http://news.sky.com/story/1470829/gallo ... -bid-fails

If the fedora'd tosser does not win he will try in London...

I got stuck behind his bus yesterday, too. Palestine an flag billowing from the back of it. Bus was rather empty.

Vote Sol!

It's the best star we have!

It loves us so much, in 4 billion years time it will devour us with its love.

Can't disagree with that. The House of Commons culture of honking like a bunch of morons is a terrible reflection on all of them. Wouldn't be quite so bad if the speaker didn't remind them of that every single time, except that it makes no difference. The occasional 'hear hear' is fine, but the whooping nonsense is just idiotic.

Yep, the House Of Commons is actually one of the worst bits of the UK political system.
The standards of behaviour are atrocious and would be completely unacceptable in any other workplace, and I'm not convinced that much is actually debated there. It's just a load of pointless shouting that changes nobodies opinions.

Are you not just talking about PMQs because that's the only bit which is generally shown?

PMQs have the worst of the twattish behaviour, but you get the same thing at budget time. When there are debates in progress over legislation and the like, the voting has long been decided in advance. The only time that will change is if we have a minority government who have to try and persuade the smaller parties to support them on an issue by issue basis.

I missed some earlier responses, apologies for that.

If EBG or Cavey do want to properly debate me with foul language at a minimum and actually debate the politics, then I'm more than willing to.

I dont profess to know all the answers, I wont even be voting Labour or Liberal, but I've felt the brunt of 5 years of Coalition rule which many haven't

I also watch at least 2 hours of politics / news / documentaries a day so I'm not a "stupid fucking numpty" or whatever anyone wants to call me just because they dont agree with me, or have a safe steady income.

I would like to do it in a seperate thread though, call it political debate or something. This thread is full of general politics.

Be well aware the 12 billion of welfare cuts will affect the lowest 20% of people, those that are barely coping right now - 1 million people (population of Birmingham) had to visit a food bank last year, and if that isn't you, then good luck trying to justify it - one day it might be.

Cos people like 'yours truly' will take the full force of it. Imagine a Britain when 'Jobseekers Allowance' ends at 6 months no matter what. That is what I think the Tories have planned. There is no other way they can get that 12 billion figure to add up, but you wont find out till May 8th. That is what happens in America, one of the most unequal societies on Earth.

Thats not the country I was brought up in. I think Brits are better than that.


Bring it on!

Theresa May calls the possibility of an SNP/labour pact "a constitutional crisis."

Did I miss something? The Conservatives campaigned -- hard -- against both AV and Scottish independence. How can they now complain that the Scots may use the power granted to them by these constructs? If May was scared about Scottish politics influencing the rest of the UK, the right time to say so was six months ago.

I'm not convinced Scottish Labour would be too happy if Labour formally hooked up with the SNP at Westminster.
But, yes, any party represented in the Parliament has as much right to play the game as any other.

Via Transdiffusion, your Election Night Viewing Guide. .

Two things.

1 - Worst crisis since the abdication? Who actually thinks like this? That was 1936! I think we've had some worse times since then!

2 - Ed Miliband vs Boris Johnson on the Andrew Marr show was most entertaining. Miliband seemed to really rattle Johnson. Could be some fun times after the election if Ed is PM and Boris is the new Tory leader.

Is it rare for deposed prime ministers to stay on as leader of the opposition?

Off the top of my head I can think of:
Churchill stayed on after 1945; Harold Wilson after 1970; Heath after 1974 (but was toppled soon after).

I don't think Cameron's position is secure enough in the Conservative Party to hold on after defeat.

Telegraph hed: "Exclusive letter to The Telegraph from 5000 small business owners who helped to get the economy moving again."

Except, oops, the letter is from Conservative Campaign Headquarters

Errr.... That's hardly a surprise is it? The letter has to be co-ordinated somewhere, and who other than the Tory HQ is going to do that?

Sure, but I find it amusing that a) the Telegraph piece's tone make it sound like a spontaneous act of the business owners and b) they made such an amateur hour error.

Mooncup!

Avoid the problem completely, save loads of cash, and be kind to the environment!

http://www.mooncup.co.uk/

Mrs Hearthly's been using one for years. They only come in two sizes, 'You've had a baby' or 'You've not had a baby'.

Also the sound they make when they're removed is ace.

I've seen several gobbets of nonsensical bile along these lines vomited up by various Tories over the last couple of weeks, Cameron waded in at the end of last week with some remarkable rubbish too.

As far as I can see they're talking about 'the results of a democratic election as per our current electoral and parliamentary system' - or in their parlance when it might produce something they don't like, a 'constitutional crisis'.

I think a Lab/SNP pact is quite an interesting proposition.

Last major constitutional crisis we had was over the 1909 budget. And we resolved that by changing the constitution so the Lords couldn't throw out a budget ever again.

I can picture a minority Labour administration limping on for 18 months or so before either collapsing or seeking a mandate. Very much the 1950-51 or 1964-66 precendent. Don't think we'd go for an Autumn election as in '74 though.

They don't exactly avoid the problem completely, as you still pay VAT on mooncups and you're supposed to replace them every 3-5 years (if memory serves me correctly) so it's not like it's a pay once thing. (Yes, I'm being pedantic.)

Do not confuse with high-calorie US snack of awesome the moonpie.

Speaking of amateur hour errors, they've included at least one person who didn't agree: https://twitter.com/Aurum_Boss/status/5 ... 74176?s=09 Not the kind of document one wants clerical errors in.

Tsk, Trooper. Don't allow the salient fact that the vast majority of business people desperately do not want to see a Labour government get in the way of snarking pedantry about "clerical errors".

Define "vast majority".

I don't see 5000 business people writing in support of Labour?

"Business supports the Conservatives shocker". I mean seriously, is this even up for debate?

I don't dispute some businesses support the Conservatives, just curious on what basis a "vast majority" has been declared.

Well, I don't have specific figures, but it doesn't seem too unreasonable of me to claim, anecdotally at least and in the face of stuff like this, that a good sized majority support the Tories?

In my own (admittedly limited) business circle, I'm by far the most liberal and left-leaning of the lot, most are total 'true blue' types, whereas I'm generally considered to be a bit of a lefty!

Nah, it's not unreasonable, and makes sense given what the Conservatives stand for, just wondered if you had any other info to hand.

I love this thread. Even the discussion of reusable feminine hygiene products.

Well, yes, I'd say a lot of business owners would vote Tory (or UKIP). The breakdown of how much the richest 100 people donated to politics is hilarious in how skewed it is.

Likewise, the vast majority of teachers, nurses, etc would vote Labour, or even for a left wing party (tee hee).

That doesn't mean that either set are objectively correct on anything; just that they have different priorities.

Anecdotal evidence from Friday night when I was out with a load of them suggests this isn't going to happen.

Here's a better one. The vast majority of Scousers vote labour

I've rarely got info to hand, I'm a seat of the pants kinda guy.

I think the teachers would vote for whichever party guaranteed the entire DfE fucked off and left them alone.

I don't disagree on a very broad brush basis (as of course, these kind of very high level type of discussions must necessarily be), but don't conflate the top 100 super-rich fatcats with relatively small and very small business owners. I mean, we have to pay tax, for one thing!

Seriously man, they make tampons and sanitary pads look like prehistoric torture devices.

(I can't be arsed getting involved in politics on here anymore, but Mooncups, now there's a thing.)

VOTE MOONCUP - Don't let the mainstream parties 'snatch' victory again.

:applause:

Cavey, why do businesses support the Tories? I would have thought that Labour's throwing money around would lead to (statistically) more people having disposable income, therefore more to spend with small businesses.
Is it a tax thing?

That's a big question mate, but in extreme essence, I'd say that yes, whilst Labour chucking vast amounts of borrowed money around would undeniably stimulate and help things short term, such people (myself included) tend to be of the view that this is more than offset by the medium and long term ensuing hangover?

There are other related factors; the money markets hate the idea of a Labour government and even if all other things remained equal, we (the UK) would end up paying considerably more interest on the burgeoning national debt already accrued, of itself a pretty bad thing. (One of the reasons why the Con/Lib coalition has been able to continue borrowing as it has, is the considerably more favourable interest rates it, by virtue of being a Conservative led government, has been able to borrow at).

You'd have to say, also, that empirically speaking, Labour administrations always seem to end the same way too; financial disarray? Business would much prefer steady, largely unchanging, modest growth conditions over time, for long term investment confidence and (relative) predictability, the proverbial boring safe pair of hands if you like, as over much more widely fluctuating, more radical and market interventionist government. The more the State stays out of things, the better, from their perspective.

I think the Tories realise that supporting businesses and employers is the smart thing to do given that they're the gears of the economy. This is in stark opposition to the 'They have money! Fatcats! Evil! Tax it all off them!' crowd-pleasing attitude of the left, although I concede Labour are slightly less idiotic in that regard compared to, say, the doolally Greens.

It's pretty simple. If you penalise success with ridiculous taxes and disincentives, they'll either find increasingly more cunning ways to avoid tax, or they'll quit the country altogether for somewhere that doesn't fuck you over for doing well or running a successful business. The UK will be brain-drained away and then we'll wonder why the economy is steadily tanking, why our tax receipts are low, and why we can't fund all of the public services that the public expect the government to provide.

So why do businesses support the Tories... hmmm. Yes. This is a tricky one.

Still waiting for that 'trickle-down' effect though. I'm sure it'll kick-in any day now.

Thing is though, Davpaz, can there really be any doubt that trickle down effects don't occur? We had this discussion, I think, in my old thread; I pointed out that if an autocratic state like China can create a genuine middle class vastly larger than the entire population of the UK, from nothing, and in less than one generation, can anyone say in all seriousness that it doesn't happen?

Now, you can tell me it isn't redistributive enough - I'll agree with you. You can also tell me that it doesn't address the ever-widening chasm between the genuinely rich and the median working population; that its effects here in the UK, as against the current recovery which is inarguably occurring on any mathematical, economic or other basis, are still far too sparsely felt among average earners - again, I'll agree. I'd even go along with a bit of socially responsible State intervention to precisely mitigate the insufficient effects of merely trickle down effect in isolation; we need more than that. However, it is most certainly real, though, and the upward trajectory is still helpful; things *are* getting better and, if the right government is elected, they will continue so to do, at least in my view.

Thanks Cavey.



I did say small businesses, who are far less likely to move to Shang Hai for tax purposes, and generally rely heavily upon cash turnover than financial assets.

What kind of trickle down do you expect?

1) People earn more, and they're taxed more as a proportion the more they earn. So they pay more in real terms and as a relative proportion into the government pot for being successful. Generally people are happy to pay tax if they think it's reasonable, but will try to avoid it if the government attempts to impose, say, a 50% rate. Hence why when you try to tax people more, receipts actually go down.
2) Conversely, these people are less likely to utilise or otherwise be a drain on any public services. They're not using what they're paying for. This frees up capacity for everyone else.
3) If they're running a business and they're doing well and not being taxed to death, they can open up more stores and create more employment. More tax receipts. I don't agree with Starbucks dodging tax and so forth, but you can't say they don't employ a fuck of a lot of people in the UK.

So again, what do you expect? The way people speak it's like if someone else does well they expect to have a wad of fucking notes thrust into their hand just because they think they're deserving, somehow.

I say this as a person of middle income, so I don't benefit at all from all of these alleged 'tax breaks for the rich' headline bullshit, but I can perfectly appreciate the reasonable logic of the Conservative position.

I'm not well informed enough to offer a proper debate on economic matters. I'm just bitter because I'm poor All I can do is repeat my personal fears. I fear that a Labour government will overcorrect on the austerity like a tank-slapping sports car and put us in the metaphorical hedge. I fear a Tory government will dismantle the Welfare state and leave the vunerable at the mercy of profit-first faceless corporations.

Here's an idea... A Con/Lab coalition, with the Blues holding the money and the Reds running HR?

That's why I loved the Con/Lib coalition; the Liberals reigned in the Tories' extreme welfare and other ideologically-driven objectives, plus we got the expertise of Vince Cable. I'd gladly have the same again.

It's sort of like having me and Curio as mods.

I hope when all is said and done, we get a full and frank account of the Liberal's role in the Coalition. They couldn't possibly have been as weak as they seem to come across.

The annoyance I have with politics is that clearly good ideas are dismissed simply becasue they are proposed by "the opposition" rather than taken on the merit of the idea.

They should have an anonymous proposal system.

<chortle>