Are the Tories OK after all?

To go back to an earlier point.

Of course the tory Labour policies are designed to enrich their backers – that is the whole reason for the tory Labour party.

For example

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

as we saw with Bob Crow, just this week

And given the poor state the nations finances were in when this new lot came into power I am not surprised they keep referring to the mess they found and pinning the blame on the last government because that’s who was to blame. Gordon Brown will forever be one of, if not the, worst chancellor we ever had. I don’t see George Osborne as ever ranking as one of the best but so far he is still better than Gordon.

The tories pledged to match Labour’s spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!

There’s only one thing for it.
A new party. A party for the people. A party run by people who have lived in the real world, with real world ideas.

Anyone got Kilroy Silk’s number?

I wouldnt want to join a party that would have TJ and me as members. It’d be too contradictory.

The tories pledged to match Labour’s spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!

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.

And returning to a previous point, while there may be individual links between various party members and private individuals (on all sides of the house)I think it shows a lack of reasoning if anyone seriously believes that all the Tories want to do is line their own pockets. And their mates pockets. And that that is all they want to do.

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

Only difference is, everyone can join a union, not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite.

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…

Only difference is, everyone can join a union,….

Errr… there is no union that represents my interests. I could however join a party, as can anyone else be it Tory, Labour, Lib Dem. I find your argument lacking.

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.

What do you think they should have done instead? I ask because as the tories were clamouring for even lighter regulation, it’s highly likely that the same crisis would have occurred had they been in power. So, given that, what should Labour have done differently in its response?

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

Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on – they’re not.

Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on – they’re not.

Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. …or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable?

Errr… there is no union that represents my interests

he says, typing on his (union won)lunch break. I find your argument lacking.

*awaits excuse of not really being on lunchbreak*

“Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. …or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable? “

Except that:

1) no evidence has been produced to show that the unions’ demands are unsustainable.
2) The current arrangements were negotiated in 2008, on the basis of an actuarial study. No study has been produced since.
3)The word “unaffordable” does not appear in the Hutton report.
4) The government has negotiated in bad faith, by making its demands prior to any negotiations.

In any case, none of this is relevant. If Labour really was beholden to the unions, it would support the strike. It isn’t and it doesn’t.

not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite

ladies and gentlemen I present Lord Prescot 😉 or is he the exception that proves the rule?

and where does Diane Abbot send her son for his education?

the public school thing amuses me, the person who get the “blame” is the person getting the education, the person who makes the decision is the parent (and no I didn’t get a public school education) the kid has little or no choice

Of course the tory policies are designed to enrich their backers – that is the whole reason for the tory party.

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?

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:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

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

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

The Conservative party is effectively the political wing of the City of London. No wonder it can’t lead Britain out of this crisis

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 constantly

National 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.

See here:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1979_2011&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

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…. ?