[Closed] general election debate

Haven't missed anything but good swerve!!!

BTW, we do have three parties who are broadly similar in spongin plans with timing being the main differentiator. The rest are selling fluff or outright lies.

Labour is going to [b]guarantee[/b] this and that apparently ... 😯

Haven't missed anything but good swerve!!!

You mean like the one when the Tory supporters on here suddenly realised that George Osborne had fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Labour's spending levels....that one ?

Apples and apples or apples and pears, Ernie - actually don't bother because this is an old tactic!!!

What's an old tactic ?

It's so embarassing when your dad tells you off in public:

[img] [/img]

😀

You mean like the one when the Tory supporters on here suddenly realised that George Osborne had fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Labour's spending levels....that one ?

How odd, I thought that the Tories were cutting 'too far' and 'too fast'?

So you can't distinguish what the Tory said before the general election, ie, :

[i][b]The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans.

“Today, I can confirm for the first time that [u]a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals[/u],” the Shadow Chancellor said.

“The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false,” he said.[/i][/b]

And what the Conservatives did after the general election ? Really ?

Now that's what I call really odd 😕

BTW thank you Z-11 for giving me the opportunity to once again remind Tory supporters on here how George Osborne fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Gordon's Brown spending plans.

If you haven't seen the Daily Telegraph link tell me and I'll post it again.

Who gives a toss what the Torries pledged to match - we never got to find out. Pretty sure the Torries supported the Iraq war, but it's Blair who gets it in the neck still. The government of the day promised no more boom or bust. No caveats. And when things went tits up Labour to a greater or lesser extent got blamed by the public come election time.

Scamper - Member
Who gives a toss what the Torries pledged to match - we never got to find out.

Everyone should - yes and no

It's important not to fall for old tricks such as fact manipulation to make false points. That's why you should give a toss. Like current and past governments, Labour set a trap (no not the 50p tax one this time) and GO responded. But what was the response? To commit to 2% real increases in gov spending. So he committed to half the average spend during Labours time in office. Apple or a pear anyone?

But what is true, is that Austerity George (sic) did commit spending at a rate double the average of the previous Tory governments. Ok not Blair or Brownesque in magnitude but hardly an austerity slasher!!!

Austerity is a relative term
If, at work, we had budgeted for increases of 10 % next year and I only increase by 2% and I cut the size of the department , the number employed, froze wages have I still spent more or have I decreased? is it growth or austerity?

Whilst its possible to credibly argue I increased the budget most folk would think we are in austerity and cuts. Clearly the Tory led govt reduced the numbers in the public sector, reduced budgets, caused depratment to become smaller, froze recruitment in say policing etc. If this is not austerity then I do not know what it is. I also think it would be pretty hard [ despite the maths] to support the argument that it was growth and not austerity.
I am not sure what the mileage is in debating this as we all know what happened and we can all take a polemic stance and murder it to death

I thought that the Tories were cutting 'too far' and 'too fast'?

Earnie that link you are referring to is 8 years old and pre recession. Times have moved on from then and it's no longer relevant

Who gives a toss what the Torries pledged to match

Well first of all let's establish what exactly the Tories pledged to match. Here you will see that they promised to match Labour's/Gordon Brown's spending plans :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html ]Tories vow to match Labour spending[/url]

[i]The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans.

“Today, I can confirm for the first time that [u]a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals[/u],” the Shadow Chancellor said.
[/i]

Is this important ? Well yes, the Tories main argument in this election campaign appears to be don't vote Labour because they got us in a mess through over spending. The fact the the Tories themselves, including the present Tory Chancellor, fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Labour's spending plans exposes this as completely misleading, hypocritical, and ridiculous.

If you don't give a toss about deliberate misinformation and hypocrisy in politics then that goes a long way in explaining the dire and depressing state of British politics. I would suggest that you do give a toss.

You missed out all the [b]bold[/b] Ernie.

edward2000 - Member

Earnie that link you are referring to is 8 years old and pre recession. Times have moved on from then and it's no longer relevant

So the economic policies pursued before the recession have no relevance to the economic situation today ? And that's coming from a Tory supporter ? Brilliant ! You couldn't make that sort of stuff up ! 😆

Ernie, one problem

You've missed out the reports from one year later that said they had dropped that pledge, because Labours 'fiscal stimulus' plans in the face of recession were storing up problems for later

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2706490/Tories-planning-to-drop-Labour-spending-plans.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7735113.stm

So they quickly dropped the pledge one year later when the shit hit the fan and the global recession kicked in ?

But it's [i]still[/i] all the fault of the last Labour government's spending, despite the fact that the Tories, including the present Tory Chancellor, fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Labour's spending plans ?!!!

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

.

EDIT :

one problem

Yes I can see a problem. Hopefully no one will remind punters that the Tories, including the present Tory Chancellor, fully, one hundred percent, penny for penny, supported Labour's spending plans !

😆

So they quickly dropped the pledge one year later when the shit hit the fan and the global recession kicked in ?

Which is why I said

that link you are referring to is 8 years old and pre recession. Times have moved on from then and it's no longer relevant

Still mixing apples and pears Ernie, are you sponsored by nutrabullet?

I know how you like to repeatedly mention apples and pears when you can't think of anything to say THM but how about saying something constructive, eh?

Are you disputing the claim that in opposition the Tories, including George Osborne, supported Gordon Brown's spending plans 100% ?

Do you not think that this rather important if somewhat embarrassing fact should be remembered, specially when the Tories make such a big thing about Labour spending ?

Have you got something to say beyond pointless references to apples and pears ?

Yes I have given the facts to help those who are confused by your mixing them up. See above.

As you know, I have commented about Tories and spending many times including your poster girl.

Oh your favourite tactic ...... patronizing.

Obviously you can't dispute the Daily Telegraph article which clearly reveals the embarrassing fact that the Tories in opposition fully supported Gordon Brown's spending plans, so you suggest that anyone who reveals this embarrassing fact doesn't understand or is confused.

Not that you are a Tory of course, oh no 🙂

If you say so, if you say so.

Tried the facts, you ignore them, so it just becomes a little dull now. Keep pretending and keep mixing it all up, if it suits the narrative. I'll leave you to it.

Tried the facts

Here are the facts I'm talking about, they are simple, straightforward, clear, and unambiguous :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

Gosh, you are having a bad day, postîng the article again (yawn) that makes my point.

I'll have a pear this time please....then that's enough fruit for today

(Hint: timing, amount, history - if you want to correct your mistakes but I doubt that)

I thought you were leaving it ?

I have no point to make other than what the article reports. That Osborne was committed to the same spending in 2007 just before the recession as Gordon Brown.

You might think it was justified or not, but that's completely irrelevant.

Damn and the pear looked so lovely. Looks like I will have to settle for the apple after all.

Old tactics die hard

(timing, amount, history)

Well as you obviously don't want to leave it let's sum up......after 10 years of overspending by Labour governments George Osborne announced in 2007 that a Tory government would match exactly Gordon Brown's spending plans.

As the Telegraph article put it :

[i]"The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans."[/i]

But as I know that you're bored with the Telegraph link here is one to the BBC :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

[i]A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.[/i]

.....after 10 years of overspending by Labour governments

Really, that's not how The Newstatesman sums it up!

But making a little more progress on the grocery stand now. We may just get there in the end.

Also interesting to note the first two years when labour got into power and the jibes they had to (falsely) face then. These matching commitments create all kinds of mischief don't they. Austerity Balls, doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it!!!

Anyway got some testing/explaining how Pitt dealt with huge debts when he came into office in the 1780s now. I'll try to keep the student on topic!!

THM - could I advise you stick to the day job (whatever that is) and not enter politics. This debating lark, you really are crap at it. Ernie's running rings around you with very little effort and I don't think you are even aware! 🙂 Your comebacks need work, your insults are lame and your use of metaphor, well it sucks.

I'd give up and move on, there's only one winner here and it's not you 😉

Thank for the advice convert, I will give it due attention.

The rise of protest parties is excellent evidence of people winning (sic) debates by misrepresenting the truth. Just look at UKIP.

You know that memo that didn't exist...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/scottish-secretary-confirms-nicola-sturgeon-memo-written-in-scotland-office-10157714.html

Anyway got some testing/explaining how Pitt dealt with huge debts when he came into office in the 1780s now.

OK I think it's probably time to leave it and move on to ...........embarrassing fact No. 2

It's not just Labour's spending that the Tories are creating a fuss about this election but also clearing the deficit. So embarrassing fact No. 2 is that the UK has had a deficit for the last 40 years except for two short periods.

Once for a couple of years under a Tory government and once for 3 or 4 years under a Labour government. The rest of the 35 years the UK has had a deficit, and that's despite the fact the Tories were in government most of that time.

Of course THM you are going to tell me that I'm "confused" and don't "understand", and make vague comments about apple and pears, aren't you? 🙂

Not at all, good to see the accuracy returning (although convert will be in a real spin now). As I mentioned in this very thread, labour deserve credit for delivering a budget surplus in their early years just as Balls' Keynesian teaching would suggest. Interestingly they got flack at the time (hence NStatesman point above as they largely agreed to previous Tory commitments - sound familiar!!!). Despite the rhetoric and image, the Tories record in delivering budgets surpluses is poor as you note. Politicians like to spend our money irrespective of their party colours!! But labour got very tetchy when gov spending/GDP dropped down to the bottom of the trend from the 60s onwards....

As I have pointed out several times, it's what Balls and Brown did next that was the mistake. Check the average growth rate in gov spending v Tories and v the later period the Torygraph refers to. Of course the error was bad but not as bad as the Tories make out because the crisis massively exacerbated the level of deficit. Nevertheless, had Balls stuck to his Keynesian roots he would have adopted counter- cyclical polices to deliver surpluses during the boom. Instead, au revoir prudence, which is why I am critical, and we arrive at the crisis with deficits not surpluses. What type of economist jwas Balls????

So the normal policy response to a slowdown - move from surplus to deficit - was not open to us. Instead governments were forced (ok here's the debate) to shrink a deficit at the time when normally you would be expanding it. But NLab really did make a confused muddle of all this didn't they. But they at least (Balls and Brown) saved us from Blairs folly of the €. For that, they can be praised.

although convert will be in a real spin now

Actually I would put it down to Convert's comment to explain why you have moved from quite childish comments such as [i]"I'll have a pear this time please....then that's enough fruit for today",[/i] which you were repeatedly making, to a more thoughtful response.

I can't say that I necessarily agree with your above analysis of course but I've made my point with regards to years of deficits under the Tories. And there's still embarrassing facts 3, 4, and 5, to get through 🙂

It must be embarrassing for those who tie themselves to one party when the facts don't match the rhetoric, hey Ernie!!

Not at all. Never be embarrassed about what you believe in, and always tell the truth. If mistakes are made then so be it. Only people who never do anything never make mistakes.

I would be more than happy to be tied to one party, sadly as the result of what Thatcher termed as her "greatest achievement" that isn't possible, and a pragmatic attitude to what serves the best interests of ordinary working people is required.

and always tell the truth.

Indeed 0.7, 4.4, 2.0 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
And there you go again jambalaya, pretending that government austerity means something different to what it actually means. [b]It does of course mean cutting public expenditure[/b]

And we know how often that happens!

Meanwhile, the Telegraph's [i]political[/i] section (and the Times, but no point linking to a paywall) feature a story about Cam and Sam [s]rinsing the bejeesus out of their son's departure to eke out a few more votes in the marginals[/s] reflecting on what would have been a landmark 13th birthday for their son. I must have missed all the times when Brown spoke about his loss in parliament, on television debates and in the press. 😕

Stay classy, Barclay brothers.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11516683/Samantha-Cameron-pain-of-son-Ivans-death-will-never-go.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11516683/Samantha-Cameron-pain-of-son-Ivans-death-will-never-go.html[/url]

I must have missed all the times when Brown spoke about his loss in parliament, on television debates and in the press.

Gordon Brown has always been so obsessed with keeping his private life separate to his public political life that I remember when rumours were widely circulating that he was possibly gay.

He was even asked by Sue Lawley on Desert Island Discs whether he was was gay, he just politely but firmly denied it without mentioning that he was in a relationship with Sarah Macaulay who he eventually went on to marry.

But to be fair Gordon Brown is not a typical politician. And it's probably for that reason that despite the fact that he was the brains behind New Labour I struggle to dislike him.

Try to keep up Ninfan I posted about that yesterday 🙂