Metropol

i'd like to have seen diane abbot to win on an idealogical level personally. and whilst i thought ed balls was a bit of a snake, i've warmed to him. i think he, above all of them has the gravitas and intellect to bring the party back into office. dave milliband seems just a little too insincere to me. i'll try to reserve my judgement on ed milliband, but i'm learning towards lemon right now.

i think we'll start seeing the hastily pasted over cracks re-appear in the coalition as soon as the spending review is published and the depth of the cuts is truly realised. it's when people realise that... some of the cuts they perhaps themselves have been convinced were needed actually include them.

it's going to be ugly and as somebody who works in the public sector, i'm pretty worried too.

my friends at the borough council have been told that they face around a 40% cut in their entire budget. i'm not sure how much cash they waste on stupid projects, but even so that's a massive cut, and the easiest way to slash budgets by that amount is to start hacking away at the payroll. that's going to be a lot of people in the town without a job. they're a big employer here, as are other public sector organisations, such as the local college which has a huge number of back office admin staff.

in fact, when i think about the town, many of the biggest employers here are the council, a few big high schools, the college, the local police, the hospital etc.

scary times indeed.

Bigger question is well David get shadow Chancellor, which would make it a family affair, and keep most labour people very happy.

Sput wrote:Anyone fancy running the country after this parliament?

Guess it'll be down to the BNP on that argument then!

Nick Harvey wrote:

Sput wrote:Anyone fancy running the country after this parliament?

Guess it'll be down to the BNP on that argument then!

Let's not be too hasty Nick, there's always UKIP...

Somehow I'm not thinking that this appointment is total shit. David Milliband was always far too grandiose for the party. The joke was that Ed thought he was in with a chance of being leader, David thought he WAS leader... hopefully, this will have taken him and his gawky smile down a few notches. When he's finished licking his ego wounds, there might just be a less important shadow cabinet position for him.

I think, to follow on from Mark's point somewhere up there, that the reason the cuts are so unappealing at the moment is that they're so poorly explained in the media, not to mention the fact that they're talked about more than anything else. There's been SO much talk of cuts - with little or no explanation as to how they're going to be made - that people are really starting to turn against the idea. Unfortunately, public sector is where these cuts have to be made. And usually, it's non-jobs... you say that the back-office of the college is full of admin staff; is that a bad thing!? (And arts cuts were always going to happen either way... didn't expect UKFC to go so quickly though).

On an entirely personal note, I'm very happy to see my useless, ignorant and rude MP defeated by his brother. VERY happy indeed.

Nick Harvey wrote:

Sput wrote:Anyone fancy running the country after this parliament?

Guess it'll be down to the BNP on that argument then!

Not that I jump on the media bandwagon, but I simply do not trust the BNP. In ANY way shape or form.

So, how do you feel about the new parliament James. did you get all you hoped you would when you voted Tory?

To me Labour will always be the party of vino-quaffing, latte-drinking socialists who sit around pontificating about international development and climate change when they're not trotting across the globe patronisingly assuming responsibility for other countries' problems (Iraq) instead of improving standards in the UK.

Manufacturing declined faster under Labour than it did in the 80s due to their paranoid aversion to what they call 'protectionist policies'. Child poverty has been increasing since 2004. Labour cut income tax in favour of borrowing. They shepherded 46% of young people into university, making those on lower incomes (or 'the poor' as they now seem to be known - interesting how Labour's terminology has changed now they're not in power anymore) even worse off. And there's more, but I've forgot what it was now.

Anyway, God only knows why the unions are still licking Labour's sphincter after everything they did and failed to do in the last 13 years. Although he's an exceptionally annoying man, I think Ed Balls would have taken the party in the right direction. Ed Milliband, however, will carry things on as they are, in my opinion.

Care to sum up the Conservatives in such broad brushstrokes?

I'm hearing an awful lot of what you think of Labour, but they're not the government any more. So far we've seen the beginning of the dismantling of the NHS (private consortia from America spending tax money, operating for profit), the abolition of the Film Council, and the closure of expert groups on HIV/AIDS and cancer - but not to worry, Cameron is planning tax cuts for the middle classes before the next election.

Perhaps you (and James) could give us your musings on these activities.

I'm happy to debate the rights and wrongs of Labour policy, but there seems to be a deafening silence with regard to the actions of our current government.

But to give the new lot bit of prasie, there are plans to rise tax freash hole, which can only be good.

barcode wrote:But to give the new lot bit of prasie, there are plans to rise tax freash hole, which can only be good.

I give them no prasie, because I don't know what that is.

And its threshold.

Anyway, shoosh - I'm waiting for Chie and James to respond.

*taps wristwatch*

*silence*

How predictable.

And also how predictable to learn that Lord Ashcroft has avoided £3,500,000 worth of tax payments, despite promises from Cameron that he would pay his bill.

And Labour are called "champagne quaffing"? Pfft!