While I agree some of the lib dems policies are good I dont think some of their key issues will work. I simply cant see them being able to fund such ambitions plans. My biggest turn off so to speak for lib dem is their pro Europe stance. Im generally anti -Europe while the main parties (although its debatable what labour are) are Euro skeptic. Simply If something goes wrong in europe, no just one country falls. Europe is getting weaker with the expansion eastwards and as history has shown, something as large as europe isnt sustainable. Not only are their too many conflicting idealologies. Also at this time the country needes an experienced party to go forward. IMO Europe is nothing more than communism in with a new flag. Not to mention the weaking of certain vaules not disimilar to that of the Nazi party. that is off topic but is the biggest issue that would stop me voting lib dem. I think its abit harsh to say the tories are out of touch (yes they do loose touch and have been for the past) but I believe cameron has at least reconneceded to what the country needs. As for corrupt, to be fair, all politicians are corrupt (can't deny that) tho in recent events Lib dems areclean compared to the other parties. Most importantly why are the other two more equiped? simply because they have been there before. Consertives have came in before to sort a labour mess while Lib dems haven't been a leading party for a very long time. I dont think they have what it takes to simply lead the country. They do need a chance to prove themselves but I dont believe this is the time for it.
Like I said we disagree on aspects of European policy, it should really be an entirely different thread but generally I believe being involved in the EU is a good thing not only for the advantages we can take from it but the way we can give advantages to other European countries. I don't entirely understand how you mean that any EU member country would be effected by a fellow member "falling"? If you mean the Euro as in "€" then actually you could make the argument that the Euro is far more robust to bankrupcy than the Pound. If Britain defaults it takes everyone in Britain with it leaving us to start from scratch. With the Euro, hell Iceland has already called itself bankrupt and Euro countries are still standing. I do agree that the EU should not be some kind of federal nation, it is too vast however establishing commonality in some basic rights, laws and trade agreements really just help us interact with the world better. I defintely cannot say it is "Communism", there is no nationalisation of anything by the EU, there is no central control of any country, most of the parties in the European Parliment are currently center-right anyway! I simply view the EU as a kind of UN however more practically workable. On Eurocentric matters the Conservative and Labour party are rather committed to staying in the EU, I would be surprised if any actually gave a referendum (they might offer it though, remember Labour's promise). On the actual issue I was interested in; could you talk about what policy they couldn't fund? Its not like they write out plans in excel, they are a main political party, they have teams of people who work out whether concepts are feasible. Even then, its not like the main party's haven't proposed entirely unaffordable policies such as the millennium dome or the channel tunnel. I cannot possibly imagine that the Tories or Labour are in touch with the people; the very fact that swathes of politicians have defended their expenses because they followed the "letter" of the law show they have contempt for the public, if they cared about the public they may have voluntarily followed the "spirit" of the law. I'm not saying 100% of them but the vast majority of the main party's MPs. In my opinion the other two parties "have been there" is the reason neither should be elected, they have both proved time and time again since the late 70s/early 80s, neither can be trusted with the country. I am big on civil liberties and I havn't really came across anything proposed by the Lib Dems that I disagree with so they have my vote.
Tbh I think Brown is the best person to deal with this recession. Yes he is annoying and quite frankly absoluetly rubbish at everything he does. I vote Conservative and do not believe in Labours 'steal from the hardworking and give to the scroty' ideals. However Brown was in charge for our economy for a decade and lets face it, did a good job. I'm well aware that he just turned the country into a massive service sector and its why we're suffering now. But with the change of government comes the brash change of laws and policies. With how fragile the UK economy is right now, I don't think its the right thing to do yet. That aside, I haven't and never will vote for Labour. I also HATE the fact they have so many unelected officials... Brown being the worst. That aside, I quite like the new speaker. He doesn't look like a hobo!
Hmmm...couple of problems there. True, Brown managed the finances of the UK during a period of unrivalled growth and wealth. However, what he completely failed to do was save any money whatsoever during this time, in addition to getting rid of the UK's gold reserves, both of which meant that when the recession hit, the government was forced to borrow billions rather than dipping into reserves that they'd saved up. Add to that the fact that Brown also decided that the banks should be self-governing, a move which meant that nobody in the government really knew how much trouble the banks were getting themselves into. The cause of which was the banks taking on vast amounts of toxic debt, meaning that they had to be bailed out by the government when that debt went curiously bad. As for Britain being a service sector country, I think you'll find it was the previous Tory government that started that trend by closing the mines and privatising all of the nationalised industries. The problem is that the Tories are no better or worse than Labour and the LibDems have no real experience of being in government. So, what's the alternative?
By all means I completely agree with all that, just couldn't be bothered to write a massive essay on the politcal and economical changes of Britain in the last 2 decades At the end of the day I hate this countrys politcal system. I hate the fact that the general population care now only for money instead of the real important things in life. Such as family, friends and generally being a nice person. Which is why once I graduate, I'm moving far far way. Most likely Austrailia. And I won't pay back a damn penny of my student loans. Because I can. And I don't care about the UK anymore.
By all means leave (can't blame you). But do pay off the debts that you incurred. Otherwise you are part of the problem (of toxic debt), not part of the solution and you have no moral high ground from which to argue anything at all.
I might not have the moral high ground but if enough people do it I sure hope it makes a point. My year at university were the first to get hit by the top up fees and they are nothing but a disgrace. Englands education system (note: not Britains) needs a massive overhaul. Why on earth do schools have bouncers (in some cases) and metal detectors in others. If children are doing things like this the root of the problem needs to be identified and stamped out. I would so love to be an MP. At least I could have a pop at sorting this shambles out. It'd be the only thing worth staying here for. That and the natural beauty of the place. Oh and actually the West Midlands....... Edit: I cba to write a lot to describe all that annoys me, but theres a few that jumped out when I was typing.
You mean a point like: "Yo dawg, I heard you don't spend enough on proper education, so I won't pay back my student loan, so that you'll have even less money to spend on proper education." Why? Not because the government does not invest. Because PARENTS do not invest. Let me repeat that: because PARENTS DO NOT INVEST. Take a school in Harborne for instance: it is high on the league tables. Kids come from well-behaved homes and therefore are well-behaved at school, motivated to learn and well-educated. They would be --their parents took out back-breaking mortages to move into the area so they could send their kids there. They are on the governor's panel, they attend every parent evening and they volunteer for school activities. They invest in the school as part of investing in the education of their children. The teachers are top-notch, attracted by this excellent school. And the cycle continues: more motivated parents try to get their motivated kids in. Take a school in Aston. It is bottom of the league tables. The kids are out of control at school because they are out of control at home, and the school does not get authority from the parents --instead attempts at disciplining little Johnnie is likely to meet with his parents coming to kick your head in. It will be the only time you see them --they never attend parents' evening. The kids don't attend and if they do, don't learn because their parents never taught them the value of learning. School is seen as something you farm your kids out to so you can spend the day watching Jeremy Kyle with can of Fosters and a *** in peace. In the end, the school just resorts to expulsion of the most difficult pupils. The teachers are burnt-out and turnover is high --if they can be recruited at all. Supply teachers and barely trained assistants make up the shortfall. The cycle continues: the only kids that go to a crap school are those of parents who don't care. So what's the difference between these schools? It isn't the money --they receive roughly the same funds. It isn't government educational policy nor the state curriculum --it is the same for all schools in Britain. What's the difference? The PARENTS. A school that is valued is a school that is supported by parents who value education, and visited by disciplined, motivated children who respect the teachers because their PARENTS tell them to, who attend because their PARENTS tell them to, and who learn because their PARENTS tell them it matters. It's not about the money. It's not about the government. As always, it is about the parents. Be my guest. I'd vote.
You're right, it is the parents, but I think more could me done in schools to set children straight. Personally if it were up to me if the parents were not fit to look after their children let lose the rights to be parents and they go somewhere else. But this just causes problems in its own right. Children are nearly always loyal to their parents despite how crappy they are to them (at this point I'll note I'm somewhat an exception - thus my rant at the government). So they'll inevitably just cause more problems down the line. I think teaching people more responsibility would be a good idea and getting these shocking parents to do some sort of community service so that they can see the crap side of life and what they're doing to their children by ruining their education and emotional development. I realise that the taxpayer has effectively lent me the money to goto university and I'm grateful I've had the opportunity to go. But the government has realised that there was money to be made from this if more and more people went to university. At the end of the day, not everyone should be educated at that level. I'm not being an intellectual snob, but some people are better suited to other things. For example the german education system takes this into account and splits students talents accordingly at an early age, allowing to develop their full potential. Over here by putting pressure on children to do well in exams has just made them underachieve and even Brown has realised this with a complete reversal of his parties views from when they first got into power. Brown is investing more into BTECs and apprenteships and dropped the KS3 SATs, which I think is a brilliant idea. Its just a shame that the government (as well as large companies) make all these changes without consulting the people it will affect and first asking their advice. But I somehow think that will never change as it only really works on a small scale. But long rant aside, if the uni got the extra £2k a year I pay in tuition fees I wouldn't care about paying it because I love my uni and they've taught me well (so I hope). But instead I pay tax on learning (which effectively what it is) which is a disgrace seeing as Labour seem to think they are the party with the best education policies. I say scrap tuition fees and just screen certain students that just waste their time there. Thats a pretty bad toxic debt. I think the unis should get rid of pointless degrees (media studies, car sales and management?? <-- which you get a BSc for!!) and promote investment in the universities from a buisness perpective. E.g. more money into technologies which can be profited on by the government. That in my eyes would be a much better idea than charging everyone that comes through the doors. Its a bit like Thatchers nationalisation, ok idea at the time - but seriously screwing over the people now. Seeing as these companies can't even seem to be regulated by the government.... (I'm well aware of the IE/windows 7 story but there is far worse going on with regard to banks and utilities companies). Glad to know someone would vote would just have to read up first lol.
Schools can do nothing without parental authority. Firming up school authority will just lead to escalation because the parents won't back the school up (but in fact attack it for its attempts at imposing discipline). The teachers can't touch the kids so what can they do except expelling them? This, of course, reinforces the misbehaviour of kids who don't want to attend and are not made to by the parents, and leads to more uneducated problem kids. Taking away the parents' right to have kids means enforced sterilisation (eugenics here we come) or taking kids into the care of an already overburdened care system. Research shows that children often suffer more in the hands of the care system than in the hands of inadequate parents. Sad, but true... So what we are seeing, education wise, is natural selection at work. Again, it's like dealing with wayward kids, except that they are now adults. It won't work. We have gone as far as sending parents to prison for their children not attending school, and it does not work. The problem is that the parents have no control over their kids in the first place, and do not perceive it as their responsibility (or in their power) to. So they perceive it as unfair and they rebel rather than cooperate. The problem is that the emphasis on exam performance teaches people the value of exam performance, but not the intrinsic value of learning and knowledge in itself. It's like the US scheme where they paid children to read books. They learned the financial value of reading, but not its intrinsic value in terms of personal and knowledge development or enjoyment. Learning costs. People should learn that at an early age. It requires sacrifice, effort and yes, also money. But you accept that because it is an investment in a better future. But if it is handed to you free on a plate you stop valueing it and start taking it for granted. The reason children performed better in the 50's is because their parents still remembered a time when learning was a privillige reserved for the very fortunate and very rich. Education was valued. If little Johnnie did not feel like going to school, he would get his ass kicked to the front gate all the way and if he disrespected his teacher or did not do well, his dad would cane him, never mind his teacher. Some developing countries still have that attitude, and guess what: they are kicking our spoilt, lazy, overfed Western ass in the global market right now. I think that your analogy of toxic debt is a really useful one. Basically a study grant/loan should be seen as any other investment --how likely is the borrower to pay back their debt? If (s)he is able to demonstrate a level of ability and motivation through their educational attainment, and chooses a field of study likely to result in reasonably well-paid (or societally valued) employment, then the loan is made. If the person however demostrates a history of poor educational attainment and chooses a poor field of study, then the loan application is rejected as an unsafe bet.
Face it we are all stuffed, there wont be a solution. Only way i can think about solving it would be to remove the voting system and rotate each party into power every year, so libs this year, tories nazi's next year and back in at the deep end with poor old labour. This then removes the whole problem as each party gets its turn. Do this for 3 or so years and then hold an election on who should be put in power first for the next rotation, including new parties if any should arrise. Either way the money is now missing and lost, stop crying about it and saying its fixable. Dropping the VAT to 15% has done jack squit! Oh may i also point out that the general public is far too emotional to make decent decisions on how to fix the economic problems. Dare i say throw all parties into the house of commons and let there views come to an answer which is then put in place. so the public say a problem, and all the parties answer, which ever party has the best solution wins that given problem to solve, this then allows more than one party to operate, meaning there is no one party in power.
Bring back Charles Kennedy!!!! He was a drunk but at least he was a leader, better than anything thats going now, and Vince Cable seems the most competent person to be in charge of the treasury (well better than squirrils for eyebrows and i like to get on boats and beg russians for money). Nick Clegg though, wtf? The other two popular parties i wouldn't touch with a barge pole tbh, let someone else have a chance i say.
This is why I don't bother with politics. All promises and no changes, just a big cluster****. In Hong Kong the politicians decided to fill up the best harbour building sites for politicians to have a nice sea view. They also grant all the land to developers to continue their vast monopoly, I could go on and on and on and on; God I'm boring myself already. Basically I don't take too much notice.
Well I did, my dad did and most of CPC did as I remember. gosh darn it I made a bet it would. True though what I believe you are saying that 90% of people didn't see it coming. There are dozens of MPs that walk in and out of the commons every 5 years and hundreds leave every time there is a switch of government, when I was on a visit to parliament in london Ian Stewart the MP for eccles said that when he came into parliament in 1997 noone told him what his job was as an MP in terms of how to deal with parliament, legislation and commitees. To be good enough to be a sucessful minister you need experience as a junior usually so have to spend 5-10 years to get experience enough to be successful in your department, considering the liberals only have a rump of say 40 experienced MPs and you need 90 Mps or lords to run a government then I think you are right in that the liberals may struggle to find thier feet. However next election my mp is hazel blears and the second party liberal so everyone I know I shall will to vote liberal to get rid of her. Russia, china, USA, Brazill, india (which is a good one 5 different large religeons and several different major languages) Well since there are only 5 parties in the european parliament and the voting seems to amend laws well it seems to show that these ideologies work well together. Plus what disagreement could be made on CAP and whats wrong with a saftey net for humanrights plus a common strong currency is good IMHO. That'd be true if it weren't that main party in europe are the EPP centre right group populated by the centre right parties of europe. Second are the socialists populated by the likes of british labour (so not so communist then) and the balance of power held by the liberals. Some politicians are corrupt unless another 500 have claimed on expenses wrongly. Some politicians are usless however mutual exclusivity shows that they tend to be different MPs. Some are plain unlucky say some dipstick temp leaves your sensative information on a bus. Eg the home office Was blunkett useless? no. Was he corrupt? yes. Was clarke corrupt? no. Was clarke useless? yes. Thats cause they have like 65 MPs give them more and they'd be as bad as labour.
