Forum menu
I'm pretty confident that's the entire reason for any party. I mean what would be the point of having a party that wasn't for the direct or indirect benefit of the people who support said party?
The Labour party isn't supporting the unions at the moment. I guess that's why some of us are wondering what they're for.
Any party has to consider the needs of society as a whole if it is to be electable. So while the Tories might have a positive bias towards business and Labour towards the Unions this cannot be exclusively so otherwise they would be unelectable.
The Government of the day has an ethical duty to lead in a way which benefits the whole country and nit just their party members.
Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.
no that was before that big crash thing in banking which , given tyour excellent reasoning so far, you blame on labour. After all if GB was not responisble for the US sub prime mortgage sector then who was 🙄
If you use your statistic of choice yet the proportional increase is identical
I am not sure you have proved your point
I find it a disgraceful slur for you to suggest I am confused about economics
Lies damn lies and statistics then???If you're reduced to selectively quoting me then you really have nothing in your locker. The simple fact is that Germany (and all of the Scandinavian countries except Finland) have a higher GDP per capita than the UK. So much for the laissez faire arguments...
1. I am replying to stoner not you
2. I agree with you
3. I am not quoting you at all
Apart from that fair comment 😉
No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.
Even more shocking is the vast quantities of public money being squandered on vanity schemes right up to the last minute.
Really, ransos, we must sort you out some new glasses.
You're supposed to be picking a fight with me, not junky. He's about as soft and doughy of thought as you are 😉
a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.
He did get rid of boom and bust though if you remember....
"With Bank of England independence, tough decisions on inflation, new fiscal rules, and hard public spending controls, we today in our country have economic stability not boom and bust,"
No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.
An examination the budget under the previous conservative government is instructive: for 16 out of 18 years, it was in deficit:
1. I am replying to stoner not you
2. I agree with you
3. I am not quoting you at allApart from that fair comment
Ahem! 😳
no that was before that big crash thing in banking which , given tyour excellent reasoning so far, you blame on labour
Not quite sure where you are getting my apparent reasoning from on that one JY. I don't recall pinning the banking / sub prime issue on GB. And I don't. But his general fiscal managemnt of the UK economy was spectacularly bad. Although, as ATP says, he did get rid of boom and bust, so maybe he did do something useful. 😯
Ransos, once again you've fed us s snapshot of data without any context or meaning. What you can see is the deficut being stabilised after the last recession and the budget brought back into control.
Labour took over after the hard work had been done and brought it back into surplus. 10 years later GB succesfully plumeted the state finances off the scale!
Thats a great acheivement to turn round an economy so spectaculary for the worse.
Sorry Ransos, just to clarify
so you now claiming that the global recessions (IMF Definition) of 1981-83 and 1991-93 were the fault of the (Evil Tory) Governments, but the global recessions of the Naughtie's were not connected to the (Labour) government of the day?
Z11 - That's the way it works on LeftyTrackWorld ™
Interesting article in today's Grauniad, which Is pretty difficult to argue with
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/05/david-cameron-conservative-party-city-of-london?INTCMP=SRCH ]The Conservative party is effectively the political wing of the City of London. No wonder it can't lead Britain out of this crisis[/url]
so you now claiming that the global recessions (IMF Definition) of 1982-83 and 1991-93 were the fault of the (Evil Tory) Governments, but the global recessions of the Naughtie's were not connected to the (Labour) government of the day?
I've no idea how you managed to infer that. Let me make it simple: you contend that Brown should have paid down the debt when the economy was booming. I've shown you that the previous conservative government did not do this either. Or are you claiming that there were no boom periods between 1979 and 1997?
In essence, I saying that it's a pox on both their houses. Capiche?
Labour took over after the hard work had been done and brought it back into surplus. 10 years later GB succesfully plumeted the state finances off the scale!
Regardless of the many failings one might attribute to Brown, precipitating a global financial crisis isn't one of them.
Sorry Ransos - you seem to be getting yourself confused between Deficit, and Debt, mixing the terms constantly
National Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1, at a time when you're crowing that we were running a deficit...
He's about as soft and doughy of thought as you are
only because you carefully pick the areas you will fight over whereas I dont let my ignorance hold me back
No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.
But his general fiscal managemnt of the UK economy was spectacularly bad
No offence but both these statements show why there is little point debating this. There are facts and their are opinions so lets not confuse them
It is almost unheard of for any UK govt to not be at a deficit but labour were in surplus for more years in their last terms than all the other Tory givts that century [ iirc feel free to check this] Irrespective of the party in power deficit cannot be used as a political tool with which to beat labour with as MOST govts run at a debt - this is the norm whethe rit should be is another debate
See the point abopve obviously the labour govt had the most surpluses of any govt yet it was still spectacularily bad. I think that is statement of politics not economics
Yes we have political views but lets not try and rewriete history to fit in with out views.
National Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1
and then rose under Major to be higher than Blair and Brown was higher and Gideon higher still Whats your point?
It was also expressed as a percentage of GDP rather than as an actual figure - you might to look at the actual figure given what you argued about percentages the other day.
Sorry Binners but that is more Guardinista bull!
There is an argument to be made about growth in the economy but that isn't easy. It is important that we mainatin a deficit cutting approach to ensure that we can continue to borrow at very low rates as this will ensure that we spend more of our money on investments and public services rather than servicing debt.
There are automatic stabilisers in the chancellors plan which have ensured that growth is not stiffled. It is however a very difficult balancing act and pushing for growth needs to be hand in hand with reducing the deficit. Our major trading partners are not growing so where is this growth going to come from anyway? With high levels of personel debt its unlikely to come internally?
I personally think we need to invest in infrastructure more which creates jobs and prosperity, but then I'm an engineer!
What we need is more gay people spending money, as they dont have kids as much as straight couples, theres less need for schools, they tend to look after themselves when older, so less need for old aged peoples homes, they dont usually have social problems, so no need for social services,theyre not usually agressive, so less need for prisons for thugs,theyll usually always help you out,theyre articulate, clever, and well read.
(well the ones ive worked for anyway)
All the things we need to pull us out the current con-dem-mess.
Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole
hahahahahaha
See the point abopve obviously the labour govt had the most surpluses of any govt yet it was still spectacularily bad. I think that is statement of politics not economics
Yes we have political views but lets not try and rewriete history to fit in with out views.
Thats an overly simplistic way of protraying the contrys finances as it completely ignores the context. Of course it was easy for the Labour party to build a surplus as the economy was on a good footing when they inherited it.
I really belive that was a missed golden opportunity. Had they invested wisely they could have improved public services at a sustainable rate and built a competitive and properous economy, rather than one bloated on a massive public sector delivering little value for money.
Sorry Ransos - you seem to be getting yourself confused between Deficit, and Debt, mixing the terms constantlyNational Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1
That's entirely misleading. Debt as a % of GDP fell right at the end of Thatcher's period, but was generally higher under the tories than it was under labour. It was lower in 2008 than it was in 1997.
So, you've failed to show that the tories did better than labour either with budget deficits, or with net debt. Next!
Thats an overly simplistic way of protraying the contrys finances as it completely ignores the context. Of course it was easy for the Labour party to build a surplus as the economy was on a good footing when they inherited it.
that is an overly tory way of looking at it not supported by facts.
It ignores the doubling in debt under major for example and the lack of surpluses during his time andyet you still describe no surpluses and rising debt as a "good footing for inheritance"
I assume you think labour gave the current coalition a good footing then ?
You let your right wing leaning affect your view of the facts and just argue it to put th ebest spin on the facts rather thna looking just at the facts
The reality is both parties run at defecit as a rule.
Your view is just you saying you are right wing and like the tories and then you try and make the facts fit this view
I am out this is pointless we klnow what everyone political view is now and I cannot be bothered with the attempt to "spin" facts
Lot of hate on here. Thought it was just Yanks that yelled at each other and refused to see any positive in the other guy's point of view.
I think this is a pretty good government actually, doing their best with a bum hand of cards. I hope we have another Tory/LibDem government after this one, lots of good ideas and the hang'em and flog'em brigade get told to be quiet.
lots of good ideas
for example.... ?
Raising the tax threshold to £10k?
Raising the tax threshold to £10k?
2. Expanding the Academy schools programme.
3. Free schools
4. Simplifying benefits in favour a flat payment which the newly employed keep as they move into a job therefore making work pay.
5. Cancelling EMA. Not sure why we pay kids to go to school. Do what I did, get a job stacking shelves, paper round, butchers-boy, milk round. It's good for you.
6. Cancelling compulsary ID cards
7. Set a firm date for withdrawl from Afghanistan
and lastly, if you can get over all this tiresome Bullingdon-boy nonsense, whatever your political persuasion, how is Cameron an extremist right-winger? He's a very middle of the road One-Nation Tory, much like Churchill, Eden and MacMillan. Have a read on the Spectator Coffee House blog, see the comments below the line for what the blue rinse brigade think of him.
Cancelling EMA. Not sure why we pay kids to go to school
we don't pay kids to go to school. ema is to assist parents in putting their kids through higher education on account of the fact that wages are now comparatively much lower now than they've ever been.
i suppose we could always borrow some money to get them through school. oh, hang on...............................
It ignores the doubling in debt under major for example and the lack of surpluses during his time
As I said before - it was a global recession, so either you say that governments have to borrow money during times of global recession, in which case you cannot criticize Major, OR you accept that Gordon was at fault for his profligate borrow and spend policies.
we don't pay kids to go to school. ema is to assist parents in putting their kids through higher education on account of the fact that wages are now comparatively much lower now than they've ever been
yeh that sounds ok, but where does it stop? can we really afford it? My sister is a teacher, pretty left-wing.....even she is against the EMA, far too many of her kids (inner city London) just show up to get to get their money, arent in the slightest interested in doing any work. It sounds incredible but thats her talking not me......and really poor families are going to continue to get it am I wrong? Isnt there something wrong with taking other peoples money in taxes and giving it to a kid who gets a free state education?
I think that crosses right over the line of what the state should and shouldnt be doing. Feel free to disagree but please don't shout and call me a Tory idealogue for holding that view.
and one more thing. Isnt it just a teeny bit to the good that we have a guy in No10 who looks suited to the job, is comfortable in his skin, projects a little bit of optimism? I wasn't Brown's biggest fan but he wasn't a terrible guy......but as a PM he was an absolute horror story. I'm pretty interested in politics but even I couldn't watch him on TV for more than a few seconds before switching channel. Poor guy was just tortured by the job, was totally unsuited to it. Put your own political prejudices to the side for a second, wasn't that terrible for the country?
Stoner - MemberI wouldnt want to join a party that would have TJ and me as members. It'd be too contradictory.
Green party?
reasonable idea - its what all governments tend to do - raise tax thresholds as inflation movbes more peoiple into taxmcboo - MemberRaising the tax threshold to £10k?
2. Expanding the Academy schools programme.
stupid idea. stops strategic planning of education, more expensive per pupil, worse outcomes.
3. Free schools
As above
4. Simplifying benefits in favour a flat payment which the newly employed keep as they move into a job therefore making work pay.
While a good idea in principle it means that those with special needs get huge cuts and also creates a huge poverty trap that means its actually harder to get into work - stupid idea
5. Cancelling EMA. Not sure why we pay kids to go to school. Do what I did, get a job stacking shelves, paper round, butchers-boy, milk round. It's good for you.
So poor kids can no longer do a levels? where are all these jobs schoold kids should get? Working and being at school is a good way to reduce outcomes as well
6. Cancelling compulsary ID cards
good idea no doubt
I'll believe it when I see it7. Set a firm date for withdrawl from Afghanistan
and lastly, if you can get over all this tiresome Bullingdon-boy nonsense, whatever your political persuasion, how is Cameron an extremist right-winger? He's a very middle of the road One-Nation Tory, much like Churchill, Eden and MacMillan. Have a read on the Spectator Coffee House blog, see the comments below the line for what the blue rinse brigade think of him.
Rubbish - he pretends to be a one nation tory and in some areas his instinct is good but in others its awful. He is far further to the right than thatcher - and authoritarian not libertarian to boot. he is hated b some because he is authoritarian
bit to the good that we have a guy in No10 who looks suited to the job, is comfortable in his skin, projects a little bit of optimism?
not really as he is still a smug **** and his policies stink
he may be more presentable but that is all- hat about his attitude to women and his calm down dear? Rumours of temper tantrums? He is meia savvy nothing more.
GB was obviously piss poor but probably a nicer person.
Well Jeremy count them up, we agree they arent all bad as a government then. Not a bad score.
Working and being at school is a good way to reduce outcomes as well
I'm pretty sure the two most important factors in my relative success (beyond coming from a poor but loving family) were playing team sport and learning about life and the value of money by having part time jobs while I was school and university. Of that I am sure. We shouldnt be denying kids that opportunity.
Expanding the Academy schools programme.
And which party started that programme?
Free schools
Lovely idea; trouble is it will potentially allow private business interests to dictate type of education. Allows state-funded schools to much freedom in selecting the type of pupils they want. Will lead to a tiered education system which will, inevitably, favour those with wealth and leave poorer kids at a disadvantage. Socially divisive and unconducive to integration and true social mobility. Stealth privatisation of the Education System.
Cancelling EMA. Not sure why we pay kids to go to school. Do what I did, get a job stacking shelves, paper round, butchers-boy, milk round. It's good for you.
Or do what most Tory MPs did; enjoy free university education and a nice allowance from mummy and daddy each month. Students whose families are wealthy enough to be able to finance them through education will have an obvious advantage to those who have to get a part-time job as well as needing to study. EMA levels the playing field a bit more.
Cancelling compulsary ID cards
Fair enough. Daft idea and too much public money wasted on researching it etc.
Set a firm date for withdrawl from Afghanistan
And this woon't have happened if we had a Labour government?
Why is it, in 'discussions' of this kind, people on here always descend into arguments about money? Is that all you can think of? What about other issues, such as social stability, access to adequate housing, healthcare and decent education?
I don't see the Tories coming up with any firm plans to address these issues at all. They just keep prattling on about 'reducing debt'. It's all about money, not people.
Truth is they just want to use their term in power to decimate the public sector, and create opportunities for themselves and their cronies to then take advantage of the mess that will be left once they've done so. None of this current government show any signs of actually giving a shit about the people they are supposed to represent, none of them. If they are allowed to continue as they mean to, we will be left with a society with a lot more crime, far poorer health amongst it's people, and a poorer educated population. Tory short-termism will see the creation of wealth for a veery tiny minority of people in the UK, and leave Britain in a far worse state than it was under Labour.
Those riots we've seen this summer; get used to it. we'll be seeing a lot more of that.
Oh, and you might not want to flash yer iPad/iPhone/spensive mountain bike around too much either...
We're all in it together. You'll understand this, when you're lying in a pool of blood after some scrote has robbed you. Oh, and don't bank on the ambulance or getting to you too quickly, cos they'll have had their service cut right back. Then, when your health insurance has run out, and you've lost your job cos you're no longer able to work, you'll have to rely on state benefits to survive. Good luck with that. Embrace the Iceland Experience.
But at least you'll be able to console yourself with the fact that you won't be the only one. 🙂
Boy's I'm going to go now. Lot of personal stuff I just can't understand.
Bye! 🙂
Is this a clever device to push the Tories as humanist good guys, or did they actually say something decent this time?
If a liar tells you he's not lying, do you believe him?
I think theresa may blatantly lying about a cat preventing an immigrant from being deported as a pretext to pulling out of the human rights act tells you all you need to know about this government
and macboos suggestion that Cameron is some kind of moderate tells you all you need to know about how effective pr and spin can be on the electorate
[img] 
[/img]
Like it Eviljoe, like it! 😀
Cameron ............ He's a very middle of the road One-Nation Tory, much like Churchill, Eden and MacMillan
😀
Harold "The Council House Builder" MacMillan was considerably to the left of New Labour, let alone Cameron. Just as an example under MacMillan's watch a quarter of a million council houses were built [u]every year[/u].
Contrast that with New Labour's appalling record - in their 13 years in government almost half a million council houses were sold off. And that same period Yorkshire and the Humber region which has the greatest social housing need in the UK, 24 council homes were built. On average, just a couple of thousand new social housing units were built per year under New Labour - despite a waiting list of 4 million.
But even New Labour's shameful record on social housing was too much for the right extremists in the Tory Party, and after installing himself in Number 10 David Cameron immediately announced a 60% cut in social housing expenditure.
Harold MacMillan who famously described the the privatisation of the utilities as "selling the family silver", was positively communist compared to the Blair/Cameron/Clegg shower of neo-liberal right-wing ****s.
Are the tories ok after all..?
Of course not... while they may have some use economically, as a governing power they are a shockingly poor moral example to our young people.. such willful and blase hypocracy can only be a negative influence on our future generation's view of their elders in society..
the tory will always put wealth before worth.. lucrativeness before love..
I'm not going to try and say that labour are the answer as they aren't much better if we're honest.. but the tories are despicable and I'm [i]truly[/i] surprised that evolution hasn't caught up them and their supporters yet..
I'm sure that a far-ranging study into the negative effects of inbreeding would probably shed light onto this anomolous sociological disaster..
I hope that my mature and measured contribution will help push the debate in this thread towards finding answers to the OPs original question..
Ernie, but should the councils, and us the tax p\yer, subsidise council and social housing, if theres a need then comapnies and corporations should build them, and charge realistic rents, so they get tennants into them, thats what happens to lot of student housing, theres also more control of sub standard tennants, no running to the council every few days to repair your damage, or for minor repairs.
project - and who pays the rents of the unemployed?