Blah Blah

Why do you think he's clever?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > William Wilberforce. Bloody champagne socialist. LOL...that'll be it then :D

You are such an idiot/ troll (haven't decided which yet) uncleglen. I agree that Simon Hughes couldn't expect anything else after towing the Tory whip in pretty much every vote of the first three years of the Tory coalition, including on tuition fees. Being a good local MP counts for nothing when you run the kind of campaign he did to get that seat and then at the first grasp of central government sells out on every principle that made him a liberal democrat in the first place (and for what? A vote on AV - which is not PR btw). No symapthy from me. He chose that path. I have my issues with James Barber's views, but that doesn't stop me from acknowlegding the effort he puts into local issues and representing local people.

My point too Townley. He is too 'London' centric imo. As an aside, petition here to stop the NHS being part of the planned TTIP deal.... http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-ttip/?sub=fb Sign if you can.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I said straight away that I'd like to see Chuka as > new Labour leader. Reading that has confirmed > that. There's no doubting his intelligence. It's just a question of whether the public will like him, given that the press make so much out of image these days. I suspect the north will see him as another London-centric MP. Andy Burnham is equally capable but again there's that image thing with the South seeing him as a Northern lefty. So I suspect Chuka's time is not now (but definitely one for the future). Labour for now have to find someone that can narrow that division accross those they seek to represent. And the Tories are now likely to get through the boundary changes that the Lib Dems blocked, making it even harder for Labour to come back. What was clear from the election results, is that the Tories also took votes from Labour, particularly in marginals. Again I think it comes back to the perception that Labour were only for the poorest, against the richest and offered nothing for the middle. What also suprises me is that after the event suddenly there are many Labour MPs mirroring Chuka's views. Why do they wait for the inevitable before airing them? I never understand this about parties, sticking with leaders and directions that many within think or worse still know are taking them to defeat. Gordon Brown was absolutely a case in point. No-one, not even in his own party thought he would or could win that election.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What Foxy said. Get over yourselves with your > melodramatic nonsense. Anyone who thought life > would be better under Labour has to accept that > they were in the minority. Not really. There was only 6% between the voting share of Tory and Labour and the Tories polled around 37% of the vote which means that 63% of those who voted didn't vote for them. So that makes those who voted Troy in the minority clearly, hence calls for voting reform. Labour took 31% of the vote btw.

I never understand why people sneer with labels like 'champagne socialists'. If it were not for MPs and Lords (who in the past were more likely to be from the landed gentry) taking up causes to help the poor and bring about social reform, we'd still be living in some kind of early Victorian nightmare. Affluent people are as capable of wanting a fairer society as anyone. Not everyone has to be totally self interested and damning everyone else.

"Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle." Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you have to win the support of this group of voters. It is said that just 150 seats decide elections in the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. And Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader for Labour too.

Yes indeed. Seeing how voting share translates into seats for the parties is eye opening reading. And just to add that whne UKIP did so well in the Euro elections, it was pointed out that under the parliamentary system they'd make little impact.

London is also different to the rest of the country in that it has so much money floating around. You'll also have a council estate next to millionaires mansions. It's that mix that skews everything, whilst at the same time levelling the quality of local services up, rather than down. Local authorities in other cities however, don't have revenue for keeping parks nice, or funding community events on anything like the same scale. They are far more restricted by the overall demographic of the area they manage, just because the demograhpic mix isn't so wide ranging within their boroughs. Even someting like Tfl is unique to london.

No contradiction at all. I said 'most' vote out of self interest but London is an anomalie to that. That's the point. It's why it attracts so much debate from career pollsters, trying to understand why it's that way.

Spot on ????. The are plenty of backbenchers who are hard working MPs, for local issues, the same issues many boroughs face with housing, health, schools etc. And there's no need to presume they'll all tow a party whip either.

I can only speak of the NHS uncle because that's where my experience lies but you ARE wrong. Health tourism is a cost yes but that's not what you were talking about. You were inferring that we in the NHS are a bunch of left wing conspiracists with an agenda to wreck services. Ed Miliband didn't privatise anything btw, as he was never in government as prime minister. I think you are referring to the chnages under the Blair government and yes I agree, along with huge investment in the NHS after 16 years of starvation by Mrs Ts government (investment btw that cut waiting times and increased doctors and nurses and front line staff), came the 'accountancy' culture. It was an attempt I think to make the financing of the NHS more business like (in partnership with the private sector) and we all know of the problems, but that is a far cry from what the Cameron government are planning to do. They will complete the process to fully privatise services by stealth if they can. Waiting times and lists have already increased under the coalition. There is a shortage of GPs. On the ground, it's clear to me who cares more about front lines services (whatever the cost and difficulties of delivering them are).

You assume all labour voters are on benefits now Uncle? That'll be why London is overwhelmingly Labour then of course! Of course most people vote out of self interest and that's why all parties set policies to 'reward' groups of people for voting for them. But there are also a group of people who are not self interested uncleglen, people who believe in trying to be as fair as possible to everyone. I would choose a cohesive society over a devisive one anyday. Some things are very important in levelling opportunity and the playing field. Education is one of them, and in that, good education for everyone. Not underfunded overcrowded schools in poor areas whilst the luckier people in life can send theirs to smaller better funded schools. The ideal party would be one that can deliver improved opportunity, jobs, education, upward social mobility etc FOR ALL, not just 33% of the population (which is around the share of the vote the Tories received - and only around 2% moire than in 2010 btw). The same is true of MPs. Some are less interested in party politics and more interested in delivering for the needs of constituents they represent (and that will differ from borough to borough). Many people voted for the MP they wanted because of their record in delivering/ fighting for the area they represent. Party politics had little to do with it. Labours success in London is not down to people on benefits, it's down to a whole mix of people, from Judges and the well educated, to the small business owner. They will all have their own reasons for choosing Labour just as those who vote Tory/ Lid Dem etc will have theirs. Let's not be so arrogant as to assume we know why anyone votes the way they do shall we?

You do talk such nonsense sometimes uncleglen. The NHS is primarily front lined by health professionals who want to do no more than deliver high quality healthcare. If you really think that's how the public sector works and that those of us who work in it are part of a left wing agenda to deliver poor services then you really are stupid. As someone who actually does work in public sector healthcare, I can assure you that we despair of anything that affects our ability to deliver the highest quality of patient care when and where it is needed. In my area, central government cuts are the reason why long term care is impossible to deliver, when that is the only thing that will really help a patient. It's not a left wing conpsiracy to fight for better services and the required funds to deliver them, it's compassionate common sense by people who simply want to do a job that most would consider to be fairly important. And if an NHS is a left wing idea, then we are all guilty of left leanings. I'm sure even you uncleglen would be horrified is a healthcare system free at delivery was removed, or didn't exist - because in countries where it doesn't exist, people die or live with conditions that could be easily treated.

It's just the start Fox. And as for ?12bn welfare cuts (but no info on where the cuts will be made), the extension of right to buy to HA tenants could cost the treasury up to ?60bn! And to think that people actually fell for this!

I accept that Henry, but saying things could be worse isn't a reason for excusing the flaws with what we have. In purely economic terms, subsidised employment is not what free markets are supposed to stand for. So for me there is a hypocracy in any party who preaches that state intervention/ ownership/ regulation is bad, when their alternative turns out to demand it. It is perhaps one of the ironies of free market economics, that the freer the market, the bigger the public sector too. What I find most interesting about that article ???? is that it pretty much confirms what many are saying in trying to make sense of what happened. I tend also to think that (whether truthful or not) the Tories has a clear single message and stuck to it (and therefore proving that if you say something enough, people will believe it). It didn't seem to matter in the end that Cameron was bad at interviews and never answered a question, but talked and talked to deflect to something else. I think there may have been a lot more going on than that though too. The SNP and UKIP inputs definitely had an impact on some level of consciousness (and the Tories were able to capitalise on it). And with Students, they are a generation totally removed from Thatcherism and the early years of New Labour (just as many 30-40 somethings are removed from the 70s) and it does skew perspective. Even the Tories have no idea why they did so well! Maybe we should just accept that (in the south at least) we are a country of the individual, standing clearly to the right. I kind of sense a new era in some ways, one in which it would take a lot more to shake up our comfortable lives before we see any great swing away from the status quo again.

Henry, I am looking at the real data. The more people who get low paid jobs, the more we pay to subsidise those jobs. It's one reason why borrowing has gone up with new tax receipts. It's a totally false economy. Plenty of data on the government site data-wise to support that. New jobs only have value in regards to tax receipts if we aren't topping them up with benefits paid for by other tax payers. This for detailed figures on working tax credits at 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-tax-credits-finalised-award-statistics-geographical-statistics-2012-to-2013 This for data on other benefits received by in work families http://npi.org.uk/files/7513/7477/3906/WorkingFamiliesBenefits.pdf

Some useful data here... http://www.poverty.org.uk/15/index.shtml 3.3 million working households in receipt of tax credits in 2011. Will try and find some data for 2014. But the message is clear. Millions of people can only afford to work if we top up their salaries.

No because the reciepts are not proportionally high enough. We need better paid jobs at the lower end. More people are out of tax altogether than ever (because of low wages) and most people in full time work earn below the average ?23k salary. We are subsidising employers more money than ever (?28bn per year) with working tax credits and other benefits. That is the inbalance I am talking about. It is costing other tax payers money to keep people in work. That is not the sign of a healthy, balanced or growing economy.

Down on projections. Expenditure continues to rise although we'll have to wait and see what impact new cuts have on closing the gap. I tend to think also that any party in power would have seen a recovery. I think it has less to do with Colaition policy and more to do with the natural rebound after a major crash. The real test will be to see if living standards increase over the next five years and if that gap can close without massive pain. The Tories promised a lot of givaways as well in their manifesto.

Except the Labour party was formed with the alliance of unions representing ordinary working people. And unions still have an important role to play. I personally don't have any issue with that. But I do agree with the identity crisis that Labour currently has Otta. Miliband failed to read the mood of the country and took far too long into his leadership to provide any kind of opposition. The Tories had a good two years of getting their skewed core message out, unchallenged, at the start. By the time Miliband started to respond, it was too late to change that. People genuinely think Labour ruined the economy! I do also think that the Tories did a great job of striking fear into people regarding the SNP, and they did it in a way that also took the bite out of UKIP. *crossed posts otta but I think we are on the same page*

So ????, tell us just where the growth actually is in the economy? It's not rocket science. Borrowing is up since 2010. Tax receipts are down. Exports down and productivity too. Oh I know, the 2 million new jobs? But you see, I just can;t balance that with tax receipts being down somehow.

I think you have to be in America too, to have any chance of going to the mothership ;D

Yes I think there is an irony Tillie in that we happily give benefit money to landlords to pay their mortgages but don't help those with mortgages themselves who fall on hard times. It's a complex thing to balance. But instead of having a sensible debate about it (I'm talking about politicians here) we engage in the politics of envy to justify hitting people as hard as possible. There has to be a better way to sort all of these things out than we have at the moment. We could start with some honesty from our press and politicians.