Child Allowance Cuts

[MrFrost]

Has anyone seen Running Man?
I think a televised game show of this sort, with the winner keeping their child benefits.
Survival of the fittest.

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

Presumably if he had agreed with a Labour policy against his party's /constituent's interests in a Lab/Lib Coalition ........you wouldn't have a lot to say about it eh ?
Now let me think, you would think how brave he was and what a risk he was taking in the country's interest. Amazing how the Socialists have all jumped onto their soapboxes immediately ; given the actions and continuous changes in direction of the last Govt. and the new opposition it is clear why I have concluded thus!
Don't bet on a collapse to the sort of support that the Liberals had 50 years ago, It might happen of course but I very much doubt that such an early prediction of their demise can be made on the evidence so far. The very opposite could happen if the economy radically im,proves over the next 18 months or so.

Hoola. What, exactly, were these \"continuous changes in direction\" of the previous Govt? As far as the economy went, they were ultra-consistent. They did precisely what they said they would do. Firstly, to gain the confidence of the electorate that they weren't the left-wing bogeymen that the Daily Mail was prophesying, they stuck to Kenneth Clarke's spending plans for the first four years. Thereafter, they slightly loosened the purse strings, resulting in higher public investment. (The results by the way are the incomparably better hospitals, schools, railways and civic infrastructure than we had in 1997.)

As Glyn has shown (with FACTS, not bar-room-bore opinions), the result was a sensible increase in public spending levels and total debt, above the damagingly low levels that the Thatcherites imposed on us.

And while we're talking about facts rather than opinions, it is a current FACT that the Lib-Dem support has crashed through the floor in the opinion polls. It's not me making a prediction. It is what poll after poll is finding. People have woken up to the fact that voting for the Lib-Dems is pointless and they are running away from them in their millions. It is utterly unprecedented for a party of Government to lose half its support within four months of taking office. But Clegg has managed to do it.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

The Lib-Dems simply cannot recover from this. If the Tories' medicine works, it will have been the TORIES' medicine. If it doesn't work, then the electorate will be venomous in its revenge on the Lib-Dems for supporting them. No way out.

No point saying, \"Yes, but the Lib-Dems might soften the worst of the Tories' policies.\" They are losing every single argument. Look at Tuition Fees. Clegg gave a PERSONAL GUARANTEE that the Lib-Dems would not support higher fees. Cable (their most popular politician AND the minister responsible for Universities) tried a desperate tactic last month by going public and saying that he wanted a Graduate Tax (by far the fairest way of paying for Universities). He has now been humiliated into a climb-down, publicly stating that he will be implementing the Tories' preferred policy. So, as I have said, how exactly is this Govt different from a straightforward Tory one?

And to answer TRB's earlier point, what does it benefit a man if he wins AV (IF) and in doing so loses half the people who would vote for him anyway?

A tin-pot, amateurish party getting their comeuppance sharpish. They will be lucky to get 20 seats in the Highlands and Cornwall next time round.

[hoolahoop]

Billy, there are many groups even within a single party that have to concede their particular interests and are unable to defend their own particular cinstituents positions. Why should that be any different in a Coalition party , am I missing something here ?
Cable didn't do an 'about turn', as you pointed out but they aren't going to win every argument or for that matter many of the arguments however hard they force the issues.
I don't understand your total disdain for their party or indeed their politicians and I'm gobsmacked to find that you have such disdain for the 'practised' politicians and political dogma that makes the Lib/Dems what they are!
How on earth can I share a debate with you , at any level, when you are clearly unable to discuss what they can and cannot do or who and what they represent when you clearly carry such negative political bias against their party. Did someone throw yellow paint over your car at some point ? lol
As for the final paragraph of your post , which incidentally completely betrayed your political bias against them. I offer you a bet, £2 per seat at the next elections below 50 for you and above 50 for me .
Are you on rascal.............?
A straight yes or no would be fine not further discussion on the issue, it's getting tiresome but the bet would be interesting.

[hoolahoop]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?

[BobG]

If I did betting I'd take you up Hoola. Simply because there is NO reason now to vote anything other than either Tory or Labour. Why should anyone at all vote Lib?

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?

Look at the average. Ignore the fluctuations and look at the average. That's how to read it.

The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.

They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

Billy, there are many groups even within a single party that have to concede their particular interests and are unable to defend their own particular cinstituents positions. Why should that be any different in a Coalition party , am I missing something here ?
Cable didn't do an 'about turn', as you pointed out but they aren't going to win every argument or for that matter many of the arguments however hard they force the issues.
I don't understand your total disdain for their party or indeed their politicians and I'm gobsmacked to find that you have such disdain for the 'practised' politicians and political dogma that makes the Lib/Dems what they are!
How on earth can I share a debate with you , at any level, when you are clearly unable to discuss what they can and cannot do or who and what they represent when you clearly carry such negative political bias against their party. Did someone throw yellow paint over your car at some point ? lol
As for the final paragraph of your post , which incidentally completely betrayed your political bias against them. I offer you a bet, £2 per seat at the next elections below 50 for you and above 50 for me .
Are you on rascal.............?
A straight yes or no would be fine not further discussion on the issue, it's getting tiresome but the bet would be interesting.

Actually, the reason I despise them is that they have utterly devalued democracy. They stood for election on a series of policy issues that they have now totally discarded. That is mendacious and anti-democratic. Clegg tells us that he \"changed his mind a couple of days before the Election\" on the biggest economic issue to face this country in a lifetime. Kind of says it all...

It's not acceptable. Democracy is not about \"Vote for me cos I look good on the telly and don't worry too much about the details - I'll make your mind up for you after you've voted.\" The result is that, although only 36% of people voted for a party that advocated deep and drastic cuts, a second party that comprehensively did NOT stand on that policy has \"changed its mind\" and allowed the country to be pitched headlong into a terrifying neo-Thatcherite experiment in slash and burn at PRECISELY the time when it is potentially most damaging.

Go have a look at the second graph on this page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201

That should scare the living shit out of anyone who really thinks about the issues. That shows that this recession is very similar to the ones of the early 80s and the early 30s. In both of those, the Govt followed policies like the ones that the Lib-Dems are now supporting - cut back the public sector whatever the cost. The results were catastrophic for millions. THAT is what we are now facing and THAT is why I hate these f**kers with a vengeance. Because they are allowing it to happen.

I actually have a lot of time for Vince Cable, who is a strong intellect and seems to be a fine, principled man. He has however been utterly shafted by Clegg and Alexander and the Tories. He's been given the Dept that will suffer the deepest cuts of all, and in particular, is being forced by the Coalition to reject one of the Lib-Dems' most popular policies among the young - on tuition fees.


But, since you're bored with the detailed debate, I'll give you your one word answer.

No.




















But if you raise it to 50 quid, I'll snap your hand off here and now.

[CusworthRovers]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.

They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).

Quality retort

Old Chaz, what a star

and then bettered by the one about Thorpey........Whooops Scotty

[hoolahoop]

BobG wrote:

If I did betting I'd take you up Hoola. Simply because there is NO reason now to vote anything other than either Tory or Labour. Why should anyone at all vote Lib?

Cheers

BobG

Has there been for the last 75 years then Bob, the reason some might is simple like me............they bloody want to.
Such is democracy eh ? It is far easier for everyone to lace into the VERY minor party with the hope of splitting the Coalition. That too could be counter-productive!
Politics is a very fickle thing, my God how the Labour party has changed over those many years from their original ideals.
As for the bet being a good one, it's open to both you and Billy..........come on you two. You've forecast obliteration, not just the lose of a couple of seats. Easy money isn't it ?

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Wild fluctuations in this if you look very closely Billy i.e. one polll on 1/10 has L/Dems at 18%, hardly constitutes a complete collapse to the days of 5 seats for the Liberals does it ? I accept btw they are different parties but with many converging policies.
Would you have just a 2 party state btw ?

Look at the average. Ignore the fluctuations and look at the average. That's how to read it.

The Lib-Dems are polling lower than they did when Charles Kennedy was so kaylied that he lifted his kilt up and sang, \"Hoots mon there's a pissed up ginner loose aboot this Hoose\" at PMQs.

They are on their way to polling the sort of returns that the Liberals got in the 70s when their leader was bumming a male model then trying to have him shot (allegedly).

Dear dear dear you are a funny but very bitter man Billy, a veritable modern day Nostradamus.  
Incidentally the vagaries of politics would never entice me to bet 'silly' money on the future. The side bet was for fun and now you're trying to 'bigger bollox' me ?
It simply reflects your arrogance and tunnel vision when looking at political decisions that don't go your way. If I was to read your posts as an alien it would appear that the demonized  ignorant and back-stabbing Clegg and his 'Tin pot' party were somehow in overall charge of this Coalition i.e. the decision makers .......they aren't fella and we all know it and your rationale for blaming him personally on each and every decision this Govt. takes is therefore seriously flawed.
Why because you ,despite all your posts to the contrary are totally unable to look at this situation without bias.
You forget the Labour/Tory changes of direction and fook me there have been myriads of them as there have been for all political parties ; with the decided purpose of implying that Clegg and Clegg alone a) has made all these decisions and b) that he alone of all particular leaders has ever had to change direction.
What the fook can he do...............? I know what you want him to do i.e. disappear/pull them out of the Coalition etc. but it just won't happen.
Bring back footy and stop fooking goading me, take the nice little side bet as a laugh and we can get on with life.

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

Dear dear dear you are a funny but very bitter man Billy, a veritable modern day Nostradamus.  
Incidentally the vagaries of politics would never entice me to bet 'silly' money on the future. The side bet was for fun and now you're trying to 'bigger bollox' me ?
It simply reflects your arrogance and tunnel vision when looking at political decisions that don't go your way. If I was to read your posts as an alien it would appear that the demonized  ignorant and back-stabbing Clegg and his 'Tin pot' party were somehow in overall charge of this Coalition i.e. the decision makers .......they aren't fella and we all know it and your rationale for blaming him personally on each and every decision this Govt. takes is therefore seriously flawed.
Why because you ,despite all your posts to the contrary are totally unable to look at this situation without bias.
You forget the Labour/Tory changes of direction and fook me there have been myriads of them as there have been for all political parties ; with the decided purpose of implying that Clegg and Clegg alone a) has made all these decisions and b) that he alone of all particular leaders has ever had to change direction.
What the fook can he do...............? I know what you want him to do i.e. disappear/pull them out of the Coalition etc. but it just won't happen.
Bring back footy and stop fooking goading me, take the nice little side bet as a laugh and we can get on with life.

No Billy Big Bollox intended Hoola. It was simply an expression of my confidence in my prediction. They are dead in the water. You simply do not recover from saying THIS in April:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw&NR=1

Then doing THIS in October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9mUCPylveE

Labour's posters for the 2015 election have already been printed. THIS is the key image.



The man is simply not a credible politician. Nothing personal, but he is utterly out of his depth and looking more stupid by the week.

I accept that there are difficult decisions to be made. Of course there are. That's politics. But what the last 6 months have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Lib-Dems are not a serious party with serious, honestly held principles and policies. They are a protest party. They are the party for people who don't really think about politics too deeply. They are a party who want to be all things to all people and who campaigns on a bunch of woolly, ill-thought out ideas that sound good at when you look at them individually, but that do not stack up to a coherent package.

If Clegg was a serious, mature politician, he would have realised in April that if he was successful in joining a coalition, he would be very likley to be in bed with the Tories, and would therefore be faced with a partner in Government that was committed to very, very different policies to his own party's. If he was prepared in April to be so balls out in highlighting where his key issues were (like tuition fees for example), then he should have also been savvy enough to realise that he would need to deliver on this. He hasn't. His party has caved in on yet another issue of principle.

So, I ask again. What exactly IS the point of the Lib-Dems? We are simply getting straightforward Tory policies put into action, from Trident, to public sector cuts, to tuition fees. If this is a coalition, where is the compromise on the other side? If the other side is not compromising, then what is the point in the Lib-Dems being there?

THAT is why their support has already collapsed, and why they will be decimated at the next Election.

PS: I'd be perfectly happy to bet the price of a pint on the Lib-Dems getting less than 50 seats at the next Election. In fact, to make it REALLY interesting, I'd bet on them getting less than 30. I'm not talking about them vanishing altogether. I'm talking about them reverting back to being an irrelevance. Which is what they have already shown in spades in the 4 months they have been in Government.

[hoolahoop]

Excellent post and I don't disagree with most of your points Billy.

At some point the Lib/Dems may possibly deliver on some of their key areas rather than acceding to every Tory principle, that will probably come sooner than you think from the 'grassroots' of their party and their are signs of that already.

I believe when the calls get stronger the overall impact on their Parliamentary support for the Tories will start to force the hand of both Clegg and Cameron. If Lib/Dem support is pulled away and LD ministers fear for their livelihoods as MP's then and only then will you see more confrontational politics taking place.

It is obvious that compromises will have to take place very soon and I can't see the Tories allowing their grasp on long-awaited power to potentially be pulled away so soon in this their first Parliament........basically I think their is more of a struggle going on behind the scenes than is visible at present.

Tuition fees, Trident, Economic Policy are all areas where they have succumbed momentarily to the Tory grandees..........that will and must change soon.

Regarding them 'chucking away' all their beliefs, the same can be said as I stated earlier , by ALL political parties once faced with power. Unlike you I believe that all the parties have thrown away what were once some of their core principles not least the Labour Party itself sadly.

I do however think you may be underestimating the calibre of the LD's when describing them as some sort of 'fringe/Tin pot party. They have grown up significantly from the days of bearded hippies and lunatics that they once were.

A pint of Zigga Zagger it is then to the winner, the collapse won't happen and contrary to believe I understand their membership is growing and I wouldn't ever rely on polls taken in the early days of a new Parliament ........they mean jackshit. When you consider the economic mess and hard times we currently find ourselves in it is obvious that we all seek a scapegoat; unlike others I don't solely blame the Labour party for this. However if I was a Labour party member it would be tactically astute of me to try and destroy the credibility of the weaker party and force another election.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Ironically despite often moaning about university funding, I have no issue with an increase in fees if it means like is proposed those that end up in good jobs etc end up paying back at a decent rate, I'd have no issue with that.

It gets turned round as to driving around those of us from poorer backgrounds from uni.

Look at it this way from someone who's just finished 4 years of study and knows the pros and cons of it and what actually is turning lower class people away from further education having done a lot of work in that area in my last job.

The main reason is not fees, they get paid in full via a loan and it matters little if it's 3,6 or 10k if you pay it back at a similar rate when earning a similar amount.  If I earn that amount I'll be greatful and happy to be paying back the education as it is giving me a benefit.

The main issue is actually the living and cost of university and this is where it's tough.  The richer get masses from parents paying rent, buying books, buying food, big handouts etc meaning they can live a great life at uni.  Therefore the rest of us have to struggle, we can't socialise like them, by the amount of clothes, food, textbooks etc as them and generally struggle.

The grant/loan system is inconsistent at the moment and what I found toughest was not the fees, that's taken care of, but the cost of being a student.  I struggled to afford textbooks, struggled to find part time jobs, struggled to afford clothes, struggled to socialise as I just did not have the money. Now I struggled to find a job because many have experience through volunteering at uni.  As I had to have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live volunteering was a tough ask.  The issue I have is someone like me will get 4500 a year to live on.  Everything must come out of that (rent, bills, textbooks, stationary, printing costs, clothes, food) - the lot.  I'm actually better off now living with my parents for free at the moment and claiming JSA - that's a scary thing when you thing about it.  The gulf is widening aswell.  If fees are going to go up are costs going to come down?  Will textbooks be cheaper or will you still have to shell out approaching 4-5 hundred quid a year on those?  Will rent for first years in uni accomodation (pretty much the only real choice if you're moving a long way and want to meet new people) come down?  At Sheffield where I studied a first year pays £97 a week minimum on rent, that comes out of the 4500 for 40 weeks leaving just £550.  After buying your books that's about it.  So where does food come from, clothes, bills etc?  But nobody seems to be adressing this gap as it assumes we get cash from parents.  Well we're not all in that position so it makes it very tough. Add on other costs like medication for ill people and there's another cost gone (I have to use a prepayment having a bad form of asthma meaning I take a lot of medication).

So when you look at it are fees a problem and barrier?  In the short term not at all.  In the long term it means you'll pay more when earning but at a higher level of earnings that's acceptable IMO and is fair.  But how are the poorer of us supposed to cope and compete with the Mum and Dad brigade who get thousands from family?  Well we can't and that is the real barrier for the lower classes like myself who have to spend a lot of time at work rather than studying or gaining work experience voluntarily where it matters post graduation.  BIG BIG flaw in the system there.

But BST is right on one point.  Students unions actively sought to encourage students to vote Lib Dem in oposition to fees being raised.  I saw through that as I don't personally believe university should be free and I do believe we should pay back when we benefit after graduation (though none of my mates or myself have got work yet), that will hit Lib Dems hard no more so than in Nick Clegg's Hallam constituency which encompasses thousands of Sheffield Uni students who voted for him.  Now I wasn't one of them but the majority did and now will regret that.