Is this the worst government in history? We need change!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

nulli tertius

Original post by Ambitious1999

This current Government 2010- present is the worst in British history.

Please explain how Lord North's ministry was better.

Reply 21

Drewski

Original post by nulli tertius

Please explain how Lord North's ministry was better.

Expect the reply: "who's Lord North?"

OP isn't aware of anything that happened pre-2000.

Reply 22

cambio wechsel

Original post by absoul

Kick Jeremy Corbyn out, put chuka umunna in...

It will be Keir Starmer and he would seem to be half-campaigning already.

Reply 23

Fenice

Original post by cambio wechsel

It will be Keir Starmer and he would seem to be half-campaigning already.

It will be Angela Rayner. Corbyn will go but the Momentum crowd have tunnel vision and won't yet accept that the problem is bigger than Corbyn

Reply 24

Connor27

Original post by Fenice

It will be Angela Rayner. Corbyn will go but the Momentum crowd have tunnel vision and won't yet accept that the problem is bigger than Corbyn

You use the word "yet" as if those troglodytes will gain an ounce of sense at some point, ain't gonna happen mate!

Reply 25

Jammy Duel

Original post by Drewski

Expect the reply: "who's Lord North?"

OP isn't aware of anything that happened pre-2000.

I expect that is pushing it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 26

meenu89

Original post by absoul

Nice quotes there. Im doing an economics degree at LSE right now so dont lecture me, my knowledge of economics is pretty damn solid.

Why do some new posters on this forum make comments like this? I (and guessing others) don't give a **** what you are doing.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

Jammy Duel

Original post by meenu89

Why do some new posters on this forum make comments like this? I (and guessing others) don't give a **** what you are doing.

Especially when we're talking about economics, where even the professionals often have no idea, especially when there are hiccups; the job of the economist is to make the astrologer look good.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

L i b

Original post by Ambitious1999

-More people in work than ever before. Because record numbers of unemployed have had their benefits unfairly taken away or sanctioned. Every person taken off benefits is regarded as being in work even if they are not.

I'm sorry, but that's just utter rubbish.

There are many people in zero hour contracts

No there aren't. There are a proportionately small share (2 per cent of jobs, as I recall - which isn't even going to be 2 per cent of employed people) - and the majority of them were happy with the number of hours available to them.

-7- day NHS. Yet the NHS is facing cuts elsewhere

The NHS is always "facing cuts elsewhere". The overall NHS budget continues to increase in real terms, but yes - so long as the NHS makes a single financial decision that results in investment moving from one area to another (as it obviously should) then you can present that as "cuts". It isn't very clever though, is it?

-Fastest growing economy in developed world. Not for long, we have a massive recession coming as the EU boycotts Britain and in years to come possible trade sanctions. Access to a free market is highly unlikely

There are a few choice terms I could use to describe this particular set of predictions. I'll settle for "highly debatable", just to be polite.

-Rising wages. What about the many people doing zero hour contracts

People doing zero hours contracts get paid too. Their earnings are included in statistics about earnings, just like any other worker.

-More people in higher education. We would have far more in HE if tuition Fees were cut or abolished.

We wouldn't actually. Look to Scotland, where so-called free tuition results in a centrally dictated cap on places to locally domiciled students. Free tuition there is restricting places, and if you look at evidence from organisations like the Sutton Trust then you will see that negatively impacts the students from the poorest backgrounds, who feel the squeeze on student places most acutely. Which is why Scotland has the worst record in access for the least-well-off students in the whole of the UK.

Reply 29

L i b

Original post by Robby2312

Well it's pretty bad.The last prime minister gambled the entire country's future on a referendum just to shut some Eurosceptics in his own party up.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fairly massive public support for a referendum on the EU.

Let's not forget that Labour's twisting on the vine over the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty ended up having a significant part in their downfall. People wanted a say on the issue, and your political position seems to be predicated on denying them that because you don't like their views. Not only is that cowardly, it's destined to fail eventually.

Reply 30

username2763536

Original post by L i b

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fairly massive public support for a referendum on the EU.

Let's not forget that Labour's twisting on the vine over the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty ended up having a significant part in their downfall. People wanted a say on the issue, and your political position seems to be predicated on denying them that because you don't like their views. Not only is that cowardly, it's destined to fail eventually.

So what if it had massive public support? That was largely to do with immigration. There is a reason we do not live in a direct democracy.We live in a parlimentary democracy where we elect people to decide on complex issues.Whether to remain in the EU was a complex issue.It had lots of different economic and social implications. No I don't think it should have been left to the general public to decide.It should have been decided by experts who knew what they were talking about not just what they had heard off the media. Giving people a vote on a complex issue when they are largely ignorant of the consequences was a stupid idea.

we need UKIP

Original post by Robby2312

Whether to remain in the EU was a complex issue.It had lots of different economic and social implications. No I don't think it should have been left to the general public to decide.It should have been decided by experts who knew what they were talking about not just what they had heard off the media. Giving people a vote on a complex issue when they are largely ignorant of the consequences was a stupid idea.

I'd argue that the domestic government of the state is pretty complex too. If you don't recognise the right of the people to make decisions on matters of complexity, I really do wonder how you can possibly defend their entitlement to vote at all.

I entirely recognise that they may, indeed will, regularly make decisions at odds with what I believe. I can live with that.

Reply 33

username2763536

Original post by L i b

It was the decision of the overwhelming majority of these people, including the vast majority of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs, to have a referendum on the issue. You can hardly appeal to parliamentary democracy here when parliament was given a full say on the issue.

I'd argue that the domestic government of the state is pretty complex too. If you don't recognise the right of the people to make decisions on matters of complexity, I really do wonder how you can possibly defend their entitlement to vote at all.

I entirely recognise that they may, indeed will, regularly make decisions at odds with what I believe. I can live with that.

Democracy is the least worst form of government we have.Just because the majority of people want something doesn't mean it should happen.I don't think it should be left to uninformed people to decide on issues like the EU.If it was something mostly opinion based and easy to understand like gay marriage or the death penalty then yeah go ahead have a referendum.The EU decision was complex and even the experts were disagreeing with each other.I don't think that the majority of people reached their decision by looking analytically through the arguments for and against. They just voted based on what they read in the newspaper or because they wanted to stop immigration. This is a big decision and it should not have been decided like that.We should have come to a decision based upon what was actually best for the country not what the majority felt was best.

And then there is the outcome which was basically 50-50.Just because the outcome was slightly in favour of out.We now have a situation where nearly half the population are being dragged out of the EU against their will.How is that fair? You are right though,I'm not a particular fan of democracy.You end up with idiots like trump becoming president.The president should be chosen on who is actually best qualified for the job not on who the general public thinks looks or sounds the best.

Reply 34

L i b

Original post by Robby2312

Democracy is the least worst form of government we have.

Yeah, and you seem to be all for trying something worse.

If it was something mostly opinion based and easy to understand like gay marriage or the death penalty then yeah go ahead have a referendum.The EU decision was complex and even the experts were disagreeing with each other.

I don't think moral questions are particularly straightforward, nor do I think you'll find a uniform view among experts on them.

And then there is the outcome which was basically 50-50.Just because the outcome was slightly in favour of out.We now have a situation where nearly half the population are being dragged out of the EU against their will.How is that fair?

Hey, if you don't agree with the process, don't engage with it. In the end, of course, overwhelming numbers of people did.

Reply 35

username2763536

Original post by L i b

Yeah, and you seem to be all for trying something worse.

I don't think moral questions are particularly straightforward, nor do I think you'll find a uniform view among experts on them.

Hey, if you don't agree with the process, don't engage with it. In the end, of course, overwhelming numbers of people did.

I said they were simple to understand.As in you don't need a degree in economics to understand the implications. And as for democracy it's not exactly flawless.We probably could try for something better than democracy.But until then it would be nice if Prime ministers stopped calling needless referendums.

Reply 36

L i b

Original post by Robby2312

I said they were simple to understand.As in you don't need a degree in economics to understand the implications.

A degree in philosophy or jurisprudence, on the other hand...

The arguments around the death penalty in particularly are hugely complex. If it was presented as a way of reducing crime, then we have huge arguments over its sociological impact, as well as moral ones; does it reflect our understanding of human rights and so on - a legal question.

These things are not remotely as simple as you suggest.

Reply 37

Trinculo

Original post by absoul

It's a little bit extreme but this government has been completely disgraceful. Even Blair and Brown did a better job, Conservatives have got nothing done so far.

Kick Jeremy Corbyn out, put chuka umunna in and let's fix this mess that the right wingers have imposed on us.

At this point in time, there are too many people still deluding themselves that Jeremy Corbyn is going to be some kind of absurd hybrid of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump - i.e. radical but electable. The slightly more realistic supporters think that he's going to be a disaster, but will have enough effect to "shake up" the system. Everyone else is pretty much sure that he'll deliver electoral armageddon to the Labour Party.

There are too many people who genuinely hate Blairites more than Tories - in a sense, they hate success. Chuka represents Blairism entirely, and there's no way they'll let him in. They'd rather have Tories.

Personally, I think that if quite late on, say 6-9 months prior to the next General Election, if Labour were to sack Corbyn and install Dan Jarvis, they might possibly even win a majority - but as it stands, I can't see beyond them being decimated - losing another 60+ seats.

Chuka, because of all his baggage, and essentially being Mandelson's man, is at this point just as divisive a figure in Labour as Corbyn. That's why he didn't throw his hat in the ring. The hard-left have control at the moment, and he wouldn't be able to win.

Dan Jarvis is your only shot, although he's not particularly popular with the Trots, either. If you want to know how he could win a GE for you, just ask Tory voters if they would mind if he became PM.

Reply 38

Numan786

All the stuff you mentioned is what dreamers think about. The next lot in charge wont change anything because they have the bonus of these things being implemented and not having to take the blame for it.

I mean look at the new spy laws. If Labour comes in I guarantee guaran ****ing tee TEEE!!! they won't get rid of that law among others.

Reply 39

Vav Sartrean Po

This will just lead to a command economy, whereby people don't want to work hard or to their maximum capability because there are no incentives... Furthermore, the rich will just leave the country and business enterprise will collapse.