Just for the record project I don't consider myself nationalistic, but I do have strong views of the way that our friends in the the South east of England have used Wales to their own ends for far too long, and I also know that most Yorkshire men feel the same way about London and the south east, as do most up north. Those in the south are seen as arrogant (which they are) and out of touch, by most of the English regions also. I do have some Yorkshire friends and I'm not allowed to discuss their southern brothers, I'm told it's swearing.......... By the way I nearly married an English lass from Bristol, real beauty she was...............
Actually I have some sympathy for his argument but much like I have some sympathy for the pro-European super state argument I come down on the side of what is possible in practice over theory. So consider this; Context - Keynes argued that you run a surplus during boom times and a deficit during a recession. The Labour Party ignored this and ran a deficit for most of their time in government - boom years. As a consequence, when the recession hit, we were spending nearly 10% of GDP more than we could afford....similar figures to Greece. Our economy is orientated towards financial services and the City of London....started by Thatcher, continued by Labour (at a pace). Something for some of you to get your head around...manufacturing in this country shrunk at a faster rate under the Labour Party than it did under Maggie Thatcher. As the recession originated from a banking crash we were particularly vulnerable, the financial services sector was not as profitable as it was and paid less to the exchequer than it had been previously (see the Labour Party's bail outs)... Our small manufacturing sector had to contend with selling to a stagnant American economy and a European economy in crisis. The only growing economies were China, Brazil, India, Russia and the like....places we sell little too because our goods are too expensive. In the high tech sector we compete with the Americans and the Germans in these markets. Both of which routinely kick our arse. The public sector share of the economy was now nearly 60% The Choices - In this context the people running the show had to choose what to do. They could have done what Krugman (and other economists at the time) suggests and borrowed/printed a lot more money and use it to try and stimulate the economy or they could have cut the spend and rebalance our economy so that we depend less on financial services and have a smaller public sector. Regardless of whether the Krugman route was a good idea the questions facing them were; WHAT IS POSSIBLE? WHAT ARE THE RISKS (How much money would Krugman have had us spend to stimulate growth? Are we talking about increasing our deficit in the short term to 15%/20%/25% or more of GDP? What would that have done to the value of the pound?) ? WHAT WILL THE ELECTORATE BUY AND HOW WILL THEY JUDGE US IF WE GET IT WRONG? Reality - All 3 of our major parties came to the same conclusion. Spending had to be cut to reduce our deficit. The only choice presented to our electorate was a superficial choice concerning the pace of spending reduction. What has happened in reality is public spending has in effect been frozen after years of it growing annually while the economy has been rebalanced. In practice this means that people working in the public sector have had a pay freeze, less people employed by the public sector, more people employed by the private sector, less unemployment, growing manufacturing (including thousands of new apprenticeships - preparing our young people to work in the high tech manufacturing sector we have to grow in the future), rationalisation of the tax system etc. Of course this is painful for some. A pay freeze means you're worse off in real terms and if public sector spending as a whole has been frozen but demographics mean more money has to be spent on the NHS and Education etc. Then other areas (welfare) had to be cut and some jobs had to go. What will happen in the next parliament is continued growth and fiscal discipline until our deficit has been eliminated. This will happen towards the end of the next parliament at which point we can look to the future. This will probably happen regardless of who is in power although a Labour/SNP government would bring with it a whole lot more risk.
Such a lot of **** to get through it seems.... NHS - Health and Social Care Act 2012 Thanks to Liberal Democrat votes they must share responsibility for wasting £3billion on a top-down NHS reorganisation while more people wait longer in A&Es and over 5,000 nurses are cut. The Labour Party cut funding to the NHS in Wales by 8%. As a result they have not met an A&E waiting time target since 2009. 1400 patients wait longer than a year for an operation in Wales...only 600 do in England. The Welsh Assembly is responsible for the Welsh NHS. In other words, the Labour party. They get funded more money per head of the population than the English NHS does and yet despite this, and despite thousands of Welsh people choosing to cross the border and use an English hospital along the border counties (a decision that is probably due to shorter waiting times), they consistently under perform relative to the English NHS. Why? Haven't got the time to go over this in detail. We'd be here for weeks but this is what Judith Jolly (Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Health and Social Care) had to say at the time (5th March 2013)... "One year ago my colleagues and I sat in a room in Gateshead explaining in detail to party members what we had done to ensure that the Health and Social Care Act included key Liberal Democrat policies and principles. We explained our efforts to reinstate the Secretary of State’s responsibility for ensuring that there is a comprehensive NHS. We stated that we would end Labour’s policy of crude competition on the basis of price, not quality, which had led to the private sector being paid £250m for work which was never done. Above all, we stated that competition should be used only when there is a clear case that it will improve patient care and that CCGs should not have to put services out to tender if to do so would fragment care. Led by Tim Clement Jones and Shirley we fought ferociously to have the Bill amended and to obtain from the minister statements at the despatch box, which carry legal weight, to minimise the use of competition. Today, on the eve of Spring conference, Liberal Democrats are leading the battle over secondary legislation. The government produced regulations under Section 75 (the bit which deals with competition and procurement) which do not reflect the assurances we were given. For weeks, long before lobby groups and Labour woke up to the problem, we have been pressing the government to withdraw these inadequate regulations. Unlike Labour, we don’t think it is acceptable to go back to the law as passed in 2006, under which hospitals like Hitchingbrooke have been turned over to private equity firms. So we have been drafting new regulations which accurately reflect what was agreed by parliament last year. Last year Liberal Democrats fought hard to protect the NHS from privatisation, whilst giving it sufficient flexibility to remain sustainable. The government have yet to concede, but we will not stop until they do." TBC....
........(Cont) This Act wasn't part of the coalition agreement and wasn't part of the Tory manifesto. They tried to sneak it through. So if you're angry with anyone be angry with them (in reality, the proposals were merely continuing what the Labour Party had started). For years the Tories and Labour would come in and do with the NHS whatever they wished....which is why we are saddled with PFI and the like. Thanks to the Lib Dems the Act was held up in parliament, scrutinised (3 times it went to the Lords) and ammendments made. See here; "Listening exercise"[edit] After an increase in opposition pressure, including from both rank-and-file Liberal Democrats and the British Medical Association, the government announced a "listening exercise" with critics.[16] On 4 April 2011 the government announced a "pause" in the progress of the Bill to allow the government to 'listen, reflect and improve' the proposals.[17][18] The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said that "the status quo is not an option" and many within his and Nick Clegg's coalition have said that certain aspects of the Bill, such as the formation of Clinical commissioning groups, are not only not open for discussion, but are also already too far along the path to completion to be stopped now.[19] Cameron has insisted that the Act is part of his "Big Society" agenda and that it will not alter the fundamental principles of the NHS. Part of the "listening exercise" saw the creation on 6 April 2011 of the "NHS Future Forum".[20] The Forum, according to Private Eye, "brings together 43 hand-picked individuals, many of whom are known as supporters of Lansley's approach".[21] At the same time, David Cameron set up a separate panel to advise him on the reforms; members of this panel include Lord Crisp (NHS chief executive 2000-2006), Bill Moyes (a former head of Monitor), and the head of global health systems at McKinsey,[21][22] as well as Mark Britnell, the head of health policy at KPMG. Six months previously Britnell had told a conference of private healthcare executives that "In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider not a state deliverer," and emphasised the role of Lansley's reforms in making this possible: "The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years."[23][24] KPMG issued a press statement on behalf of Britnell on 16 May 2011 stating "The article in The Observer attributes quotes to me that do not properly reflect discussions held at a private conference last October. Nor was I given the opportunity to respond ahead of publication. I worked in the NHS for twenty years and now work alongside it. I have always been a passionate advocate of the NHS and believe that it has a great future. Like many other countries throughout the world, the pressure facing healthcare funding and provision are enormous. If the NHS is to change and modernise the public, private and voluntary sectors will all need to play their part." However, the full report of the conference still remained online,and unamended, three years later.[25] In June 2011 Cameron announced that the original deadline of 2013 would no longer be part of the reforms. There would also be changes to the Bill to make clear that the main duty of the health regulator, Monitor, will be to promote the interests of patients rather than promoting competition.[26] The Future Forum report suggested that any organisation that treats NHS patients, including independent hospitals, should be forced to hold meetings in public and publish minutes. It also wants the establishment of a Citizens’ Panel to report on how easy it is to choose services, while patients would be given a right to challenge poor treatment. The original Bill sought to abolish two tiers of management and hand power to new bodies led by GPs, called commissioning consortia, to buy £60 billion a year in treatment. Professor Steve Field, a GP who chaired the forum, said many of the fears the public and medical profession had about the Health and Social Care Bill had been "justified" as it contained "insufficient safeguards" against private companies exploiting the NHS.[27] Amendments[edit] Following the completion of the listening exercise, the Bill was recommitted to a public bill committee on 21 June 2011.[28] On 7 September, the Bill passed the House of Commons and received its third reading by 316-251.[29] On 12 October 2011, the Bill was approved in principle at second reading in the House of Lords by 354-220.[30] An amendment moved by Lord Owen to commit the most controversial clauses of the Bill to a select committee was defeated by 330-262.[31] The Bill was subsequently committed to a committee of the whole House for detailed scrutiny. The committee stage was completed on 21 December 2011, and the Bill was passed by the Lords, with amendments, on 19 March 2012.[8] The Commons agreed to all Lords amendments to the Bill on 20 March 2012. The Bill received Royal Assent and became the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on 27 March 2012.[32]
Tuition Fees: Trebling Tuition Fees to £9000 (despite promising to abolish them. Higher Tuition Fees. People didn't vote Liberal Democrat. The red and the blue team were both proposing higher tuition fees, the Universities wanted to charge higher tuition fees (they needed the funding), an independent review, commissioned by Labour) recommended higher tuition fees and stated that there should be no limit as to what Universities could charge...the Lib Dems secured a deal which meant the average student pays less money. The best that could be done in the circumstances. Sure Start Centres Supported Tories to close over 558 Sure Start Centres (so far) despite promising not to, Sure Start centres are down to Councils. Lib Dem Councils closed satellite centres that only offered limited services such as "messy play". Not the Sure Start centres (which offer essential services like childcare and parenting advice as well as play sessions and more luxurious fare like baby yoga and even aromatherapy). They streamlined the services offered at the Sure Start centres under their control. Here's a link to a Channel 4 article attempting to criticise the Lib Dems on Sure Start for merely trying to save money and concentrate resources on the essential services by dropping some of the more frivolous stuff; http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/lib-dems-sure-start-promise-ends-in-tears/6057 Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) Lib Dems helped Tories abolish it ....in effect, a bus pass to college. Is that suffering? If Labour wouldn't make such cuts which cuts would they make? Any answers anybody? I'm sure that if they get back in they will reverse all of these cuts won't they? (Having championed the cause of everyone with a grievance for 5 years!) Don't think so somehow do you? Any answers anybody? VAT BOMBSHELL In opposition Clegg & LibDems spoke of "TORY VAT BOMBSHELL" then voted with Tories to increase VAT to 20% They had the majority of the seats and votes of this country. We couldn't stop every policy. More tax had to be raised. The Coalition spent £1 billion on improving the inland revenues capacity to chase tax avoiders....they retrieved £9 billion. Where would Labour have got as much tax as the VAT rise from? Bombing Syria Voted /supported With Tories to bomb Syria Are you kidding me. Do you want to compare what the coalition did in Syria compared to Labour in Iraq? Cut Income Tax for Millionaires Backed a Tory cut in the top rate of tax, giving 13,000 millionaires a tax cut worth an average £100,000 while millions are paying more. A Tory policy designed to stimulate investment and employment (not ours). Can only be seen as a cut if you want to ignore that this rate was what the Labour party had set during their 13 years in government....only jacking it up right at the end so that they could play politics with whomever brought it back down. Falling Living Standards Clegg says he's making life "fairer and easier" with tax cuts, however, wages are down £1,500 since the election and a million young people out of work. and Child Poverty There are now 2.6million kids in the UK being brought up in hardship, with more than half of them in working households. The number of children living in poverty has leapt by 300,000 under the Coalition Government. Labour's legacy. You must believe Labour and Plaid have reincarnated Merlin the Wizard and appointed him as chancellor if you think any other result was possible. That's so ridiculous you probably do believe it Constitutional Reform Nick Clegg said his constitutional reform programme would be "the biggest shake-up of our democracy since the Great Reform Act of 1832". It wasn't. He abandoned Lords reform after Conservative MPs refused to back it, and he failed to deliver reform of the voting system. You missed out that the Labour party teamed up with the Tories to block constitutional reform....not in their own interests see. Clegg delivered an opportunity for voters to begin the reform of the voting system...again Labour campaigned with the Tories to block it. People voted and 67% of people voted to continue with first past the post....it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them ........I'm going to stop here as I'm doing what my father advised me never to do and wasting my time arguing with a moron. You and the gang haven't given me one cut you'd have made. I've got better things to do frankly.
vrd what does your misses think of the way we get treated compared 2that of England?.......when mutilbrand got asked the other day if he would give us the same deals as England and Scotland he did say he wouldn't lie and told us nowt will change for the foreseeable future ...........my question 2that is why the fk aint we equal in the first place init. fk Englands eton brigade and its policies
She hates the South East. England as a whole gets less funding than all other regions in the Barnett Formula, Scotland and NI are propped up. She is from the North West. Cracking set of tits as well
The state spends more money per head on the Welsh than the English. Scotland gets the best deal. If Plaid gets into the same position as the SNP, essentially not campaigning for independence but instead promising to blackmail the Labour party for an even better deal), then you can bet that English nationalism will begin to rise. Does anyone honestly believe that all those in the north of England (who's local economies and standard of living are much the same as ours in Wales and Scotland) are going to put up with the Scottish and Welsh getting yet more money spent on them at their expense? What will happen is this. The Barnett formula will be scrapped and a fairer system of distributing the money (across the whole of the UK) will be devised. Welsh funding might stay the same, might take a small hit. Scottish funding will go down. Northern Irish funding will go down. English funding will go up. The only reason why this has not been done yet is the politics of the situation.....trying to keep the union together, not wanting to piss off the Scottish or the Northern Irish. This is where voting SNP and Plaid, without the intention of becoming independent, is taking us.
we don't want them 2 spend more on keeping us down terror its fking quality jobs we want init. vrd good on her, don't be shy and show the lads her cracking mammary glands init. just out of interest who did wales vote for last time and did we get what we wanted?
not good enough tbh terror yes its a start but these guys know if its ok or not so why the wait when they know the truth hey so why they play political games with my fking life and thousands of others who smoke and respect thy herb in and adult manner is beyond me........and tbh I don't give a fk if its legal or not I just want it decriminalised.
Unless somebody makes a start things don't get done at all. Take PR. Nobody is happy with only a 2 party system. Everybody is frustrated with the pace of change in this country. Everybody wants their vote to count somewhere. Lib Dems get themselves in a position to form a coalition government. The first opportunity for anyone other than the red or blue teams to wield a little power in this country for decades. What do they do with the power? Try to reform the house of Lords (get blocked by Tory and Labour). Try to negotiate PR. (Get blocked by the Tories....Labour weren't in favour either). Get you, the voters, the opportunity to vote for AV which was the start down the road to PR. What happens? Labour and Tory campaign for a 'no' vote and win by a landslide. Neither are too fussed on more coalition governments and more change (which is what a coalition government provides, an opportunity for a smaller party....whoever they may be...to get some "outside of the box" policy implemented. Some people on here who have been calling for change and are fed up that their vote doesn't really count are some of the same people who have only got the words "scum" and "whore" and such for the Lib Dems. You couldn't make it up. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so ****ing serious.
I know nothing of politics and don't care for it. My basic (very basic ) take on it is the small parties can say what they want and promise what they want as they will never be in power and if they form part of a coalition will still be blocked or out voted on anything they put forward. So no matter how they put it there is no point in voting for any of them. I told you it was basic. why cant we have a brewsters millions with a box for none of the above.
If you want another 5 years of major cuts that only effect the working classes and the rich getting richer off the poorest backs plus the dismantling of the NHS into private hands so again it will effect the poorest as they wont be able to afford basic treatment then vote tory....or any small party.... If you want to stop these cuts being made that the poor pay the biggest share and keep the NHS out of private hands and make cuts that are across the board in a much fairer way and where workers will have rights then vote Labour... It is as clear cut as that...
