PDA

View Full Version : Tories


Lazarus and the Gimp
02-10-2006, 21:44:39
Cameron got a bit of a kicking in the Sunday Times yesterday. First of all we had Oliver Letwin making some staggeringly ruthless/honest comment about NHS cuts (which spooked Tory Witchdoctor central), and then they took an almighty pop at old Schoolboy Buggery himself for his heroic attempts to avoid having anything resembling policies.

Is the slide starting?

*End Is Forever*
02-10-2006, 22:30:25
Letwin didn't actually make the comment though. CCHQ taped the interview and released a transcript. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers... ;)

Colon
02-10-2006, 23:09:07
Except when it suits your agenda.

Asher
02-10-2006, 23:09:28
The leader of the tories in Ontario is "John Tory". For real. That's his birth name.

Funko
03-10-2006, 07:58:06
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Letwin didn't actually make the comment though. CCHQ taped the interview and released a transcript. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers... ;)

Hang on... they taped an interview and released a transcript? Doesn't that mean he did make the comment? :confused:

Funko
03-10-2006, 11:26:07
This paragraph at the end of the BBC story about the conference really made me laugh. (background, the Tories have a text messaging system where delegates can flash messages up on the screen whilst speakers are talking to them...)

On Monday morning, Miami Police Chief John Timoney was making a speech, in gruff TV cop tones, about zero tolerance policing in Noo Yoik city, when a little message flashed above his head on the screen.

"What's wrong with a clip round the ear," it said.

:lol:

edit: forgot the link to the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5400424.stm

King_Ghidra
03-10-2006, 11:33:57
that's awesome :lol:

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-10-2006, 18:38:02
Originally posted by Funko
Hang on... they taped an interview and released a transcript? Doesn't that mean he did make the comment? :confused:

Unless CCHQ are making it up, of course. The plot thickens!

King_Ghidra
04-10-2006, 12:04:14
I'm very interested in all this hoohar about tax cuts.

A couple of days ago there was talk of how the tory leadership were adamant they would make no promises on tax cuts, and that rebels were giving them a hard time on it.

Presumably these people think tax cuts are a) economically sound principle, i.e. we pay too much tax, govt. should put money back in peoples hands etc. and/or b) a policy that will win votes.

b) intrigues me. because i don't think people are that easily sold by ideas of tax cuts anymore, i think they are likely to be suspicious of that kind of promise

I can understand cameron saying nothing. if i was him i wouldn't want to get involved wth tax cut promises at all

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 12:09:17
We wont be making any... It's the vocal minority calling for them. Easy to get on the TV at Conference, and so some people go for it.

Funko
04-10-2006, 12:10:21
I think the economic principle was that if they cut taxes, people will have more spending power, so they'll go out and buy more stuff, which leads to economic growth, more people have jobs, people earn more money, so they recover the money they've lost from cutting taxes from new tax payers, increased VAT etc.

I agree with you that voters aren't convinved that's going to work, and the economy at the moment is very healthy I really don't think that's a vote winning area for the Tories which is a real problem for them.

I also agree that Cameron shouldn't promise tax cuts now, and if he does do that, he'll need some very convincing stuff to back it up to persuade voters to trust him that tax cuts would not lead to real damage to public services.

Tizzy
04-10-2006, 12:11:49
The BBC website has a Have Your Say section for people to post their views on various topics.
At least every other day there's something which ends up with a lot of people complaining about the amount of taxes they pay - these people would probably jump at a promise to cut taxes.

Funko
04-10-2006, 12:19:06
It depends how many of those people already are Tory voters, and how many are floaters.

JM^3
04-10-2006, 12:20:12
I hate floaters..

JM

King_Ghidra
04-10-2006, 12:20:48
fair enough. i can't say it's something i've ever thought about, but that's because i'm pretty happy financially and as funko says the economy is nice and stable ad i don't want that to change

certainly i understand the economic principle behind tax cuts feeding back into the economy, and i understand how it fits in with the traditional tory concept of less government being more, and i'm certainly sympathetic with that

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 12:38:07
See the 80s. It does work, but like everything it is a change. Taxes have gone up since Labour took control, but I don't think it's very important to reverse those cuts; there are alot of issues that need addressed in Britiain today, and I don't think tax levels are way up there.

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 12:39:06
From a personal perspective, I want to do away with the encroachment of the ID state most of all. Labour has been eating away at social freedoms, which makes me feel distinctly uncomfortable.

Funko
04-10-2006, 12:46:11
In the 80s some people got very rich, but some people got poorer and public services were severely fucked over. Also, it didn't appear to be a very stable system.

It is disappointing that Labour have gone that way with the personal freedoms but to me it seems like a continuation of what was going on under the Tories who brought in the stop and search rules, the 'rave' ban on public gatherings with repetitive beat music etc. I definitely think that being against the ID card is a big vote winner.

I'd really like to vote Labour economically and Lib Dems socially/internationally.

Still no idea what Cameron stands for.

mr_G
04-10-2006, 12:46:24
Originally posted by Kitsuki
From a personal perspective, Right, so a girl who is frigid or scared about the thought of having sex will instead, as her first sexual experience, role-reverse and fuck their boyfriend up the arse with a strap-on....

Funko
04-10-2006, 12:46:48
:lol:

mr_G
04-10-2006, 12:47:13
Originally posted by Funko
Still no idea what Cameron stands for. Diaz
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

JM^3
04-10-2006, 12:53:32
From my expereince, as an American, both major sides are against personal freedoms/etc.

It is just that the one that isn't in power will complain more..

JM

Fistandantilus
04-10-2006, 13:09:52
From my experience, as an Italian, both major sides are heavily in favor of personal freedoms/etc. Particularly so when it serves the purpose of hiding some crimes.

Oh, and thank you mr_G for brighten the day with some brilliant humor :lol:

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 13:11:10
Originally posted by Funko
In the 80s some people got very rich, but some people got poorer and public services were severely fucked over. Also, it didn't appear to be a very stable system.

It is disappointing that Labour have gone that way with the personal freedoms but to me it seems like a continuation of what was going on under the Tories who brought in the stop and search rules, the 'rave' ban on public gatherings with repetitive beat music etc. I definitely think that being against the ID card is a big vote winner.

I'd really like to vote Labour economically and Lib Dems socially/internationally.

Still no idea what Cameron stands for.


The gap in wealth between the poorest quintile and highest quintile lessened under Thatcher a little, and lessened a lot under Major. Under Blair that has went back hugely. The Conservatives introduced the right-to-buy which was probably the single most helpful thing done for the "working class" in the second half of the 20th century.

I think the rave thing is nonsense - the Tories didn't ban legal raves with licenses, sensible number of attendees etc etc, but illegal ones where people broke into warehouses / onto farmland and had an improptu, illegal party. Those are two utterly different things.

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 13:11:56
Originally posted by mr_G


:lol:

mr_G
04-10-2006, 13:13:29
jesjes deef that quote will hunt you down for evah!!!!!!!

Funko
04-10-2006, 13:22:20
http://www.urban75.org/legal/cja.html

Some interesting powers in there included:

Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of 1000.

The anti-rave bit was probably the least controversial.

It also introduced the ability to stop and search without due cause and the change so that if you didn't answer questions it could be used as an assumption of your guilt. Some pretty major changes.

mr_G
04-10-2006, 13:24:27
ok

time for a
dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
di
dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Funko
04-10-2006, 13:26:26
We are just having a nice chat. :)

mr_G
04-10-2006, 13:28:59
ok, but i am bored and not just cause your nice chat is sooooo boring.

Funko
04-10-2006, 13:32:15
Start a non boring chat then.

King_Ghidra
04-10-2006, 13:35:16
Originally posted by Kitsuki
The gap in wealth between the poorest quintile and highest quintile lessened under Thatcher a little, and lessened a lot under Major.

I'm guessing that would be because the economic disasters of the early nineties lost a lot of wealthy people a lot of money? :cute:

Funko
04-10-2006, 13:40:47
:lol:

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 13:41:07
:P

Nills Lagerbaak
04-10-2006, 13:56:08
if the gap between the lowest and highest quintiles lessoned you are either saying some people moved out of lowest 5th into the second lowest 5th or out of the highest into the 2nd highest So it could be that thatcher succeeded in making some of the very rich less rich or some of the very poor slightly better. The overall spread of earnings could easily have widened!

Ah, just thought I'd thrown in some stats. for you.

Kitsuki
04-10-2006, 14:04:14
Ummm, no the quintiles just came closer together, that's the standard way to work out whether relative poverty has been decreased.

Nills Lagerbaak
04-10-2006, 14:05:45
ah OK, was just trying to be clever. back to mindless work :(

Fistandantilus
04-10-2006, 14:14:25
Stop working Nills, stop it NOW!

mr_G
04-10-2006, 14:16:51
the thing is................................................ ......................politics is so politics - FACT!!!!

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-10-2006, 16:38:08
Originally posted by Kitsuki
The gap in wealth between the poorest quintile and highest quintile lessened under Thatcher a little


According to this IFS report...

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/05ebn9.pdf


....under Thatcher it was the richest quintiles that experienced the greatest growth in real income, with the poorest quintile experiencing the least growth.

You're going to have to explain how you feel that the gap in wealth was decreasing.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
04-10-2006, 18:57:46
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
I'm guessing that would be because the economic disasters of the early nineties lost a lot of wealthy people a lot of money? :cute:

good point :D

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-10-2006, 16:42:45
Seriously- is Kitsuki's claim some sort of black-belt voodoo economics that goes far beyond my A-Level? If the upper quintiles are consistently seeing higher growth in real income levels than the lower quintiles, the only way I can see the gap closing is if the paupers are getting lapped.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-10-2006, 18:25:36
"The gap in wealth between the poorest quintile and highest quintile lessened under Thatcher a little, and lessened a lot under Major."

First question here - the definition of "wealth". Income or Assets? As he managed right to buy, I assume we talk about assets. Now, if the lower quintile had very little in assets before, and then gained by seeing essentially some of its earlier paid rents transformed into home equity by a sale discount, you could get the result Kitsuki is talking about.

Example: lowest quintile asset 1000, highest quintile asset 100.000. Ratio 100:1. Lowest quintile gains 5000 to 6000, so the highest quintile can move up to 600.000 and we still have a narrowing of the gap on a relative basis.

I love statistics.

Fistandantilus
06-10-2006, 18:30:21
Yes but I seriously hope he was not talking on a relative basis.. it's deceiving people that way..

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-10-2006, 18:33:29
:lol: