|
Post by Naselus on Apr 5, 2005 17:40:28 GMT
It's elections time, once again, and this time it's actually in Britain (sadly invalidating my theories that Blair is about to declare himself High Overfiend and Supreme Imperiator of New Britain). So who's going to win? Let's check out those winning strategies of the main parties:
New Labour has decided to point at the conservative's past record (suprise suprise). Sadly, this still remains the best strategy anywhere in the world, since anyone over the age of about 12 REMEMBERS that record, and it's still mildly worse than that of, say, Iosef Stalin.
The Tories, naturally, have gone for the age-old practice of simply LYING. From Michael Howad's little fibs ('I won't hurt you', 'Value for money', 'I'm quite a nice guy'), to vast, policy-wide untruths ('We wont raise taxes'), the entire Conservative gambit is based on failing to tell the truth, and then immefdiately afterward failing to cover up the lies. Genius at work, I fear.
The Lib Dems have carefully pointed out that there's no difference whatsoever between the two big parties, and personally I think it's a great shame that they STILL won't win. They're focusing heavily on mad ideas like 'we'll give pensioners more money', 'let's not just run around doing what the US says' and 'Charles Kennedy's actually a nice bloke, you know, and he's not THAT dim'.
Veritas have concentrated on showing up at dinners and house parties and demanding that Kilroy be made the leader.
The Greens are throwing 25% more candidates in to this election, in the mistaken belief that someone, somewhere is going to vote for them. Sorry, Greens. It's not going to happen, is it? Just wait until the seas rise and the moon crashes into Kent, then we'll be sorry.
UKIP are basing themself on.... Oh, can you not just guess?
Finally, the Monster Raving Loony Party are demanding 30% more fish on Tuesdays, and compulsory trousers for the over-50s. The unfortunate thing is that they are still a more serious party that the Tories are, and they'll have to try a darn sight harder if they want to change that.
Anyone else spoiling their vote?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 5, 2005 17:45:42 GMT
Damn, forgot to mention the regionals.
Sinn Fein are standing on the two-fold policy that they ARE Irish, and ARE NOT part of a terrorist organisation. Honest.
Plaid Ckghdsklhkg said something or other no-one could fully understand, but it went down very well with the Welsh. Apparently it was something about them not being a political party at all, but actually a traditional close-harmony parish choir.
The SNP stood for just about the same thing UKIP did, only in a slightly more inclusively racist regard. Oh, and they might have had some policies, as well, so they seem to understand the whole political system a little better, too.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 5, 2005 17:55:12 GMT
The Lib Dems have carefully pointed out that there's no difference whatsoever between the two big parties, and personally I think it's a great shame that they STILL won't win. They're focusing heavily on mad ideas like 'we'll give pensioners more money', 'let's not just run around doing what the US says' and 'George Kennedy's actually a nice bloke, you know, and he's not THAT dim'. George Kennedy? You mean the guy from Dallas and The Naked Gun films? Sure you don't mean Charles Kennedy? Tempting but... nah. I'll vote Lib Dems again as it'll actually do something against the Labour incumbent in my area.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Apr 5, 2005 21:32:48 GMT
The Lib Dems are a party of the market (just not as much so as the Tories and certainly not as much so as 'Labour'). I'm voting Green or RESPECT. I'm hoping for a hung parliament but it probably won't happen.
I was annoyed, having seen the other two parties launch their campaigns in a blaze of publicity, that Blair didn't embarass them by not calling the election or calling it for, say, August.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 6, 2005 14:46:46 GMT
Did anyone see the final pre-election Prime Minister's Questions? What with Tony Blair and Michael Howard engaging in the "We've done more good than the Tories", "Oh no you haven't..." routine, Michael Howard and his 'Up, Up, Up, Down, Down, Down' waving his hands around skit, before struggling to identify Alan Milburn ("He's behind you!") and questions being brushed aside for obvious appeals to the voters it really did descend into a farce reminiscent of a pantomime. In fact several Daily Politics viewers emailed in to say how shocked they were to find that it was panto season once more!
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Apr 6, 2005 16:05:20 GMT
Nup, not seen it. I'm missing out on all the election shenanigans so far. Bloody work. Might start streaming radio4 again. It's the same old balls though
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 6, 2005 17:41:35 GMT
Yes, folks, after the enlightened debate has finished (and PMQ time, too), it's time for what you've all been waiting for.... POLL RESULTS!! YAY!!
Current polls show Blair and his followers at around 37%, with the Tories close behind on 34-ish. The Lib Dems are, (suprise suprise) third, at 21% in almost every poll. The remaining 8% is split up between everyone apart from Veritas, but apparently Robert Kilroy-Silk should be in the lead. He said so.
It seems Birmingham has become a hotbed of intrigue and electoral fraud, as people finally realise that postal voting is a load of old tits. It seems that maybe, just maybe, it's mildly less secure than a cardboard bank vault, and that it's just about plausable some unscupulous bastards might try and cheat. I've already ordered four thousand ballots and a book of death records for 2004.
And so we get to look at the three big parties again today. The Lib Dems have staunchly concentrated on the family, promising cash when families actually NEED it rather than later on. Blair's putting all his hopes on the economy, because people actually quite like Gordon Brown and might forget Tony's there if they don't look at him for long enough. Meanwhile, Michael Howard continues to yap on about whatever bandwagon he's managed to find recently, which is probably shoe sizes, or immigration, or the overuse of yellow in todays society. Regardless of what the issues are (and frankly Howard doesn't seem to know any better than I do), he's decided to forget about the whole politics side and resort to a Rovesque master tactician to make up for being a charmless vampire.
Perhaps most important of all, the BBC have put up an online version of Peter Snow's swingometer, now unfortunately making the lovable old rogue completely redundant until the next lunar eclipse. And even then, Philippa Forester is going to get more screen time.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 7, 2005 19:11:43 GMT
Well, it's all about the mystery 35 billion quid, isn't it?
The Tories insist that Labour can't make the extra £35,000,000,000 without some form of terrible tax rise. This is almost certainly true.
Labour insist that the Tories can't launch a 4 billion tax cut without cutting spending. This, as anyone who passed first year maths can tell you, is also almost certainly true.
The Lib Dems are happy to say that yes, they would raise taxes, but only on rich people who don't need all that money anyway. Amazingly, this is also probably true.
In defence against the allegations leveled at them by Michael Howard, Labour have essentially said "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" in the finest schoolyard traditions. It must be said, the Tories have at least actually published some figures to back up their ideas. Let's not forget, however, that their vice-chairman has also been published, admitting that they're going to cut spending the moment they get into a position to.
The conservatives insist that they can afford the tax cuts while still keeping up with Labour's spending for the next two years but cutting 'waste', or doctors and policemen as I prefer to call them. They also intend to kill off the New Deal, one of Labour's few good ideas, as getting the unemployed back to work is clearly not as good as getting them onto heroin and into prison instead.
They also intend to put more power into the hands of Matrons, since they're much cheaper than doctors. This is the first step. Once the matrons have more power, then we put more scalpels into the hands of matrons. Then we can get rid of doctors entirely.
In Education, the Tories proposals amount to essentially forgetting troublesome students exist where ever possible, some form of voucher-based system for choosing schools (free with walkers crisps, I suppose? Buy two multi-packs, get four vouchers for Eton?), and 600,000 more school places (easily afforded with that tax cut). Presumably they're going to get rid of teachers and replace them with matrons.
The Lib Dems, meanwhile, want to spend more money on the younger kids (no idea how that's really supposed to help. When I was six, I didn't need labs full of equipment for my science lesson. I had one, 32-page work book. And I only managed to fill three quarters of it.), intend to set up a more flexible curriculum so that teachers can choose to TEACH, rather that program worker-drones, and in a rare move of total lucidity claim that behaviour may improve with smaller class sizes and better teachers. The other two parties have laughed long and hard about that one.
Labour, meanwhile, insist that they WILL have better school dinners. They refuse to ditch A-levels, in spite of them being widely recognised as a load of pants.
On immigration, the Tory's have stuck to their guns in saying both that all immigrants are darkies, spiks, wops and ragheads, and that we won't have none of them, despite the fact that the majority of immigrants are skilled workers. Doctors, and other undesirables. The Lib Dems have pointed out that immigrants will be paying our pensions, and it may be a good idea to let them work the moment they arrive. Labour has stuck by it's policy of keeping them in camps, on benefits, and unable to work until they can be accused of terrorism and locked up.
In crime, Labour stand by their record of a 10% increase in police officers. The Tories continue to defy all the laws of logic by finding room in their budget plans for 40,000 more officers, where as the Lib Dems go for a realistic 10,000. The Tories need all these officers for the purposes of going after pot smokers, who they want hanged at dawn. The Lib Dems insist that stoners aren't actually going to cause anyone any harm, and are extremely benificial to the confectionery market. Labour avoid any form of commitment to the issue, as usual. Except on a certain invasion, as I recall; they were VERY commited to that.
Finally, in prisons the Lib Dems want to reduce the population, as it's costing a bloody fortune and doesn't really help any. The Tories, still in line with their lower budget, want to add an extra 20,000 places and keep the occupants in for longer. Hmmm. Sound's daft to me.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Apr 7, 2005 20:27:07 GMT
"The Tories insist that Labour can't make the extra £35,000,000,000 without some form of terrible tax rise. This is almost certainly true.
Labour insist that the Tories can't launch a 4 billion tax cut without cutting spending. This, as anyone who passed first year maths can tell you, is also almost certainly true."
Oh, there's nothing to stop either in theory, it would just create an astronomical budget deficit, thus increasing the national debt even more quickly than the official Tories did in their last parliament (they doubled it in those five years, incidentally).
"They also intend to put more power into the hands of Matrons, since they're much cheaper than doctors. This is the first step. Once the matrons have more power, then we put more scalpels into the hands of matrons. Then we can get rid of doctors entirely."
That isn't really fair: the idea is to re-introduce matrons as nurses' and ancilliary staff's bosses to make sure cleaning is done properly etc. This might actually help. That also isn't really fair unless we add that it probably wouldn't help very much and that the main problem with cleaning is the privatisation thereof introduced by - you guessed it - the Tories and continued by 'Labour', which causes profit to be put before clean wards and cleaners' overtime pay to be considered a more serious danger than MRSA.
"They refuse to ditch A-levels, in spite of them being widely recognised as a load of pants."
I take great offence at that - I didn't pass by sitting around doing nothing. Granted, I could have done, but I wouldn't have got the grades I did. And the IB-style mish-mash they wanted to replace it with, although laudable in that it would at last have represented a serious effort to get vocational education recognised as not being inferior to academic, was pretty daft in all other respects, particularly in disallowing much specialisation (making everyone do English, Maths, a language, a science and a humanity up to that level).
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 8, 2005 11:46:51 GMT
"The Tories insist that Labour can't make the extra £35,000,000,000 without some form of terrible tax rise. This is almost certainly true. Labour insist that the Tories can't launch a 4 billion tax cut without cutting spending. This, as anyone who passed first year maths can tell you, is also almost certainly true." Oh, there's nothing to stop either in theory, it would just create an astronomical budget deficit, thus increasing the national debt even more quickly than the official Tories did in their last parliament (they doubled it in those five years, incidentally). So neither can afford it without the measures the other party accuses them of. Which is what I said, isn't it? ""They also intend to put more power into the hands of Matrons, since they're much cheaper than doctors. This is the first step. Once the matrons have more power, then we put more scalpels into the hands of matrons. Then we can get rid of doctors entirely." That isn't really fair: the idea is to re-introduce matrons as nurses' and ancilliary staff's bosses to make sure cleaning is done properly etc. This might actually help. That also isn't really fair unless we add that it probably wouldn't help very much and that the main problem with cleaning is the privatisation thereof introduced by - you guessed it - the Tories and continued by 'Labour', which causes profit to be put before clean wards and cleaners' overtime pay to be considered a more serious danger than MRSA. This was a joke. I sometimes add them in so as to avoid creating a lengthy dull lecture on the nature of politics today. You might want to try one some time; they're quite popular. Alternatively, you might want to start hanging out with ooohcarrots. She's never heard of them either. ""They refuse to ditch A-levels, in spite of them being widely recognised as a load of pants." I take great offence at that - I didn't pass by sitting around doing nothing. Granted, I could have done, but I wouldn't have got the grades I did. And the IB-style mish-mash they wanted to replace it with, although laudable in that it would at last have represented a serious effort to get vocational education recognised as not being inferior to academic, was pretty daft in all other respects, particularly in disallowing much specialisation (making everyone do English, Maths, a language, a science and a humanity up to that level). The very fact you admit you could have passed while sitting around doing nothing shows that maybe A-levels are a load of bollocks, really, doesn't it? Also, independent commisions have backed up the claim that A levels suck balls. They're shite, Thanatos. Frankly, your level of conversation and your clear knowledge over a wide range of subjects shows you're an intelligent man, so why you feel you have to support A-levels to prove it mystifies me. Don't take offence because I said the exams you passed were crap. They ARE crap. That doesn't mean you are. And I made no comment on what was proposed to follow them, as that is completely irelevant to the crapness of the A levels themselves. They need to be replaced, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Apr 8, 2005 21:00:49 GMT
"So neither can afford it without the measures the other party accuses them of." No, you misunderstand: the Tories could, in theory, cut taxes by £4 billion without cutting spending. It would mean, though, that the budget deficit would be £4 billion greater, i.e. government borrowing (which works by selling government bonds, on which interest is re-paid, to the public) would be £4 billion higher than in the previous year. This would be very stupid and rather damaging, but there's nothing, in theory, to stop them doing it. "This was a joke." I'm aware of that, but I took there to be a serious point (you might want to try one some time behind it, namely that bringing back Matron would be totally unhelpful (I didn't think you actually expected matrons to start replacing doctors). I disagree, though it would be very far from the whole solution. "The very fact you admit you could have passed while sitting around doing nothing shows that maybe A-levels are a load of bollocks, really, doesn't it?" No, it doesn't. It shows that considering an E to be a pass is bollocks. At GCSE, on the other hand, there is a consensus, albeit unofficial, that anything below a C is a failure. In terms of academic standards of the learning they involve, A-levels are not bollocks. The nit-picking bureaucrat-friendly mark schemes, the exam system (some [e.g. John Humphrys] would say the very idea of exams) etc. certainly are, I agree. "They need to be replaced, end of story." Not sure about that. Changed more than somewhat, certainly, but not necessarily enough to warrant their replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 9, 2005 19:57:34 GMT
No, you misunderstand: the Tories could, in theory, cut taxes by £4 billion without cutting spending. It would mean, though, that the budget deficit would be £4 billion greater, i.e. government borrowing (which works by selling government bonds, on which interest is re-paid, to the public) would be £4 billion higher than in the previous year. This would be very stupid and rather damaging, but there's nothing, in theory, to stop them doing it. I think you've misunderstood the concept of 'affording'. Since they'd have to borrow, they clearly can't afford it. You don't need to borrow to buy what you can afford. Also, since everything the Tory's campaign stands on seems to be claims they'll spend MORE than labour on services (40,000 new policemen? £3 billion above Labour's planned defence budget?), they'd have a significantly higher deficit than just 4 billion quid. They cannot afford their own budget without resorting to total idiocy; that means they can't afford it full stop. I can't afford a new car; there is nothing to stop me going and robbing a shop to get the money I need, but that doesn't mean I actually can afford it after all, since there is money that I could get hold of to spend on the vehicle. I can afford it once I've robbed the shop, true, but it's so cocking stupid that I wouldn't dream of using that as my justification for saying my books balance. I'm aware of that, but I took there to be a serious point (you might want to try one some time behind it, namely that bringing back Matron would be totally unhelpful (I didn't think you actually expected matrons to start replacing doctors). I disagree, though it would be very far from the whole solution. Let's just be honest about this one Thanatos; the Tories want Matron back because she's cheap. Why have a manager and a nurse when you can combine two into one overworked underpaid profession? It's so that the Tories would be nicely set up to start hacking chunks off the NHS the moment that the Prince of Darkness enters No. 10. No, it doesn't. It shows that considering an E to be a pass is bollocks. At GCSE, on the other hand, there is a consensus, albeit unofficial, that anything below a C is a failure. In terms of academic standards of the learning they involve, A-levels are not bollocks. The nit-picking bureaucrat-friendly mark schemes, the exam system (some [e.g. John Humphrys] would say the very idea of exams) etc. certainly are, I agree. "They need to be replaced, end of story." Not sure about that. Changed more than somewhat, certainly, but not necessarily enough to warrant their replacement. Personally, I disagree entirely with these points; possibly you're worried about devaluing your own achievements. My general preference would be the complete replacement of all pre-university education. Sir Mike Tomlinson agrees with me; so do the majority of teachers, and indeed most of my friends who've passed them. The A-level and certainly the GCSE are too easy by half, and tend toward rewarding hard work over ability or intelligence. You can get a D at A-level without trying, or indeed working particularly hard; however you can get an A without any understanding, as long as you deliver a large enough bucket of coursework.And that leads to total halfwits becoming lawyers, teachers, and (blatantly) middle managers. We need a system that rewards intellect and ability equally to hard work. We need to be able to tell Law students who aren't right for the subject to just give up on it, rather than having a system where the smartest and most adept student in class comes in around fifth, behind the girl who doesn't have the slightest clue about the subject, but DID hand in a 250 page piece of coursework she'd dutifully copied out of eighteen different text books. And we need exams that recognise some questions just AREN'T essays. There only so many words you can say about some things, and frankly no-one in their right mind would normally feel the need to write three and a half sides of A4 paper about the moral implications of Pavlov's dogs. Certainly not while you're being timed.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 11, 2005 19:48:53 GMT
I think they key point in this election is who to trust on what subject. All of the parties are making contradictory claims (so by definition no party can be totally trustworthy) especially on the economy. I've had to resort to watching BBC and ITN news features (as far as I am aware the latter is politically neutral) for their analyses.
To take the most obvious example, the Tories are claiming that they can reduce taxes but at the same time increase spending on public services by cutting govenment administration spending and relying on the growth in the economy. Labour and the Lib Dems argue that the policy will mean public service cuts rather than spending increases.
Another example is Labour's claim that the Tories will reduce public service spending by £35 billion, which Blair was forced to acknowledge is incorrect - the Tories are spending £35 billion less than Labour's budget on public services. I only learnt that from watching the news.
So we can establish that none of the parties are trustworthy. The lack of trustworthy widely available sources, or their lack of distinction from the unreliable sources, indicates the general public is not going to know the facts when they go to the polls.
The parties are also resorting to interesting techniques to raise funding from their naive supporters - claiming they are underfunded by comparison to the opposition.
From a Labour party supporter e-mail:
"If you can help us double that amount to £100,000 by next week, that will be an incredible boost to the campaigns in our key seats. The Tories have always had a money advantage. They're using that advantage right now in constituencies where our majorities are slim to put up lots of Conservative posters and to send negative direct mail. We mustn't underestimate them -- in this first week of the general election campaign, please give us what we need to fight: "
I no longer have the original Tory e-mail, but they claimed Labour had a funding advantage because Labour were bankrolled by the trade unions.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 11, 2005 21:27:28 GMT
So we can establish that none of the parties are trustworthy. The lack of trustworthy widely available sources, or their lack of distinction from the unreliable sources, indicates the general public is not going to know the facts when they go to the polls. I hate to split hairs but; 1. From your quoted examples I don't really see how the Lib Dems have acted in a manner that isn't trustworthy other than pointing out that the Tories seem incapable of doing maths. In fact I do admire the current Lib Dem campaign strategy of avoiding the mud slinging and actually telling people what they stand for, even if it doesn't always happen quite like that in practice. 2. I also think you're being a little unfair on the BBC, while they do lean left I find they still report on the facts and avoid being unfairly biased. They offer plenty of coverage both on the news, question time, Newsnight, The Daily Politics & more that gives all the parties a chance to have a say and presents the essential election information at your fingertips. I haven't been disappointed so far. Like I say, sorry to split hairs!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 12, 2005 10:10:05 GMT
It may have came accross as if I was criticising the BBC, but I was actually praising it as one of the few widely available reliable sources of information.
And Labour seem to have made another U-turn. From claiming the Tories will make £35 billion of cuts they're now claiming they will spend more than Labour. How can they expect people to trust them if they're making contradictory claims?
Source: April 12 (Today's) Daily Telegraph front page
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 12, 2005 13:37:20 GMT
Today's Electoral update:
Another embarrassing gaffe was made by; you guessed it, a Tory candidate. Last week it was Vice-Chair Harold Flight who was sacked and banned from standing as a Conservative candidate after hinting further tax and spending cuts would be possible once the Conservatives were in power (which of course is probably true, meaning Mr Flight had violated Conservative rule No.1: The lies, the spin and everything but the truth!). Today it was Dorset South candidate Ed Matts who placed a doctored photograph of himself with Ann Widdecombe in his party literature. In the original photograph, He was pictured carrying a photo of an asylum seeker, next to Ann Widdecombe holding a placard saying "let them stay". In the "doctored" version, He has a placard saying "controlled immigration" and Ms Widdecombe has one saying "not chaos and inhumanity". Surprisingly Michael Howard has REFUSED to sack Matts despite many calls for his sacking by opposition parties. In my opinion, Menzies Campbell said it best: "Howard Flight was sacked by the Conservatives for telling the truth. Ed Matts, the Conservative candidate in Dorset South, should be sacked for telling lies."
In other news, congratulations to Charles Kennedy who became a father today and has insisted that he won't use his newborn to win political points. Menzies Campbell is filling in for Kennedy as the Liberal Democrats delayed setting out their manifesto for obvious reasons. They did however set out their spending plans; Vince Cable said the top rate tax change would fund the scrapping of university tuition fees and the introduction of free personal care for elderly and disabled people. Labour and the Conservatives continued to argue over the Tory spending plans and the mysterious spending 'black holes'. The Greens unveiled a rather radical manifesto which put climate change at its heart, citing it as a bigger problem than Terrorism (again this is probably true); They pledged to fund public services and green policies with money saved by scrapping Labour's road building plan, Britain's nuclear arsenal and ID cards.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 12, 2005 15:31:59 GMT
Sorry for the double post but *slaps forehead* I neglected to post what the polls are saying today! The polls differ quite wildly on the 2 main parties, most of them put Lib Dems at 20-22% but some put Labour in at 38% and Conservatives at 32%, others put them both neck and neck, one goes as far as to put labour at 40% over Conservative's 33% and the put Labour ahead with Tories lagging 2 or more percent behind. Quite a mixed opinion, but after the photo doctoring incident and their budget coming under heavy fire from the opposition, can Conservatives real win over the public and has the Tory party changed as Michael Howard claims it has or is it just more Tory spin? (Well I think the answer to that last one is obvious, here's a clue it starts with 'just more' and ends with 'spin')
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 12, 2005 17:50:54 GMT
And Labour seem to have made another U-turn. From claiming the Tories will make £35 billion of cuts they're now claiming they will spend more than Labour. How can they expect people to trust them if they're making contradictory claims? Source: April 12 (Today's) Daily Telegraph front pageThat's because the Tory's plan's DO claim to spend more than Labour. While giving the tax cut. And also paying back debt. The Tories could probably manage their spending plan if they cut 35 billion quid's worth of government spending, but they keep insisting that they don't have to. I'm starting to wonder where they're going to pull this mass of cash from. Even if we trust the Tory spending figures (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA), then once they've dropped in the tax cut and repaid the debts, they're still left with exactly the same amount as Labour. And they want to spend 3 BILLION extra on defence (needless, since Labour's already promising 3 billion for starters), they want 40,000 more police, and they want to set up this 'voucher' scheme for schooling. So how can the Tory's be offering to out-spend Labour on everything with a budget no larger? Labour are using this to back up their '35 billion cut' claim, because that's how big the hole in Tory plans is. The Lib Dem's haven't lied to us. That's why they always lose. The Tory's say 'We'll lower taxes AND increase public spending!', New Labour replies 'We WON'T raise taxes, we'll increase public spending, AND Saddam Hussein has WMDs in his fridge!' and the Lib Dems say 'we'll raise taxes.'. Which one sounds better to you, if they could all be true?
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Apr 12, 2005 20:24:36 GMT
"I think you've misunderstood the concept of 'affording'. Since they'd have to borrow, they clearly can't afford it."
The government borrows almost every year. Budget surpluses are exceptional.
"Let's just be honest about this one Thanatos; the Tories want Matron back because she's cheap. Why have a manager and a nurse when you can combine two into one overworked underpaid profession?"
That's not what matrons would be (if they were assigned their proper job description). The Tories propose this policy because it sounds nice and traditionalist and might just con someone into thinking they've come up with a solution to the MRSA crisis whose seeds they sowed and 'Labour' has tended.
"It's so that the Tories would be nicely set up to start hacking chunks off the NHS"
If there are any left when Mr. Blair and Dr. Reid have finished with it.
"The A-level and certainly the GCSE are too easy by half"
The 'foundation' tier GCSE papers, yes, but having sat both GCSEs and A-levels I, who I think may be so immodest as to call myself an intelligent person, can tell you that they are not easy. I found A-level History exam questions difficult (some more than others, but none a cakewalk) even when I was doing past and sample ones as practice with two weeks and full reference. It may be easy to get a D, but what do most employers think of that on a CV?
"and tend toward rewarding hard work over ability or intelligence."
Not so. You need both (unless you are prodigiously good at your subject [this tends to happen most often in Maths and Music] in which case you can get by with only the latter). What is a problem (but with exams in general, not A-levels or GCSEs in particular) is that they reward people who do next to no work for a year or two and then set to it with vim and vigour in the month before the exams.
"you can get an A without any understanding, as long as you deliver a large enough bucket of coursework."
Absolute balderdash. Coursework accounts for no more than a quarter of the marks in most GCSEs (the only exceptions I'm aware of are Art, for which this is self-evidently sensible, and Technology, whose entire syllabus is rotten to the core) and less than that in most A-levels. Only one of my A-levels (History) had any coursework, one A2 module accounting for 15% of the whole. I'll grant that most people probably do more than that, but most A-level courses will only be 15% or 20% (possibly 30%) coursework. And a decent piece of coursework certainly does require understanding (assuming your teacher is capable of using Google, which is all it takes to see if someone's copied the essay from the web).
"And that leads to total halfwits becoming lawyers, teachers"
You will find very, very few lawyers or teachers (PE teachers and Chris Woodhead excepted) who are "total half-wits". Absolute bastards, maybe, but not half-wits.
"and (blatantly) middle managers."
I'll grant you that.
"We need to be able to tell Law students who aren't right for the subject to just give up on it, rather than having a system where the smartest and most adept student in class comes in around fifth, behind the girl who doesn't have the slightest clue about the subject, but DID hand in a 250 page piece of coursework she'd dutifully copied out of eighteen different text books."
If she got away with that she's got a bad teacher. Most can spot that sort of thing a mile off.
"And we need exams that recognise some questions just AREN'T essays. There only so many words you can say about some things, and frankly no-one in their right mind would normally feel the need to write three and a half sides of A4 paper about the moral implications of Pavlov's dogs. Certainly not while you're being timed."
You've got a point here and one with which I have considerable sympathy; I'm still not sure whether I agree or not.
"I also think you're being a little unfair on the BBC, while they do lean left"
Since when?
"Menzies Campbell is filling in for Kennedy"
Greatest leader they never had.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 13, 2005 10:27:11 GMT
Whilst ability and intellegence are important, if the candidate is not willing to work hard they do not deserve the qualification for several reasons.
1. If they don't work hard it would appear to mean they don't care about the qualification enough to deserve it.
2. If they won't work hard for it now how well will they work for their future employers?
My Father's an employer, and he considers everything below a C a failure, and rightly so in my opinion. He is not the exception. He knows other employers and they think the same.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 13, 2005 12:32:56 GMT
Labour unveiled their manifesto today, instead of just relying on slagging off the Conservative manifesto, the unveiling got off to a good start as Blair said it was his last election as Prime Minister. Key points of labour's manifesto are: No increase in basic or top rate income tax, Minimum wage to rise to £5.35 from October 2006, Increase home ownership by two million, Inflation target of 2%, No-one will have to wait more than 18 weeks to see a specialist from date of referral, Rebuild or refurbish every secondary school, Education or training for every 16 to 18-year-old, Publicly-owned Royal Mail fully restored to "good health", Action to tackle guns and knives, Further Lords reform, Point system for immigrants.
Of course as soon as Labour stop attacking Tory plans long enough to launch their own, the Tories take the chance to 'one up' Labour by slagging their spending plans off even more. Charles Kennedy will be launching the Lib Dem manifesto on Thursday. Well that's basically today's election news in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Apr 25, 2005 19:21:20 GMT
Well, ten days to go, and still no-one has the slightest idea what the Tories and Labour actually stand for.
We know that they don't stand for anything the other side do (except the war). In fact, they disagree completely about everything (except the war), and Michael Howard has even sunk to personal attacks on Mr Blair being a liar (about the war). Not that it was the wrong thing to do, even though he lied. Which is perfect double-think.
The Tories have totally over-done immigration, only to discover that it comes about fifth in what people care about (including the war). Hence, they've tried to pretend that the last three weeks never happened, even going so far as to change their slogan. Yes, 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?' summoned a resounding 'Not really, Howard. We were thinking you look like the Prince of Lies. Did you threaten to over-rule him?' from the people of Britain, so they've moved onto 'Taking a stand'. Probably because it doesn't beg a reply.
Labour, having masterfully timed the election so that, what with JP2 poping his clogs and Charlie's missus dropping a sprog, no-one noticed for two weeks, have resorted to the oldest trick in their book, by citing Thatcher. However, this time they aren't borrowing her policies, but instead pointing out how she destroyed the country. If only they governed like that. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be enough to deflect from Blair's own disasterous presence in the party, and of course EVERYONE knows what he lied about (the war, for those of you having trouble with the brackets in this piece).
And the Lib Dems, safe in the knowledge that they are the party that said War might have been a mistake, actually seem to have managed to take the initiative. No-one is more suprised about this than they are. Charles hasn't slept more than eight hours since the baby was born, so the last thing that the poor bastard needs is to be dictating the issue of the day. Unfortunately, I reckon he's barking up the wrong tree entirely, and banging on about the war and the lies and the self-service two-faced slimyness of the Tories isn't really going to hold water against the twin foes of '£4 billion tax cut' and 'You do remember what the Tories did, don't you?'
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on May 5, 2005 17:37:52 GMT
Ah, the taste of apathy in the air, the pompous insistence that "your vote CAN make a difference", the huge beer bellys of the men in the polling boothes....
It's election day!!!
Now, we all know Labour are going to win. No matter how much he lies, cheats, sells us out to business, and is just generally a smarmy twit, Blair is STILL not as bad as Michael Howard looks. The real question we want answered is: How many seat can anyone else gain?
The Lib Dems are hoping for twenty. The Greens are hoping for ANY. Kilroy-Silk is only after a throne. But will they all get what they hope for? Except for Kilroy, obviously. He's already dead.
Personally, I spoilt my ballot this morning rather than vote for any of that shower. Never mind, eh?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 10, 2005 18:53:05 GMT
Right, it's a little bit late, that's so I could compile everything happening immediately after polling day but at long last here's my election post-mortem! First of all the basics, the number of seats and vote percentages: SeatsLAB: 356 CON: 197 LD: 62 Vote ShareLAB: 35.2% CON: 32.3% LD: 22.0% OTH 10.5% Scoreboard www.freewebs.com/gtp3/UK%20Scores.bmp
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 10, 2005 19:44:53 GMT
With that out of the way here is the actual analysis. All three main parties have some good and bad news. For Labour the best news was that they actually managed to get their third term with a majority government. The downside is that it's no longer the ridiculous hundred strong majorities of the last 8 years, but a humble 66. The election has hit Labour pretty hard with them losing 47 seats without a single gain and in almost every constituency the Labour share of the vote was lower with large percentage swing to the Tories and the Lib Dems. For Labour the next 4/5 years bring a tough parliament and an increasingly divided Labour party, many of whom are blaming Blair for the poor result (and lets face it, who can blame them?) and insist he resigns in favour of Brown. Blair has of course refused on the account that this might actually please the voters, something that contradicts Blair's manifesto for the next few years!
For the Conservatives it was a good night, they gained seats from the both the Lib Dems and Labour. They lost 3 seats to the Lib Dems but still came out with a surprising 33 additional seats, it seems we may not have seen the last Tory government. The bad news is that their share of the vote remained more or less the same and of course they didn't actually win. To this end Michael Howard has said he will step down once the party sorts out any changes the leadership rules. One other bit of good news for the Tories is that the Lib Dem's decapitation strategy didn't hit them anywhere near as hard as it could have, more about the when I discuss the Lib Dems. Now Howard is officially going speculation has well and truly begun over who will lead the Conservatives into defeat next time, David Davis? Malcolm Rifkind? Liam Fox? Not exactly the most inspiring candidates really. No one has officially put themselves into the leadership race so it's too early to say how long it will be before Howard goes and who will succeed him.
The Lib Dems have plenty to think about, they did manage a modest seat increase of 16 seats and with their loss of 5 the overall Lib Dem gain was 11 seats. This gives them 62, more than Lloyd George had back in the 1920s. Yet this result isn't ideal, it's nothing like the breakthrough the Lib Dems need for their claim of being 'The Real Opposition' to be true in terms of MP numbers. There is also speculation that sources within the party believe their success was in spite of and not because of Charles Kennedy. Something to do with him not having slept for many hours before the election. Another Lib Dem disappointment was the near total failure of the 'decapitation' strategy to oust Tory Shadow Ministers; its only victim was Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins. However the Lib Dems will be pleased with their 4% increased share of the vote and will no doubt prove a strong enough left wing voice in the commons in the next few years.
On the smaller party side of things it was a mixed night. The Ulster Unionist Party was absolutely flattened by the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein, losing 5 of its 6 seats, forcing David Trimble to resign. PC lost Ceredigion to the Lib Dems while the SNP gained two seats at Labour's Expense. The Green's vote share doubled in a couple of seats but they unsurprisingly failed to win any MPs. The BNP vote rose by half a percentage point, in an unrelated note the number of louts voting rose by half a percent.
George Galloway managed to take Bethnal Green & Bow from Oona King and had a blazing row with Jeremy Paxman shortly afterwards. Neither UKIP nor Veritas managed to make any gains, at all, not a sausage; you can tell I'm please with this can't you? Two independent candidates will be heading to the Commons, returning is Dr Richard Taylor of IKHH (Independent Kidderminster Hospital Health Concern) and storming into what was Labour's safest seat in Wales is Peter Law protesting against the all-female shortlist put into place in the constituency of Blaenau Gwent.
So it was a busy night with plenty of seats changing hands. In the days following Howard has resigned, as already mentioned and both the Conservatives and Labour have been reshuffling. Blair's reshuffle has been relatively bloodless, mainly because the man's about as weak as Italian larger at the minute. Hoon has been made leader of the Commons, John Reid moves from Health to take his place and is in turn replaced by Patricia Hewitt. Peter Hain is the new Northern Ireland secretary. David Blunkett is back as secretary for Work and Pensions and Jacqui Smith is being brought in as Minister for Schools to replace the ousted Steven Twigg who famously took Michael Portillo's seat, Enfield Southgate, in 1997.
Howard's reshuffle sees Tory 'rising star' George Osborne take over from Oliver Letwin as Shadow Chancellor, Dr Liam Fox is taking on Shadow Foreign Secretary and Francis Maude replaces him as party chairman. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, will shadow David Blunkett, the poor soul I don't even think he deserves that job. Michael Ancram has been switched to Shadow Defence following the resignation of Nicolas Soames to spend more time with cake. Oliver Letwin remains in the shadow cabinet, shadowing Rural Affairs. The Lib Dems have remained relatively quiet since the election, no doubt cooking up something new to Oppose and Propose, perhaps opposing Muffins and proposing Shortcake?
All in all it’s been an interesting election, Labour won as predicted but the results did show just how disillusioned the nation has become with its Prime Ministers, fuelling Labour backbenchers, The Lib Dems and George Galloway’s cries for his resignation. Will Blair serve his whole 3rd term or will the pressure get to him? Only time will tell. One thing’s for sure, no matter what the result it was a good night for the satirists with Bremnar, Bird and Fortune and the Dead Ringers on top form with election specials. I look forward to 4 more years of satirising the current parliament.
|
|