Pre-election budget

[andyb]

WHAT IS THE TRUTH??

I'll give you the truth

I'm going down the pub.

Though I'm not sure you're ready for it.

 

[Octopus]

I'll give you the truth

I'm going down the pub.

Though I'm not sure you're ready for it.

there is no truth when it comes to Politicians...

 

[Diddy]

I think Brown was the unluckiest PM ever. I also think he would have been a good PM if he had the job to start with. The "deal" between him and Blair destroyed him. He was tortured by it....It consumed him (Taken from some political memoirs I have read). The economy was going just "fine" until the crash. It was his spending just prior to taking over (An attempt at prompting feel good factor for the start of his premiership.)...that IMHO is what stuffed up what could have been a great legacy. That coupled with the fact that the "job" proved too big for him, I think it would have been easier for him 10 years previous.
He got a ton of inherited problems with regards to the voters turning on Labour as the reality of two wars was hitting home. He had floods, he had foot in mouth disease....and then just incase he weren't paying attention he copped the banking crisis.
Blair became obsessed with the world stage, where I think Brown would have contented himself with keeping the UK safe.
As said I have read some memoirs from this period and it has been said that the action taken by Brown and Darling actually saved the world banking system. Apparently they had drawn up plans to deploy troops on the streets prior to coming up with the refinancing bailout plan. They really feared that banks were not going to open their doors from the Monday onwards....with no bugger having access to ANY cash. Now as much as we all hate the bank bailout.....not having any cash would have been a bit of a pain.....
"They" buggered up a few things with the bailout....ie people should have been in the dock, lost their bonuses, lost their pensions.....but "they" bottled that as unbelievably even at the final hour bankers were holding out for a better deal...denying that there were any problems.....So they had to be sweetened as part of the deal.....Bloody outrageous. They should have threw the chancers behind bars to await trial and got on without them.
But yep I will stand up for Brown.
I await the back lash. :}

 

[Octopus]

I think Brown was the unluckiest PM ever. I also think he would have been a good PM if he had the job to start with. The "deal" between him and Blair destroyed him. He was tortured by it....It consumed him (Taken from some political memoirs I have read). The economy was going just "fine" until the crash. It was his spending just prior to taking over (An attempt at prompting feel good factor for the start of his premiership.)...that IMHO is what stuffed up what could have been a great legacy. That coupled with the fact that the "job" proved too big for him, I think it would have been easier for him 10 years previous.
He got a ton of inherited problems with regards to the voters turning on Labour as the reality of two wars was hitting home. He had floods, he had foot in mouth disease....and then just incase he weren't paying attention he copped the banking crisis.
Blair became obsessed with the world stage, where I think Brown would have contented himself with keeping the UK safe.
As said I have read some memoirs from this period and it has been said that the action taken by Brown and Darling actually saved the world banking system. Apparently they had drawn up plans to deploy troops on the streets prior to coming up with the refinancing bailout plan. They really feared that banks were not going to open their doors from the Monday onwards....with no bugger having access to ANY cash. Now as much as we all hate the bank bailout.....not having any cash would have been a bit of a pain.....
"They" buggered up a few things with the bailout....ie people should have been in the dock, lost their bonuses, lost their pensions.....but "they" bottled that as unbelievably even at the final hour bankers were holding out for a better deal...denying that there were any problems.....So they had to be sweetened as part of the deal.....Bloody outrageous. They should have threw the chancers behind bars to await trial and got on without them.
But yep I will stand up for Brown.
I await the back lash. :}

Theres always one!

 

[andyb]

Theres always one!

I'll make that two.

 

[Diddy]

Some of my pro Brown stuff is "opinion" but you can't argue with the facts. I remember the run up to 2010.....All the press were screaming about Brown being an unelected leader, Every day it was either in print or on TV ect ect, Stoking up the Anti Brown feeling throughout England especially (I seem to remember the "No one voted for this Scottish One Eyed git.....") That was the narrative and it was gobbled up hook line and sinker by the masses.....much in the same way as the UKIP agenda has captured the attention of the masses.
And yet before him there was John Major who was not voted in by anyone....He also waited until the last possible moment to call an election....Brown done nothing different....But I don't remember any media shouting about the unelected grey haired git in Number 10.....
Brown made mistakes, But I stand by that he was super unlucky.....unlike teflon tony.

 

[Octopus]

Some of my pro Brown stuff is "opinion" but you can't argue with the facts. I remember the run up to 2010.....All the press were screaming about Brown being an unelected leader, Every day it was either in print or on TV ect ect, Stoking up the Anti Brown feeling throughout England especially (I seem to remember the "No one voted for this Scottish One Eyed git.....") That was the narrative and it was gobbled up hook line and sinker by the masses.....much in the same way as the UKIP agenda has captured the attention of the masses.
And yet before him there was John Major who was not voted in by anyone....He also waited until the last possible moment to call an election....Brown done nothing different....But I don't remember any media shouting about the unelected grey haired git in Number 10.....
Brown made mistakes, But I stand by that he was super unlucky.....unlike teflon tony.

Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.

But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.

Go figure

 

[Silly Sausage]

Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.

But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.

Go figure

Not the highest percentage of the vote that has been though.

It'll be to do with the constituency boundaries and people voting within each.

 

[andyb]

Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.

But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.

Go figure

What do you want us to figure?

Labour got a landslide with a far larger percentage of the vote.

 

[Octopus]

What do you want us to figure?

Labour got a landslide with a far larger percentage of the vote.

When far fewer votes cast

 

[andyb]

When far fewer votes cast

Turnout has been falling ever since then, I imagine every election has been won with fewer votes.

 

[Diddy]

Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.

But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.

Go figure

My memory serves me fine thanks. I did not mention about Major's vote share, I believe I was referring to the fact that he presided over the country as PM for roughly two years before putting himself before the electorate not much different (maybe 9-10 months). Yet nobody was crying about the fact that we had an unelected PM.....fast forward to Brown and all hell breaks loose. Just pointing out that it was/is double standards. "They" were out to get Brown from the start of his premiership. They being Labour's own Blairites who never forgave him for forcing Blair out plus the Tories (as is expected) plus the media which is to this day pretty right wing (in my opinion).
Major's vote share got him elected so I can't really see your point, Apart from the fact that the Tories were so busy arguing and back stabbing each other (As they still are today) that Major in a similar way to Cameron today just can't coral them into a focussed party with a clear set of policies and goals. Milliband is the same - he can't get the warring factions within the Labour party to pull together for a common goal. The Blairites are still bitter and vengeful, the left of the party feel isolated and ignored, the Scottish have had enough of them and the unions are getting stick from their membership for continuing to financially support them.....Tough old job IMHO.
Both of the big two have neglected their core vote in the chase for the middle ground swing voter. I preferred it when there was a clear choice and clear direction for both parties.....true to their roots. I still maintain that Labour would have won in 1997 with a much more socialist agenda....But they did fix a hell of a lot that the 17 year tory government had left to rot (NHS/Schools/services ect ect).

 

[telectrix]

.But they did fix a hell of a lot that the 17 year tory government had left to rot (NHS/Schools/services ect ect).

a matter of opinion. labour, whether true socialists or watered down tories, could not fix a leaky tap.. schools where 80% of pupils don't have english as a first language. NHS where you can't understand what the doctor is saying, need i go on?

 

[Octopus]

My memory serves me fine thanks. I did not mention about Major's vote share, I believe I was referring to the fact that he presided over the country as PM for roughly two years before putting himself before the electorate not much different (maybe 9-10 months). Yet nobody was crying about the fact that we had an unelected PM.....fast forward to Brown and all hell breaks loose. Just pointing out that it was/is double standards. "They" were out to get Brown from the start of his premiership. They being Labour's own Blairites who never forgave him for forcing Blair out plus the Tories (as is expected) plus the media which is to this day pretty right wing (in my opinion).
Major's vote share got him elected so I can't really see your point, Apart from the fact that the Tories were so busy arguing and back stabbing each other (As they still are today) that Major in a similar way to Cameron today just can't coral them into a focussed party with a clear set of policies and goals. Milliband is the same - he can't get the warring factions within the Labour party to pull together for a common goal. The Blairites are still bitter and vengeful, the left of the party feel isolated and ignored, the Scottish have had enough of them and the unions are getting stick from their membership for continuing to financially support them.....Tough old job IMHO.
Both of the big two have neglected their core vote in the chase for the middle ground swing voter. I preferred it when there was a clear choice and clear direction for both parties.....true to their roots. I still maintain that Labour would have won in 1997 with a much more socialist agenda....But they did fix a hell of a lot that the 17 year tory government had left to rot (NHS/Schools/services ect ect).

You are trying to compare 1990 to 2007 - thats 17 years and to be honest, a lot has changed, both politically AND in media terms in that period. Least of all New Labour and the "spin" machine.

Said it before and will state it again - most of them, from all parties are useless numpties and need to be sacke - to be replaced by people who have done real jobs for a minimum of 15 years and have lived in their constituancies for a minimum of 10 years.

 

[Octopus]

What do you want us to figure?

Labour got a landslide with a far larger percentage of the vote.

Lets try FACTS shall we boys:

1992 - The Conservatives polled 41.9% of the votes and won 336 seats, Labour polled 34.4% and won 271 seats (total votes cast to the winning party = 14, 093,007)

1997 - The Conservatives polled 30.7% of the votes and won 165 seats, Labour polled 43.2% and won 418 seats (total votes cast to the winning party = 13, 518,167)

I'd hardly say that the "extra" 1.3% of the votes is "far larger" is it?


You need to go back to the election in 1931, to find an election when a single party poled more that 50% of the vote!

 

[andyb]

Lets try FACTS shall we boys:

1992 - The Conservatives polled 41.9% of the votes and won 336 seats, Labour polled 34.4% and won 271 seats

1997 - The Conservatives polled 30.7% of the votes and won 165 seats, Labour polled 43.2% and won 418 seats

I'd hardly say that the "extra" 1.3% of the votes is "far larger" is it?


You need to go back to the election in 1931, to find an election when a single party poled more that 50% of the vote!

I really do not know what point you are trying to make, please make it and we can all move on.

However it's not 1.3%
It's a 7.5% larger share of the turnout voted Conservative in 92 whereas in 97 Labour polled a 12.5% larger share of the vote, that's a 66.6% increase.

You can do a lot with statistics

There was an election in 1992, The Tories won
There was an election in 1997 Labour won.

Due to our electoral system, a small percentage increase in votes will lead to a disproportionate increase in seats.

In 92 the LibDems polled over 40% of the the votes that the Tories did but received less than 6% of the seats that the Tories did.

Go figure (to coin a phrase)

 

[Anthony S]

Get in there Nick Clegg and the Libs lol

 

[Silly Sausage]

............

and, you could almost say that the number votes and percentage splits are almost irrelevant, it's where they are cast, ie which constituencies.
The number of MPs is never proportional to the number votes in our system. Hence Liberals, or whatever they're called, always haggling for electoral reform.
One reason why they keep changing the boundaries.

Has there ever been an majority (or close) of one party's MPs with a lower than highest total votes? (can't be bothered looking)

 

[Guest77]

Everyone trusts the tories don't they?

 

[Silly Sausage]

That's why Parliament is London.
The highest concentration of Rhinoplastic (Reduction) Surgeons is in London.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]:smilielol5: