Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I'm sorry, but what is the point you're trying to make here? I never said anything in defence of Tony Blair. All I did say was "At least the Tories are consistent." and "More broken promises?" <-- LDs, which is true.
    Sorry, I do apologise, I should have been clear.

    This sort of rally cry was a similar one used by Nick Clegg; his main mantra to clean up politics - only for Nick to have utterly humiliated his party and nationally disagraced himself as a spineless, weak politician.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It baffles me how people can still vote Labour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    bla bla barb at Labour bla bla subject change
    It's not 'categorically' Labour's problem. If I push a man down a hole and you bury him, is it categorically my problem, or are we both to blame?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't Labour either get some decent policies or call it a day? They are a hopeless party.

    They're in no position to carp on about 'millionaire bankers' when they bailed the City out to the tune of £bns in 2008 with taxpayers' cash.

    If they were so concerned about wealth inequality they would have let the City go bust when they had the chance instead of propping it up with borrowed money.

    We have more pressing things to be worried about than a slight reduction in the top rate of tax anyway. Labour -as usual- are using it as a cheap opportunity to 'bash the Tories' instead of thinking up sensible counter policies (which is what they should be doing).

    Are they capable of doing anything other than a bit of meaningless grandstanding? It appears not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scots King)
    We can still have an early general election though:

    Fixed Terms Parliament Act 2011

    s.2 - Early parliamentary general elections.



    (1)An early parliamentary general election is to take place if— .
    (a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and .
    (b)if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).
    If either the Conservatives or Lib Dems voted for such a motion during the term of this parliament, they'd look a bit hypocritical and their legislation would look pointless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    This rather banal Tory line of argument is really beginning to grate on me. The circumstances under the previous Labour government were entirely different to the ones we are experiencing now. The reason that this tax cut is being criticised - and quite rightly so - is because we are in times of austerity and whilst doing his best to destroy the poor and disabled in particular, Gideon is giving a tax cut to millionaires and high earners. It's the only response that the Tories have to their criminally unfair austerity programme.
    What was that you were saying about banality?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    What was that you were saying about banality?
    Politics is a very banal place indeed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    George Osborne must be glad that Ed Balls is Shadow Chancellor- it means he doesn't look like the worst Tory chancellor since Norman Lamont, which I think he is.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Why don't Labour either get some decent policies or call it a day? They are a hopeless party.

    They're in no position to carp on about 'millionaire bankers' when they bailed the City out to the tune of £bns in 2008 with taxpayers' cash.

    If they were so concerned about wealth inequality they would have let the City go bust when they had the chance instead of propping it up with borrowed money.

    We have more pressing things to be worried about than a slight reduction in the top rate of tax anyway. Labour -as usual- are using it as a cheap opportunity to 'bash the Tories' instead of thinking up sensible counter policies (which is what they should be doing).

    Are they capable of doing anything other than a bit of meaningless grandstanding? It appears not.
    Do you know, I think I'm starting to like you already. I actually do genuinely feel sorry for Ed Milliband - Having to fight for a party that is hopelessly smashed beyond repair after Blair and Brown changed the image of Labour into that of a weak Tory party.

    It's depressing though to consider that if the Labour DO win the next election - it will be in for tactical voting to oust the current aborted government - not because people want Labour, who like you said actually have no policies and no mandate to govern, in government.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    It's not 'categorically' Labour's problem. If I push a man down a hole and you bury him, is it categorically my problem, or are we both to blame?
    No - But Labour created student fees in the first place. Fact. That's hardly a fair analogy, but I do see where you're coming from. My point is, how fair is it to blame the current government for doing a heinous thing like put the student fees up, when the last government introduced them in the first place?

    Where were the riots, et. al, when the Labour government introduced them? Where was the outcry then; or did Labour spin it in such a way that the introduction would be a good thing, like they do with nearly everything?

    To answer your analogy though - we're both to blame. But at the moment what we are seeing is the criticism going against Lib Dem's, when in truth their both to blame.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    No - But Labour created student fees in the first place. Fact. That's hardly a fair analogy, but I do see where you're coming from. My point is, how fair is it to blame the current government for doing a heinous thing like put the student fees up, when the last government introduced them in the first place?

    Where were the riots, et. al, when the Labour government introduced them? Where was the outcry then; or did Labour spin it in such a way that the introduction would be a good thing, like they do with nearly everything?

    To answer your analogy though - we're both to blame. But at the moment what we are seeing is the criticism going against Lib Dem's, when in truth their both to blame.
    I'm not blaming the government for putting the fees up- The Tories and Labour both said they'd increase fees, I've no issue with them. The Lib Dems however, categorically stated they'd vote against a tuition fees rise and they didn't. That's why there's so much hate for the Lib Dems.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    I'm not blaming the government for putting the fees up- The Tories and Labour both said they'd increase fees, I've no issue with them. The Lib Dems however, categorically stated they'd vote against a tuition fees rise and they didn't. That's why there's so much hate for the Lib Dems.

    The Lib Dems also went into coalition and had to compromise, this is what most people don't understand. I personally believe that we would be a lot worse off if just the Tories had got in, as opposed to them being with Lib Dems.

    Also remember that Britain hadn't had anything like a coalition for years, and both parties have been figuring it out as they go along. I think that the Lib Dems have become far more able to stand up to the Conservatives since then, for example about the boundary changes, which would have been blatant gerrymandering if they had got through.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theblackphoenixcon)
    The Lib Dems also went into coalition and had to compromise, this is what most people don't understand. I personally believe that we would be a lot worse off if just the Tories had got in, as opposed to them being with Lib Dems.

    Also remember that Britain hadn't had anything like a coalition for years, and both parties have been figuring it out as they go along. I think that the Lib Dems have become far more able to stand up to the Conservatives since then, for example about the boundary changes, which would have been blatant gerrymandering if they had got through.
    Perhaps they went into coalition, but despite the Lib Dems insisting they have a relevance in government - they don't. The Liberal Democrats have just shown themselves up to be a party lacking bottle and the vitality to stand up to the Tory agenda and say "This is unacceptable."

    It is mostly a right-wing, Tory driven agenda - and when David Cameron formed his government, he deliberately picked his own party members for the good spots - chancellor, secretary of education for example. Of course he would do that.

    How different would it be if they had a Liberal Democrat agenda...?

    Compromising is a good thing in theory, just like the idea of a coalition is. In theory. But the Lib Dems are proving to be a party that is getting utterly slaughted by the Tory agenda. Given the current economic state, you might as just well had a Tory majority.

    Not to worry though - We'll betray the Liberal Democrats come the 2015 election when they fight as seperate parties - just as they betrayed us for a slice of power.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    I'm not blaming the government for putting the fees up- The Tories and Labour both said they'd increase fees, I've no issue with them. The Lib Dems however, categorically stated they'd vote against a tuition fees rise and they didn't. That's why there's so much hate for the Lib Dems.
    I'm sorry, I must have misread then I apologise

    But maybe the question we should be addressing is this. Clegg knew that the deal was faulty to start with - His promise to not put it up was to appeal to his student support base, who were, and still are, becoming politically active.

    So why, then, did Clegg sign for a deal he knew he was bogus to begin with? Clegg should be utterly humiliated for out and out lying to his student support base with such calculated audacity. He knew it was a policy he couldn't keep - and Cable's excuse of "The Tories made us do it! / We have no money!" was proof just how much a party that prides itself on fairness and honesty are really as just as bent as everyone else.

    I'd like him to resign actually, given how he's disgraced him and his party (Two years to make a pitiful apology, Clegg? Really?) he needs to be remembered for what he actually is - a megalomaniac yes man who betrayed his party.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    I'm sorry, I must have misread then I apologise

    But maybe the question we should be addressing is this. Clegg knew that the deal was faulty to start with - His promise to not put it up was to appeal to his student support base, who were, and still are, becoming politically active.

    So why, then, did Clegg sign for a deal he knew he was bogus to begin with? Clegg should be utterly humiliated for out and out lying to his student support base with such calculated audacity. He knew it was a policy he couldn't keep - and Cable's excuse of "The Tories made us do it! / We have no money!" was proof just how much a party that prides itself on fairness and honesty are really as just as bent as everyone else.

    I'd like him to resign actually, given how he's disgraced him and his party (Two years to make a pitiful apology, Clegg? Really?) he needs to be remembered for what he actually is - a megalomaniac yes man who betrayed his party.
    Can answer the bold very simply-

    The Lib Dems had no idea they'd end up in a position of power. They were false promises of a man who tried only to win voters and paid for it with his dignity.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Labour can always sink lower
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    Can answer the bold very simply-

    The Lib Dems had no idea they'd end up in a position of power. They were false promises of a man who tried only to win voters and paid for it with his dignity.
    I'd like to add he sold his soul to the devil, too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This is what politics is. David Cameron when he was running for power any adjustments Labour did he would criticize that's how politics works. Even though many of the things he said he would do he didnt do and didnt hold the promises he said. Oh well, cant get excited about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labour really are politically corrupt and shameful, but the issue with our political system is that they are better than all the other parties.

    The criticism that Labour had a 40p tax rate for 13 years completely ignores the current economic circumstances we find ourselves in, though.

    Now, more than ever, the richest need to take responsibility for our finances, not the poor.

    So, even though Ed&Ed are questionable (to put it lightly), they're the only option we've got. (except the Greens, who, thanks to FPTP, don't have a chance)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scots King)
    I've attached a link of Ed Balls berating the Coalition for their "tax cut for millionaires."

    Even for Labour, this is plumbing new depths.

    They were in power for 13 years. They had the highest rate of income tax set at 40p. Yes 40p!.

    And they moved the band up to 50p months prior to the general election in 2010 - to set up the trap for the Tories should they come into power.
    Probably more to do with the whole recession thing than a fiendish trap the tax raise.

    People earning a million pounds will literally save more than the average yearly salary (and most people earn less than that). It's also the poorest working families who are worse off and it's the poorest generally who spend more of their money, than the richest and that by spending rather than hoarding they are actually playing a vital role in the economy.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.