If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
What would Labour have to do to win the next election?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I recon Labour could win the next election ... as long as they replaced Gordon Brown with a famous Business Person like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar.
I see they're talking to Alan Sugar about running for London Mayor
I see they're talking to Alan Sugar about running for London Mayor
0
Comments
One fairly important person agrees with me. Ask Blue State Digital's Thomas Gensemer. His firm helped President Obama raise $300 million online during his election campaign. He thinks Labour are failing dismally, especially on the online front. Bye bye Gordon - can't say any of us will miss you.
Hmmmmm .. isn't the reverse of that what they said about New Labour and Blair back in 1997? :chin:
I'm not saying that I want the Tories to win the next election, but it is hard to muster any sympathy for this government. All governments are subject to corruption, decay and sleaze as they sit in power for longer and longer, and I have no doubt that if the Tories were to win the next three general elections they will be as corrupt and useless after 12 years in power as Labour are now.
I do worry about public services, healthcare and welfare, as one must always have when the Tories are concerned, but hopefully David Cameron's Tories won't try to undermine or cash starve them.
Possibly, though compared to PR the FTP system gives a much greater chance for radical realignment (Atlee and Thatcher both spring to mind). However its probable that the two parties (and add in Lib-Dems) probably do reflect the British people's preference for a mixed economy state with immigration controls, some degree of devolution and with both a strong private sector and a welfare state beneath it. That said whilst the differences may be in the detail they make a great difference at micro-level.
scrap the welfare reforms act, scrap section 62 of the criminal justice and immigration bill, pump a hella lot more money into the arts (i don't give 2 shits about sports, and i hate the olympics...oh did i meantion i'm moving to stratford
They aren't going to do any of that...
this would be a very good time for the lib dems to get their foot in...but they never seem to be forceful enough...breaks my heart...
Because the Lib Dems are almost qualified fence sitters.
Labour will no doubt promise its many lines and free money for all - hopefully people won't be too stupid to fall for it.
In case you hadn't noticed, the national debt is now around £2 trillion. That's when you add up all the bank liabilities this government has taken on - they conveniently fiddle the books in such a way that those liabilities do not appear of course, the crafty bastards. Such a level of debt is totally unsustainable. The next government will have no choice but to make absolutely enormous cuts in public spending. Naturally, the feather-bedded public sector won't take kindly to all this - expect huge protests similar to the British jobs for British workers ones, but on a far bigger scale in the first years of a Cameron government.
Why do you think that last week, coppers were warning of riots and street protests this summer? People are absolutely sick to death of this government - you can only push people so far before they crack. The dam is about to break!
They could also get rid the now completely pointless nuclear deterrence- something that would save nearly £100bn on the whole.
Problem solved- or at least made a lot better.
Well I would make the argument we should look to the future, rather than trying to be punitive. We are where we are at now, and we can't change that. I think we should seriously consider from an unbiased perspective if that is possible, whether we want a conservative government making policy for the next 5 years, or a labour government making policy for the next 5 years.
I think it would be naive of me to argue that nobody has grievances with the current government - I myself am upset as a student that I've been encouraged into education, and now am being told there are basically not enough jobs for the current students, let alone the graduates of the next 2 or 3 years. I hate the idea of identity cards, and in the wider perspective, the way the current government has led us down the path towards a police state with more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.
Having said that, looking to the future I just find the conservative's social policy too unnerving. It seems to be (although, elaborately dressed up) - we let the poor and needy fend for themselves, because a conservative government would cut 'wasteful spending'.
The very nature of public spending is that it is often wasteful, (i.e. if you need to hire someone to sit on in a hospital reception all day, maybe 75% of the time there is nothing for them to do!) but it is better that we waste some money and provide the essentials to those who need it, than say it is ultimately too wasteful and instead let those at the bottom go without.
You hate the idea of debt, but I would make the argument that if I have £20,000, which could hire an 'ok' teacher, I would be better benefitting the economy by borrowing an extra £10,000 and getting a FANTASTIC teacher, based on the premise that those students will go on to become highly skilled, highly educated workers, and will pay back far far more than £10,000 in income taxes thanks to their qualifications that they would not have got otherwise. I also argue that it's not just about money, it's about service, it's about providing value to people's lives.
It is always harder to be in government, because they you can't just reel off the spiel about whatever is topical right then, you have to make the hard decisions for the long term.
As for those at the bottom going without, where have you been for the past 12 years? Under Labour, the gap between rich and poor has INCREASED. Under a Labour government, for fuck's sake! The people who founded this once brilliant and highly principled political party would be utterly disgusted at what they are seeing today. Not true, ShyBoy. I don't hate the idea of debt outright. I know full well that debt is something that has to be taken on occasionally. What I object to is taking on unmanageable, dangerous levels of debt. A country with a debt of £2 trillion (and that's without adding on public sector pensions liabilities, Network Rail debts and PFI scheme debts!) is one that's got serious debt. The credit crunch and recession was created by people and businesses taking on far too much debt - the bubble has burst. Now the government is getting us out of it by creating another debt bubble, one which this country will take generations to pay off. Your kids and mine will still be paying off Gordon Brown's buying spree. Hang on a minute, "it is always harder to be in government, because they you can't just reel off the spiel about whatever is topical right then"? Er ShyBoy, this is a government which has constantly got one eye on the newspaper headlines. Why do you think we get endless initiatives (that don't work) being announced by the government every single day? Because they want to cover up their own massive failures - and gullible journalists will fall for it. New Labour can always trust sock puppets such as Nick Robinson and Robert Peston of the BBC to trot out the party line!
And why do you think Harriet Hagperson was yesterday wanking on about changing the law simply to claw back pension money from one person? Possibly to do with distracting everyone from their third attempt at bailing out the banks? Maybe to distract the media from Lord Turner's claim last week that Gordon Brown encouraged the debt spree that got us into this mess?
they either smoke too much crack or have fucked up advicers and arer stupid enough to believe them....
Exactly. High-earners already pay 40% which is amongst the highest tax bands in the world. Raising it will either encourage more tax dodging or more high-earners leaving the country. Whilst this may appease middle England (no more fat cat bankers...), it makes little sense for the long-term prosperity of the country.
yes, it's a load of tosh since it's highly subjective which is how a law shouldn't be, since people have no idea if they're breaking the law
also the thing about 2 consenting adults being able to do what they want to eachother, but they can't film and watch it after