I don't think this is true at all. In 2005, LDs won 22% of the vote. In 2010 they won 23% of the vote, 18.3% before that and 16.7% in 1997 (their lowest vote share since 1979, so you could say likely none of these were Labour voters). So that's only 1% really (at most perhaps another 5%) you could say "lent" their votes at the 2010 election as most of those had been voting for LDs for nigh on 30 years. I think it's more the case that LD voters tend to be left-leaning or centre-left voters who aren't keen on the more authoritarian and paternalistic aspects to Labour party ideology (if you can call it that), but can't stand the Tories. I would agree that, as a result of the LDs going into coalition with the Tories, they therefore alienated a lot of their core centre-left voters (including me) and the 8% odd this time round forms the rump of their centre-right voters from the previous four or five elections. The question for the LDs, if they are ever going to recover from this, is whether they can re-appeal to their core centre-left again. Because I definitely agree with ?Clegg that we are missing a true small-"l" liberal centrist party if the LDs are as hopeless as they are at the moment.
This is an excellent question and boils down to the very essence and history of our style of democracy. It leads directly into questions of whether we should have proportional representation and reform our entire political system. Technically, historically and actually, you are voting for your local MP and you should really think of it in that manner, and make such a decision on that basis. The way politics is presented in the press and talked about generally, though, it's almost impossible to think like that.
You don't double the National debt in 5 years based on interest alone. The government are not borrowing from Wonga.
It's debt and deficit. If you earn £1000 a month and spend £1200 then your deficit is £200 per month. Do it for three moths and your debt is £600. In microcosm that is the UK economy. The current government and the coalition has made some cuts but the overall cost of running the country hasn't changed dramatically. Now I think we will see real cuts. I am a bit surprised to see Theresa May laying into the cops. They are going to need them big time.
Gap between rich and poor keeps growing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32824770 and I don't doubt it will continue to grow in the UK for the next 5 years. The Conservativies might find out that when they need the police like most of the population they won't be available, because the few officers that are on duty are too busy dealing with things that don't feature in crime figures.
I read recently that the life expectancy of a child born right now in the UK ranges from: 67 years in Stockton-on-Tees to 91 years in Belgravia, London I obviously knew there was a divide, but when it's put like that, it's absolutely shocking that the country with the 5th largest economy in the world can harbour such extreme inequality.
It's a worldwide issue if you read the article and believe me the situation would be no different if the little ol' UK had a Labour Government.
I did read the article. I'm not too interested in the rest of the world. It's happening in this country, has got worst over the last five years and will definately get worst over the next five years. I would prefer to live in a country which bucks the trend or at least makes an effort to, rather then one that says its okay cause its a worldwide trend. Indeed its more understandable that this trend exists in developing countries. Good job when the NHS was started we didn't say well the rest of the world doesn't have it so why should we. Never mind at least the confortable middle class who aren't employed by the state, are scared of their own shadow and elected this government can continue to absolve their conscience by donating to food banks.
I take issue with the argument that it wouldn't be different under Labour. They prioritised the NHS . if you ask anyone who works in it they agree that things got steadily better in the thirteen years that Labour were in power in terms of waiting times especially. I can see it going downhill now and they don't care. They just go private.
Of course its going to get worse, we have just been in a massive financial crisis I'd say the life expectancy has way, way more to do with how that person lived their life. I think there is a bit too much bashing of the rich as if its their fault. We are no different. Anybody doing this bashing buy only second hand clothes? why not, because you can afford otherwise and are snobbish about it. There is nothing practically wrong with it but our vanity dictates otherwise. Wear second hand clothes and give your saved money to the poor. Its just about scale. The problem is not the difference between the rich and poor, its the fact the poor are poor. Unlike in most countries the poor do have a chance to get out if they apply themselves, its obviously not as high but there is no reason if you work hard you won't get a reward. In terms of problems the country has the NHS is well down on that list. Its only going to be improved with money coming into the country and it should be linked so. We clearly cannot afford to invest in the NHS at the moment, when we can then we should.
Saying that the poor can work hard and get out of it is the biggest load of squit I have heard in a fair old while.If someone on minimum wage earns £270 a week gross and then has to pay rent,council tax,gas/electric,food and transport how is he going to save to buy a house? No lender is going to give a mortgage on that kind of income so he's trapped in the private rented market. The answer is to remove all planning restrictions to allow building anywhere and remove the land cost element at a stroke. This would halve house prices and by extension rents.
I don't disagree with you at base CT, but economically (as I'm sure you know) that's basically impossible. It would plunge us into all manner of problems, not even just recession and dangerous deflation. But planning law and regulation are in desperate need of reform, fast. The principle problem is there is too much vested (and voting) interest in keeping house prices buoyant.
I dare say somebody on minimum wage did not work hard at school or have created a situation of their own doing. The means for a reasonable education are there, it is up to the individual to take them. It is certainly not squit because people do it. It is the disadvantaged that should get the help, not a broad group such as all of the poor. The country cannot bail out every individuals bad decision in life, its impossible. What it does is supply the tools in early development to progress. If they fail the blame should go to the parents So you halve house prices and then what happens, people who could not afford a private pension suddenly lose what they have invested in their house. What happens to the people who are now building houses at half the value. What happen to those young people who have saved, bought a house and then find they owe £100,000 more than its worth. What happens to the suppliers, labourers, bricklayers, tradesmen etc etc? Do they keep their jobs, less pay etc. What happens to the banks?quite possibly another massive banking crisis. There is a cause and effect to everything. We need to raise the wages of the poor, not cut everybody else down to the same level.
High house prices benefit only the speculators.I would lose about £300k if my house halved in price but that doesn't make it wrong. We have to decide whether we intend to give people in this country decent housing at an affordable price.Thee should be no right to make a profit on a house. And I don't accept the working hard argument either. Kids in Suffolk seem to have crap schools. I don't know why because my wife teaches in one and she works herself into the ground,in at 7am and home at 630 and works all weekend. Equality of opportunity is what is needed but The Tories are against it,they want to keep what they have and grab still more.And increasing land supply doesnt affect the builders btw it would give them vast amounts of work.
Good idea, let's put concrete all over England's green and pleasant land and while we're about it why don't we pull down the many historic buildings we have that get in the way of housing developments. Then we'd have a lot more room for the Eastern Europeans. BTW Carrabuh you're spot on
Haha! A brilliiant and typically Tory response. Where do I begin? It's Dave who has presided over the hundreds of thousands,yes hundreds not tens of thousands of immigrants. And where do these immigrants go? Currently they are picking asparagus down the road from me,living in caravans and no doubt being paid a pittance by the local Tory poster displaying farmer. I have no doubt that if housing was proposed nearby that very farmer would be at the forefront of the Green and Pleasant England brigade. There is no need to pull down any historic buildings. I used to chair a rural Planning Committee, there is loads of space to build but the NIMBYS don't want people living near them,they only want them exploited for their labour and given the minimum to survive.
At the minute only 2% of our land is used for housing and only 4% is developed full stop. Large scale house building isn't going to result in every meadow in the country being paved over. The problem is The NIMBYs not wanting the view from their back window spoilt or poor people to live near them. This country needs to grow up and stop being so fecking petty. If it's between spoiling your view and homing hundreds I know what I'm going for. The same goes for onshore wind farms
Well you needn't worry CT because when we leave the EU those 'immigrants picking asparagus' will be no more.
