Do The Tories Want To Lose The Next Election?

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

You do know labour are talking to libdems now anyway, stealing policy ideas as they have nothing of their own, and will abuse the relationship just as much as tories do.

Maybe - but the Lib Dems were to the left of New Labour anyway, until the leaders decided to become Tory stooges.

The rich getting richer, the rest of us getting poorer.

The voters being punished for the mistakes of the rich.

A minority government, kept in power by a small party which has betrayed its voters.

A cabinet, in which 18 out of its 23 members are millionaires, telling us we need to cut back.

All this is a recipe for rising support for socialism.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[I want a house!]

In all seriousness, in all probability there was going to be a bounce following the credit crunch, but the 10 year trajectory for standard of living seems to be down as the costs of the debts and the retiring boomers kick in. Further recessionary aftershocks are inevitable.

Are the tories trying to time it so they benefit from a multi-year bounce from say 2013 to 2015, even though by this time we will be due another recession, and wilfully LOSE the following 2015 election, in full knowledge Labour would get in with another recession round the corner?

It's just that the tories are repairing the balance sheet JUST ENOUGH BUT NO MORE THAN THAT to instill confidence in the markets and permit confidence-led bounce in the short-medium term, but not so much that there will be room to borrow more from 2015 onwards if Labour win that election.

Labour won't have the confidence of the markets to allow them borrow their way out of trouble (because insufficient debt will have been paid down) and will be faced with a real recession and suddenly increased interest rates on national borrowing (owing to being Labour) - a credit crunch aftershock - sometime between 2015 and 2020 - which they will get the blame for. Then tory election victory in 2020.

(reason I thought this - the tories seem to have done nothing to limit the leftwing narrative of things like Question Time, or even to challenge it much, except in the initial afterglow of the May election victory; they are almost encouraging the abuse, I am just assuming there is a reason for this; one other reason could be to strengthen the coalition - nothing like an external political threat to encourage co-operation)

What I think is crazier is that we only have two parties for whom we can really vote for. Isn't it a sad state. Only reason I voted lib dem, to break the old politics, fat good that did.

[Conrad]

David Cameron said he will do the right thing for the country! Well the proof is in the pudding will he attempt another crackup boom with a year till the next general election?

e.g. more QE

[Reck B]

They didn't win the last election what makes you think they can win next time.

The Tories don't really have a mandate to make these radical cuts and attack our nhs. They didn't have a majority.

Blinkered, partisan, close-minded and entirely misguided bullsh1t alert.

[I want a house!]

I think the next election isn't much more than a year away because the Coalition will collapse as Lib Dem grass roots support collapses.

I'm a life-ling Lib Dem voter but I will be voting Labour next time. I know Gordon Brown was a disaster, but the Torylition has just carried on that disaster by using Labour's bail-out mistake as an excuse to punish the public. The country isn't going to forgive a group of rich men taking an axe to the infrastructure of society. They should be getting the bail-out money back from the banks - more than what they're doing already.

Exactly. This is horrendously undemocratic, these huge cuts are being made by an unelected government. It's unelected because it's fair to assume that 0% of Lib Dem voters voted for a Tory government, which is what we've got. A coalition would be fine if the parties were broadly similar in what they stood for, but the Torylition is just doing one thing after another that are totally against what Lib Dems stood for. And yet we couldn't expect the Lib Dem tail to be wagging the Tory dog, as they are the minority partner. Within the coalition it seems, policy is first-past-the -post, which means that all the policies are undiluted Tory George Osborne ones.

Coalitions are ligit governments, you are going slightly over-the-top there dude. It doesn't mean we like it but the lib dems have done what they have done and they will pay at the ballot boxes next time round. Labour is no different from the Tories either, you think there will be any difference? I would say no except for the fact that they will spend more money we don't have digging us in a deeper hole than before. Labour, Tory and Lib Dems are not the solution but the problem itself. 2 and a half horse race going on with no other players. Bring on proportional representation and mix things up. I don't care what sort of fanatics that brings into parliament but it is better than those stale old fools we have in there at the moment!

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Coalitions are ligit governments, you are going slightly over-the-top there dude.

Ligit if the two parties are broadly similar, but this is a Torylition government with the Lib Dems apparently acquiescing in the destruction of our social infrastructure. Of course, behind the scenes, the Lib Dems might have prevented the Tories from making even bigger cuts, but we don't know that. I would argue that a coalition government that relies on the smaller partner abandoning everything its voters and members stand for is not morally legitimate. If it is legitimate, why don't the Tories and Labour form a coalition, which would have a massive overall majority and would win every election? Edited February 11, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[Dorkins]

Politically, Ed Balls, Nick Clegg and David Cameron could all be on different wings of the same party.

+1,000,000

Where is the political party that wants to bring down the cost of living for ordinary people?

They are all signed up to the same monetarist insanity i.e. the idea that falling prices in a recession would be some sort of catastrophe from which we would never recover.

[PopGun]

there you go - they'[re preparing the ground for a modest bounce in a few years, not permanent office

Well they'll be getting kicked out of office again by the end of this year*, so they'd better get everything in order.

*Collapse via Lib Dem rebellion.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

+1,000,000

Where is the political party that wants to bring down the cost of living for ordinary people?

They are all signed up to the same monetarist insanity i.e. the idea that falling prices in a recession would be some sort of catastrophe from which we would never recover.

I think that's true. Taken as a whole, New Labour was hardly socialist at all. OK, it brought in 'Right to Roam' and did a little bit to help the poor but that's about all. Blair's' Third Way'' was all about conservatism for people who could never bring themselves to vote Conservative. Brown's time as PM was, ...well....idealogically bankrupt, muddle and disaster. Now we have a government gloating at being handed the golden pretext for making big cuts by the last government and the golden guarantee of support by the Lib Dems whose MPs were voted in by people who are vehemently opposed to what the Tory government is now doing. Edited February 11, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[ralphmalph]

Ligit if the two parties are broadly similar, but this is a Torylition government with the Lib Dems apparently acquiescing in the destruction of our social infrastructure. Of course, behind the scenes, the Lib Dems might have prevented the Tories from making even bigger cuts, but we don't know that. I would argue that a coalition government that relies on the smaller partner abandoning everything its voters and members stand for is not morally legitimate. If it is legitimate, why don't the Tories and Labour form a coalition, which would have a massive overall majority and would win every election?

?

What did you not understand when Nick Clegg said there are going to be "Savage cuts?"

I can not believe all these lib dems voters saying "we did not vote for cuts." You all voted for "Savage Cuts."

If Cameron was not prime minister Cleggy would be slashing the funding for the NHS.

Liberals have and always believed in the freedom of the individual. i.e Small governement, i.e in your terms destruction of our social infrastructure.

You have got exactly what you voted for.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ralphmalph

[PopGun]

I think that's true. Taken as a whole, New Labour wasn't in the least bit socialist.

Is that what Tony/Mandy/Alistair told you?!

Property and the hoarding of wealth equals theft, and Labour did very well in destorying the possibility of both for generations.

They used Tory/Thatchrite monetarist policies to overheat and destroy the very same ethos. They gave Thatchrite capitalism the rope to hang itself, and I’d say it was a job very well done.

[Van]

I think the Tories are doing a marvellous job, and I'm not a natural Tory voter.

The reality is that those who are losing their jobs are the Labourites that were put where they are through 13 years of Labour plundering the wealth of the country and handing it out to the underserving.

This government was never going to be a popular one, but I do believe that we head into the next election with our economy in a much better shape than the last one. Changes need to be made, and they are making them.

[Tired of Waiting]

But if the fat lunatic didn't lower the VAT in the first place wouldn't it still be 17.5% right now. Further if that fat lunatic hadn't taken house price inflation out of the inflation measure might things have been different now.

Vote for anyone, just not labour.

Yep. I said that to a (famous) Labour supporter economist, and he replied that RPI wouldn't have helped much, as base rates would probably be "only" about 1% higher between 2004 and 2008.

I replied: "only 1% higher"?! A rate of, say 6% is 20% higher than a rate of 5%! Therefore it reduces house buyers budget top limit by between 15% and 20%! The house bubble peak would have been between 10 and 20% lower!

He didn't reply, a bit speechless. ( He knew economics enough to realise that this would have removed much of the systemic risk, and families' pain!)

The imbecile!

.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Dorkins]

As a nerdy teenager and undergraduate I used to get excited about elections and stay up all night to watch the results. I could have named most of the cabinet and a fair portion of the shadow cabinet. I read a broadsheet newspaper every day and devoured books about economics and politics.

Now I can see the system for the sham it is. One side spends 5 or 10 years shafting the common man and directing all of the money towards the elite, then they swap over and another side spends 5 or 10 years doing the same.

I don't think it was always quite so bad. Postwar governments set up the NHS and the grammar school system and built millions of council houses. The Left may hate Thatcher, but her decision to sell council tenants their homes cheaply was one of the biggest redistributions of land since the Norman conquest. Of course postwar governments made mistakes, but for 2 or 3 decades the lives of ordinary people generally improved.

I'll vote again when I see (and am inclined to believe) a politician who wants to cut the financial sector back to size instead of greasily praising it as "one of Britain's great success stories", who wants the cost of living (including taxes and housing) to fall, and who doesn't want the next generation to pay for his generation's mistakes. If that means I never vote again, fine, but I don't see why I should willingly hand my abusers a rod to beat me with.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

As a nerdy teenager and undergraduate I used to get excited about elections and stay up all night to watch the results. I could have named most of the cabinet and a fair portion of the shadow cabinet. I read a broadsheet newspaper every day and devoured books about economics and politics.

Now I can see the system for the sham it is. One side spends 5 or 10 years shafting the common man and directing all of the money towards the elite, then they swap over and another side spends 5 or 10 years doing the same.

I don't think it was always quite so bad. Postwar governments set up the NHS and the grammar school system and built millions of council houses. The Left may hate Thatcher, but her decision to sell council tenants their homes cheaply was one of the biggest redistributions of land since the Norman conquest. Of course postwar governments made mistakes, but for 2 or 3 decades the lives of ordinary people generally improved.

I'll vote again when I see (and am inclined to believe) a politician who wants to cut the financial sector back to size instead of greasily praising it as "one of Britain's great success stories", who wants the cost of living (including taxes and housing) to fall, and who doesn't want the next generation to pay for his generation's mistakes. If that means I never vote again, fine, but I don't see why I should willingly hand my abusers a rod to beat me with.

Pretty much my thoughts. I think the main difference these days is how quickly parties will lurch from the right to the left and vice versa, just to score political points. Labour has supposedly moved to the left, because they've lost the middle ground. But as soon as it senses the Tories move to the right then Labour will move to the centre, then the Lib Dems will move to the left again, etc, etc. There's a good chance that whoever you vote for at an election will rapidly change their position within weeks.

[I want a house!]

Ligit if the two parties are broadly similar, but this is a Torylition government with the Lib Dems apparently acquiescing in the destruction of our social infrastructure. Of course, behind the scenes, the Lib Dems might have prevented the Tories from making even bigger cuts, but we don't know that. I would argue that a coalition government that relies on the smaller partner abandoning everything its voters and members stand for is not morally legitimate. If it is legitimate, why don't the Tories and Labour form a coalition, which would have a massive overall majority and would win every election?

Being morally ligit, is a government ever capable of doing that? Is there any difference within the three major parties? Not really...

Labour and the Tories are like the two big bullies in the school yard requiring a mini-me at the moment to push their weight about. This has conviently been presented to them in the form of the Lib Dem party. It was inevitable. Recalling the scandal that could of been, the Lib-Dem, Labour coalition. All this has show us, in my opinion, is how corrupt the whole political system always was, that none of these parties actually give a damn about us and will do what is for the greater good, that is the greater good of MPs and their peers, be it in parliament or the "upper" classes.

I think I mentioned it previously but the wolves in sheep clothing or the liberal democrates will pay next election. They are the worse of the lot with their lies, ironic.

[Si1]

They didn't win the last election what makes you think they can win next time.

The Tories don't really have a mandate to make these radical cuts and attack our nhs. They didn't have a majority.

ffs they got more of the vote than labour did in 2005

labour destroyed the nhs by overspending - the dark truth you will never understand

[Tortoise]

[

I don't think it was always quite so bad. Postwar governments set up the NHS and the grammar school system and built millions of council houses. The Left may hate Thatcher, but her decision to sell council tenants their homes cheaply was one of the biggest redistributions of land since the Norman conquest. Of course postwar governments made mistakes, but for 2 or 3 decades the lives of ordinary people generally improved.

Ermm the lives of ordinary people have worsened because of the sell off of council housing. The generation that bought them up prospered but those following them have had to sit on long housing lists for years or rent privately at inflated amounts (either paid for by themselves or the tax payer who are in general ordinary people)

Council houses also acted as a brake on HPI. If they were still around and being built in decent numbers private housing would be more affordable for the ordinary people you mention

Selling of council housing was a one off boon to those who bought and a massive negative to the tax payer and the poorly housed generations that followed

[@contradevian]

Its not Labours turn yet at the Westminster Palace Theatre. Its all a mirage, don't you get that yet?

[Si1]

I think the next election isn't much more than a year away because the Coalition will collapse as Lib Dem grass roots support collapses.

lefties can never do maths can they

if the left wing half of the libdems abandoned the coalition THE COALITION WOULD STILL HAVE A MAJORITY

sorry the maths is so confusing, the coalition aint gonna collapse - it may well not make all the reforms it intends to and not govern as strongly as we might hope for, but it is very very unlikely that it will collapse

socialists living in perpetual werdy hope of the revolution. ain't gonna happen.

[Executive Sadman]

I think its difficult to grasp what theyre trying to do.

In fairness, there were lib dems and tories warning of Gordons Bubble economics for years. Everyone assumes there wasnt because the BBC silenced them.

I suspect the BBC are silencing any sane voices within the libdems and tories now too.

[Si1]

but the question remains -

by 2015 we'll be due another recession, an aftershock from the Great Recession, so who would WANT to win the 2015 election only to take the blame?

[SomethingHasToGive]

?

What did you not understand when Nick Clegg said there are going to be "Savage cuts?"

I can not believe all these lib dems voters saying "we did not vote for cuts." You all voted for "Savage Cuts."

If Cameron was not prime minister Cleggy would be slashing the funding for the NHS.

Liberals have and always believed in the freedom of the individual. i.e Small governement, i.e in your terms destruction of our social infrastructure.

You have got exactly what you voted for.

The LibDem leadership has been politically right wing for the LibDems for a few years ( since Clegg got in ).

If Clegg was prime minister with a majority, the NHS and central government would be feeling more pain and local government and students would be feeling less. We would probably be having cuts in the same schedule, or maybe a little later but I doubt it. I suspect that Vince Cable would have more free reign to punish bankers and attack Rupert Murdoch too. Tax-wise, we'd probably have a lower 40% bracket and a much higher tax free one, capital gains would be 40%. Broadly speaking it wouldn't make a great deal of difference, but we probably wouldn't have had the student riots. I wonder which group would have been pissed off enough to riot instead?

I voted Libdem.

[PopGun]

ffs they got more of the vote than labour did in 2005

labour destroyed the nhs by overspending - the dark truth you will never understand

Can't argue against that. Improvements had to be made and they were, until you correlate the cost values of them.

[EUBanana]

I'm a life-ling Lib Dem voter but I will be voting Labour next time. I know Gordon Brown was a disaster, but the Torylition has just carried on that disaster by using Labour's bail-out mistake as an excuse to punish the public.

I'm not quite sure what you are on about here.

Labours bail outs and ineptitude had consequences which will reverberate through the country long after they've been removed from office. The Tories couldn't just pretend it never happened.

Exactly. This is horrendously undemocratic, these huge cuts are being made by an unelected government.

Oh yawn, Labourites weren't complaining about how Gordon was "never elected". We have a system, we're following it. Sorry you don't like it.

It's unelected because it's fair to assume that 0% of Lib Dem voters voted for a Tory government, which is what we've got. A coalition would be fine if the parties were broadly similar in what they stood for, but the Torylition is just doing one thing after another that are totally against what Lib Dems stood for. And yet we couldn't expect the Lib Dem tail to be wagging the Tory dog, as they are the minority partner. Within the coalition it seems, policy is first-past-the -post, which means that all the policies are undiluted Tory George Osborne ones.

I love how people formerly in favour of PR and coalitions are now dead set against coalitions because it happens to be one they personally do not support. I find that very telling.

Basically it seems that you want people you agree with in charge, at all times, no matter what. Neither very liberal nor very democratic, except in the peoples republic sense, so yeah, I guess Labour is a better home for you after all.