer the title of this thread. God only knows. What I do know is that unemployment will shoot up massively if Cameron and his Eton pals get in. God help us. What relevance does the school Cameron went to have? Unless it is to praise the fact that he received one of the finest educations in the world. People come from all over the world to take advantage of one of the best schools there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.