Politics Thread!

[zip accident]

..Tory cuts continue to be ideological.

Cuts don‘t reduce debt, directly. They only lower the deficit.

Only?

BOLLOCKS!

Cuts can increase the deficit. It's called "False economy".

The "savings" being made create bigger costs that pop up elsewhere.

Conservatives know this but proceed anyway = ideological.

Proof :

"...it is likely that the [benefit cap] as it stands will generate a net cost"

It's not ideological. You're missing the connection that every cost is also a profit, it's the profit that's the motive, the Tory ideology is profit, which isn't actually an ideology, just a motive.

[(o)(o)]

Don't muddy the issue.

Tory lies don't conceal their ideology. They charge ahead for smaller government, destroying welfare etc "at all costs".

The actual level of deficit isn't a concern it's a PR management issue.

[merman]

Rail upgrade delayed. And these clowns expect us to believe HS2 will work!

[zip accident]

Don't muddy the issue.

Tory lies don't conceal their ideology. They charge ahead for smaller government, destroying welfare etc "at all costs".

I'm not muddying the issue. They wouldn't bother if there wasn't a cost, because then there wouldn't be a profit, no profit no backhander.

Rail upgrade delayed. And these clowns expect us to believe HS2 will work!

Define work? make a lot of profit for contractors? Heck yes. Be profitable as a concern for the nation? they don't care about that so long as the short term profit is big enough.

[tufty]

Don't muddy the issue.

Tory lies don't conceal their ideology. They charge ahead for smaller government, destroying welfare etc "at all costs".

The actual level of deficit isn't a concern it's a PR management issue.

For once, I find myself agreeing with zip. As far as ideology goes, there's no "there" there with the current bunch of tories. The era where ideology trumped personal gain on that side of the benches died with the end of Thatcher's reign of shite. This lot (and, let's be fair, 99% of the cunts on the other side since Blair ditched everything socialist that Labour ever stood for) are only hooked into the whole 80s free market ideology because it's the easiest way onto the gravy train for them and their buddies.

Never assign to malice what can be more simply assigned to bare-faced greed.

[VNVObit]

Ideology is too grand a word for the Tories. It is also misleading as their policies are woefully inconsistent (thinking benefit cuts & right to buy )

They're nonsensical and PR focused output is more likely to hamstring future generations as it's based on short term gain, we're not here for the long term so we don't care. You can't run a business like that (not one you want to sustain anyway) much less a nation.

[pogo]

They're nonsensical and PR focused output is more likely to hamstring future generations as it's based on short term gain,

Nonsense. Reducing the deficit, their main achievement and the driver of many of their decisions, is precisely the opposite of short term. It’s a long term policy, taking more than one parliamentary term, with even longer term implications. It’s the anti-cuts brigade that are short term, seeking to spend money we don’t have with no concern for the debt burden it would leave us with tomorrow.

As for ideological you need look no further than the last Labour government’s ideological crusade to permanently expand the size of the state, simply for its own sake. I mean there was no actual need to hire a million or so civil servants that were added to the payroll under Blair/Brown. We know this as the coalition managed to eliminate about that number of government jobs, without noticeably impacting output. Instead civil servants have just been working harder, improving productivity for the first time in decades.

[VNVObit]

Nonsense. Reducing the deficit, their main achievement and the driver of many of their decisions, is precisely the opposite of short term. It’s a long term policy, taking more than one parliamentary term, with even longer term implications. It’s the anti-cuts brigade that are short term, seeking to spend money we don’t have with no concern for the debt burden it would leave us with tomorrow.

As for ideological you need look no further than the last Labour government’s ideological crusade to permanently expand the size of the state, simply for its own sake. I mean there was no actual need to hire a million or so civil servants that were added to the payroll under Blair/Brown. We know this as the coalition managed to eliminate about that number of government jobs, without noticeably impacting output. Instead civil servants have just been working harder, improving productivity for the first time in decades.

See from 2:45 onwards in the video. Sum's up their approach nicely. The long term of their decisions are likely to place a greater burden on future generations through off balance sheet finance via private sector services or increasing demand for services because their cuts have forced people into hardship as the private sector is not going to bail them out (after all as you have pointed out numerous times their responsibility is to their shareholders not society). This may reduce short term deficits but longer term reduces options and creates considerable risk in the current account budget. But as they won't be there (these things tend to take 10-15 years to become apparent) they don't give a damn. Meanwhile they have cheerleaders/sheep bleating "deficit bad surplus good" which would be fine if this was binary choice/outcome but sadly it's not.

[gravy]

They're nonsensical and PR focused output is more likely to hamstring future generations as it's based on short term gain,

Nonsense. Reducing the deficit, their main achievement and the driver of many of their decisions, is precisely the opposite of short term. It’s a long term policy, taking more than one parliamentary term, with even longer term implications. It’s the anti-cuts brigade that are short term, seeking to spend money we don’t have with no concern for the debt burden it would leave us with tomorrow.

I think you're confusing their approach to the deficit with a long term economic plan. You've drunk the kool aid here.

What is good is cons consistently and clearly stating their goals, timeline and strategies.

Not so good is they haven't hit the majority of those goals. And that's despite serveral rounds where they've redefined them to be easier to achieve.

It hasn't been much of a surprise to anyone that they've failed to live up to the rhetoric.

And I don't think they're so stupid as to believe in it themselves either.

Given that the only conclusion to draw is that the rhetoric is what they're selling here.

[gravy]

HaHa!

I mean I think they're utter cunts and this bloke, in particular, is the tip of the cuntberg but even so:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... culty.html

0x00f!

[pogo]

I think you're confusing their approach to the deficit with a long term economic plan. You've drunk the kool aid here.

What is good is cons consistently and clearly stating their goals, timeline and strategies.

Not so good is they haven't hit the majority of those goals. And that's despite serveral rounds where they've redefined them to be easier to achieve.

Like what? I’ve already mentioned the deficit, but events e.g. in the eurozone conspired to stop us recovering as well or quickly as expected, so ending any hope of eliminating the deficit in four or five years. The coalition could still have managed it, if they had really wanted to; they have total control over spending. But to reduce spending faster than the economy could stand would be very damaging. To do it anyway knowing it would be ideological.

Their immigration target was just foolish. It was always going to be a hostage to fortune, choosing net migration which is the difference between two numbers the government has little influence over. What little they did has been overtaken by events; the recovery here and the lack of one across most of continental Europe, particularly in employment, has led to the UK economy being vastly more attractive to immigrants.

It’s the Labour party that’s gotten increasingly ideological over the last five years, most obviously in the run up to the election. Their manifesto talked about balancing the budget but the way they would achieve it was like something from the 1970s, a raft of measures targeting the rich. They knew these would not raise any money – Ed Balls said abolishing Non-Dom status would lose money, and in aggregate the set of measures all aimed at the same few people were even less likely to work – but they were going to do them anyway. That’s ideological.

[tufty]

As opposed to targetting the poor, of course. That doesn't do anything either, but it keeps your rich, "tax efficient", friends on board and allows you to appear to be trying to do something. If by some miracle there's an economic turnround, it's all down to your genius policies, and if it fails it's all down to the filthy dagos / scrounging dolescum / filthy dagos coming over here to be scrounging dolescum whilst somehow simultaneously taking jobs from hard working english families.

[gravy]

I think you're confusing their approach to the deficit with a long term economic plan. You've drunk the kool aid here.

What is good is cons consistently and clearly stating their goals, timeline and strategies.

Not so good is they haven't hit the majority of those goals. And that's despite serveral rounds where they've redefined them to be easier to achieve.

Like what?

Well to start with

ending any hope of eliminating the deficit in four or five years.

Their immigration target was just foolish.

If you want a few more:

Won't raise VAT
Will improve living standards
Deport more foreign criminals
Won't reorganise the NHS
Cut amount of MPs by 10%

etc etc etc etc

Like I said this is about bold statement spin they have no ability to deliver on. Or intention to either. You're right they're not idealogues but jut saying anything they can to stay in office.

And you can stuff you moral relativism up yer arse "But Labour would have been as bad / worst!!!" etc Well probably but so what?

Labour being twats doesn't make the current government's posturing about their prudent long term financial plan less laughable or their attitude to the vulnerable anything other than reprehensible.

I've said before I don't think Labour would have done much better in the same situation. Given that likely equivalance you move onto other criteri,a where this is a difference, to make a judgement. Bottom line, I don't wan to vote for cunts.

Which brings us back to this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... culty.html

[pogo]

It’s been easy to miss with all that’s happening here, but it’s been a momentous week, or even a momentous day, in US politics. In the past 24 hours or so we’ve seen:

* the Supreme Court reject an attempt to void the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. This was the last realistic attempt to get the courts to throw it out. Now if its opponents want to get rid of it they’ll have to do it through legislation. But no-one believes that will ever happen now. Even if Republicans win the presidency and keep control of congress it would be political suicide to repeal Obamacare, which has given affordable health insurance to millions who were denied it. As the Republicans are incapable of coming up with a replacement that means it is here to stay.

* even more decisively SCOTUS declared gay marriage legal, overriding the minority of states that still banned it, due to the Bill of Rights. That makes it almost impossible to overturn – even if there was political will it would require gutting the constitution.

* Finally there‘s the sense that something is really happening to address the still present legacy of racism, of Jim Crow and of slavery, after the terrible events in Charleston. Suddenly displaying the Confederate Flag is no longer acceptable, and other racist symbols/traditions are also up for examination. This mood was powerfully captured by Obama in his eulogy above, speaking like he never has before in tradition of religious oratory.

This all makes it particularly difficult for the Republicans. Although there is only a minority opposed to gay marriage and supporting things like the Confederate Flag they are a vocal minority and form a key constituency within the Republican party. The election is due in 2016, and any Republican hoping to run for president needs the support of this minority in the primaries to become the Republican candidate. But then they have to run for president against a Democrat, probably Hilary Clinton, and ditch any extremist/minority views they needed in the primaries.

[zip accident]

It’s been easy to miss with all that’s happening here, but it’s been a momentous week, or even a momentous day, in US politics. In the past 24 hours or so we’ve seen:

* the Supreme Court reject an attempt to void the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. This was the last realistic attempt to get the courts to throw it out. Now if its opponents want to get rid of it they’ll have to do it through legislation. But no-one believes that will ever happen now. Even if Republicans win the presidency and keep control of congress it would be political suicide to repeal Obamacare, which has given affordable health insurance to millions who were denied it. As the Republicans are incapable of coming up with a replacement that means it is here to stay.

That'll be a good thing for them.

* even more decisively SCOTUS declared gay marriage legal, overriding the minority of states that still banned it, due to the Bill of Rights. That makes it almost impossible to overturn – even if there was political will it would require gutting the constitution.

There have been ammendment's to the constitution before now, could happen again, if there's the political will, but it does seem this is going to stay for a while.

* Finally there‘s the sense that something is really happening to address the still present legacy of racism, of Jim Crow and of slavery, after the terrible events in Charleston. Suddenly displaying the Confederate Flag is no longer acceptable, and other racist symbols/traditions are also up for examination. This mood was powerfully captured by Obama in his eulogy above, speaking like he never has before in tradition of religious oratory.

The Dukes of Hazzard will be a different show now.

OTOH, the guy was unemployed, I think there's a risk that was a bigger factor than race, race is just easier to deal with.

This all makes it particularly difficult for the Republicans. Although there is only a minority opposed to gay marriage and supporting things like the Confederate Flag they are a vocal minority and form a key constituency within the Republican party. The election is due in 2016, and any Republican hoping to run for president needs the support of this minority in the primaries to become the Republican candidate. But then they have to run for president against a Democrat, probably Hilary Clinton, and ditch any extremist/minority views they needed in the primaries.

Hm, well that may well be interesting to watch.