Labour: A 'fair for all' manifesto?

Thankfully, with any luck, they won't get the chance to do anything with this, other than bin it

Total Abdication of responsibility!
No clear, costed government plan to tackle the budget deficit.

How is not having any new ideas or policies going the help the UK one bit?

The last thing we need is Brown continuing to spend, spend, spend; come what may.

What we need is bold action to get to grips with our debt and create incentives for investment in UK Plc - where the wealth is created.

As a government that has been in place for the last 13 years I wouldn't expect major shifts in policy or amazing new plans and strategies. This is a "more of the same" manifesto promising to continue the work started in previous parliaments and build on the successes that this goverment has achieved.

And yes, careful is how I would want to see this goverment progress things. Now is not the time for recklessness and risk. They have been careful to plot a route through the global financial crisis and minimise the impact of that on most families in this country. And I believe they are best place to continue this careful path and bring us through the period of recovery.

Of course opponents will damn it as "nothing new" but if that is the worst they can say about the manifesto then again, I would ask what else they expected? If there was a radical new way to bring the economy into a sustained and solid recovery I'm sure they would have done it by now. As it happens, there really isn't. Experience and carefulness are what I want to see the goverment bringing to the recovery party and in that respect they have my vote. Osbourne and Camerons "cut fast, cut deep" approach scares the living bejeezus out of me for the impact it would have on the many millions of lower paid workers and their families and anyone who works in the public sector (well, almost everyone; I'm sure the top civil servants will do just fine thanks under a Tory regime).

A farewell for all faminesto

They've already spent all of our money, so all they can do is make the same old promises and keep repeating the very unlikely phrase "back of the envelope" to try and make themselves look more professional than the tories.

It's a dangerous game for a very unpopular government to try and get elected on the premise of being professional.

What Labour inherited was a healthy economy, with which they enjoyed years of global prosperity, but instead of saving money for the widely predicted coming storm they spent til the coffers were empty, and consequently put us in a right mess. Since then they've had the timerity to try and get re-elected on the myth that they have dealt very well with the economy. No more boom and bust? Of course not. I have many words to describe Labour's bankrupting of the country but professional isn't one of them.

Cue the inspirational manisfesto, the cheek of them using an idylic rural background was cringeworthy enough. I don't think Gordon's been to the countryside in the last 13 years.....oh dear.

Secure bicycle storage for the few, more economic failure for the many.

Gordon "an end to boom and bust" Brown can't bring himself to admit he has been a complete failure in managing the nation's finances: however, the NuLab manifesto says that for him

Labour has to go for the simple reason they have wrecked the country. They have no credibility and should crawl away for the shame of what they have done.

It doesn't really matter what government replaces them as it will have no money. All it will be able to do is manage the decline in public services. Better that this be done by those who have no concept of public service. It will be less tearful at least and we will be spared the hypocrisy.

Whilst the deficit worries me. The debt that is being saddled as a consequence on the children and grandchildren is truly frightening. This election must be about the end of certain times so that we can start building something better from these dreadful ruins.

Surely you don't expect the Treasury to have any clear cut answers to the massive problems our once proud country is facing? This, the government with a leader who sold our gold reserves when the market was at a low... the government whose ministerial leaders flit from one department to another at the drop of a hat. We don't buy this goverment's claptrap - the politically relevant comment is to be found at Guido Fawkes blog not in parliament and the truth on matters economic and financial are to be found at Tradewavelive's blog.

What a lot of inconsequential promises already promised before! Talk about polishing the hubcaps when the car is on fire! Amazing. However the McRuin's government could take a leaf or two from an ancient civilisation (lifted from a weekly money magazine):

- The budget should be balanced
- The Treasury should be refilled
- Public debt should be reduced
- the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled
- The assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed
- People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance

Lest Rome becomes bankrupt!
- Marcus Tullius Cicero speaking in 55BC.

It all sounds familiar but where in the NuLiebor manifesto is any hint of this!

Why do you have to "assume". You never do on any other matter.

The IFS calculates that the since 1997 the government has brought in net tax increases "that will cost families £31.1 billion this year (£970 per family) and almost half as much again - a total of £45.4 billion (£1,420 per family) in today's terms - by 2014-15, once the tax increases already announced in recent Budgets and Pre-Budget Reports for implementation during the coming Parliament take effect".

The widest measure of the total tax burden (total government revenue as a share of national income) has also risen since 1997, but by less than than the value of Labour's announced tax increases, because of the fall in revenues due to the recession and the collapse in revenues from the city.

Another killer fact: as the authors note, most OECD countries have seen their tax burden fall as a share of the economy since 1997. If the burden of UK taxes had fallen by the average amount of other OECD countries over the period, they calculate that it would now be "3.3% of national income below that forecast by the OECD for this year - a difference of £49 billion in today's terms or £1,520 per family."


Still people vote labour

Still people tell me other countries have better services (yet pay less tax)

Still some morons want a revolution, and violence, yet tell me I know nothing about economics

Well, The numbers above PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Brown's tax and spend policy has put this country on it's knees

We can recover

Step one

Remove Brown

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Clearly the investments made in the NHS are bearing fruit which is great news and reassuring for the electorate. The PM announced on TV today that since Labour took over the reigns survival rates for early diagnose breast and bowel cancer have both risen to over 90%. Can't argue with that.

Scanning the Labour manifesto the overall impression I get is of a right wing party, indistinguishable from the Tories. Same policies and the same disregard for the poor, combined with the arrogance and ignorance of power. However I am also completely unimpressed by the alternative of the same policies implemented by people who have never run a whelk stall let alone a government.

The question is still the choice between devils - the one we know and the unknown that has many alarming aspects. Which will destroy the country more? Which will increase inequality the most? I wish I knew! There is however merit in experience - even if the experience contributed to the destruction of the economy, particularly when the alternative presents itself as a bunch of, frankly, flaky nitwits.

The real loss to the Nation is the lack of a genuine party of the poor - Labour has abandoned its former core vote and now wants to make us all middle class according to the manifesto - and Gordon Brown did not seem to appreciate the irony when he said it. Someone needs to stand up for the poor.

Despite their many faults sticking with experience over Buggins's turn it this time of national economic peril seems the best and most rational, if distasteful, choice - although I would prefer a Government of National Unity to handle our essential economic restructuring.

4 Bryn the Cat,

How deep is it possible to bury your head in the sand?

They haven't minimised the effect on most families in this country. What Labour has done throughout the three terms that they have been in office is to buy your vote by maximising the cost to most families in the future. You have fallen for it my friend, hook, line and sinker!

Do not confuse what you perceive to be the Government's well plotted route through the current world financial crisis with it's general failure over a longer term.

Me, I left the country a while back, perhaps I'd like to return one day. My children though, I'm trying to give them an opportunity to stay well away. There is no reason on earth why they should be forced to pay the the price for the "successes that this Government has achieved".

It's fairly typical of 'New' Labour to come up with stuff already well signposted before. As usual with these things, there's built in get out of jail cards. Talking of jail, where is Cameron going to keep all these prisoners he's no longer going to release early? There's no space left in prisons. Anyway, back to manifestos, the SNP one is, as the Americans say, a doozie. Loads of spending commitments and all cuts are Westminster cuts. The cuts they do propose are so far in the future as to be irrevelent, for instance, Trident. No mention of the aircraft carriers, perhaps because they are going to be built in Scotland. Regards, etc.

#12. Kevinb wrote:

"Remove Brown"

Out of the frying pan into the fire - same policies but rather redder in claw and implemented by the completely inexperienced!

Their pathetic little cartoon's rubbish - even by the educational standards of Ed Balls. Caledonian Comment

Stephanie

You missed this

We therefore estimate that the "bang for each buck" that we get from public services spending has fallen by more than 13% over the same period. If Labour had managed to maintain the "bang" it inherited in 1997, it could have delivered the same quality and quantity of services that it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less - or it could have provided 15.5% more or better services for the same money.

ell there's £40bn that might be saved

"As far as I can see, this document is fully costed"

I wonder how much of my taxes went towards paying for that exercise, while the other contenders had to use intelligent guesswork? This shower wouldn't recognise a level playing field if it had a big sign saying 'Level Playing Field' every 5 yards along its perimeter.

Stephanie, we have not had much to laugh about in Smolensk butcher’s shop this last few days – and our thoughts is go out to Poland peoples who lose President in plane crash – but idea of politics manifesto is make us laugh great intensities. What is make us vote for Putin in Russia, aside from certainty he going win (which also make us not bother vote, which is efficient)? Is it boring long book of stuff, a future bright and fair and orange for all? Is it fully costed spending proposals for bicycle dumps at stations and tax credits for people who have no incomes and is not pay any tax? No! It is Putin policy of put Russia first, help middle class, low tax, space for entrepreneurs run “alternative economies” and provide efficient welfare in schools, health and protections services – without crime wave explode – stand up to West and look great in judo and hunting gear. I have not look at Brown manifesto, but I am give advice. Pledges to cut tax to close to zero rates, allow entrepreneurs, oligarchs and local protection bosses into social space, find new sources fossil fuels, rattle sabres at neighbours, and take up some form martial arts is formula for victory.

What Ladee GoGordo needs is to wear a tight buz lightyear outfit whilst holding up high a zero percent credit card with infinite balance transfer facility and then to shout "to infinity and beyond "

Woody Cameron will then find it dificult to persuade us that hes not yesterdays model from toratorysrus.

14

That's medical advances......Nothing to do with the government

Neo-natal medicine improved hugely between 1979 and 1997....nothing to do with the Conservatives, like this welcome progress with cancer is nothing to do with Labour

Shorter than Michael Foot but a suicide note nontheless.

The price of gold, when the 'prudent' chancellor sold, is now known as the brown bottom in gold circles

I kid you not

As I approach my 60th birthday, I can boast that I've seen it all before. One thing which stuns me about the modern political and economic scene is the number of commentators and observers who seem to believe this is all new.

There was nothing new about 100% OR 125% mortgages, or mortgages/loans being given to anyone who could write their name - those of us who were adult in the late 80s can remember all that happening before. It was followed by recession in 1990 and dire forebodings of doom and gloom. Sound familiar?

The last 2 Labour governments have ended in financial disaster, with the country seeking aid from the IMF. Is there are a habit anywhere in sight here? Once is a mistake, twice is distinctly bad luck but three times is definitely a habit. One day one of them will learn that Boom & Bust are well-established bedfellows, and are part of the natural order of things.

What cheek! Few measures they haven't already announced, few new promises, no ideas on how to stop spending money they haven't got. With their track record of keeping promises, who would believe them anyway? Sorry, but they've had 13 years to do what they now say they'll do, and they've failed - why risk trusting them now? They are tired, out of ideas and out of touch - they must go!

How anyone can say that the tax and spend of Labour is like the Conservatives is beyond me

Under this government EVERYONE but the very rich have got poorer, hence the widening gap

Social mobility has worsened

They suggest the Conservatives will increase VAT yet will not put a guarantee that they will not do so in the Labour Manifesto

I would rather have someone that hasn't ruined the economy, and is inexperienced than a load of people who have proved beyond all doubt that they are not fit for purpose

All Labour can do is attack Cameron and Osborne for their upbringing

It is more illustrative of the big hole in the middle of the Labour Party where their credibility used to be

People like Robin Cook, John Smith, at least they had decency and were consistent in their views

Sadly, both died prematurely

The state spending, the benefit dependency, the world owes me a living view, has got completely out of control

Labour have done enough damage, time for them to go

No rise in income tax. Haven't I heard that before?

With a headline that reminds us how untrustworthy he is - this manifesto goes on to NOT explain how he intends to sort out the horrific debt he has saddled us with. On the contrary - it Sounds like more tax and spend.

Please, don't give this guy the chance to finish the job he started and totally ruin this country.

This manifesto may be the most honest document Labour has ever produced, in it they admit that all they can offer is anoher five years of the same, which is gross mismanagement coupled to an addiction to plundering the future to pay for their incompetent present.
The one success story of this government is the way the tax burden has been driven up year after year without anyone really noticing enough to care. Only recently have they bled the patient so much that they have had to fall back on the old 'tax the rich' nonsense that has never worked and never will work.
I wonder if the IFS calculated the cost of rebuilding pensions for those lucky to be young enough to recover from Labour's cynical? Did they include the billions from 3G licences which are no more than tax on future phone bills, the many other 'adjustments' to the tax regime which somehow always mean paying more tax.
A healthy opposition would have made mincemeat of this shower years ago and the Conservative party played their part by discrediting themselves so badly in their last government that even now voters don't trust them.
For everyone's sake I hope Labour are kicked out and that the Conservatives have a decent enough majority to tackle the unsustainable behemoth of public spending that Labour have inflicted upon us.

18

I understand that you hate the Conservatives...your choice

To not vote for any party on the grounds of inexperience is a path to a one party state

Obama was inexperienced

Would you prefer Bush?

"IFS : The key question for the next Government is what size and combination of public spending cuts and tax increases to implement to repair our public finances" - Who do they think they are ? - this grandiosely named 'Institute of Fiscal Studies' !
First, we are so poverty stricken or emotionally cold or ignorant that we kill 600 of our own unborn children each day in abortion chambers – that would pass a better ‘The Key Question’ for the next government.
Genocide is happening in Gaza, that would also pass a better ‘The Key Question’ for the next government.
We are at war in two places, again that would pass a better ‘The Key Question’ for the next government.
Even if we restrict it to a 'financial' question – what is so important about ‘public' finances – the private debt of individuals and companies is far higher, last blue book 2009.
Overall – all debts - we are in massive debt to the Chinese because of their uni-trade policy – they sell to us but don’t buy from us. They only buy our bonds and shares – they don’t buy Volvos they buy Volvo - the whole company.
Having business or individuals take on the debt to China currently held by the government doesn’t help much – actually it doesn’t help at all.
China needs to be taken to the WTO and fined something like £20 Trillion for it’s anti-free trade Uni-trade policy that has wreaked industrial and commercial havoc around the World. Then we need to use ( NEFS - Net Export Financial Simulation
) to correct the basic flaws in the financial system that was invented pre-machine age.

10 Good Reasons why Labour does not deserve a fourth term:

1. Gross economic mismanagement: while most competent chancellors in countries elsewhere were running budget surpluses during the recent economic boom (2005-07), Prudence Brown chose to run a deficit, thus magnifying the mess we're currently in. Genius.

2. The UK public sector has grown from 37% of GDP to 52% during Labour's tenure (mainly the addition of paper-shufflers). During the economic 'boom' of 2005-07, two jobs were created in the public sector for every one in the private sector (whoops!). Not much of a boom then.

3. Growing the public sector aggressively was a very conscious decision of Mr Brown's -- mainly to be financed by the UK's burgeoning finance industry which GB so rapidly deserted when the wheels started to come off and his best friends in the world turned into pariahs in the eyes of the electorate. Quel surprise! No acknowledgement from the big man that, during the good times, he was desperate to be photographed glad-handing every fellow in a pin-stripe suit within a sniff of the Square Mile. Shameless.

4. Big Gord has announced far-reaching changes to the way Parliament is run in future (much better plans than the Tories, apparently, and I couldn't comment). That doesn't get away from the fact that they did nothing about all the 'fingers in the till' before the lot of them were rumbled. As the old saying goes: while the music's playing we'll carry on dancing. Utterly shameless.

5. From today's Labour manifesto: c.£20bn of budget savings vs. £178bn budget deficit (now, I'm no Oxford scholar but I make that 11.2% of the total deficit and I'd just love to know where the rest of the savings are going to come from - and please don't say "increased tax receipts as unemployment falls" because that's just tosh, especially as 10's of thousands of public sector jobs will have to go during the next parliament).

6. Labour were the party that took us into two unnecessary wars that have cost countless civilian and military lives, not to mention umpteen billions of pounds. This may have been Tony Blair's little vanity project but most of his party supported him (including one G. Brown). Take a bow Robin Cook for taking the stand you did, even if the rest of us could see the 45 minute WMD claim was preposterous in the extreme. Iraq could barely get a missile to reach near-neighbours Israel, never mind a warhead to Europe. Unacceptable.

7. Apart from Peter Mandelson, the current Labour Party has nobody with any political nous or backbone and many senior politicians are intellectually very ordinary. That, allied to their evident complacency and arrogance after such a long term in office, means they quite simply have to go - even if it means casting a vote for a party whose values you don't share or whose competence is unproven (I'll not mention names).

8. Labour quite simply don't care any more and if we vote them in for a fourth term, they'll just laugh at us all for being such morons. There's no greater insult than being patronised but people of lowly intelligence and I've just had enough. Let's hand over the reigns to a party who will take a fresh view of things and attack the issues of the day with a vigour we can appreciate, rather than same old, same old.

9. Erm....

10. ....that's it.

Why don't all you fools either realise or if you do realise .. get off the fence and shout it loud ...
the government does not run this country ..
the governments of capitalist countries throughout the world do NOT run their countries ..
You come on here in your droves waxing off about this governments failed promises and 'spending all our money'

Ask yourself ..
what is money .. how is it created .. and why do economists waffle on about economic growth as a sign of recovery when economic growth year in and year out is completely incompatible with a balanced sustainable economic structure.

if you REALLY know the answer .. if you REALLY understand what I am saying (and that includes you Stephanomo and Peston) you know your job is really just a side show.

I have attended meetings with Bank Managers and Economoic panheads and to a man(and woman) not ONE of them REALLY understand or can describe succinctly what they perceive to be the problem because they have bypassed the fundamental issue at its inception.
And that boys and girls is simply this. Real tangible money DOES NOT EXIST. Money is DEBT. The economy of the western world is driven by DEBT. Everyone out there is on their little hamster wheel day in and day out paying back debt that can never be paid back, and the interest owed to the nameless billionaires who run the financial conglomerates keeps rising.

The Economic system is fundamentally flawed and inevitably must one day collapse.
This is no doom mongering, this is a stone cold mathematical logical FACT.

So if you are still inclined .. sign in on this blog .. waffle on with your head in the sand .. and get back on that hamster wheel tomorrow morning.

Oh it would be grand to hear one solitary voice of authority who has the balls to come forward and admit we have a problem far deeper than "this seasons" financial collapse.

The 3 Labour MPs accused and charged with offences relating to expenses claims receiving legal aid should be an interesting election discussion point

A new spin on Tebbit? Get on yer bike and park it securely! Be useful for those of us miles from a station and can't afford railway fares. A green idea from a worn out party.

Anything about banking regulations??? Maybe make some changes on all the charges and fees to put money in the pockets of people. Or taxes on banks and financial industry to help pay for the mess they caused. Oh, I forgot, Banking will not be a subject in the election, by either side...request from the bankers and politicians would like to avoid questions about complicity. Can elect those who turned their heads while the crisis loomed, that would be either side. The bankers won't lose any sleep over this election.
Everyone can understand that the previously announced taxes are now considered no new taxes, although they are actually new, but will not be called such, but do they have a plan for recovery...either side? We're not Greece: is not a rallying cry to take to the polls.

Kevinb:

Why don't you give us all a rest and get on with some real work at The Conservative Party Central Office? It isn't even funny anymore, you are virtually on here talking/arguing with yourself!

People want informed debate on these blogs, you have so much rage in you that you are almost blind to the fact that other people on here have an opinion as legitimate as yours. I almost feel sorry for you, ALMOST...

#32
"Obama was inexperienced"

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

Cameron is no Obama.

Inexperience is not one of Obama's strong points.

Inexperience is one of Cameron's fatal flaws.

The country represented by the government must continue to invest in our future. By borrowing/increasing slightly our NI contributions and spending more in the economy they will be initiating and creating more businesses/jobs which will in turn encourage households to spend for survival. These businesses/services then must export their merchandise, goods and services. If taxes are only marginally increased on basic creature comforts/necessities and larger increases in taxes on luxury goods/services and become less reliant on importation of goods/services we can definitely turn our economy around back to prosperity. I think LABOUR can do this.

35

All you fools......


You are the wisest person in the world then

Just what we need is another nihilist in the blog.....so tell me, do you want a violent revolution too?

Bryn The Cat wrote:
As a government that has been in place for the last 13 years I wouldn't expect major shifts in policy or amazing new plans and strategies. This is a "more of the same" manifesto promising to continue the work started in previous parliaments and build on the successes that this goverment has achieved.


Bryn - I take the irony of what you are saying but the reason that they have deservedly been in power for 13 years because the opposition has been weak and in my opinion is still fragile and weak in ideas but more streetwise in appeasing public opinion.

It is not an eye catching manifesto but perhaps a sign of the times with no major spending commitments and shows a fair balance across the public services whether in the police, education or the NHS.

The committment to treat cancer guarantee covers both 1-week cancer tests and a right to see a specialist in 2-weeks Giving individuals the right to apply for ASBO’s is a good idea. This will allow residents to take responsibilty which will make the process more efficient

We will see what Tory manifesto brings….

#36
"The 3 Labour MPs accused and charged with offences relating to expenses claims receiving legal aid should be an interesting election discussion point"

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

These three 'caught little piggies' are getting legal aid because that is how the legal system works. As it is likely they will spend some time afraid of 'picking up the soap' I am not bothered.

What is significant is the way Cameron jumped on the bandwagon. He could not make it more obvious that he is all 'sound bite and no substance or policies' if he had a 10 foot neon sign over his head.

Had he had some depth and experience he would have made no comment instead he managed to get the biggest cheer of the night for his reference to the 'legal aid recipients'. This is called playing to the mob. He did the same with the 'leaflets sent to cancer sufferers' incident.

The latest crop of polls suggest that the electorate are beginning to rumble Cameron - interesting.

The problem seems to be that these numpties think they have a right to govern us- they are the governing class and have little connection to or knowledge of the real world except as a source of taxes and expenses.

They use our income and lives to try out their bizarre social and behavioural theories. Life is unfair, and believe it or not, a lot of men as well as women would like an interesting and rewarding well paid job.

It doesn't matter what tosh goes in the manifesto, there's no commitment to it anyway. It's just 'don't frighten the horses' i.e. the tribal vote, while taxpayers fund spin and scare stories about the opposition.

39

Thank you for sharing that with me

Very informative

40

How will you cope when Merkel gets kicked out?

41

So the £168bn deficit is illusionary then?

The £1,400,000,000 debt nothing to worry about?

We all think that we know the consequences of the next government failing to tackle the budget deficit.

Succeeding in halving the CURRENT defict in 4 years will get us back to where we are now - with an even larger 'current deficit' because of the likelihood of increased interest payments - and that means abject failure in the event that Britain still has a low output economy and high unemployment.

Failure to tackle the budget deficit in terms of 'learning new lessons' and not making any impression in reducing the budget deficit will mean that we would all be better off voting for Caroline Lucas (that's not intended as any kind of an insult by the way - I think that Caroline Lucas would make far a better PM than you know who with policies such as 'abandon GDP growth altogether... as environmentally unsustainable' - I really like that and to me it makes much more sense than the Labour party '2010 manifesto').

Good stuff Caroline! I know where I can get a donkey and a cart (Oh but I suppose that being drawn on a donkey cart is now some sort of an offence for the Brits in the 'nanny state' eurotocracy) - unless you're an immigrant and can prove that you had a donkey and a cart before entering the UK?. Can I call the donkey Gordon - or is that pushing it a bit?

If Alistair Darling is to match his claim to be able to reduce the deficit by half in 4 years he needs to "save" in £B 26, 34,39,43 in the next 4 years, followed by 46, 48, 49, and 49 in the next 4. This would bring the deficit down to zero by 2018 but the national debt would have risen to £1490B. We would then be paying £70B per year just to service the borrowings.
There is nothing about this manifesto, other than promises, which suggests thet he has any more than a snowball's chance in hell of fulfilling his promise.
I believe there is a simplified version of the manifesto to make it easier for Joe Average and his family of three children to understand. If young couples were foolish enough to follow this advice, the population would rise even faster than it is now and our long term future as a nation would be put further in peril.
Politicians have about as much foresight as your average goldfish.

It shouldn't come as any surprise, that this manifesto omits any mention of all the ongoing controversies, and failed & unfinished initiatives, that this Government has created. It's just a diversion to try & lead us away from the manure to gaze at the prospect of roses.

35. At 9:08pm on 12 Apr 2010, TheCynicalSasquatch wrote:
Why don't all you fools either realise or if you do realise .. get off the fence and shout it loud ...
the government does not run this country ..
the governments of capitalist countries throughout the world do NOT run their countries ..
You come on here in your droves waxing off about this governments failed promises and 'spending all our money'

Ask yourself ..
what is money .. how is it created .. and why do economists waffle on about economic growth as a sign of recovery when economic growth year in and year out is completely incompatible with a balanced sustainable economic structure.

if you REALLY know the answer .. if you REALLY understand what I am saying (and that includes you Stephanomo and Peston) you know your job is really just a side show.

I have attended meetings with Bank Managers and Economoic panheads and to a man(and woman) not ONE of them REALLY understand or can describe succinctly what they perceive to be the problem because they have bypassed the fundamental issue at its inception.
And that boys and girls is simply this. Real tangible money DOES NOT EXIST. Money is DEBT. The economy of the western world is driven by DEBT. Everyone out there is on their little hamster wheel day in and day out paying back debt that can never be paid back, and the interest owed to the nameless billionaires who run the financial conglomerates keeps rising.

The Economic system is fundamentally flawed and inevitably must one day collapse.
This is no doom mongering, this is a stone cold mathematical logical FACT.

So if you are still inclined .. sign in on this blog .. waffle on with your head in the sand .. and get back on that hamster wheel tomorrow morning.

Oh it would be grand to hear one solitary voice of authority who has the balls to come forward and admit we have a problem far deeper than "this seasons" financial collapse.
>>>>>>>

Money is of course a mass-delusion. but with all mass delusions so long as enough people believe it then it is self sustaining. The money we earn IS a fiction but we need somewhere to live, we need to eat so we subscribe to the fiction because it actually gives us tangible things.

The economic system will only collapse in the face of a catastrophic event that wipes out enough that the whole system breaks down. why have money if there is no electricity or gas to buy, no food but what you can grow and no clothes but what you can make - all money will be good for then is for fires (and probably not very good at that).

However, the chances of this happening are limited until the world population starts declining - then it will be interesting to see what happens. But probably not in our lifetimes.

Okay everybody, do "we" really think things would have been any different if the Tories had won the 1997 general election ?

'A future fair for all' - we'll we've already had a rollercoaster (I suspect we are actually still on it) and its like I've been on a Waltzer (feel a bit sick) and now I'm looking foward to some spun sugar candy. Yum. Oh... its cotton wool. Ah well.

First of all, to RD. Enough of this inexperienced nonsense. The only thing Labour is experienced in is ruining everything they touch, decreasing social mobility, making Great Britain into a nation of benefit and "rights" addicts. Cameron will have the same Civil Service advice that any of the Labour nonetities playing musical chairs (remember Blunkett, two Jags Prescott, etc.) have had without learning anything. Half the people on this blog think they could run the country, but Cameron is inexperienced... To follow your reasoning, only the party in power should have power.

I am also appalled by how people allow the GB clowns the ability to evolve politically but think Conservatives do not adapt their thinking to the circumstances. "Conservative DNA" somebody mentioned here recently. This is banana republic tribal politics. Grow up.

Whether Conservatives are really offering any alternative is a different matter but stop rewarding disastrous failure.

A good consolidating Manifesto by the only sensible option for the electorate. No gimmicks. No bribes.

A properly costed deficit reduction plan implemented by people with experience is the only way forward. The alternatives are dangerous and not an option.

To the Cynical Sasquatch (and Kevinb by implication):

I share your anger and dismay that a chance at least to think deeply about rechanneling effort and aspirations has been missed completely. All the politicians, including Obama, are yesterday's men. They do not understand that capitalism is in its cancer stage. All they want is to tinker so that the system does not blow up on their watch, they lie constantly to themselves and to everyone else. Let them strut and fret.

Let us: hope the decay is graceful, get out of debt, cultivate our gardens if we are lucky enough to have one, feed the birds and urban foxes, consume less, waste less, ditch the car, eat no meat, give to charity. All the rest is vanity and the problem is deeper than capitalism. The problem is human nature and the beauty is that one can go against it, as an individual.

One is free as long as one can do good.

#47
"How will you cope when Merkel gets kicked out?"

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

What has this got to do with Obama.

Your most odd post yet.

50. At 10:22pm on 12 Apr 2010, angloscotty wrote:
If Alistair Darling is to match his claim to be able to reduce the deficit by half in 4 years he needs to "save" in £B 26, 34,39,43 in the next 4 years, followed by 46, 48, 49, and 49 in the next 4. This would bring the deficit down to zero by 2018 but the national debt would have risen to £1490B. We would then be paying £70B per year just to service the borrowings.
There is nothing about this manifesto, other than promises, which suggests thet he has any more than a snowball's chance in hell of fulfilling his promise.
I believe there is a simplified version of the manifesto to make it easier for Joe Average and his family of three children to understand. If young couples were foolish enough to follow this advice, the population would rise even faster than it is now and our long term future as a nation would be put further in peril.
Politicians have about as much foresight as your average goldfish.
>>>

Actually, I think that the chancellor hopes that a recovering economy will provide most of the deficit reduction so he doesnt need to alienate the public sector at all! This is a very good reason not to vote labour because it isnt actually tackling the issues that need tackling.

#49
"Succeeding in halving the CURRENT defict in 4 years will get us back to where we are now"

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

In these challenging times some might regard standing still as progress. Red Queen territory.

Does not GDP have to grow in line with population increase. The Green argument is to attach more importance to other factors, which has some merit.

I suspect we need environmentally friendly GDP growth, but growth none the less.

44. , Richard Dingle wrote
"The latest crop of polls suggest that the electorate are beginning to rumble Cameron - interesting."

Mr Dingle you are clearly fooled by your red tinted spectacles. We have had 13 years of obfuscation, lies and egregious spending by this crazy gang of political spendthrifts, but if you want to rumble their broken promises delivered through more spin than a "black hole", click on the link below.

https://iaindale.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to: Labour's 27 Broken Manifesto Promises

However I will give Brown his due. As he hasn't mentioned the elephant in the room (i.e.our stupendously rising debt) as a subject worth addressing in the next Parliament, we cannot accuse him of breaking manifesto promises - can we?

Back to the Future!

Oddly enough, I am missing WOTW revolution so I'm going to do one for him:-

We are going to have a violet revolution (not violent - violet - the colour) where the intelligensia and the forces of capitalism will be lined up against a wall, sternly reprimanded and then made to write lines about how they have conspired with the financial demagogues to make us all slaves. They will then be forced to create 'value' in the public sector by lecturing to children on the evils of doing anything that might earn money in export markets.

Long live the revolution (if that's okay with you).

41. At 9:28pm on 12 Apr 2010, Chas-from-Beaconsfield wrote:
The country represented by the government must continue to invest in our future. By borrowing/increasing slightly our NI contributions and spending more in the economy they will be initiating and creating more businesses/jobs which will in turn encourage households to spend for survival. These businesses/services then must export their merchandise, goods and services. If taxes are only marginally increased on basic creature comforts/necessities and larger increases in taxes on luxury goods/services and become less reliant on importation of goods/services we can definitely turn our economy around back to prosperity. I think LABOUR can do this.
>>>
chas- sounds idyllic but you haven't mentioned how this will reduce the countries enormous deficit which even in a recovery will still be of the order of £60bn per year. One of the key things missing is that with extra taxes etc, businesses will leave (the ones that can) or fold. Labour delivered us into the mess through splurging what we had but there isn't actually any plans to get us to a zero deficit (although there isn't from any party because they are all too frightened to tell us what will happen).

#55
"but Cameron is inexperienced... To follow your reasoning, only the party in power should have power"

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

I contrasted Cameron with Obama - both are / were inexperienced.

Obama has policies and vision. Cameron has not and in his case inexperience will weigh heavily.

Of course inexperience should never block the right candidate.

26. At 7:55pm on 12 Apr 2010, Kevinb wrote:
The price of gold, when the 'prudent' chancellor sold, is now known as the brown bottom in gold circles

I kid you not

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Indeed,one mans Brown bottom is another man's Brown knows....oops!

If the chanceseller tried to buy back 400 tons of gold from the market where would the price go to then?

Its all part of the feud chain with the flies continually zipping about the place looking for the latest freebie merde most fowl,if only they could be harnessed as a source of alternating energy and connected to the national grid .

I don't get this Labour manifesto at all.

A manifesto to 'renew' Britain? That suggests it needs 'renewing' and Labour have been running it for the last 13 years. What have they been doing?

Remember, 'Things can only get better'?

Never, has that sounded so relevant.

#61
"We have had 13 years of obfuscation, lies and egregious spending by this crazy gang of political spendthrifts"

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

You may be right.

But where you are wrong is to assume that it is not possible for Cameron and Chums to be worse - even if worse is difficult to imagine.

Re 59 AD's version of a recovery is to see GDP rising, but that will not necessarily do anything to help the deficit. During the first 11 years of this government when the economy was apparently booming and GDP rising, national debt was also rising. GDP gives a false picture of our real economic health,since it is more a measure of the rate of money moving around the system. House building, and infrastructure projects create jobs and monetary flow but they do not affect our debt in any way. Indeed they can increase our deficit if we have to import goods and services from abroad. The only activity for which rising GDP reduces deficit comes from delivering goods and services to the rest of the world at a profit. Otherwise deficit reduction means reducing our imports, and becoming more self sufficient.

56. At 10:45pm on 12 Apr 2010, Richard Dingle wrote:
A good consolidating Manifesto by the only sensible option for the electorate. No gimmicks. No bribes.

A properly costed deficit reduction plan implemented by people with experience is the only way forward. The alternatives are dangerous and not an option.


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


ROFL

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Stephanie, Was there anything in the Manifesto about selling off assets?

I ask for two reasons:

1. A labour MP in the Medway Towns in a piece on SE Today quite clearly mentioned 'selling assets' to fund something or cut the deficit. First I've heard of this on all the Labour election chatter, and I'm wondering if she let the cat out of the bag! How embarassing if this is true and part of a hidden agenda!

2. I really can't bring myself to read an entire manifesto-from any party! (lazy I know, but I can't stand political woffle and spin!)

My husband and I are struggling to think of any national assets that could be sold-there are bank shares I suppose, Northern Rock, Royal Mail, not sure if there's anything else of value?

Any ideas anyone?! After all, if Labour do sell whatever assetswe've got left, we have nothing left at all to fall back on.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Labour investing in the future" if they win.



Never was a truer word spoken in jest ,Labour cannot "invest now" in real terms because of the mountain of debt that has to be serviced at increasing interest rates .

Millenium dome build cost £800.000.000 properly costed then sold for £1

So that leaves [calculator out]£799,999,999 PLUS 5% INTEREST COMPOUNDED TO ETERNITY and BEYOND

Now thats what i call investing in the future .


Seriously ,does BoRrOWiNg think we are prawnbrained ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Given that Labour is vesting everything on being the party of experience - the party of seasoned judgement, not "back of the envelope" guesses - you can see why they would decide that "safety first" was the way to go"

Horse, Door, Bolted, After, Stable

I don't have a clue who's going to win.
The image consultants, including nice Sam, did a great job on 'Call me Dave' last night but will it be enough to fool the electorate?
For once, I'm not going to answer my own question.

Well at least we don't have any silly self-imposed policies like:

The Golden Rule
We will only borrow to fund investment not public spending.

The Sustainable Investment Rule
Over the economic cycle, public net sector debt will be kept to 40% of GDP.

The improbity of Brown, and despite him having shoved so much unfinished business and gold dust under the carpets in No10,is bound to come out when the labour party doesn't want more bad news. I've given up with the fella; he promises this and that and now my attention turns to chancellor Darling, the maverick who though he would get away by raising the cider tax, only in a short sightedness having to dump the idea after mass protest. Did he really do his sums on this ? His budget has become an "end game" that none of them know how to do the arithmetic when it comes to sorting the awful debt and overspend out and are hemmned by the Unions as paymasters,not wholly representing the whole public at large. So the governments way of working finance is paralysed and they can't risk reforming the contibutions of unions to political parties.So the Unions run the labour party. As an overseas investor, we have been waiting for some time to "see" how the debt and overspend is going to be tackled and this has got to be the first priority. No use looking to Greece, they have the Euro club, Sterling is outside and UK in a very tricky position regards future interest rates. My guess it will be forced upwards in an attempt to stop the flucht of money out of the country. Bad news which way one wants it. Australia is doing fine.

60. At 11:10pm on 12 Apr 2010, Richard Dingle wrote:

#49
"Succeeding in halving the CURRENT defict in 4 years will get us back to where we are now"

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

In these challenging times some might regard standing still as progress. Red Queen territory.

Does not GDP have to grow in line with population increase. The Green argument is to attach more importance to other factors, which has some merit.

I suspect we need environmentally friendly GDP growth, but growth none the less.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The structure of GDP is now more important than growth in GDP? It's about productivity per £ of GDP in the non financial sector of the economy - that is a much better measure?

If the Labour government halve the current deficit in 4 years (I don't think they would come anywhere near this - Britain will still probably get downgraded on Crdeit risk etc - abject failure to some!

I say that the UK should ignore credit ratings etc and go for full British employment/proper green jobs/economy - vote for C.Lucas!

60. At 11:10pm on 12 Apr 2010, Richard Dingle wrote:

#49
"Succeeding in halving the CURRENT defict in 4 years will get us back to where we are now"

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

In these challenging times some might regard standing still as progress. Red Queen territory.

Does not GDP have to grow in line with population increase. The Green argument is to attach more importance to other factors, which has some merit.

I suspect we need environmentally friendly GDP growth, but growth none the less.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The moderation on this blog is, at times, bizarre.

I'll try again - GDP does not have to keep growing - there isn't a single MP in Westminster who can explain why never ending growth in UK GDP is essential as the single most important objective/measure for the economic and overall prosperity of Britian.

Let's hear the MP's/leaders try and explain this during the economic debates - we could all probably do with a real good laugh!

None of the political parties' manifestoes have set out any meaningful economic targets other than these vague references to 'growth'.

Growth in what ...immigration?

Halving the current deficit in 4 years will still be abject failure as the interest rates on payments are likely to increase?

A manifesto, brimming over with eye catching promises. Extra cycle storage a railway stations, I'm hooked already! , extra money into trust funds for disabled children. I thought they announced that last year but hey it still sounds good.
I like the sound of competant fiscal management, sadly that was missing it would have been worth a shot.
I think they are promising to lead us all into the broad green lush uplands of prosperity, well i think they are and we know we can reflect on their record to date and trust them don't we !

53

The problem was the Conservatives won in 1992...had Kinnock not been so poor, the Labour party would have won n 1992, as by then the Conservatives had run out of energy and ideas, and rather like this current Government, had come to believe they deserved to be in power, irrespective of anything else

This meant the 'sleaze' Parliament of 1992 to 1997, which by the standards of this last one, looks almost Puritanic!

This created two huge problems

1)The reaction to this 92-97 Conservative Government was too great, and it gave Tony Blair the platform to overpromise and under deliver.

The swing to Labour was accordingly too great, the majority too big.

This in turn created a Conservative Opposition too caught up in navel gazing to be an effective Opposition, which is partly to blame for some of the poor quality government and legislation we have endured since

2)This is a big factor in the current reluctance for a lot of swing voters to go back to the Conservatives, as they just aren't as comfortable with that as they would have been without 92-97 and the poor quality of opposition

I don't think the Conservatives were fit to govern in 1997

82

In the same way, I do not think the Labour Party are fit to govern now

50

£70bn costs of interest payments in the scenario you describe is very much at the low end

The higher costs of raising this level of borrowing mean £85bn far more likely, even £100bn if things get a lot worse

This in itself, amplifies your point, that the debt is frightening

64

Cameron has policies and vision

You just can't/won't admit it, due to your bigotry

67

Whoever wins the election, things WILL get worse initially, due to the mess this current government have got us into

Even you must know this

Whether you will admit it, is an entirely different matter

More bilge from ZaNuLab.....................

Phew - 78 pages of more of the same but two things of note perhaps?
1. "We will ensure greater competition in the banking sector, breaking up those banks in which the Government currently has a controlling stake." The Government does not have a controlling stake. We do. But we appear to have no power to do anything with our controlling stake. Which means it's a rod for our own back not a stake! Sell off our shares please but bit by bit, when the time is ripe, when we have made some money on them......
2. Absolutely no mention of Trident but they will "maintain our independent nuclear deterrent". £20 billion of spend (probably £40 billion eventually) and no explicit mention. Amazing.
I hoped the party of the people would have made the following priorities:
1. Pulling out of Afghanistan
2. Reviewing Trident
3. Investing in increased exports and investing in things to reduce imports - for instance we import 75% of our coal! And India has just built huge ports ready for importing huge amounts of coal. What a huge opportunity! And yes we can open mines now in readiness for a working clean coal technology or just do it for export purposes. Investment for export, investment for reduced imports, more jobs, rebuild skills, cash flow for investment in clean technology, ... what's not to like?!
4. Recognise benefit cheating as theft and deal with it as theft.
5. Give old people dignity in their home, how dare we in 2010 allow people to die from the cold in their own homes.
6. Attack the widening gap between rich and poor and being open about taxing the super rich even more than the 50% rate.

35. At 9:08pm on 12 Apr 2010, TheCynicalSasquatch wrote:

A rather long blog, but very relevant nevertheless.

In any event Sasquatch, many have posted here in the past that the State should control the creation of money as debt.

The plain truth is, if the state (which is us) does not control the creation of money as debt, then the state (which is us) can only ever be at the mercy of those who do.

I have read the Nu Labour manifesto and could not help but think it reminded me of another booklet I had pushed through the door the other day. Then my daughter pointed out that the cover looked like the pamphlet we had been given by the Church of the Perpetual liars. I looked again only to see the resemblance and looking inside realised that it was all based on the same presumption. That being, if we follow the aforesaid Church blindly and without question they will deliver us to the promised land. However as with most of these minority religions there was no mention of having to give up all of your possessions, giving up all your fee choices and not to mention having to spend forty years in the wilderness.

I cant wait for the next instalment - is it going to be the new testament from the Conservatives and then the Lib Dems will give us a new version of Star Wars - sorry that is not fare as they want to drop Trident so it should have been Lost in Space......

I am glad not to be hoping for a Labour win on May 6th it is going to be a difficult month for die hard supporters still clinging to the dream.

The new Labour manifesto has a nice cover but that is all.

They had 13 years to tackle social division and improve our lives. They did not. We have unaccetably high levels of youth unemployment, still the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, entire town centres that become no go areas every Saturday night, distribution of wealth no better than when they came to power only now the country has a serious debt problem and scary deficit at 13% of GDP. The people are the most indebted in the western world with £1.3 trillion owed a staggering 100% of GDP and taxes are higher. The top 5% control more wealth than they did in 1997 (a disgrace). We have a benefit culture and a growing underclass - an old lady in my street slipped on an ungritted pavement with ice & snow on it outside a local shop and broke her hip last winter while hundreds of thousands of able bodied people sat at home depressed, bored and disenfranchised smoking hash or watching Trisha. Yes give people a helping hand but make them do something in return that we they can feel proud of and nobody will view them as scroungers. Labour have built a bloated public sector so huge that many now feel that we need to make tens of thousands redundent or end up becoming more like a soviet style republic than a dynamic market economy; one in which the only way of advancement is party membership while the state sucks the life out of the nation replicating itself at every level like a paracitic virus until the host is dead.

The people will speak and i am confident that Brown will soon be a bad memory.

#32. Kevinb wrote:

"I understand that you hate the Conservatives...your choice"

I strive not to hate (unlike you?), but I am really concerned that the economic policies of the Conservatives as outlined in the pre-manifesto press releases will be both detrimental and counter-productive to the well being of the Nation in both the short and long term.

I also have concerns about Labour policies, however much as I dislike the timing of the Keynesian expansion I do see its benefits although putting off the evil day does not postpone it indefinitely. The private debt bubble will have to be tackled or the stagnation and elongated depression that will almost inevitably follow will make our country a less pleasant place to live in for many decades to come.

Vince Cable's ideas would be the most revolutionary. I hope for a Government of all the talents. The National Government of which I wrote about, and have been writing about for years, as the best way to take the unpleasant decisions, that are necessary to rescue this country.

A well put together article.it is obvious that there is not a lot new with the manifesto,but Labour admit to it themselves.

For a start no other party has come up with any sensible manifesto either.

I don't think the Conservatives have a clue about how to clear up the mess,they just are using motherhood statements to cover up their lack of any plan.

If Labour remain they can either make everything worse or slightly better, depending on luck.

But if the Conservatives are elected,we are going to have a really painful time while they try to implement all the ridiculous promises they are making during their campaign.

The whole industry leader support for the government to make savings is just a lot of nonsense.Compare what they are going to save with the annual government spend and it flies in their faces.

71 Tigerjay

Assets that could be sold off:

British Territories overseas such as Falklands, Ascension island and Diego Garcia are all islands that have immense military strategic value for foreign naval/air forces and in the case of the former large oil reserves. The Chinese and Indian governments would bid top dollar for Diego Garcia, but the yanks would be mightily peeved.

Our few remaining interests in Africa could be flogged to the Chinese especially if minerals are involved.

Our military expertise could be sold to the highest bidder - we have already done this as part of arms deals in the last decade.

I suspect that a lot of the debt could be repackaged and sold as "junk bonds" where certain banks make huge gains at the expense of the taxpayer. The US Gov has "form" in this.

Database Britain could be "sold" but I can't figure out the angle yet. The rush to digitalise everthing is unseemly, especially when the security and safety is nowhere near minimum standards. Example: remember chip and pin 4 years ago was the answer to fraud; now it is almost moribund. NB the very rich are moving back to paper only systems, and yet all governments are urging us all to go fully digital. Hmm, wonder who gets to keep their money and who loses the lot?

A radical move would be to sell off NHS equipment assets (e.g. MRI scanners etc) to foreign companies and the NHS Trusts would pay rent/fee to use them. A parallel to what happens with hospital buildings under PFI. Under Brown's mindset being in debt is good or at least thats the impression that comes across.

Of course none of thesed options are good for the nation or for world peace, but if you look at the last decade peace amongst all people and nations of the world has not exactly been Whitehall's number one priority has it?

#84
"You just can't/won't admit it, due to your bigotry"

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

Not bigotry just severe doubts. I would not rule out voting Conservative if they had some substance. I disagreed with most (not everything) of what Thatcher stood for but I would never accuse her of lacking substance or ideas.

Cameron is like Blair (the last great Conservative) without the policies, but with an even more odious grasp of PR and spin.

An example. Legal Aid for MPs. First it is part of the current legal system. Brown cannot pick up the phone and say 'PM here. No legal aid for these guys' - that may happen in a third world country. What does Cameron do, he gets up on his soapbox and works up the crowd despite the fact that his party opposed legal aid reform (making it means tested). The man is desperate; he knows the most likely outcome is a hung parliament. Who will Clegg go for; who will the LibDems go for.

Where is Grayling, is he hiding, is he a liability.

#81 Good post - well argued.

#82 Does not follow.

Bigot ? Please stop projecting your faults onto others.

#92
"I don't think the Conservatives have a clue about how to clear up the mess,they just are using motherhood statements to cover up their lack of any plan."

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

That is the scary bit.

This election is the most 'out of the frying pan into the fire' election ever.

Hoping for a hung parliament.

Bryn the Cat: In the past 13 years, Gordon Brown's idea of fiscal probity has been to borrow heavily in the good times, sell off our gold reserves at the lowest price, and rape our pensions. This government has created a generation of people for whom reliance on the state is an economic decision rather than a practical necessity. Too many young people have nothing to aspire to, so they channel their pent-up energy into gang warfare, leading to a massive increase in the murder of teenagers. I don't believe that those who are genuinely in need of support will be left behind. But I want to see the able-bodied being given every opportunity to rise out of their negativity and make a contribution. That's never going to happen under Labour, who prefer to subdue people by making them addicted to state subsidies.

91

It is almost impossible to make the situation worse, if you look at the facts

Sadly, too many people are just incapable of doing that

If you read the numbers, which you claim to, then I do not understand how you draw your cnclusions

92

What ridiculous promises?

Do you realise we have a deficit of £168bn?

Re 83 My figure of £70B is based on the current debt servicing charge which I calculate to be 4.7%. If we were to lose our AAA rating because of growth in debt and servicing charge rose to 6%, 70 would become £89B.
If I can do these calculations on a spread sheet, surely somebody in the treasury could teach AD to do something similar, or maybe they are all frightened to tell him the real truth.

94

I really can't follow your logic

Brown COULD and should have run the party better

The Labour MPs didn't appear in the dock, and tried to use parliamentary privilege, both quite disgraceful actions in my opinion

It should not even be a case that is defended

You attack Cameron on everything, every issue every time, which to me seems like bigotry

To call Blair a conservative is just crazy

None of his policies were in any way conservative

It would be more apt to call him a Republican and he was a poodle of the US, Bush in particular

I am no bigot, and your repetitive pseudo-psychology projection, is in itself projection

Grayling is a dead man walking, and as far as Cameron being opportunistic, I think he has done what a leader of the Opposition should be doing, particularly during an election

He is calling something as he sees it, and calling the government to account

You just won't admit he is ever right, and never will

Same with your childish comments about Osborne, although, if I recall, I called the NI story correctly BEFORE it happened, not that this is a convenient fact for you

I don't accept that a hung parliament is the most likely outcome, and neither do the bookies

It is certainly a possible outcome, although a slim Conservative majority is still the most likely

The debates will see Cameron out perform Brown, and I still think that a Brown implosion is very likely at some point during the three debates

Events could also turn against Brown, although they cannot have the same impact on Cameron, as he is not in power (yet)

There is far more substance and freshness about the Conservative manifesto than Labour's tired rehash...and as for an extra £100 for disabled children...wow..what is the point of that?

That and cycle parks at stations....