Any government is of course subject to global economic influence, but when we see a negative trend continuing for over four years, I think we would have to lay at largely at the door of no.11 Downing Street, regardless of what was the initial cause.

Even if the global economic influence is still continuing after 4 years? 😯

Of course it wasn’t “fine” under Conservative governments. It wasn’t “fine” under any other kind of government either, of whatever stripe.

And you know what, it never will be. The only question now is, how can a better living be enabled for those at the bottom of the pile. To whatever degree.

The idea that economics can be directed and controlled by governments is a complete red herring. Especially now that the economy Is globally based.

Anybody care to stop bickering about 20th century politics and deal with the actual issue?

Even if the global economic influence is still continuing after 4 years?

Global influences don’t require the chancellor to protect the interests of millionaire pensioners by making the working-poor poorer.

At the same time as pretty much everyones wages have been stagnating , at best, but mainly falling, the people at the top have been laughing their tits off as they hoover up ALL the proceeds of any economic recovery.

And that, in a nutshell, whether they state it or not, is what the Tories always achieve, as that is their goal.

And before someone points out that inequality gathered pace under Labour …. I know. But I doubt as much as it would have done under the Tories

But the fact is that both main parties just offer more of the same. One looks a bit hand-wringing about having to further **** the poor over to please their corporate masters. The other lot are loving every minute of it!!!! Check out Osbournes slimy, smug, dead-eyed grin as he was delivering the good news to the rich party faithful yesterday. But the level of obvious enjoyment they’re getting out of it is now the only thing that distinguishes them from one another

Utterly depressing. Is it any wonder the population is so disengaged, and is even prepared to give a spanner like Farage a try as an alternative.

“Anybody care to stop bickering about 20th century politics and deal with the actual issue?”

No, huh?

Bit of waste of time, this thread. I preferred it when the dog chased it’s tail in the religious threads.

I’m off. Have a nice day everybody.

Only if it suits your political agenda – ie tories stressing labour did the recession [ as if] and Labour stressing they did not get us out of it [ as if]

All we can discuss is whether there policies helped or exacerbated the global conditions

if you expect that nuanced a debate on here you may be a tad disappointed

Any government is of course subject to global economic influence, but when we see a negative trend continuing for over four years, I think we would have to lay at largely at the door of no.11 Downing Street, regardless of what was the initial cause.

True. Comes with the job to a certain extent. I must admit though, when I look at the (simplistic) graph I posted, and look for trends from the start of the crash onwards, I can’t detect any significant worsening post 2010. I believe real wages have now crossed back into growth, so the trend may actually be turning up (EDIT: or about to dive back underneath to continue the negative trend!)

The argument I guess is whether wages would have flatlined for so long post 2008 if Labour’s proposed economic policies had been applied. Really hard to model that one given the circumstances and the relative similarity of economic policies.

I suppose the only other point is that wage growth (or fall) is just one indicator of overall economic health (two, if you count its relationship to inflation), albeit one of the most important in electoral terms.

All we can discuss is whether there policies helped or exacerbated the global conditions

and as molgrips pointed out upthread, nobody really knows whether a government of a (slightly) different flavour would have done better or worse.

Just as ridiculous to blame the decrease in wages over the last few years on the current government as it is to blame the crash on Labour. If you want to play political point scoring, the fall in wages under the current government is less than the average difference between the increase in wages under governments from 79 to 97 and governments from 97 to 2010 – in fact having looked at those figures going back to the war, it’s interesting to note that this appears to be the first Conservative government which hasn’t achieved higher average wage growth than both the preceding and following Labour governments (clearly it’s actually the Lib Dem’s fault 😉 )

Bit pointless arguing over who caused what.

But is anyone really going to defend tax cuts for the highest earners combined with cutting benefits for low-paid workers?

IMO there is no way to support this measure without using the phrase ‘speaking as a selfish ****…’

But is anyone really going to defend tax cuts for the highest earners combined with cutting benefits for low-paid workers?

Apparently so. Tories are great, aren’t they? Bless their cold, devoid of empathy, price of everything, value of nothing, selfish, grasping, entitled, nasty, sociopathic little hearts

Bit pointless arguing over who caused what.

Of course, which is why I pointed that out first before engaging in pointless statistical manipulation 😉

The Tories have been in power more than any other party in the last 100 years

True but didn’t labour have 13 years recently to have a go of it ?

How did that work out ?

Tories are great, aren’t they? Bless their cold, devoid of empathy, price of everything, value of nothing, selfish, grasping, entitled, nasty, sociopathic little hearts

True, and Labour have proved a few times over that they are incapable of running an economy, except into the ground, so what do we do ?

Go right and the little men get screwed ….
Go left and the little men get screwed ….

Would be nice to try something else for a change

True but didn’t labour have 13 years recently to have a go of it ?

How did that work out ?

Serious question? I think the first term was mostly a success, with badly-needed investment into schools and hospitals, the minimum wage, Freedom of Information act, and of course the Good Friday Agreement. All delivered with a stable and growing economy.

Blair could’ve been an excellent domestic Prime Minister were it not for his pathetic Messiah complex.

Would be nice to try something else for a change

Wouldn’t it just? It says a lot about the crisis in modern British parliamentary democracy, that we’re all so utterly fed up with the same cycle of Tory heartlessness, then labour economic incompetence, that shedloads of people are considering this as an alternative worth giving a go….

Surely the most damning indictment imaginable on the utter failure of the present 2 party system.

Surely the most damning indictment imaginable on the utter failure of the present 2 party system

I have a dystopian vision of UKIP holding the balance of power, following a hung parliament next May.

with badly-needed investment into schools and hospitals

PFI ? hmm not sure, but it was desperately needed and had to be financed somehow.

Unfortunately I think you need to look at the whole term, as I was told by my history teacher, how would Hitler have been viewed if he had died in 1937 ? – probably fairly favourably as he was bringing them out of a long recession and restoring pride in the German people …..

we’re all so utterly fed up with the same cycle of Tory Labour heartlessness, then labour Tory economic incompetence

The Tories just don’t bother to hide their heartlessness, and do a better job at pretending to be economically competent.

Edit: though I shouldn’t have bothered, seeing how the thread has just been Godwinned. Hitler did do a good job with the railways, didn’t he?

how would Hitler have been viewed if he had died in 1937 ? – probably fairly favourably as he was bringing them out of a long recession and restoring pride in the German people …..

😯 And we’re there!

Not sure all of Hitler’s domestic policies pre 1937 would have quite stood up to much scrutiny, BTW.

Ransos – I think the way that Farage made an attempt last week to woo traditional labour voters, means he doesn’t think that impossible. If the Labour party complacently think UKIP are just a Tory problem (and it looks like that is exactly what they think) then I reckon they’re in for one hell of a wake up call next year! It shows how out of touch the parties are.

They go on about policies, but a UKIP vote isn’t necessarily a vote for specific policies.(they haven’t got any really, apart from the dog-whistle immigration and Europe ones). In a lot of cases its a vote that just says a great big **** YOU!!! to the two main parties. I don’t think either of them actually get this!

UKIP are going to cause chaos at the next election. They may win the odd seat, they may not. But their presence is going to disrupt normal voting to the extent that the UKIP vote will skew electoral results all over the country. And not just in leafy shires either.

But its all their own fault. By their arrogant disdain for the electorate, they’ve created Farage. Now they’ll have to deal with the fallout. In a logical world you’d think that’d involve, listening to people, and considering an alternative to their cosy neo-liberal consensus, that only benefits a diminishing band of people.

Will it though? I think we know the answer to that

PFI ? hmm not sure, but it was desperately needed and had to be financed somehow.

Unfortunately I think you need to look at the whole term, as I was told by my history teacher, how would Hitler have been viewed if he had died in 1937 ? – probably fairly favourably as he was bringing them out of a long recession and restoring pride in the German people …..

My post made specific reference to Blair’s subsequent shortcomings, but whatever they were, a comparison to Nazi Germany is more than a little bit daft, no?

Ransos – I think the way that Farage made an attempt last week to woo traditional labour voters, means he doesn’t think that impossible. If the Labour party complacently think UKIP are just a Tory problem (and it looks like that is exactly what they think) then I reckon they’re in for one hell of a wake up call next year! It shows how out of touch the parties are.

To the point that ordinary people will actually vote for a party more against their interests than even the worst excesses of the conservatives…

Labour have proved a few times over that they are incapable of running an economy, except into the ground, so what do we do ?

Only if you think that labour caused OPEC to quadruple oil prices and the global economic slump triggered by the US sub prime market would this be true – is this really what you wish to claim? I
As for the later you would also have to think that the even lighter regulation touch of the Tories, who were also matching labour spending plans, would have been better in terms of our reliance on financial markets and the probity of the players involved.I think that would be a stretch even for the bluest of tories to claim.

Its nonsense to claim that labour caused either of these as it was clearly massive external factors.

Hitler did do a good job with the railways, didn’t he?

that was Mussolini and so typical of your manipulation of the facts 😉

To the point that ordinary people will actually vote for a party more against their interests than even the worst excesses of the conservatives…

Sadly yes as many voters are too stupid to realise he is a Tory through and through and to the right of thatcher [ well we had Hitler]

At the same time as pretty much everyones wages have been stagnating , at best, but mainly falling, the people at the top have been laughing their tits off as they hoover up ALL the proceeds of any economic recovery.

@binners what I am going to say is a simplification but basically the lower levels of the workforce is being undercut by cheap foreign manufacturing whilst he businesses ownership/management/design continues in the UK. So the benefits of the recovery flow to the ownership/management/design.

The fact is most on here wish to save a few £ buying bike parts online (foreign owned website, often no UK VAT as EU taxes paid elsewhere, far east manufacture) rather than support a LBS which at provides local employment, taxes and business rates. Personally I’d like to see online sales taxes which mean it’s uneconomic to buy stuff online vs a LBS.

“Global influences don’t require the chancellor to protect the interests of millionaire pensioners by making the working-poor poorer.”

Most pensioners aren’t millionaires and even those that are will be paying up to 60% effective tax depending on their annual income. The majority of pensioners are on modest incomes – they have been protected. The “working poor” are now paying significantly less tax – the annual allowance is now nearly £10K a year which means something like 2.5m of the lowest paid are now paying little or no tax.

These threads are so predictable:

1. Headline grabbing title about nasty Tories
2. Photo of the Dave or George (or both) laughing
3. References to the privileged or millionaire mates

What never seems to flow the other way is that Ed Milliband is more of a toff than David Cameron, having had a a completely private education, an extremely privileged life made possible through family connections, never having worked in a normal job and currently living in a £2.5m house – not exactly a man of the people.

Fortunately for Ed Miliband, the public would rather engage in trading stupid photos of politicians / name calling than actually examining whether the claims of the Labour party are anything more than wishful thinking, as Radio 4 perfectly illustrates by unpicking Labour’s two latest promises on the deficit and secondly to “save the NHS. The latter actually turns out to be a commitment to increase spending less in real terms than Margaret Thatcher did during a period in which Labour say the NHS was ruined by underinvestment:

Paying down the deficit: 13 mins 30 secs http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hywws

NHS – 16 minutes in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hywws

The facts are irrelevant though – which is why we’ll almost certainly have Ed Miliband as the UK’s most ineffective Prime Minister since Gordon Brown. And look how well that turned out..

We are on this UKIP/Farage is to the extreme right thing again? Really this view will see UKIP only get stronger, people haven’t been taking them seriously for 2 years now and this has allowed them to prosper. As farage says he is parking his tanks on labour’s lawn. Strong immigration control plus tax cuts for average working class people will attract a lot of votes.

well we had Hitler

Yeah, but he was a Socialist.

Robdixon, you complain about headline grabbing etc and the resort to:

What never seems to flow the other way is that Ed Milliband is more of a toff than David Cameron, having had a a completely private education, an extremely privileged life made possible through family connections, never having worked in a normal job and currently living in a £2.5m house – not exactly a man of the people.

Who cares about his upbringing and how much his house costs. There are many other reasons I wouldnt vote for him.

Most pensioners aren’t millionaires and even those that are will be paying up to 60% effective tax depending on their annual income. The majority of pensioners are on modest incomes – they have been protected. The “working poor” are now paying significantly less tax – the annual allowance is now nearly £10K a year which means something like 2.5m of the lowest paid are now paying little or no tax.

1. It is precisely because most pensioners are on modest incomes that I referred to millionaires – they are the one who gain from the proposals.
2. I refer you to the earlier graphs on average wages.

What never seems to flow the other way is that Ed Milliband is more of a toff than David Cameron, having had a a completely private education, an extremely privileged life made possible through family connections, never having worked in a normal job and currently living in a £2.5m house – not exactly a man of the people.

You’re claiming that Miliband is more of a toff than an old-Etonian Bullingdon man who is the son of a tax-dodging millionaire? Riiight.

The majority of pensioners are on modest incomes – they have been protected.

They’ve been protected because pensioners vote.

The ‘working poor’ in their ghastly northern hellholes probably won’t vote Tory anyway so who gives a shit?

You can dress it up how you like – but you forgot to start your post with ‘speaking as a selfish….’

Who cares about his upbringing and how much his house costs. There are many other reasons I wouldnt vote for him.

Exactly. It’s about as relevant as pictures of Dave and Gideon in their Bullingdon get-up, which I think was the point being made.

The latter actually turns out to be a commitment to increase spending less in real terms than Margaret Thatcher did during a period in which Labour say the NHS was ruined by underinvestment:

but as percentage of national income it was pretty static under Mrs T

that was Mussolini and so typical of your manipulation of the facts

You’re being very unfair. Hitler ran a very efficient transportation system which carried millions of people across Europe by train.

Not sure all of Hitler’s domestic policies pre 1937 would have quite stood up to much scrutiny, BTW.

I will def bow to anyones knowledge as my own knowledge of that period is not that great.

I wasn’t comparing Tony to Hitler in anyway, it was more the first term thing – perhaps thatcher would have been a better one ?

I refer you to the earlier graphs on average wages.

Average wages which includes lots of people who aren’t the working poor? You’re using that to prove that the working poor are worse off?

I’m not going to try and argue whether or not the working poor are poorer, but that graph provides no evidence one way or the other.

robdixon – more of a toff than Cameron? Hmmmmmmmmm I think you may want to check out his family history.

But I take your point. I don’t think anyones holding up the labour party as the answer to anything. Far from it. Thats the point. We’ve got a Tory government that makes Thatcher (… and again) look like a bleeding heart liberal. And an insipid, spineless opposition who in the end are bankrolled, and represent the interests of, exactly the same people. John Harris described Milliband perfectly. ‘A Book Club whose political antennae don’t pick up signals outside North London

The point is that both main parties now offer exactly the same. The same bankrupt Chicago school, Milton Friedman economic bollocks,m where we’re all just slaves to ‘The Market’.

Which is why everyone is so fed up with them they’re considering a vote for Farage as an actual alternative. Seriously? Its depressing just howe out of touch the main political parties are. They have more idea of what its like to live on the surface of mars than they do on say a northern council estate

I don’t think most of them have any more idea what it’s like to live in rural Worcestershire or indeed anywhere outside the London bubble.

The other trouble we have is the first past the post system which grossly favours the incumbent political parties – Living in Derby it is fairly pointless voting if you aren’t a labour supporter as Margaret Becket had a 30% majority in the 2010 elections –

Perhaps we do need change – a PR system devolved to a county level like Switzerland anyone ?

As farage says he is parking his tanks on labour’s lawn. Strong immigration control plus tax cuts for average working class people will attract a lot of votes.

Indeed. The Wythenshawe by-election should have set labour alarm bells ringing. It didn’t. They’re still absolutely refusing to engage with matters that working class voters have genuine legitimate concerns about. Labour just refuses to even discuss it – remember Browns ‘bigoted woman’ comment. Thats still the attitude within labour. The Tory’s are scared shitless to get into a debate on the subject too.

Farage on the other hand, will happily talk about it all day. He’ll offer quick easy (non-workable) solutions to complicated problems. And while he’s doing that, he won’t be getting the rest of his (extremely dodgy, and unworkable) policies put under any scrutiny

UKIP are going to take big chunks of labours votes in the North. As labour just found out in Scotland, their core vote has wised up and just doesn’t believe that a vote for labour will do them any more good than a vote for the Tories. So why bother?