Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #2

[bickster]

Anyone know what Australia did to avoid recession?

Was it that their banking was more regulated? Possibly

Was it the fact they had "reserves" and actually gave the population free money to spend on whatever they felt like? That too might be a possible, but we couldn't do that could we, because someobe actually sold off the gold

Murdoch was always a twunt, no matter who he was in bed with

[drat01]

Australia has massive mining reserves - in the ground!

[tonyh29]

but he's a very good politician

he's also been fired twice due to wrong doing .. but i guess it will stop Labour from spouting the "we are the anti-sleaze party" crap this time around

He may have his skills but basically is job is to blackmail , bully and destroy .. Osborne's reward for forcing Brown to cancel the Election .. a nice leaked story about a private meeting on a yacht .. Hoon and Hewitts reward for trying to revolt , why they coincidentally get caught in a career destroying sting ... But a desperate party have to rely on desperate measures , not sure it's the correct way to go about doing things but then i'm not an ordinary man with values who doesn't lie ...

interesting how the mirror edited out Browns words about "always being truthful" from their online edition

[drat01]

UK economy set to outpace most rivals, says OECD

The UK economy is forecast to outstrip its G7 rivals in the second quarter of this year, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The OECD is predicting it will expand at an annual rate of 3.1%, in line with the government's own Budget forecast.

Such a rate would put the UK ahead of the US, Japan, Germany, France and Italy - but not Canada, the G7's most raw material-rich country.

The forecast is backed by the latest surveys of the UK economy.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said a double-dip recession had been avoided and the recovery was "still on course" in the first quarter.

But on a global level, the OECD cautioned that overall growth would be slower in the main industrialised nations during the first half of 2010.

"Despite some encouraging signs on activity, the fragility of the recovery, a frail labour market and possible headwinds coming from financial markets underscore the need for caution in the removal of policy support," its report said.

'Weak' recovery

The British Chambers of Commerce survey of 5,500 UK businesses suggested the service sector was the main bright spot in the UK economy.

A separate report on the service sector, in the form of the purchasing managers index (PMI), suggested that it slowed down in the last month of the quarter, although that was compared to a particularly strong figure in February.

The two are not strictly comparable. Unlike the BCC, the PMI does not include retailers and also only covers the month of March.

Where the two reports do agree is that the economy is brightening, although it remains patchy and fragile.

The director general of the BCC, David Frost, told the BBC: "Any thoughts we may have slipped back have not materialised, but the recovery needs to be nurtured."

It warned that the recovery was weak and "serious risks of a setback remain", with the manufacturing sector still struggling.

Paul Smith, senior economist at Markit, which co-produces the PMI, said: "The UK recovery remains on track, with the service sector posting a pace of expansion consistent with those seen at the end of 2009."

Manufacturing orders for the first three months of this year were little higher than in the previous three months, according to the BCC, but new orders continued to fall and employment in the sector suffered a setback after an encouraging fourth quarter in 2009.

The UK economy emerged from recession in the final quarter of last year, after six consecutive quarters of contraction.

The latest official figures show the economy grew by 0.4% in the last three months of 2009, up from the original estimate of 0.1%.

How strange that wasn't posted

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Indeed.

The debates will play a huge part. If Cameron gets put under pressure about his party he will struggle, of that i have no doubt.

This being a prime example of the danger of ''scratching the surface''

[tonyh29]

Australia has massive mining reserves - in the ground!

well the record amounts of iron ore they flogged to China almost certainly helped as well

interestingly though one of the other "key" factors in them avoiding recession was that the put interest rates UP ..where as all the other economies lowered them .. they have now lowered them but they are still high in comparison to the UK and US

[drat01]

It seems that the Tory party are showing more of their cuts insisting on removal of key parts in the education bill going through - you are now seeing how they will reward their mates in business by cuts in education, health etc and increase in VAT. Still as long as "business" are OK?

Michael Gove has insisted that these cuts take place apparently

[TheWalletInspector]

Australia has massive mining reserves - in the ground!

well the record amounts of iron ore they flogged to China almost certainly helped as well

interestingly though one of the other "key" factors in them avoiding recession was that the put interest rates UP ..where as all the other economies lowered them .. they have now lowered them but they are still high in comparison to the UK and US

Seems they are on the up again.

[bickster]

It seems that the (red / blue ... you decide)Tory party are showing more of their cuts insisting on removal of key parts in the education bill going through - you are now seeing how they will reward their mates in business by cuts in education, health etc and increase in VAT. Still as long as "business" are OK?

just different jockeys, different silks

same horse though

[drat01]

Letter to Gove

Below is my letter to the shadow schools secretary Michael Gove on the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Many of the important provisions in this Bill have had to be dropped because the Conservatives have refused to allow them to go forward.

Dear Michael,

I want to put on record my deep regret that you have not been prepared to support key measures in the Children, Schools and Families Bill including; guaranteed 1 to 1 tuition for children who fall behind; compulsory home school agreements so all parents support our teachers to keep discipline; statutory PSHE including sex and relationships and financial education; and proper protection for home educated children.

It is our very clear intention to ensure that all the measures you have rejected are included in a new bill in the first session of the new Parliament.

I believe that every child falling behind in English and maths should be guaranteed the small group and one to one support they need to catch up and make progress so that they are secure in the basics and ready to learn in secondary school. Such tailored support should no longer be the preserve of the wealthy and privileged few but a core component of the curriculum. I am deeply disappointed that you do not agree.

Schools have clear statutory powers to discipline pupils for bad behaviour that occurs in school or on the way to and from school. We have given schools the power to search pupils for weapons and other items without pupils consent, and all school staff members have the legal power to use reasonable force both to prevent a crime or injury and to maintain good order and discipline amongst pupils. Our measures to strengthen Home School Agreements would give schools new and stronger powers to ensure all parents support schools to maintain good behaviour including the possibility of a court-imposed parenting order. As behaviour expert Sir Alan Steer reported recently “It is important that schools have the confidence of knowing that they operate within a legal system that supports their endeavours and that both parents and schools know that the use of a parenting order is a possibility”. I believe parents and the profession will be extremely concerned and disappointed at your refusal to back teachers and headteachers.

The reforms to the school curriculum in the Bill would ensure that children and young people are equipped with the knowledge and skills they, and future employers, want and need. The reforms to the Primary curriculum following Sir Jim Rose’s extensive expert review will provide greater flexibility for schools to tailor teaching to the needs and interests of their children while also focusing on the basics of literacy, numeracy and ICT. These proposed changes have been widely welcomed by primary schools across the country, and many Heads and teachers will be disappointed by your refusal to support them.

I am especially disappointed that, despite our conversation yesterday, you could not agree to make PSHE statutory in all state-funded schools. There is now widespread agreement that statutory PSHE is essential to prepare young people for adult life, and our reforms would ensure that by reducing the age of parental opt-out to 15, all children receive at least one year of compulsory sex and relationship education (SRE).

There is a large body of evidence showing that good SRE leads to young people taking greater responsibility and waiting longer to have their first sexual experience and thus reduced teenage pregnancy rates. It is because of this the provisions of the Bill had received such significant support in Parliament and more broadly across the sector, with faith groups and with parents.

As I explained yesterday, your insistence that parents should have a right to withdraw their children until they reach the age of 16 – the age at which they are in many respects considered adults – makes it impossible for us to proceed. Both British and European case law do not support an opt-out up to the age of 16. As I explained when we discussed yesterday, that amendment would have meant that the bill would not have been compliant with the ECHR. Your insistence that the age limit must be increased to 16 would have made the entire bill non-compliant with UK and European law and, therefore, our lawyers advised me that, as Secretary of State, I had no choice but to remove all the PSHE provisions.

This is a very significant set back, which will deny many young people proper and balanced sex and relationships education. I also strongly disagree with your insistence that children and young people attending academies should be excluded.

It is also very disappointing that your refusal to allow us to proceed to make PSHE statutory will set back our plans to ensure that all pupils receive high quality financial education from 2011.

I was very surprised that you have opposed all of our provisions to drive further and sustained school improvement. The provisions taken out of the bill today on school improvement partners; intervention powers and the school report card are the building blocks for a world class 21st century schooling system that meets the needs of every pupil so they can achieve their full potential. They would also provide parents with the information that they tell us they need to make informed decisions with their children about the future and the removal of these provisions prevents us from delivering the fairer system of accountability we have promised to schools.

Improving teaching underpins the best possible education for all pupils, and the proposed licence to practise would have firmly established the professional standing of the workforce and provided teachers with the status they deserve alongside a contractual entitlement to CPD. I am sorry you do not agree.

Finally, you and your colleagues have been clear about your opposition to the proposed registration scheme for home educators. I do believe this is profoundly misguided and will put children at risk in the future. We have always been clear that the vast majority of home educators do a good job and that they have nothing to fear from the proposals we brought forward. However, without our reforms the small minority of children at risk will remain so. By opposing these provisions you have removed a potentially valuable tool for local authorities in their work to safeguard all children.

I understand that in some instances there are issues of principle that divide us. And I also recognise that, following the decision by the shadow Chancellor not to protect the schools budget this year, you have to find a very hefty and immediate cut to the DCSF budget in 2010-11, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates at £1.7bn. But I do believe the interests of children would have been better served had you agreed to these provisions reaching the statute book. Your refusal means the loss of a number of key provisions that would have made a significant difference to the lives of children and their families.

It is a great pity that you have put at risk improvements in our schools, support for pupils and the well-being of our young people. I will be campaigning to ensure that this Government is returned and that these measures do make it on the statute book in the first session of the new Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

ED BALLS MP

[tonyh29]

ED BALLS MP

so it seems the first contender for Gordon's job has shown his hand .. first he starts telling the public Tory party policy on VAT and now he is publishing letters via the media ( unfortunately I can't see for myself the source as someone appears to have forgotten the source :winkold:)

So how do labourites fancy Ed Balls as party leader ? or does another candidate take your fancy ?

[snowychap]

I agree with Awol that keeping money in the economy rather than in treasury coffers is the way forward.

What would make you think that government is likely to 'keep money in Treasury coffers'? :?

[Reality]

I'm sorry but I really didn't notice any perceptible change towards the welfare system (except for a few bits intended just to help people) in the early years of New Lab (perhaps it was one of their 'aspiration' thingies).

Since Freud was turned to (even though his three week, back of a fag packet report was initially ditched), New Lab have, effectively, adopted a relatively Tory position (it will be the Tory position should they be elected come May).

I will agree that this links in with their aspiration talk. Since the 80's there was a large shift in emphasis placed on "individual responsibility", which New Labour adopted from Thatcher and the Tories. New Labour have always seen themselves as the heir to Thatcher. No, I meant that New Labour's approach to the welfare system is different than that of Old Labour.

The current system continues to go down a neo-Liberal path towards minimal state support. The emphasis now is on income maintenance through the labour market.

So how do labourites fancy Ed Balls as party leader ? or does another candidate take your fancy ?

ED balls...loool....Ed Balls is in big trouble to lose his seat at the next election. Bookies have also stopped taking bets on Outwood & Morley on a Tory gain, his constituency. Tories will put a lot of emphasis on getting a big name kicked out to show "change" has been accepted. He will be booted out I think.

Also, looks like Jacqui Smith will be out the door. I can't say I will miss the old hag. I hope Harriet Harface also gets kicked out. Ugly old bint.

[kidlewis]

I agree with Awol that keeping money in the economy rather than in treasury coffers is the way forward.

What would make you think that government is likely to 'keep money in Treasury coffers'? :?

by coffers I mean the governments financial resource, which is money from Tax.

[snowychap]

The current system continues to go down a neo-Liberal path towards minimal state support. The emphasis now is on income maintenance through the labour market.

But that still doesn't get to the heart of what I was asking you.

I wasn't asking you to explain what politicians believed their policies were driving at or where they were driving things as I'm quite well aware what they (and those informed by their opinion) think.

I was trying to get you to think through the detail behind the mantra which appears to have been, unquestioningly (not just by you), accepted as correct.

[wiganvillain]

ED BALLS MP

so it seems the first contender for Gordon's job has shown his hand

So how do labourites fancy Ed Balls as party leader ?

I thought you were stopping telling funnies on here as that's the most ridiculous thought I've seen for a long time

[Demitri_C]

milbum will be next labour leader i reckon

[snowychap]

by coffers I mean the governments financial resource, which is money from Tax.

It's still the same question that I ask.

Surely, there are only a few things which they could do with this money:

Spend it (that would see it going in to the economy);

Reduce borrowing and/or debt;

Stick it away for a rainy day.

You've gone for option 3 - why?

[tonyh29]

ED BALLS MP

so it seems the first contender for Gordon's job has shown his hand

So how do labourites fancy Ed Balls as party leader ?

I thought you were stopping telling funnies on here as that's the most ridiculous thought I've seen for a long time

well ermm if you look closely at my manifesto promise i'm sure it said i would stop telling funnies , plural .. this was a single joke therefore a funny and not covered by my pledge

just weird how he suddenly seems to be the most media prominent person for the labour party at present ..

[Reality]

milbum will be next labour leader i reckon

I don't think he will at all. He doesn't have enough backbench support to lead Labour.

I think if Brown does go it will go to someone with experience - Johnson for example.

In all honesty I think the next Labour PM is sitting on the backbench, or hasn't been elected yet. Anyone in Gainsborough please vote for an old friend of mine from online:

http://jamiemcmahon.com/

Whilst in reality he won't win the seat, it is still very convincing to see the Labour party having confidence in him.