The UK Election:

[Gluestick]

A brochure popped through our letterbox from the Labour candidate for May 7th.

All the normal empty promises and expected Left Wing guff; waxed lyrical on the NHS and housing, etc; yada, yada, yada........

Since the man included his email address I sent him a mail.

"Dear Mr Dilbert Dumpkin

 

I was fascinated to read your election brochure

dropped through my letterbox the other day!

 

Perhaps you might care to explain:

 

NHS: surely, various facets impact serious strain

upon this essential service? For example, under Nulab, net inwards migration

under the Blair/Brown governments exceeded 3,000,000 people. And this is without

counting the illegals, escaped asylum seekers and spouses and immediate families

afterwards imported.

 

Andrew Neather blew the whistle on NuLab's covert

social engineering strategy enacted to "Break the power of the Right for all

time!".

 

Mandelson confirmed this was a fact at a Labour

group meeting in North London last year. Might this have caused a slight

problem?

 

Then we have Mr Brown's genius concept of PFI:

which has saddled the NHS with a debt exceeding £80 Billion and annual debt

service exceeding £2 Billion!

 

And this was conceived when Brown's tax revenues

were at an all time high! Not content he then borrowed vast sums in sovereign

risk loans.

 

Which Britain still struggles to debt service and

pay down principal.

 

Selling off the majority of Britain's gold

reserves, at the very bottom of the market was yet another clever

strategy.

 

Surely Ms Patricia Hewitt bears significant

responsibility for the state of the NHS?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4815986.stm

 

You must remember Ms Hewitt: captured on camera

offering political influence for cash?

 

Housing: how pray, does Labour plan to sort out the

wholly dysfunctional UK housing market?

 

Again, please, remember Mr Brown sat and fiddled,

much like Nero when base rates were at an historical low, monetary controls

were non-existent and personal borrowing including mortgages, went

stratospheric!

 

Such that by 2003/4, UK residential

housing, represented 66% of the TOTAL wealth of the UK!

 

Whoever plans to create more houses, faces one core

problem: land prices. If one imagines a Labour government would buy land

wholesale for a massive Social Housing initiative, where's the cash to come

from? Another PFI programme? Sovereign borrowing?

 

I suppose you could always bring back Compulsory

Purchase: problem is, this would destroy the UK banking sector, as land and

property are a core asset class on their books.....

 

Perhaps the extra 3,000,000 people are one little

pressure on housing? Plus, naturally and unavoidably, the Blair-Brown Boom-Bust

"Miracle" economy, based upon simply slack money, which facilitated a consumer

credit explosion of epic proportions, disequilibrium of the External Account,

thanks to excessive imports, mainly from Asia, plus an unsustainable house price

bubble, which has still to unwind.

 

Therefore, in line with your election campaign

brochure, I am most keen to learn the micro-details, of how you hope to solve

these core problems. Within Five Years, of course, since then the Quinquennial

Act demands another general election.

 

Yours aye."

And, here is his "reply"!

"Dear XXXXX

Thank you for taking the time to email me.

I would just remind you that UK trend rate of growth is higher under Labour

than under the Conservatives, that David Cameron has broken his promises on

immigration, and that there would not be an NHS if not for the Labour

Party.

I sense we're not going to agree on very much so I'll leave it at

that.

Regards,

 

Dilbert Dumpkin "

No wonder Britain is messed up, with genii such as this!

[:-))]

[AnOther]

I think "I sense we're not going to agree on very much so I'll leave it at

that" would have sufficed !

You forgot to mention that when the one eyed moron sold off all the gold he advertised his intention beforehand thus allowing the market to sell short and manipulate the price downwards.

Mr Prudent ha, he knew the meaning of the word in the same way GW reckoned the French had no word for entrepreneur.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="AnOther"]I think "I sense we're not going to agree on very much so I'll leave it at

that" would have sufficed !

You forgot to mention that when the one eyed moron sold off all the gold he advertised his intention beforehand thus allowing the market to sell short and manipulate the price downwards.

Mr Prudent ha, he knew the meaning of the word in the same way GW reckoned the French had no word for entrepreneur.

[/quote]

Err.....

BTW, when I described Mr Brown in similar terms, on this forum, I was *smacked* by the Mods........

[Quillan]

Well just watching 1:35 minutes of the live debate tonight and I have changed my mind about Miliband, he really stuffed Cameron and Farage so he will definitely be getting my vote. I am recording the whole thing so I could go to bed early but I find him so riveting I have to stay up to watch the end. I can watch it all again tomorrow as well.

[idun]

I AM SICK TO DEATH OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN........... AND THEY HAVE ONLY JUST STARTED!!!!!!

I wouldn't trust any of them and I have no idea who I am going to vote for and yet I 'always' vote. Cannot remember being so completely miffed.

Milliband, I do not trust as he was with Blair and his cohorts and they did some despicable things and his spouting just feels like more of the same.

Cameron, I do not trust as he has the likes of IDS and he has with his department done some despicable things, in fact this government has done a lot of despicable things.

Don't trust Farage.

Do not trust in any shape or form The Greens.

And the Lib Dems, well they have been in with this lot.

Awful, all awful and I do not want to see anything more on tv about this election, because I trust not a word that comes out of their mouths.

All my personal views ofcourse and I wonder just how bad politicans can end up being before they have left me with this feeling of being a political atheist. I know what I want, would that I could hear even the slightest whisper of what I want. Naturally other people will have beliefs and hopes about those that are standing.

So I am avoiding the windbags, and all their promises that end up being mensonges. I will vote though.

[woolybanana]

Vote Monster Raving Loony. Wll, they aren't worse than he others!

[idun]

LOL I probably would, but they are not standing. [:(]

[DerekJ]

Why anyone would make their decision on how they will vote based on a TV programme is totally beyond me. A programme where all the participants will have rehearsed their performance (as well as they can anticipate the likely twists and turns) with their teams - roll plays etc.

It bears no relationship to how competent any of these contenders are to actually run the country. We know from past history their track records on bullshit and lies.

[NickP]

[quote user="Quillan"]Well just watching 1:35 minutes of the live debate tonight and I have changed my mind about Miliband, he really stuffed Cameron and Farage so he will definitely be getting my vote. I am recording the whole thing so I could go to bed early but I find him so riveting I have to stay up to watch the end. I can watch it all again tomorrow as well.[/quote] Sounds as if someone will be taking quite a time to stock up the wine rack this morning. The only thing mililump has stuffed is the Xmas Turkey. I loved the irony of Sturgeon saying " Farage blames foreigners for everything that goes wrong" this from someone who blames the English for all of Scotland's ills.

[YCCMB]

As there's a general aversion to Twitter on here , I bring you my favourite tweet of the evening...

"I've had a shot of Tequila for each time Cameron has used the word "deficit" in this debate. My local 24 hour Tesco is now out of stock"

[Quillan]

Having watched it again twice now I have changed my mind. I quite like the colours green and yellow, they look nice together. Strong versions mind, I don't like these wishy washy versions.

Ok I will put my serious hat back on. To me it was all rubbish, I didn't think any single one of them debated well. None of them could stir me enough to walk down to La Poste to post my vote.

I think the UK will get what it deserves really which I still think using just maths will be a Labour SNP government unless something drastic happens like the LD's keep all their seats (but then having been in a coalition with both Labour and Tories and not liking either who do they choose next?) or somebody like the greens pick up 30 or more seats which isn't going to happen. As was explained very well recently on The Daily Politics Show either party (Labour or Tory) will require around 30 to 36 seats to get to the 325 mark for an overall majority, enough to form a government. Adding all the very minor parties like Ukip, Greens etc there still are not enough seats. The only party that can give either Labour or the Tories the 30 odd seats if there is a landslide in Scotland is the SNP and to be frank they won't care who they get into bed with and neither will Labour nor the Tories. I don't think this is in either the UK's or Englands interest if the SNP was involved in a UK government as part of a coalition.

The two things that have done the most damage are Ukip and the 'No' campaign for Scotland. Ukip for taking the Tory vote and the No campaign for being so weak and using scare techniques they way they did, mind you Salmond was not that much different.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="DerekJ"]Why anyone would make their decision on how they will vote based on a TV programme is totally beyond me. A programme where all the participants will have rehearsed their performance (as well as they can anticipate the likely twists and turns) with their teams - roll plays etc.

[/quote]

Nor me, Derek.

However, of course, the reality is the majority have no interest in politics, no knowledge, able to dismiss politician's serial calumnies and more critically, treat the whole exercise as if it were a reality TV show.

Which of course, as UK politicians have slavishly followed US politics, it is.

Equally interesting to myself, is a majority of posters on the forum, ignoring the ethos of what I originally posted: and seguing onto the TV debate and the various merits or lack of them of each participant.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Spencer Churchill

[idun]

 The scots have been remarkably represented in the UK parliament in the recent past, Camerons's Dad is a scot, and Blair and Brown were both 'born in Scotland'.

But from all the negociating, it did seem that Cameron did not want this tv debate in the first place.

I would never watch such a debate, not even out of interest. The 'best of' is on the rolling news and getting right on my nerves.

[Gluestick]

I did not watch the debate: better things to to than listen to serial liars argue like ten years schoolboys over football etc.

However, I did pick up Clegg, unusually, made a pertinent demand Millipede apologise to the British people for screwing up the economy. Bearing in mind the Millipede Bros were both involved with the Blair-Brown debacle.

Millipede, of course then trotted out the usual excuse: as used by Brown and Darling. It was the global financial crisis! It was poor bank regulation! etc.

Neatly err, sort of forgetting Brown's insane borrowing and NuLab's profligacy with public money etc!

Watch for a few minutes only, from 1hr.48mins onwards.

See Here

[Quillan]

It was the global banking crisis, banks lending money to people who could not pay it back was the problem, basically greed. But then Labour changed banking regulations which they deny so lets say they didn't for a minute and there was bad banking regulations, why didn't Labour do something about it. I mean they had been in power for some 10 years before it happened.

But then this is the problem, these people make wild claims about things many have either forgotten or were too young at the time to remember yet they intersperse them with things that are dead right. For instance 99% of what Farage says is wrong or twisted yet he mentioned one truth, you can't negotiate on free movement of people within the EU as it is a core principle and if Cameron thinks he can he is mistaken.

Then a truth from Miliband in that Cameron can't actually change anything in the EU because when he tried to get the current President dropped only one other voted with him s that proves that Cameron is pretty ineffectual in the EU yet he thinks everyone listens to him. But then both Cameron and Miliband know that the only way forward is to raise taxes and make cuts if the targets put forward by the Tories and agreed by all the parties regarding the deficit reduction are to be met. The thing is one wants the other to say it first so they can say the other party wants to raise taxes, it's a who blinks first job.

The decision on who to vote for is not who is the best but who is the least worse.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Quillan"]

It was the global banking crisis, banks lending money to people who could not pay it back was the problem, basically greed. But then Labour changed banking regulations which they deny so lets say they didn't for a minute and there was bad banking regulations, why didn't Labour do something about it. I mean they had been in power for some 10 years before it happened.[/quote]

Sorry, Q, what you have written is complete nonsense!

How did the "global banking crisis" (which was mainly a US matter), cause the UK's National Debt to become so high?

PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) is simply a function of the imbalance between a nation state's public spending and its revenue from taxation.

Blair-Brown spent public funds like an octopus on speed. Despite record tax revenues (Mainly from a synthetically boomed up economy, comprising house speculation, out-of-control consumer credit to buy mainly imported goods etc), Brown borrowed to fund the imbalance.

The resultant from the - mainly - US Sub prime fiasco, simply impacted the UK as it impacted globally as the international Interbank Funds market dried up. Far too many banks were borrowing short term liquidity on the global interbank market: and it dried up.

The UK Bank Bail outs were mainly provided in guarantees and cash raised through Gilt Edge Sales: (Gilts: UK Government Bonds). Now Gilts are securities sold at discount, i.e. notional interest accrues until maturity, however no interest is paid. The tenor (Life) of these was mainly 50 years.

Therefore, whilst there is a forward capital liability, there is no current Debt Service requirement and thus this cannot and does not impact on UK current public debt costs. Brown's insane borrowing did and does! Hence austerity. Though we have yet to see much, really!

See Here

Fred Goodwin's disaster, RBS, was not principally caused by Sub Prime Debt (MBSs- Mortgage Backed Securities) but expansion at any cost. Acquiring corporate assets backed by shares only, rather than hard cash, was precisely what destroyed so many in the early 1970s; Jim Slater as the prime example.

Same with Northern Rock: however they were indeed caught by Sub Prime lending since previously a Building Society, the directors were overcome by self-aggrandizement and delusions of competence.

Brown's failure to adequately regulate banks was a separate matter: mainly since NuLab took away most regulatory powers from the Bank of England and vested them with a new, untested and utterly incompetent agency, the FSA. The Bank of England, together with Treasury would have normally restricted consumer credit and mortgage debt before both had reached bubble status.

But these had nothing whatsoever to do with Brown borrowing far too much; and spending far too much!

 

[NormanH]

The root of the problem of the banking sector dates from 27 October 1986, when Thatcher was Prime Minister.

[Quillan]

I am not saying that the collapse and subsequent saving of the banks led directly to the whole of the debt. What I am saying is that they had to borrow even more money on top of what they were borrowing to bail them out. Clearly they did loan money directly because in your link it says so. To be honest and to teach the banks a lesson they should have let RBS go to the wall and the same with Northern Rock. Now if it happens again the banks know the government will bail them out and as the government does not 'make' money (unless you include QE) it is the tax payers money. UK banks still regularly fail the 'stress' test whatever that is. Two failed in March (along with BNP in France, again, if memory serves), I forget which ones because it is not important to me. Anyway what's the actual debt now, £1.4 trillion last I heard, probably more by now.

[Pickles]

[quote user="Quillan"] To be honest and to teach the banks a lesson they should have let RBS go to the wall and the same with Northern Rock. [/quote]

Northern Rock WAS allowed to go to the wall as far as shareholders were concerned ...

[Hoddy]

I wonder if that was because many if not most of the shareholders were 'little' people like my friend who lost around £12,000 which was a huge sum for her but which would have been peanuts to a big bank.