Spending divisions

The difficulty with believing that Labour will stop their spending/wasting spree is that whilst some Labour MPs/Ministers are talking about making cuts their leader is no and is still on a "spend, spend, spend" policy. Given the dictatorial nature of Labour's leadership who can make him change ?

Supposedly there was a private agreement between a few ministers and Brown the other week that they let him keep his job if they can make cuts, but it was private and we have had so many promises from Labour before on major issues that have just never happened because Brown does decides so.

Labour are running things on our behalf. they are elected as our government, our MPs are there to represent us. So why are things like Brown agreeing to cuts being made in private and secret. No "National Security" or "Stop the Terrorists" here. Just how our money is spent - so I would have hoped we would have a right to know (at least we would in a democracy).

And how come decisions like "spend, spend, spend" vs "cuts" are made linked with secret private deals allowing somebody to stay PM - i this the democracy Labour seek. We saw Blair have a secret private deal to hand power over to Brown. Now we have ministers making secret private deals to allow Brown to stay in power. Where to we the electorate, the people stand in all this. Who is listening to us ?

Nick - dont bother trying to spin other parties into so called divisions - Liebour is a complete and utter MESS and ALL they think about is their own skins and then their USELESS Party - NOT the UK which is broke, financially and morally.

This Clown should ensure that Liebour NEVER raise ther heads again as a viable Party for decades.

Brown is still going on about the choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts while Darling talks of the biggest cuts for 20 years.

So now Brown can invest and cut at the same time.

A bit like the end of boom and bust, I guess.

2. At 10:31am on 11 Jan 2010, ronreagan

Panem Et Circenses, clown brings us to bread and circuses.
The trouble is that politics itself has become the circus. A soap opera full of one dimensional characters who change there image at the whim of a scriptwriter as each new sub-plot appears.
Without a statesman politics will remain a soap opera. There is no statesman in the UK.

[Ed Balls] and Gordon Brown fear that it will be impossible to win an election focused on who will cut the most or the most efficiently.

I think this shows why defining the territory for the election battle is so important. Cuts are Tory home ground; Labour have cemented this in the minds of the electorate, to their advantage in the past. Now that the landscape has changed and spending cuts are 'in', it's very difficult for Labour to claim that they're the best party to make them. So Balls and Brown have a point. They're presumably hoping that a less overtly pessimistic message will win a certain number of votes even if it is vulnerable to the accusation of dishonesty. It's a risk, but perhaps the alternative - fighting the election on your opponents' turf - is riskier.

Even Nick Clegg is having to shelve spending plans and the Liberals had no chance of getting into power and could conceivably have promised everything and anything to everyone, safe in the knowledge that they would never have to put it in practice.

Darling is talking of the biggest cuts for 20 years and the Tories have already made clear that cuts are needed. Seems to me that the financial mess the Labour Government have got us into is far greater than we realise. That the real picture won't emerge until after the election.

I'm surprised that no international comparisons are being done by Journalists. If Brown has indeed put Britain in the strongest position to weather this world-wide recession (that he had nothing to do with), won't other countries have to make even bigger, more savage cuts, raise even bigger sums in tax? If other countries are not having to do this, doesn't it suggest that Brown is talking "Eds" (as it were).

It is a widely held view that the deficit must be cut within the lifetime of one Parliament. Anything longer will not be acceptable to the markets. It is also seen that cuts to the public sector would be better than tax rises, in order to allow the economy to grow in the private sector on which our taxation relies. If the cuts are made gradually this will hold back any recovery and growth in the economy. Investors at the moment are holding back to see in which direction Britain is being led before they will commit to any projects. So if Britain is taken down a path of gradual cuts and increased taxation, Investors in the private sector will either not invest as they would have done or simply leave Britain to a more welcoming Country for business.

So it really depends on who you believe will get Britain back on track as regards the economy. Any promises of spending in any area of our lives is mere fantasy, I believe. So do you vote for those who have led us for 12 years to where we are or the new unknown.

I suspect that the Budget (if we get one before the election) will have nothing specific on the cuts which are really needed, not only to reduce the deficit but to start paying off the debt. Labour will fear losing votes from their 'soft core' if they appear too tough.

On the other hand, don't expect too many details from the Conservatives either - they won't want to alienate potential swing voters, and in any case are not in a position to base their proposals on the true state of the economy, because (frankly) the Government are hiding the truth from everyone, including themselves.

Now that the Chancellor seems to have received permission (possibly extracted under duress) to mention the likelihood of cuts (around 17%, I believe?), we still await the PM uttering the word himself. As and when he does, I might be tempted to believe that reality has dawned in the ranks of the Labour Party.

Don't quite understand why the BBC have as their headline news item this morning a PR release from Brown and his team about what he plans to say to Labour MPs this evening. Can't the BBC stop acting as a mouth piece for the Labour Party and focus on reporting real activites and news. This is an election year and what do we get told in the same report obviously based on a No 10 press release -- that Brown plans to "put laptops and broadband in the homes of 270,000 low-income families". And one has to question where are the funds coming from for this little exercise ?
We have just come back from 2 weeks in the US and it was interesting to hear american people questioning what right does their government have to use taxpayers money to provide benefits or services to a specific demographic or sector. Why not everyone. This type of vote catching bribery should be challenged and stopped.

5 - "Now that the landscape has changed and spending cuts are 'in', it's very difficult for Labour to claim that they're the best party to make them. So Balls and Brown have a point. They're presumably hoping that a less overtly pessimistic message will win a certain number of votes even if it is vulnerable to the accusation of dishonesty. It's a risk, but perhaps the alternative - fighting the election on your opponents' turf - is riskier."

So Labour's best chance of doing well in the election is to lie?

1. DeimosL

Meanwhile, Forgotten’s local council is thrashing out a cost saving package in complete secrecy.
I’m afraid that this has always been the way with local & national government in the UK; it’s always been plans within plans & dodgy deals to keep Ministers on board.
Democracy stops in the UK the moment the votes are counted – some would say before.

Everybody is talking about cuts, but know body is giving us any real detail as to where these cuts will be, or more importantly, who they will effect.

Somehow I doubt that we will get any details before the election either, because to do so would be suicidal for any PM or PM wannabe.
Everybody is shouting “CUTS”, but watch as those very people cry blue (no pun intended) murder when they realise that it’s they who will be hit - & hit hard.

Darling said that NOT reducing Borrowing was not an option.

Yet he is only planning to reduce deficit and not overall debt!

Please when inteviewing MP's and the use the word Debt or Borrowing that you make them clarify if they mean reducing the actual amount of borrowing or just reducing the rate in which the amount we are borrowing is increasing.

Darling and Brown keep "acidently" getting it wrong and its very missleading

I suppose that if Labour is re-elected and Brown remains leader we shall get the most stringent cost cutting budget that the Nation has ever seen. I can see and hear it now - Brown telling the people that when they examined the books after the Election they discovered that the economy was far worse than they had expected, hence the need for savage public sector cuts and heavier taxes on those in work. Darling has been sacked as a result and Balls promoted in his place!

Is anyone else reminded of Tim Stamper from the TV drama 'The House of Cards' when they see Peter Mandelson?

Kit Green#- I agree - there is no statesman in UK but we have to make do and mend - and I do NOT want any more of Liebour and their TERRIBLE policies???? or Clown and the complete and utter lies he gets away with by the media not questioning him properly - for G- -d1s sake BBC r now saying Clown is issuing a rallying cry to Liebour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
does anyone think to ask him who he is trying to rally - his Cabinet??? - Liebour Party???? or us, the poor, stupid, people who were saddled with him.

1. At 10:13am on 11 Jan 2010, DeimosL wrote:

Where to we the electorate, the people stand in all this. Who is listening to us ?

Go and see your local MP at their local surgery, tell them what you are thinking. People should stop moaning and go and take a walk down to see their local Parliamentarian. Political direction will not change because of web threads like this.

The divide is obvious.

One party wants to carry on spending more than we can afford and the other party wants to do something about it sooner rather than later.

Front line jobsworths will bleat long and loud; let them.

As for the intellectual snobs who argue that newlabour and the left are more naturally intellectual in their bias: I agree. Just like LTCM the bankrupt hedge fund that was run by Harvard scholars who had come up with a world beating formula; just like the financial intellects who turned the RBS into the largest balance sheet in the world and now bust and owned by the British taxpayer. Newlabour can bask in its intellectual superiority and wonder why it can't persuade the British public to give a damn.

Brains count for nothing before strong values and common sense.

Call an election. It's so over for newlabour.

Without providing a link to the Demos offering how can we judge why Frank Field was invited?

On your salary cheque does it say "journalist"?

Dividing lines are all well and good, but with the utterances of Darling over the weekend freed from the Brown/Balls fetters of the Goon and Blewitt putsch is it not the case that the Labour cabinet has recognised that the only way that Brown is going to be replaced as leader is through defeat at the ballot box of a general election?

Thus these cabinet ministers, who won't step up to plate, can go back to the Labour Party and say "it wasnae me"

"So Labour's best chance of doing well in the election is to lie?"

What's new?

Tax breaks for marriage is a traditional conservative policy I do not see what is unusual about Cameron's policy.

However that doesn't really align with my view that people can register their marriage with the government just as a matter of course, doing their civic duty and registering the birth of any children as well, at no cost to the state.

Over the years a trend has developed where couples don't bother with registering their marriage and have children and register the birth but not the marriage or partnership.

This is a loophole that allows couples to seperate and possibly avoid lengthy entaglements in divorce courts, another notorious government institution.


All this came about from the pressure of the gay lobby to recognise same sex partnerships. The government decided to accomodate them in anti discrimination law and the whole insititution has gone haywire.

We've been seeing it happen for years and years. Why didn't we say anything? Because we assumed that people understood the issues and because it is against the law to criticise discrimination laws.

The idea of just letting people make their own arrangements is sort of cosy but has resulted, in my opinion, in a shattering of understanding between social groups.

This is not the world we grew up in. The politicians who held things together in the past have moved on to the next life. This lot are lacking every one of them. There is no character or personality to test they behave like ghouls.

# AndyC555: 'So Labour's best chance of doing well in the election is to lie?'

Well, they can then at least claim consistency and experience!

Ultimately it is we who lose.

Incorporating the word 'cuts' just to get re-elected is not what we want from our political leaders. It shows the shallowness of policy and objectives we have come to expect from this government.

What we want is honesty, David Cameron and Nick Clegg has so far been honest about what they would like to do, but have then stated that they realise they can't.

It shows the gap in credibility that Brown feels he needs to beg for his position by accommodating his ministers, when clearly he doesn't want to. If it wasn't for the leadership challenge, would he be using the word cuts? Probably not.

There has been so much smoke and mirrors from Labour, I hope the electorate finally see them for the morally vacuous charletons they really are.

Sadly the kind of electorate they attact are just as alarming. My father voted labour, my grandfather voted labour, my son votes labour, my hamster voted labour....etc. Heaven forfend they vote on principle, record or policy.

OP "The real contrast is between Labour and the Tories when it comes to public spending"

Have the parties published their budgets?

For how long is this thread going to stay open?

The essential difference here is not to be found in the fine detail of policy (even if we were to be honoured with that knowledge) since it's all about the psychology of the main protagonists. It's not always the case ... it's not the case with me and the viola, for example ... but it usually follows that if you like something a great deal, you will be pretty good at it. And the Tories absolutely love to slash public services. It's a genuine turn on for them. So if what you're looking for are BIG spending reductions, and you're none too fussed about where the axe falls just so long as it DOES fall, then you simply have to go with the Tories. And if you have a pathological aversion to even modest tax rises, well so much the better. There's no point Labour pretending that they are in the Tory league on this ... on pathological aversion to even modest tax rises, and appetite to chop public services ... because they aren't and (very importantly) the electorate know that they aren't. It would be a sham, and I happen to think that people are intelligent enough to see through it. They should therefore go with the more honest approach - with Brown Balls rather than with Darling Mandelson.

6. At 10:44am on 11 Jan 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

'I'm surprised that no international comparisons are being done by Journalists. If Brown has indeed put Britain in the strongest position to weather this world-wide recession (that he had nothing to do with), won't other countries have to make even bigger, more savage cuts, raise even bigger sums in tax? If other countries are not having to do this, doesn't it suggest that Brown is talking "Eds" (as it were).'

Other countries are making plans for cuts to their national budgets and yes other countries also have huge national debts. Britain's debt is actually low in comparison with other members of the G8. The fact is that Gordon Brown has set the agenda internationally (whether you like it or not), and IMHO he has made the right calls - which will be proved correct when we exit recession at the end of the month. Although countries like Japan and Germany have apparently came out of recession they are still at this time having to pump vast amounts of money in order to keep their fragile recovery going - raising the question have they exited to early? Gordon Brown has become a hate figure for many but regardless of this view his contribution and savvy is held in high regard all over the Globe. Hence he was 'The Statesman of The Year' last year for his political and financial leadership at the height of the CC and he was unanimously given control of the financial aspects of any possible Climate deal at the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference by the leaders of the World. These are facts and you cannot argue with them.

forgottenukcitizen 11

To be fair to the 2 opposition parties, I think it would be very difficult for them to speak about what they would cut, other than the obvious, this is a secret only known to Labour. In what areas is money being wasted, what debt is off book, what new debt is coming down the line, etc.
This will only be known to opposition parties when and if they come to Government. Labour has been a very closed Government, I believe and no more so than in the area of public finances.

10
"Vulnerable to the accusation of dishonesty", Andy, not lying.

I think the Conservatives have to be careful not to overdo the gloom and doom. Oppositions always maintain that the current government has ruined the country, otherwise how could they justify the need for change? But the 'Broken Britain' mantra, gleefully seized on by the Unthinking Right because it chimes with their pre-existing reactionary obsessions, could be counter-productive. Accentuating the negative all the time ... voters don't like that. We prefer a bit of mad-eyed Blairish hope and vision, something to fire us up, even if we suspect it's mostly baloney. "We're all in this together" is a pretty lame rallying cry, isn't it?

Nick,
The reality is that the argument is between a Government that has, apart from the first 2 years never been able to control expenditure and a party that has a track record of doing so. Since 2000 they have increased tax and increased borrowing. There was an interesting article in yesterday's Sunday Times that claimed that the top 1% of people contributed 24% of total income tax.
https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6982341.ece

The fallacious argument put by ZaNuLabour that they can tax the rich no longer applies. As they will soon find out it is better to have 40% of a million rather than 50% of nothing.

Labour has never been able to govern long term because at some time it will run out of income, 2010 is that time.

anti labour thread , so will not stay open long.

I like Frank Field think he should join the tories.

I thought Balls had been told to shut up as part of the pack for not
removing super hero brown.

The time for HMG to start sorting the public spending out was 2-3 years ago as this mess eurupted, but they did not and now they say the can start after the election withou telling anyone what they are going to do,

they sai everything was fine we were best prepared to fight this , just smoke and mirrors, Labour is not working they are just letting thoasands in from abroad to do the jobs that the ranks of the umeployed should be being trained for

talk about a credibility gap.

The problem that Labour has is: not one person will ever believe the team that is in place will carry through any of its promises after blatantly denying the UK population a referendum on Europe.

The people dont believe a word , Brown ,Balls, Darling ,Mandeleson say and IMO are unelectable until they are removed.

rr @ 17 - Not sure about this "common sense" argument, Robin. One man's CS is another's lunacy, isn't it? Take Hunting With Dogs, for example. Okay, I accept that the Conservatives are NOT going to bring it back with the fox replaced by a public sector worker ... but how many people do you think are going to vote for a Party that even considered doing that?

Re Ed Balls on R4 this morning: He sounded like a cross between a malfunctioning robot, with a massive and delusional sense of its own importance, and the local vicar during a particularly contrived and cheesy sermon.
Good grief!

Brown now wants "to put laptops and broadband in the homes of 270,000 low-income families". What the hell for? Other than a bribe for votes.

This is just the sort of contempt that Gordon Brown shows for your hard earned money.

Honestly, I hate this government.

33. At 11:28am on 11 Jan 2010, CaptainJuJu wrote:
Brown now wants "to put laptops and broadband in the homes of 270,000 low-income families". What the hell for? Other than a bribe for votes.
--------------------------------------
Don't they already have broadband with their Sky package?

WHO actually thinks this lot DESERVE another term - can he / she let me know why????????

The only 'division' that matters now for newlabour is the enormous divide between the party that was Tony Blair; new labour and the prty that is about to lose the election under the 'leadership' of Gordon Brown. What or whom exactly they will unite around is an open question. Indeed the infantile attempts to reduce every debate about a Cameron government to an issue about fox hunting is already showing intellectual depths to which newlabour will rapidly descend, once defeated.

Govern the country? Newlabour couldn't run a sweet shop.

Call an election.

One snowman says to the other..."Here!...do you reckon Gordon Brown will be around for much longer?"

The next election will simply be, as always, the slaves being allowed to choose the colour of the whip that beats them.
I've voted in elections since Wilsons day and none of the politicians during that time has proved to be other than a liar, cheat, thief, raving lunatic, moron or meglomaniac.
I can't think of a single criminal offence that one, 'honourable member', or other hasn't been accused of in that time and the present bunch of venal, petty, C list buffoons, are the cream of the crop.
Vote for whichever of the idiots you like, it won't make an iota of difference, you're still going to royally screwed.

25 - Anyone heard of the "Appeal of Conscience Foundation"? No? Thought not. They were the ones who awarded Brown the 'Statesman of the Year" award. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

And I like your other countries 'appear' to have come out of recession line and might have exited too early (no danger of the UK exiting too early). talk about putting a positive spin on the fact that far from leading, we are lagging.

As for debt, the levels don't matter if they can be serviced. Other countries may have higher debts but they can afford them because of tax revenues. That's been the case for many years. Their economies are structured differntly than ours. If our 'lower' levels of debt were not a problem, why all the panic measures? We can't afford our current debt and it is getting higher. These are facts too.

270,000 laptops? Just checked on lowest prices for machines and broadband connections. Comes out at around 200 per machine and 6 per month. We can probably assume that they won't be bought at the best price, so lets say 300 per household in first year. That gives in excess of 80 million pounds for the first year, and an ongoing cost of 27 million per year thereafter.

Sounds like a really good bribe to me - since the rest of us will have to pay it in addition to our own (non-subsidised) connections.

Oh - and of course I forgot, we will also all be charged a 'broadband tax' in addition to help pay for it.

Once again Labour sticks its finger in pie in the sky.

17 Robin
Brains count for nothing before strong values and common sense.

It's time to let the Eton/Oxford boys have a go then, is it?

On the Westminster Hour on R4 last night - the Labour representative used an interesting form of words - I am not sure if they have been heard elsewhere. She said that Labour were committed to not cutting spending during a recession - so, since we are meant to be out of recession this year that would mean spending cuts soon. I wonder what the next quarter's growth figures are going to look like - not surprising if they show we are not out of recession yet.

#25 Andrew Morrison wrote:
"These are facts and you cannot argue with them."

I note your last-ditch attempt to defend Gordon Brown's economic incompetence.

The UK has the largest projected budget deficit for 2010 (13.2%), and the largest projected structual budget deficit for 2010 (9.6%), than any other advanced economy (Source: latest IMF database).

#41 pdavies


Gordon Brown has 'had a go' if that's what you want to call it, and he's crashed the car.

he needs to stand down.

Call an election.

re Sagamix
"should go with brown/balls"
Ignoring the obvious cheeky comment (it was difficult), the problem you have is one of perception and this also hits on the comment near the top - we need a statesman/woman or two in this country.
Brown and Balls in the opinion of myself and people I meet, some lifelong labour core value holders is that these pair are a busted flush who are the epitome of career politicos. They may be the best brains we have but in your own post the problem comes out "if you are really keen on something you are usually good at it" - well these pair are really good at self promotion, career self aggrandisement, liquidating opponents (not literally!). Sure they may have started out with the right intentions but it is only change that will lift the country (in the same way it was lifted for a couple of years at least by labours original 97 victory)

Just heard that our current labour MP is stepping down at the election - never met her, never seen her on my doorstep, reckon that she senses a lot of work convincing people to vote/or that a 7000 majority isn't actually enough to make it worthwhile.

"sagamix wrote:

So if what you're looking for are BIG spending reductions, and you're none too fussed about where the axe falls just so long as it DOES fall, then you simply have to go with the Tories. And if you have a pathological aversion to even modest tax rises, well so much the better."

I don't think anyone is looking for big spending reductions, however most people realise that they are actually needed. We can't carry on borrowing at the same rate we are at the present because we will come to a point where nobody will lend to us.

Cuts have to be made, if not we will probably end up spending more on repaying the debt than we do on the really important stuff like "5-a-day co-ordinators" or "special advisors", or Gordon Brown's cleaning bill and Cameron's mortgage.

"There's no point Labour pretending that they are in the Tory league on this ... on pathological aversion to even modest tax rises, and appetite to chop public services ... because they aren't and (very importantly) the electorate know that they aren't. It would be a sham, and I happen to think that people are intelligent enough to see through it."

That is Labour's problem, as you say intelligent people know that they have a spending addiction - they really can't resist it. However, intelligent people also know that cuts have to be made.

To put it logically
1) Cuts are needed in spending
2) Labour are rubbish at cutting spending

Conclusion:
Don't vote Labour if the country needs to cut spending.

So simple logic states that intelligent people shouldn't vote Labour.

"They should therefore go with the more honest approach - with Brown Balls rather than with Darling Mandelson."

But the problem is that the Brown Balls approach isn't the honest one - it is in fact the most dishonest one as it is trying to hide the fact that spending cuts need to be made.

If Labour wanted to take a honest approach they would need to take a line stating that cuts are needed but they aren't the best party to make them.

24#

BrownBalls, "honest"?????

Mate, you are beyond saving. You truly have finally, once and for all, taken leave of your senses.

41#

Its hardly possible to do worse than this bunch of self loathing Islington pseudo-"intellectuals" (god, does that stick in the throat).... regardless of where they're educated.

#41
Good to see the mention of Eton again, wouldn't be right without it. You held back on the word 'toffs', well done

35#

Only the brain dead class warriors and the dog-whistlers.

#28 actually I think you will find it was around 2002 that they started to run out of money, which is why there were so many issues with helicopters QED

#27 you need to get out and about and you will see broken britain.
look at the broken families hooked into a life of dependancy and control by Nulabour

32#

Sounds like a succinct and apposite description to me!

Are there any labour ministers left with a trace of sanity?

I suspect that Frank Field was invited to the meeting in his religious capacity. The Cameroon to mend his broken society needs people with a newly build character specifically 'focused upon their contributions to the larger social order in terms of efficient service' instead of their individual interests. So a character building programme is required in education and maybe more widely. It reminds me of Socialist Man in another country' After all Demos is home of the 'Red Tories' who believe in self sacrificing public and community service. But do the 'Blue Tories' and particularly the Thatcher worshipers (and bankers) believe in in that sort of character. Surely make 'the most of yourself to get the most for yourself' is closer to the Blue creed

Maybe these new characters will fill the gaping gaps the cuts have will leave in community services.

At 10:44am on 11 Jan 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
"Gordon Brown has become a hate figure for many but regardless of this view his contribution and savvy is held in high regard all over the Globe. Hence he was 'The Statesman of The Year' last year for his political and financial leadership at the height of the CC and he was unanimously given control of the financial aspects of any possible Climate deal at the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference by the leaders of the World. These are facts and you cannot argue with them."
So if Brown is in a position to take credit for all of the above, then he is also in a position to take the blame for being one of the political and financial elite that was on watch before and during the crash? He, or you, cannot have it both ways?
At 3:13pm on 08 Jan 2010, sagamix wrote:
"it's precisely BECAUSE people are not naturally altruistic that we need to temper capitalism with policies to promote equality"
Sagamix - whose capitalism needs to be tempered? Mine or Brown's, Blair's, Mandelson et al? With all due respect, I'm not the millionaire off the backs of the poor.

Like other commentaries, I'm depressed at the level of glee with which the Tory party is looking forward to its slash/burn attack on the structure of society (there being "no such thing as society", it's OK to take it away from those who - after all- don't really matter very much) Prepare to be appalled once the Tories let their dogmas off the leash.

27#

"Accentuating the negative all the time ... voters don't like that."

dont be a berk, mate... thats why we got "do-nothing" "Tory Cuts, Labour Investment" et al for years at PMQ's instead of straight answers.

or is alright to accent the negatives, so long as your highlighting your opponents percieved policy/character flaws?

Its arguably about time the apathetic British public got a good proverbial slap in the chops to wake them up from their political stupor. If that means telling it like it really is, then thats what it ought to be. If people are truly dim enough to fall for someone just parroting what they want to hear, regardless of whether theres any chance it'll ever become real, then they truly deserve everything they get. And I'd like not to think that as a nation, we had all really become that dim over the last 12 years.

53# - NO

The essential divide between the political parties is not not if to cut but when.The government will cut when the recovery is secure,the conservatives will cut sooner,using the Canadian model as a positive example.

My difficulty with the conservative position is they have not argued the case economically.They make a commonsense comparison between national and household budgets,but while this may appeal to the ignorance of the electorate, it only commends itself to a few thatcherite economists like Patrick Minford in Liverpool.The keynesian position is to maintain public spending until government revenues begin to improve as production and employment grows.

Contrary to the right wing Jeremiads,both economy and society have held together in the face of the worst economic crisis since the thirties.Britain entered the crisis with lower levels of public debt and expenditure than Germany,France,Japan and the USA.

It is tempting to claim the government have made the right calls in the current crisis,but I am deterministic enough to believe they had no alternative as Mrs Thatcher famously remarked in relation to a previous crisis.

There is finally one incontrovertible fact for the benefit of all those dogmatists whose posts proceed by slogan and assertion rather than debate: The crisis was produced in the private sector,the growth in public expenditure and current difficulties in repayment is a consequence of a capitalist crisis.Central government has prevented catastrophe.

The political conflict between cut now or later is at one level diversionary.The real debate is about the changing role of government as the world economy enters a renewed period of instability.Slumps threaten the structure of capitalist society,how far do we want the government to go in resolving the deficiency in effective demand?

49 Angry
Their toffiness wasn't relevant here, only their education, since Robin was poo-pooing the idea that brainy people are any good at running things.

The fact that they're toffs is - should be - a political non-issue. Unless you think that a person's upbringing has an effect on their character.

"Angry_Of_Ilkeston wrote:

Just heard that our current labour MP is stepping down at the election - never met her, never seen her on my doorstep, reckon that she senses a lot of work convincing people to vote/or that a 7000 majority isn't actually enough to make it worthwhile."

I just read this morning that a neighbouring Labour MP who is standing down at the election is being replaced with a candidate who lives 70 miles away.

This is a marginal seat, and Labour choose to go up against a popular local Tory candidate with a candidate who knows nothing of the area? Our town has two Labour MPs but a Tory council (who are doing a very good job - although everything positive they have brought in has been attacked by our Labour MP!) and I wouldn't be surprised if Labour lose both seats.

Dear all

One wonders if tired old labour have any idea at all and GB and EB just don't get it. This country is bust with a massive debt to pay. Problem for conservatives and Lib Dems is that they do not have the Civil Service support to cost out policy and plans unlike tired old labour.

With regards to laptops for the low-income earners, whilst I am sure that most will be used one does wonder how many will be sold for pleasures other than the Internet? Also laptops are not much use without software and anti-virus/malicious software protection so that will also add to the cost. With an on-going annual cost to maintain the anti-virus/malicious software protection. Also what happens if a machine breaks who pays for the repairs/replacement? Like with everything tired old labour does this has just not been thought through.


If you have not already done so the Peter Watt book serialised in the Mail on Sunday is a very interesting read. It does explain a lot of the background to what we are discussing here.

I also note that some tired old labour bots are registering on here making one post about how "wonderful" GB is; sad and pathetic. Interesting part of Peter Watt's book is on the lengths tired old labour go to make sure that only labour supporters meet ministers in public. They are deceiving themselves as well too!!

51 IR35 wrote:
you need to get out and about and you will see broken britain.
look at the broken families hooked into a life of dependancy and control by Nulabour

There are too many people who are dependent on State hand-outs, but I don't think anyone could seriously suggest (could they?) that this problem has been created or even exacerbated by the current government. And I don't see how you get from here to an assertion that the whole country is "broken" - whatever that means.

56 Pataphysician wrote :

"Like other commentaries, I'm depressed at the level of glee with which the Tory party is looking forward to its slash/burn attack on the structure of society "

=============================================

What is this "glee" you speak of that is depressing you so much ? Can you give us some examples, so we can all share your depression ? Who is being gleeful about this ? What have they said and when ?

Peter Mandleson spoke of this some months ago, but even he has stopped saying it after being pressed by the media to substantiate what he was saying - it was just a hollow soundbite after all. There's really no need for you to be depressed about this!

Smile and be happy, as Gordy and his chums are still in government, and you have 12 years of their achievements and their vision of the future to be ecstatic about !!!

Alternatively, if you really want to feel depressed just have a look at the shambles that this country has become over the past 12 years, and the past 3 in particular. But fear not, he can't hang on for much longer.

60#

So if thats your answer and considering how many of the front bench of Labour went to Oxford, particularly Binky, what was your original post about, if not just bathed in the usual wind-up merchant, chip on shoulder, dog-whistling prejudice?

63# Go and check out REAL life - handouts, State benefits from cradle to grave with OTHERS money, immigration unchecked, Education - NIL - printing money, building up HUGE debt, TAX anything, and u still think this Clown is the one to lead us - Heaven help us all if u have any relatives who think like u - Liebour could reach 100 MP`s at next election if that is the case.

63#

"There are too many people who are dependent on State hand-outs, but I don't think anyone could seriously suggest (could they?) that this problem has been created or even exacerbated by the current government."

Heavens, no.... how could they possibly think that?? [[groan]] "Its all that 'Fatcher's fault, innit???"

64. StrictlyPickled wrote:

"What is this "glee" you speak of that is depressing you so much ? Can you give us some examples..?

________________________________

Amongst others, the BBC.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8432955.stm

"Contrary to the right wing Jeremiads,both economy and society have held together in the face of the worst economic crisis since the thirties."

Only because the British public have turned into a nation of weary, facile, compliant, celeb-obsessed, "whats in it for me?" saps over the last 12 years.


Central Government may have prevented catastrophe Bryhers, but their behaviour, particularly with regard to regulation, tax structure and not mending the roof while the sun shines has made their catastrophe-preventing machinations somewhat more difficult for future generations to endure. They complicated the situation, unnecessarily.

Dear Tinkertaylor,11//12.04pm The capitalism to be tempered that the Cameroon today is addressing is Thatcher's. It is to be tempered .... even destroyed.. with new values and new morals and a new 'Character' for everyone. It will be distinctive ideological ideal no doubt to be incorporated in the National Curriculum to be taught in the privatised schools, as I explain the post just before yours.

66 ronreagan wrote:

Education - NIL

You may have a point.

63 pcdavies

"There are too many people who are dependent on State hand-outs, "
================================
many people would agree with this point.

"but I don't think anyone could seriously suggest (could they?) that this problem has been created or even exacerbated by the current government. And I don't see how you get from here to an assertion that the whole country is "broken" - whatever that means. "
=================================
Many people would disagree with this point though. Given things such as the doubling of the 10p taxband and the levels of immigration into this country, it is difficult to see how you can make these two statements together.

We'll get the cahnce to express our views on this at the ballot box soon enough.

PDavies "There are too many people who are dependent on State hand-outs, but I don't think anyone could seriously suggest (could they?) that this problem has been created or even exacerbated by the current government."

Surely you jest? They have heaped them on. Not only the recipients of Gordon's Tax Credits or whatever madcap scheme but also all the penpushers who are needed to process the complicated mess.

65 BDZ
My original post, dear Bill, was in response to Robin's peculiar diatribe against people with brains. I was merely pointing out that he is only going to get more of the same from the Conservatives if they are elected, and not the self-made, man of the people Messiah he seemed to be hoping for - a kind of right-wing Alan Sugar, perhaps.

I have nothing against people who went to Oxford.

Do try to keep up.

14. At 10:56am on 11 Jan 2010, stuart wrote:
Is anyone else reminded of Tim Stamper from the TV drama 'The House of Cards' when they see Peter Mandelson?

----------------

Or indeed Charles Collingridge for Gordon Brown.

"He was in the trap and kicking from the moment he took office".

Pataphysician @ 68

Is it me or does Cameron not look particularly gleeful. Not exactly swinging the axe with the enthusiasm of a BBC moderator is he...

...or were you referring to "Critics accused them of relishing spending cuts with ideological glee".

Not exactly concrete is it?

"Critics accused them of relishing spending cuts with ideological glee."

Doesnt name them does it? Which critics would they be? The writer just chucks it into the mix and doesnt back it up... has no more relevance or truth to it than Jeremy Clarkson spinning an introduction for The Stig every week on Top Gear...

Its obvious to the rest of us what the BBC thinks, news editorial policy has been perfectly visible for all to see since Gilligan/Kelly.

74#

I dont believe you.

ronreagan: 2,15, 35, 58, 66 [may have missed some.]

Just wanted to say how effective I found your use of CAPITAL letters, exclamation marks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and referring to Gordon Brown as "Clown" and the Labour party as "Liebour", all were in contributing to a mature discussion on political issues. Well done.

Sagamix 24

Many would say that statement is not true anymore. It is after all seen that the gap between rich and poor has widened under this Labour Government. Child poverty has not improved either. Also the 10p tax debacle was not under a Lib/Dem or Conservative Government it was brought in by Brown under a Labour Government.

Therefore if this Government cares for its people as much as you suggest, how do they make such mistakes with regard to the very people the party was set up to represent and protect.

68 Pataphysician wrote:

64. StrictlyPickled wrote:

"What is this "glee" you speak of that is depressing you so much ? Can you give us some examples..?

________________________________

Amongst others, the BBC.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8432955.stm

=============================================================

I've just looked at this link, and I cannot see any sign of the "glee" you speak of. It's also written to by one of the BBC political staff, and it as such his view and opinion rather than any direct factual information.

Is this the best you can come up with to substantiate your comments ??? Even Mandelson has given up with this line.

You expect us to speak up in opposition to every scheme that ministers cook up? I think that some people would feel comfortable if we joined them in their corrupt practices.

While the Tory focus is on this PM and the mirage of distinctions in deficit management we sleepwalk into electing a bunch of populist image manipulators.

'I messed up' Dave shows constantly how unfit he is for leadership. About turns on the EU referendum, on Afghanistan withdrawal on marriage tax - it just goes on and on. How the heck will this chancer cope with office - god help us if his trigger is ever on the red button.

pdavies65# In your wonderful world of Liebour spin and lies, not to mention CORRUPTION - can u enlighten me what has been achieved after 12 years of this incompetent shower - apart from complete financial mismanageement.

'in response to the fact that there is very little money around for them to spend.'

.oh, you think ? have they only just noticed ? I really wish that our politicians instead of pissing away our kids futures by being too cowardly to clean up the mess they have created because they are afraid we might be angry with them would get a bit of backbone and do the job they were elected for - run the country properly !!

Or is that too much to ask - I'll be more angry if they don't do that rather than skulk around hoping we don't notice what a mess we're in ?

Get some balls (not that idiot Ed..) and sort this out

What happened to:
'We are best placed to weather this recession'
And how about
'You have been wrong on every major decision about this downturn'
These are quotes or near as dammit from Gordon. The charge that anybody is wrong is pure semantics because we could never know.

Gordon has promised to spend spend spend - now it appears this is being backtracked. That is the only division
The tories haven't given much detail but at least they recognise a need to stop the spend and do something to redress the balance of the failure of government and banks during this recession.
Labour have no credibility now, it's all over!

Why have a preview option, if it doesn't correctly show what your comment will look like?

Also apologies to AndyC555, it was Andrew Morrison who argues that Brown is to take credit for sorting out our current mess. I was just interested to know if Brown can either a) take some credit for the ballsup in the first place or b) take some credit for sitting back and doing nothing instead? Got to be one of those options I guess?


CPing 500 - eh? Not sure what you're trying to say?

My comment was in response to Sagamix's earlier claim that capitalism needed controlling as altruism is not natural. Sagamix is pro-labour and pro-tax. I never read of him supporting any other option so assume he rests his trust in political solutions. My challenge to him is to explain why I and others, for whom altruism is not natural, should be altruistically controlled by Labour who a) claim to support the poor (I'm not rich but Labour expect me to bale out millionare bankers) and who b) appear to earn private fortunes along the way?

87#

And thats a challenge you'll be waiting a hell of a long time for an answer for... because he hasnt got one.

83#

What, any worse than Brown, Mr Spammer?

We got a problem if the reports are true and that GB is weak and made concessions to keep peace, with the folks picked to run the election campaign there will be a lot of disgruntled members, lets see what happens when they really do start electioneering the result will be one big rats nest....

.... it'll be we've done this n' that', 'lets sling this n' that mud' but never any truth about how to get the hell out of this mess they got us into - if the Chuckle brothers were electioneering I'd vote for them!

A Prudent Chancellor, Prime Minister or Flash Gordon would not allowed us to get anywhere near this mess, so as far as I am concerned they can brag, boast and spin til the cows come home - there's too many hands in the fire and they've lost the plot!

Mr Field is a good man. Regardless of the colour of his politics he is appalled at the age of irresponsibility - within government as well as within the structure of society.

That's it really. In a nutshell. Oh, and he is a quietly religious man like David Cameron. These are both good men and the country is crying out for them to speak out.

Don't underestimate the electorate. After years of this dreadful dangerous politically ambitious government we KNOW all right that there are cuts to come. We have the character to take a deep breath and accept it. We know what is needed. Tough love. Tough talk. And above all a love of this country and its people. We will put our hopes in David Cameron and I don't think we will be disappointed.

83. tankarray:

How the heck will this chancer cope with office - god help us if his trigger is ever on the red button.


Tank, that shouldn't be a problem after the cuts. We can't afford it.

"tankarray wrote:

'I messed up' Dave shows constantly how unfit he is for leadership. About turns on the EU referendum, on Afghanistan withdrawal on marriage tax - it just goes on and on. How the heck will this chancer cope with office - god help us if his trigger is ever on the red button."

Well looking at it from a wider angle, we have had a PM who has messed up for the last few years and the country has mostly survived. Cameron might actually be a step up because he has at least admitted that he has made mistakes (Brown always wiggles out of making an apology)

83. Tankarray or Duke Nukem:

Could be a vacancy at the Fabian Society HQ in the kitchens.

Under the Tories we had reduced taxation, NI, and numerous state assets sold; coupled with cuts within the NHS, education, state pensions, care for the elderly etc. Alongside we had massive unemployment, home repossessions, high interest rates, and Lamont's 'black wednesday'.
Fine if you are wealthy and can afford to buy from the private sector.

BUT I wouldn't vote for any of them. A modern system would be where independent proven experienced experts (and not amateurs who get moved about), can be voted in and out to run state departments, on their detailed published principles and intentions.

Quote of the day from the toothsayer Byrne about the tories.

'We've got them on the run'

They certainly have and they're running streets around the sad and exhausted labour not so hopefuls.

Regarding Frank Field. This is one politician that has high regard from all parties and the electorate. Nice to see him at last getting recognition for his excellent work and report on the welfare system. Should have been put into practice years ago by labour.

78 BDZ wrote:
I don't believe you.

Is there something specific I've said that you don't believe? Or do you not believe people like me can really exist?

Andrew Morrison# One can only assume u r employed by Liebour - if not the men in white coats r coming

#80 quite simples really , the man has no moral courage or compass
and as we know the 10p tax was about getting himself re-elected and conning the poor in the process, it was also another indicator that the coffers had run dry too.

one man
one vote
one job
and ed balls to everyone else including the poor

and the 460 labour MP only took any notice when many realised that there was to be no election and there long term jobs might be on the line, pure Nulabour self interest

tankarry 83

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. In all honesty, I do not know how you can have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty when it has already been ratified. It was I recall Labour who signed us up to the Treaty not the Conservatives. So how the Conservatives are doing a U turn on this I cannot see as they promised a referendum only if the Treaty was not ratified when they came to Government. Therefore could you explain.

I do not remember the Conservatives calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan of our troops can you tell me when this was said by them. Or perhaps you mean something else, can you please explain.

It seems that since the demise of marriage within our society children have no stability in their lives and are exposed at a young age to drugs and alcohol. Gangs and anti social behaviour have increased over recent years which apparently is due to the breakdown of the family unit. Therefore do you not believe it is incumbent on a good opposition to suggest ways of reversing this problem? I believe even Marx was a married man.