UKC

there ive said it. i hope they win.

In reply to thomasfoote: I hope they don't.

In reply to colin987: is it because you are a) a hippy or b) a communinst?

In reply to thomasfoote:

i hope they dont, it will give rise to a lot of horrible people who have for the last 10 years restrained themselves as they were on the back foot,

you watch them wankers come out of the woodwork,

In reply to thomasfoote: me too

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:

What are you wittering on about?

In reply to Great Scott:

kunts like you.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu: it simple, if you think labour should stay in power you should be shot for stupidity and misunderstanding the situation. if you think the liberals should get in you should be sectioned for insanity.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Bloody hell, are there still people out that believe there's anything to choose between the selfserving, moneygrabbing dross at Westminster?

In reply to thomasfoote:

I kind of hope they win... no doubt they will be terrible but it will give labour 4 years to re-group. In the last 4-5 years they have lost their way and would benefit from a few years out of government.

In the short term it will be harder for the coutry but in the long term beneficial

In reply to Paul F:

yes

In reply to thomasfoote:



Ah thanks, I have been waiting for someone to explain things to me in a perceptive and intelligent manner for years.
Tories it is then.

In reply to thomasfoote:

It is you who misunderstands the situation. You might be in line for some disappointment when they do get elected.

In reply to Paul F: and i hope they bring back hunting with dogs as well.

In reply to martin heywood: its either the tories, or Bob Ainsworth- your choice.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Isn't that just a tiny side issue to the challenges facing the country?

In reply to Swig: its not a tiny issue if you are a fox

In reply to Daithi O Murachu: Good god are there more Labour party cock ups , muck ups , lies to come even if they are in opposition?????

We have a tradition of looking back fondly at past governments - some how I don't think Blair and Brown will fit into that. Two illegal wars (lied to the population as to why we were there) , massive loss of civil liberties, financial melt down (don't worry it's our children who will be paying for it), NHS in crisis (It's safe in "our hands") , won't be the party of tax increase (so NI doesn't count?) etc etc

They were so right- "Britan deserves better" shame we didn't get it.

In reply to nomisb: im sure there is a saying about not being able to reason with a fool. cant remember what it was though...

In reply to thomasfoote:

I hope they spend their time on far more important issues that we have to deal in the present day than waste all these hours on such frivolous vote-chasing.

In reply to galpinos: parliament act anyone??

In reply to thomasfoote:



So, if I vote tory I will be able to hunt hippies and lefties?

In reply to martin heywood: with dogs.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:


I love a well-considered debate, have you considered appearing on Question Time?

In reply to nomisb:

It's difficult to entirely lay the blame for the financial meltdown (which probably could have been worse) at Labour's door.

The NHS is always characterised as "in crisis". In my recent experience it has been excellent however.

Some of your other points are quite reasonable though.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Sorry I'll stop.

In reply to thomasfoote:

No, it's either Liam Fox or Bob ainsworth, if they both retain their current positions.

Whilst I oppose New Labour, the Tories do not offer any credible alernative policies on the issues that matter to me.

If defence concerns you, then yes the Tories have said they will expand the military, and even hinted at being more aggresive, but where the money to do this will come from is anyones guess. I disagree with this policy anyway so will not be voting for them.

In reply to Swig:

Agreed. But a more conservative (unfortunate choice of word!) attitude towards the national economy as opposed to frivilous spending in times of plenty would have left us in a better/financially healthier position as a nation than we find ourselves in today.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):


This is entirely my position. Labour needs to be in opposition for a while. We have to hope that the Tories don't feck things up too much in the mean time.

In reply to nomisb:

My memories of the last Tory government are far from fond, and I don't think the north of England has ever really recovered.

In reply to Papillon: actually it'll be laim fox and a war cabinet, with regular opposition input. better i think than a thicky with a 'tache.

In reply to MttSnr: boo hoo. labour has fckud up more than a region. theyve fcked an entire country- which they have repeatedly tries to sell to europe lock stock and barrel.

In reply to thomasfoote:

ah would you have some evidence of them putting it up for sale?
How much were they asking for.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:

Nice.

I shall relish the day the Tories take power.

In reply to dissonance: its worth bugger all now matey.

In reply to thomasfoote:

was that how much they were asking for it?

In reply to galpinos:

Yes, Agreed. With the benefit of hindsight and all that.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:

"you watch them wankers come out of the woodwork,"

Invoking terrorism laws on our Nato ally Iceland over a private bank collapse is wankerish

Lying to the public about the truth behind going to war is wankerish

Inciting class war is a bit wankerish

selling gold at the bottom as it preceeded on a decade climb is a bit wankerish

taking away the tax break on dividends in pensions making us all poorer in later life was wankerish

keeping the inheritence tax threshold at a level where only studio flats in ASBO strongholds sell for was very wankerish

"no more boom and bust" - what sort of wanker would say that?

the same wanker that said this

"What you as the City of London, have done for financial services, we as a government intend to do for the economy as a whole."


Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, June 2002

In reply to Great Scott:

relish the day and regreat the rest of their term.

however im sorry over the direct insult, your political naiveté doesnt merit what i called you

In reply to MttSnr:

That's hilarious. The sheer level of delusion on the part of die-hard Labour supporters (or, should I say, Tory-haters) is astronomical. It's like the Flat Earth Society - stringently asserting the ridiculous in the face the massively overwhelming evidence.

Let me explain how it works: Labour f*ck the country up. The Conservatives pick up the pieces.

In reply to dissonance:

You're wasting your time reasoning with him.

David Cameron has already sent a team out from conservative head office to neutralise him before he convinces the masses on UKC not to vote for them.

In reply to Swig: no you cant call it hindsight, all the lefties have been banging on about tory boom and bust for the last 25 years, now all of a sudden a LABOUR government has presided over the biggest boom and bust in history. bollocks to hinsight

In reply to galpinos: Labour effectively removed from government control a very strong tool in regulating the economy by giving the B of E control over interest rates.

The writing was on the wall for the Banks quite a while ago - RBOS were our bankers for a number of years but their policy on growth was unsustainable ( anything at any cost) and the main driving force for me to switch to Barclays who were a lot more conservative. Other banks were in the same boat and after some pretty major bugger ups no real attempt to regulate or control the industry was implemented.

Labour enjoyed a period of finacial stability brought about directly as a result of the out going Torry government. It's a repeat of the 70's ( and 50's)- Torry hard choices and stability followed by Labour spending and chaos......

Yes the Torries can be a bit nasty but Labour have been no better - christ they are even making me think foundly of Maggie.....

In reply to thomasfoote:

No British territory is under attack from foriengn forces ( this is different to terrorism which we have lived with for decades), and the conflict we are involved in is under Nato command, which basically means Washington, so a war cabinet would be useless.

We need a governemnt with a good understanding of basic economics and numeracy, not a bunch of jingoistic morons. Unfortuneatley that rules out both Labour and Tories, and since they are the only realistic options, it aint looking good.

In reply to nomisb:

They removed a tool from government by getting rid of John Major.

In reply to Papillon: you misunderstand the meaning of war cabinet. i think you are thinking something else, perhaps command centre.

In reply to thomasfoote:

MONKEY GOVERNMENT!

All in favour?

In reply to bouldery bits: Aye!





significant improvement.

Easy Tiger, easy.

In reply to Michael Woods:


incorrect.
The law used was one updated to allow for use for anti terror laws but would have been available anyway.


yeah thank god no one else has ever done that.


lucky the tories wont do anything on those lines.


stupid but then so was blowing all the oil reserves to allow for massive unemployment.


on that grounds any taxes are a bad thing.


or alternative most of the country outside of the SE.



good point. The tories did a great job of pointing out the problems in how Labour were dealing with the city, well as long as you ignore the fact they thought the problem was not being lenient enough.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC): well she was, sort of.... dominant..

In reply to thomasfoote:

He's talking shite. The NATO effort in Afghanistan is currently commanded by the ARRC, which is commanded by a Brit.

In reply to thomasfoote:

A bust brought about by unregulated American capitalism. Which we've managed by propping up banks and trying to keep people in jobs.

The Tory response of letting the market resolve the problem would have led to economic and social collapse (which is really not where we are at atm).

In reply to MttSnr: whichever way you cut it we have a labour government with massive national debt, massive unemployment, social collapse has already started thanks to catastrophic policy failure after policy failure.

In reply to dissonance:

The whole class war, inverse snobbery thing is purely a Labour thing. You don't see the Tories criticising people because they grew up in a council house.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

PHEW thanks pulled me back there...

In reply to Great Scott:

Class war? Labour MP's who had a private education?

•Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood)
•Hugh Bayley (City of York)
•Hilary Benn (Leeds Central)
•Bob Blizzard (Waveney)
•Chris Bryant (Rhondda)
•Stephen Byers (North Tyneside)
•Charles Clarke (Norwich South)
•Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
•Jim Cousins (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central)
•Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West)
•Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)
•Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside)
•Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire)
•Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
•Barry Gardiner (Brent North)
•Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton)
•Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East)
•Peter Hain (Neath)
•Patrick Hall (Bedford and Kempston)
•Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
•Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
•John Healey (Wentworth)
•Margaret Hodge (Barking)
•Geoff Hoon (Ashfield)
•Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
•Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood)
•Sally Keeble (Northampton North)
•Ruth Kelly (Bolton West)
•Jim Knight (South Dorset)
•Ivan Lewis (South Bury)
•Martin Linton (Battersea)
•Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
•Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
•Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
•Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)
•John Mann (Bassetlaw)
•Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
•Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South)
•Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
•Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)
•Chris Mole (Ipswich)
•Julie Morgan (Cardiff North)
•Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West)
•Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)
•Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
•James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde)
•Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich)
•Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West)
•Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
•John Spellar (Warley)
•Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West)
•Howard Stoate (Dartford)
•Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
•Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)
•Kitty Ussher (Burnley)
•Keith Vaz (Leicester East)
•Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North)
•Michael Wills (Swindon North)
•Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central)
•Shaun Woodward (St Helens South)

In reply to Great Scott:

I mean it's not as if any of the Labour government went to a GOOD public school.......

In reply to Great Scott:

No it's you and the OP who are obviously confused between mititary and political organisations. Military organistations act at the behest of polititic entities, unless there is a coup. Nato is an alliance of countries under which ARRC (a military organisation) operates. It is inevitable that Nato policies are dominated by the US.

In reply to Papillon:

Listen pal, I've served in uniform in the Balkans, Middle East and Afghanistan. Don't try and tell me that I'm confused. You just look like an idiot.

While fed up with the current horrible lot, I remember the last time the rich peoples pressure group tried to run the country. Never again!

Such a shame that we have to chose between sh1te and sick. At least this time I live in an unpredictable constituency and have a meaningful vote. It will not be wasted on either of the conservative parties.

In reply to galpinos:

Don't think that, we were going through a closure/redundancy situation, and our MP(John (tosser) McFall) was invited to a meeting of various agencies to try to avert/reduce the impact of the situation. He DID turn up, but before the meeting could start he got a call that he was needed for the Fox hunting Vote, and he vanished without trace, with no follow up.
The place closed NO jobs were saved (maybe a few foxes have been, so that is ok then !)

In reply to Great Scott: I'm sorry but that probably means you are a good soldier, it doesnt mean you know much about international politics, wether you do or don't. If you don't like being contradicted then don't wade in.

In reply to Great Scott:

Ah!

You are the idiot formerly known as Rusty Nails and I claim my £5.

In reply to thomasfoote: F*ck me - how deluded are people on here that the Tories are going to make that much difference. Can anyone tell me a concrete Tory policy (not just some wishy-washy vague idea)?

I have no love at all for the current Labour Govt, but the idea that the Tories are going to make things better is just risible.

In reply to MJH: vote for the liberals then.

In reply to Great Scott:
>Listen pal, I've served in uniform in the Balkans, Middle East and Afghanistan. Don't try and tell me that I'm confused. You just look like an idiot.

Are you the poster previously known as blackadder?

In reply to thomasfoote:

If the Tories win, who's going to run the country? They obviously don't have the skills.

The last time they got in, they doubled VAT, driving taxation as a percentage of GDP to record levels, undermined the stability of the industrial economy within 9 months, destroyed strategic infrastructure (remember this when you are trying to get through the snow or the when the lights go out), and precipitated a war that claimed the lives of over 900 people of whom 255 were British.

What the UK needs is the sort of thing that is happening at Holyrood and Stormont: people working together for the good of the entire community.

In reply to MttSnr:

I've always thought that we should orchestrate a vote giving each of the main parties one term in office on a rota.
It always seems to be during their second term that they start to feck things up as they start to feel invincible.
One term at a time should limit the damage they can do and prevent the shift of power too far to the left or right.

In reply to Great Scott:

You've got to admire McDonalds rapid global expansion coupled with its excellent management training program :0)

In reply to thomasfoote:

People have short memories - that is, if they are old enough to really remember. Thatcher and her gang laid waste to the country and we are still paying the price.

Just because Labour are crap doesn't mean that another set of crap will sort it out.

In reply to teflonpete:


think part of the problem is since they stay in power until the bitter end once in opposition they waste most of the time infighting.
A decent opposition helps picks holes in policy and that hasnt been happening.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

totally amazed you can say ANY of that with a straight face. gobsmacked.

In reply to thomasfoote:
Are there any Tories in Camerons Conservative party? Quite frankly I don't think any of the major parties are doing a very good job of demonstrating their electability.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
A hung Parliament might mean the politicians for once might be forced to sit and debate with each other - come to the occasional compromise, like most of the rest of us have to do in the real world. First past the post is for racehorses only.
But the Westminster elite think PR is for the"Provinces" only.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Perhaps if at every election we vote in the opposition they'll spend all their time cancelling whatever initiatives the last government put in place and won't have the time to do too much actual damage.

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem - who cares, so long as we get rid of whichever bunch of bastards were last in?

In reply to dissonance:

Spot on there mate. Call me Dave was Blair's lapdog, trying too hard to learn how to be popular to be any use in opposition. He still hasn't got the hang of it now.

In reply to DWilliamson:
I was wondering how much cash I'd need to scrape together for a "Spoiled Ballot Party" or perhaps a party called something like "I do not wish to recieve any correspondence from this group or our affiliated organisations" which should get a few votes then just a quick campain on Facebook and I'll be able to give up the day job.

In reply to thomasfoote:

What? And have you campaigning to have me sectioned for insanity - I'd rather not if it is all the same.

My point is not so much about who to vote for, but rather this nonsensical tribalism that surrounds the 2/3 main parties.

In reply to thomasfoote:
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
I'll be voting anarchist as always

In reply to mbambi: i look forward to my local mcdonalds being torched

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:


i dont know it becomes popular for the opposition parties, although for some really weird reason once they get power by a decent majority it becomes a bad idea.
weird that

In reply to teflonpete:


he really is doing poor isnt he, with the state of Labour should be easy work.

on the plus side since that means labour are unlikely to be completely trounced they might mass a half decent opposition early on.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Run along and go play in the snow little boy.

In reply to MJH:


What is that about?

In reply to Paul F:

Actually, it's Burger King who have the US contract.

In reply to thomasfoote:

No its c) Because Im not a tw*t. (most of the time).

In reply to Jim Fraser: Don't worry - just a jibe about the OP's derogatory comment about the Lib Dems.

In reply to Jim Fraser: sorry number 11

In reply to Paul F:


Quite, it's obvious to all right thinking citizens that what is needed is a strong leader to save the nation... preferably with neat jack-boots and a sexy arse (leather clad). It's time to put an end to all this democratic nonsense, foisted on an unwary people by that anti-christ Cromwell.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Who? ;0P

In reply to teflonpete:

Oliver.

In reply to thomasfoote:
It makes no odds there is no discernable difference between the Tories and Labour these days.
I call myself a socialist by the way

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
he he nice post Bruce

In reply to teflonpete:


>> Or proportional representation

In reply to Jim Fraser:

So we should keep the current mob because they haven't done anything as bad as that have they? Especially not in precipitating illegal wars based on half-truths and dodgy statistics.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Sorry, but not an illegal war. Even the UN has admitted that.

Go sue them if you are so confident.

In reply to thomasfoote: I really don't. They have no substance to them what so ever. Gordon Brown might be dull fat and ugly but he is a competant and a good prime-minster IMO. David Cameron is smarmy git. As far as im concerned this should be a fight between the liberals and labour.

In reply to RickyJ634:

Competent? He's the most useless PM since 1945. He was useless as Chancellor as well. Personally I hope Labour don't get rid of Brown as keeping him guarantees they will lose the election.

In reply to peterd: i agree.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
driving taxation as a percentage of GDP to record levels,
hmmm...I vaguely seem to remember the Tories cutting overall taxes during their 18 years in office. Sure enough, in 1979 Government spending was 43% of GDP, whereas in 1979 it was 39%. (Source: UK Treasury).

but heigh-ho, lets not let mere facts get in the way of entrenched prejudice!

In reply to galpinos: like pissing north sea oil into the mouths of the rich? And flogging the family silver monopolies, now owned elsewhere &shafting us daily?
(nothing personal, btw!)

In reply to peterd: and one of thatcher's first act was doubling VAT!

In reply to thin bob: how about quite literally selling the family silver (well close enough, Gold)

oh hang on, that was labour...

In reply to thomasfoote: who do you think nicked your school milk, cut your student grant and made you pay for prescriptions?
Still, they will up the inheritance tax so people will millions already can keep them & breed voters.

In reply to thin bob:

Yep...to pay for Labour's rotten management of the economy. Nothing's changed in 30 years; all that pain and gain under the Tories pi**ed away by New Labour.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

You could well br right there. Number....not labour are a bit lost & smug..

In reply to thin bob: drank milk, never was a student, don't mind paying a token few quid for prescriptions and if you have half a brain cell you'll never pay inheritence tax.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Fck YES!!
First sensible thing I've read so far!

In reply to thomasfoote:

So you'd rather that unearned income didn't help the needy? Not that everyone that asks deserves it, mind...

In reply to thomasfoote:
Both the hippy movement and the communist ideal are much nobler ideas than modern conservatism. Admittedly I'm not sure the goals of either a) or b) have ever been successfully realised, but I'd far rather be branded either of these things than a tory.

In reply to thomasfoote:

If you ever develop that half brain cell perhaps it could be employed in learning to spell our language correctly.

In reply to thin bob:

I don't understand the concept of something that has been paid for after a person has paid tax on their earnings then being claimed by the state when they die.
If the state is going to inherit your estate when you die, then it should provide it while you're alive but the simple fact of the matter is that for anyone who is working and paying their own way, it doesn't.

In reply to thomasfoote:


Great, sounds like a proper tory party. Will they send the darkies back to Africa?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: As valid today as when first spoken.

'It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!'

In reply to peterd: That is a matter of opinion. In most academic circles he is actually considered the best chancellor this country as ever had. Sadly the banking crisis has been blamed on him which isn't entirely fair. The risks the bankers took would have been allowed by any chancellor in my opinion as there is a lot of pressure to succeed. Big risks mean big rewards. This is assuming Brown even knew that these risks were being taken. The ammount of debt this country is now in is unacceptable, but the problem is we start a riot if standards fall so they have no choice but to borrow. We are the ones who want grants for this and benefits for that, and less tax on this.

As a prime minister he has shown himself to be resilient and hard-working. Not being taken in by the vicious media garbage. I hope he hangs Cameron out to dry.

In reply to peterd:


There are various measures for this and all of the figures that were being published at the time were in a higher range than they are published now. I suspect we have moved to a different standard for these figures.

On one measure, the details of which I do not recall, but probably available form the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the highest peacetime spending by a whisker was a sharp peak in 75/76, falling back sharply in the late seventies before rising again in the Thatcher years.

By another measure, the 75/76 peak isnt quite as high and the Thatcher period 79/80 through to 86/87 gives us the peacetime record (so far). That is what I have referred to above and which was the widely understood situation in the early eighties for anyone who was paying attention.

The post war low was closely approached during the early Blair years. Now we are about to break all records due to the effects of the 'merchant bankers' and nobody can avoid it.

Thatcher basically shoved up taxes when she got in, paid some of that to various Tory favourites and paid the rest back to us in the income tax cuts later on, pretending that this was due to prudence and small government. It wasnt. It was due to taking money from us, saving it up for a few years and then drip-feeding it back to us.

the problem with politics is that regardless of who you vote for, the government always gets in..

but yes i will be voting 100% Tory, though were there a credible alternative further to the right i would go there. the state has become an absolute monster over the last decade.

In reply to RickyJ634:

The best chancellor this country has ever had. Don't know where you read that, was it on the Labour Party website? On just about every measure he has been a complete and utter disaster for this country. He's run up a record peacetime deficit, he's presided over the collapse of a large proportion of the British banking system, allowed a house price boom and bust, and also allowed UK pensions to deteriorate significantly. Oh and Brown should have understood the risks being taken by the banks. It's surely part of the Chancellors job to ensure their stability and regulate them effectively.

In reply to peterd:
all that pain and gain under the Tories pi**ed away by New Labour.

Surely there must be some refurbished/new schools and hospitals or medical centres around you? No NHS treatment centre in your area?
Perhaps we are lucky where I live.
Oh! and, again perhaps it's just around here, but just about every college/Uni has had massive infrastructure investment.
Mind you the NHS and education needed that investment after 18 years of under investment.
Lets hope that dosen't happen again.

In reply to Darron: And how much is on 'tick' aka PFI?

If the big problem surrounding education was the poot facilities and so on we'd be seeing a generation with outstanding levels of literacy and so on; sadly as anyone living in the real world will tell you standards have fallen away dramatically. Do you need a 'magic' interactive white board or just a blackboard, some chalk and a good teacher? My money is on the later.

As for the advances in the NHS, yes they've spent billions, much of it on IT systems that don't work and management consultants that are a waste of money. Anyone with a brain would expect outcomes to improve as medicines, technology (eg scanners) get better and cheaper and yet in real terms we've made less progress than comparable countries.

So in short all the investment has produced very little indeed. When we look back and ask, well was it worth it? The answer will be, sadly, no.

In reply to KTT:

I live in the real world and IMHO standards have improved, and are improving further, in education.

In reply to KTT:



If so it's because we're trying to catch up on decades of under investment & on lower tax rates than those other countries because realistic tax rates have been spun into being unacceptable in this country.
The two causes BTW of the current deficit.

In reply to thomasfoote:

God help us if they do !

In reply to rossh: Nope. I have never been on their website. I hate all the inter party conflict. It's mostly tit for tat and gets everyone no-where as any party will do anything to slander the other. Their website is probably full of it.

Gordon was an extemely successful Chancellor. So successful that everyone believed he had ended the boom crash cycle which is no mean feat. Turns out he didn't quite but I do not believe the latest crash was totally his doing.

As said before I believe that any chancellor would have run up that debt. If anything the debt is the responsibility of the whole government. It was the other ministers and departments that were spending that money! We still have relatively little debt in comparison with Japan, the US and most of Europe. I believe only Canada and Germany are the only major palyers who have significantly less debt.

I think you'll find that many banks may have struggled, been bailed out or taken over BUT this was not down to Gordon. It was poor management on the part of the banks managers. You realise that Brown didn't have a say over what every bank did and how it operated?

He did not 'allow' a house price boom and bust. Prices rise when people can afford to buy them, either because they are doing well or because they can borrow the money (bankers taking risks again). It's the same as any other consumer item. The price depends on how the market is doing.

UK pensions became a problem long before his time and now the only way to sort it out is through disappointing people. We have an ageing population and this will continue to be a huge problem for anyone in government. It is certainly not Brown's fault, though it's true he hasn't solved the problem by putting taxes on pension payments etc.

I don't really buy that it is all his responsibility although he makes a good figure head to blame. Government ministers have been demanding money left right and centre and if the order from above says that the money is needed but you don't have it you have to borrow. Sadly the banks have been managed by a bunch of greedy good for nothing people who seem to have escaped from the mess they have caused by saying they weren't regulated by the government. I expect most of them also campaign to privatise the NHS and want less government involvement. They are the ones who are primarily to blame.

Brown isn't perfect, but he isn't the devil many make him out to be. The point is he knocks the socks of Cameron.

Sorry that was a bit ranty and long!

In reply to RickyJ634: Gordon was an extremely good Chancellor, hhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa f--k me you're serious aren't you!

Everyone believed he had ended the cycle of boom and bust. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa oh shit, you mean it!

oh hell, I've just read the rest of your post, why not ask one of you're committee how to be a bit more credible?
http://www.dur.ac.uk/labour.club/Exec/

In reply to RickyJ634: pretty much sums up my feelings too....

In reply to KTT: and john major was better? Nigel and mr black wednesday lamont? FFS!

In reply to RickyJ634:

I've been trying to identify a sentence in your rant that is not simply nonsense but it's a bit of a struggle.
A couple of points; it is the Chancellor's responsibility to draw up a budget and allocate funds not the departmental ministers.They just make requests. The buck stops with him.
Your debt numbers are wrong.

In reply to thin bob:

You mean the policies that one G.Brown supported as shadow chancellor and then magically denied it?

In reply to kohsamed:

I do not agree with the Labour approach to managing the relationship between the individual and the state but I think the last decade has not been excessive in that regard. If you think that right-wingers do anything different then you are a fantasist.

The state was and absolute monster from the early forties until the late sixties. It was the Wilson Labour Government and the Heath Tories that finally dismantled the wartime controls.

In reply to RickyJ634:

Or he was a good con artist who engineered a very long boom, long enough for those only looking at the short term to agree he might have ended the cycle. The not so gullible believed and have been proven right that the boom was unsustainable and the larger the boom the deeper the bust...

The latest crash may not have been totally his fault but among developed countries we were the first in to recession and are among the last to start pulling out. What does this tell you about the strength of the UK economy after 10 years of the "UK's greatest ever chancellor"?


We have the fastest growing debt in Europe. From ONS statistics, since Gordon abandoned poor old Prudence in 2002, public sector debt has grown from just under 30% of GDP to 60% by the end of 2009 and is projected to pass 85% even assuming the govt succeeds in it's claim that the deficit will be halved in 4 years.


True.

Got to correct you there!
Gordon handed interest rates over to the BoE.
Gordon set a 2% inflation target for the BoE. No other measures allowed, inflation only to be taken into account.
Gordon changed the inflation index from RPI to CPI. This takes out costs associated with housing - council tax, mortgage costs etc. In effect by this move Gordon has removed the ability of the BoE to set interests rates to stop a house price boom.

CPI has been lower than RPI for the last decade. Probably due to the index focussing on consumer items that have become cheaper due to the massive globalisation of industry. It doesn't include things like council tax that goes up by 4 - 5% per year and of course house prices. Lower inflation figure - lower interest rates.

Net effect of this - cheap money! Money is cheap - people borrow more. People have more money to spend on an asset who's supply is limited (ie housing) - the price goes up. House prices are outside the BoE remit - they are legally not allowed to raise interest rates to bring the price boom under control.

You're telling me that someone with an allegedly massive intellect such as we are constantly told Gordon has, couldn't/didn't think that through?

Alternative scenario - Gordon engineers cheap money and a housing boom on the grounds that most people feel richer when the value of their house is increasing. When people feel wealthy they vote for the incumbent government. Hence two more election victories for a Government whose main solution was to throw money at problems and govern by soundbite. Unfortunately Tony hung on to the job of PM for 5 years longer than Gordon expected and he got the job when the sh*t was hitting the fan rather than having 5 years of being PM and handing it on to someone else last year.


True. Final salary schemes were wounded by failings in the actuarial forecasts in the 80's and 90's, allowing companies to take all those pension holidays. Gordon's tax grab really was taking the p*ss though for a government that claims to support aspiration and pretty much the coup de grace for most schemes.

In reply to thomasfoote:

I'm intentionally not going to look at your profile but I'm guessing you're younger than 30-40 and live south of Birmingham?

In reply to Cerulean: im 25 and im scottish

In reply to thomasfoote:

M8 corridor?

In reply to Cerulean: your point?

In reply to Cerulean: no not m8 corridor. are you trying to be clever. failing.

In reply to thomasfoote:

The Tories haven't changed their spots and the last time they were in the only genuine benefit came to the south of England and the existing wealth and traditional old money areas. Much of the rest of the UK was shafted by them.

In reply to Cerulean: everyone has been shafted by labour.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Oooh, who's a little prissy one then. Sorry love I didn't know it was that time.

In reply to Cerulean: sorry, just thought it was standard left wing class/area question. a bit like asking which school i went to.

In reply to chris j: >> I think you'll find that many banks may have struggled, been bailed out or taken over BUT this was not down to Gordon. It was poor management on the part of the banks managers. You realise that Brown didn't have a say over what every bank did and how it operated?

> True.

Ultimately it was Gordon's fault. The day to day responsibility for banking regulation is with the FSA, but Gordon established the FSA in it current incarnation and stated many times publicly that it should have a light touch.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Well it is a standard question, but there's a good reason for it, because it's valid.

What school you went to is a whole other matter. I was dragged-up in the struggling North in the 70s and 80s but went to Grammar School and now live in the south.

A person' s life history generally influences their views on the future...

In reply to Cerulean: and harriet harman has just plead guilty to driving while using a phone. 9 points on her license now. looks like the labour big shots have as much respect for the law as they do for the people of this country- f*ck all.

In reply to Papillon:

I wish more people would see this point. It takes only a pinch of understanding of human nature to realise that people will act to the absolute limits set, and sometimes beyond.

In reply to thomasfoote: that last post wasn't a reply to your last message.

i see the point of you asking where im from.

In reply to chris j:

I tried

My final line I will repeat. He knocks the socks of Cameron.

I will now bow out as I have displayed all I have as far as trying to sound credible is concerned.

Please don't vote tory. Lib Dems, Green or UKIP would all be far better choices if you can't bring yourself to support the current government.

In reply to RickyJ634: UKIP, what a great call. thats the least constructive thing that anyone will say anywhere on these forums today.

In reply to Cerulean:


The problem with this is people dont see the human nature bit and hence whinge about "red tape", "excess regulation", "nanny state" etc.
After all the torys were cheerleading reducing regulation even further.
Its a bit of a difficult situation when you are relying on people voting for you (that said wish he had found some guts on this issue and not on waging random wars but thats life).

In reply to thomasfoote:

The Tories are dead in Scotland will remain so for a generation. They were miles off on the devolution argument and continue to drag their old and tired feet up to the current day. A Tory vote in Scotland is totally wasted vote.

In reply to RickyJ634: Yeah, the playing fields of Eton really blew Cameron and his question about the £170Bn deficit this year away, socks and all.

brown can't even govern the cabinet, how can we expect him to rule the Labour Party let alone lead the country?

In reply to KTT: we can't.

In reply to thomasfoote:

Out of curiousity I thought I'd try & find the truth behind all these 'huge tax burden under Labour claims'.

I found this
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-051.pdf

On Page 12 there is a graph showing Net taxes and social security contributions as per cent of GDP from 1978 - 2006.

Assuming I've done the numbers correctly I make the mean tax burden
79-90 (ie under Thatch) to be 37.02%
& 97-2005 (ie under Blair) to be 37.12%

ah the poor country groaning under the burden of that extra 0.11% taxation and all we get back is a working NHS, trains running on time (well at least more of the time) , low unemployment etc etc.

How the **&%^ have the Tories managed this con-trick of branding themselves the party of low taxation? & what were they doing with all that money cos they certainly weren't spending it?

In reply to i.munro: well judging by your figures, the tories are the party of low taxation.

In reply to i.munro:

Care to quantify those as well for comparison - I doubt that the trains are much better (if at all) compared to BR.

In reply to MJH: and the unemployment?

In reply to i.munro:

Because between 1997 - 2006 the UK tax burden increased by 2.2% to 37.1%? This would suggest that by 1997 the Tories had managed to reduce tax levels to approx 35%.

So 20 years for the Tories to manage to bring taxes down and in 9 years Labour have them back at previous levels? QED.

Incidentally this 2.2% increase while the rest of the EU managed to reduce their taxes by 0.8% on average.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snep-03235.pdf

In reply to thomasfoote:

Why is it you think that hardly any of you (Scottish) countrymen think the Tories are any good?

In reply to Donald M: a lot of the younger ones do ( i cant speak for all of them though)

In reply to i.munro:
Nice argument alas the reasoning is flawed. The figures quoted do not include the hidden taxes that creep into everyday life, indeed those that made old GB famous.

As for say, trains running on time ...that has been through a reorganisation and re-prioritisation of the company (i.e. Network Rail). Government funding itself has been cut in real terms over the last few years with the improvement in deleivery being driven through better management and efficiencies. For example the company has reinvented itself as an engineering company rather than a management company! Who would have thought?!

MOral of the story is don't believe what the papers say (or politicians for that matter).

The problem with a lot the additional funding to public services is that efficinecy has reduced rather than increased, so improvements have been made but not to the proportion that would have been made had the services been better managed.

Given that there is bugger all money left in the coffers I would suggest taht the best way to safegard public services would be to improve efficiency. Lets start with a public sector pay freeze? ...any better ideas?

In reply to thomasfoote: currently I will be voting tory, if gordon gets the boot i will vote labour.

I cant imagine Im alone in that view, how the rest of the labour party cant see that is beyond me.

In reply to fxceltic: you raise an interesting point, but do you think there is enough collective will within the party to oust gordon? it seems like several attempts have been made and none have been succesful.

In reply to thomasfoote: No, most of the Labour party know they need a period in opposition. The serious contenders for next Labour pm won't want to stand now, they know they will never get a majority, and they'll have to deal with the economic mess.

In reply to thomasfoote: if i was a labour MP and wanted to save my job i would do whats necessary to win the next election, including ousting that buffoon.

it cant be that hard, theyre all just pussys.

In reply to Papillon:

this is probably a fair point.

I'd take an unserious contender at this point though, still.

In reply to Donald M:

Let them waste them Donald. We need to know who the enemy are!

In reply to fxceltic: a milliband?

In reply to Frodo:

Great idea assuming you don't work at the lower end of the pay scale in the public sector...

Why do people assume that it is the right thing to freeze public sector wages when times are hard? That isn't an efficiency saving unless they are genuinely being overpaid, which is possibly only true for those in the higher levels.

In reply to thomasfoote: I don't think there is much chance of GB being ousted - Labour Party rules appear to make that v difficult - impossible to achieve.

Having said which with the right leader/policies (though I don't really know who that would be) I think Labour could still force a hung Parliament. Even with a sizable lead in the polls the Tories are still worried the swing will not be sufficient to give them a majority.

In reply to thomasfoote: yeah why not, ed this time round to keep the seat warm for his brother.

or perhaps Balls. That would make me laugh.

In reply to MJH: Why not?

Inflation is relatively low. I'm now on my second year of a pay freeze, from a company that isn't doing that bad and is relatively succesful. This affects everyone in the company.

If its ok for the Private sector why not the public sector?

The problem with freezing pay for the high earners only is that is doesn't actually make much difference? A pay freeze for all does actually make a big difference.

In reply to MJH:

the thing is they dont have to oust him, but if it becomes clear the majority want him to step down then maybe he would (as with Blair, I think?). Thats improbable though as hes unlikely to do the decent thing given the craven way he coveted the position before he got it...

In reply to Frodo:

indeed, where did this concept that your pay should automatically increase each year come from? Alien to me.

In reply to Frodo:

Well that really depends on how you calculate inflation, but even if it is only 0.5 - 1% then that still means cost of living is increasing.

>I'm now on my second year of a pay freeze, from a company that isn't doing that bad and is relatively succesful. This affects everyone in the company.

Then you should be asking where the profit is going.


I don't think it is right for the private sector. Inflation being low can be used as an excuse not to pay people better.


That depends entirely on what you call high and the balance of where salaries go. I still don't understand why you think it is acceptable to freeze the pay of the lowest paid whilst inflation is positive.

In reply to fxceltic:

That isn't what I said.

In reply to MJH: The reality is that wages have been rising artificially high for the past few years. In order to balance the books costs have to stabilise if not fall.

My company has stated that to maintain competitiveness it has to implement a pay freeze. No i'm not happy, especially as I've worked hard and was epecting a promotion and significant pay rise. On the plus side I have a job which pays the mortguage and in reality I could be a lot worse off.

The main point is if a pay freeze is acceptable in the private sector why should it not be acceptable in the public sector. I have very little sympathy with the big unions on this issue.

In reply to Frodo:

Artificially high compared to what? And from what starting point? For example teachers were poorly paid when Labour took over and have had decent increases - to the point where you could argue that they should have a pay freeze, but that is only one part of the public sector and the situation across the public sector is hugely varied.


Sorry but individual circumstances are not representative of the whole of the private or public sector. Surely a more sensible attitude in your company's position is to reward those that deserve it, though I think that is different from any cost of living increases.


Have you any evidence at all that there has been a general pay freeze in the private sector? Sure individual private companies may have pay freezes but that is very different to the whole sector (which is what you are arguing for).

>I have very little sympathy with the big unions on this issue.

You don't have to be a fan of unions (I am not) to realise that the poorest paid in society (public or private sector) are the people least able to cope with a pay freeze when there is any sort of inflation...

In reply to MJH:


The difference is that the Government does actually have control of the public service pay settelements. The only fair way at this point in time is a freeze for all, although again reward for those that have done well shoudl not be ruled out.

At most a cost if living increase in line with RPI could be considrered, which in reality does not amount to much graeter than zero.

With regards to the private sector a great many companies have been instigating pay freezes. There have been some that have instigated pay reductions. In the grand scheme of things I am grateful that I am not one of those. It is a luxury within the public sector to know that the company will never go bust! Although I would accept that job security can only be similar to the private sector in these times.

In reply to Frodo: To clarify RPI 0.3% for last figues in November after being negative for the previous 8 months. Not really a cut in living standards is it?

In reply to Frodo: Except (conveniently for the Govt, not so for the householder) RPI does not include cost of housing.

In reply to MJH:

Figures from the ONS so it must be true...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sect...

Apparently the average public sector worker is now 7% better off than the average private sector bod, pay is now rising at 2.8% as opposed to 1.1%, works 2 hours less per week, enjoys 3 - 4 extra days of holiday, receives employer pension contributions worth 19% of salary as opposed to 6% in the private sector, retires at 58 rather than 65, takes 9.7 sick days a year as opposed to 6.4 and crucially, public sector productivity has fallen by 3.4% over the last 10 years as opposed to private sector rising by 28%.

During last year 44000 public sector workers were made redundant (though the total number employed rose by 47000) as opposed to 700000+ private sector workers in the first 3/4 of last year.

Doesn't mean that individual public sector workers aren't being shafted, but their position is probably a lot more rosy than most are willing to admit.

In reply to MJH:

Yes it does, CPI (which is the official inflation figure the BoE is told to use) doesn't.

In reply to Frodo:

So because the Govt has control of the public sector then that just makes it an easy target for the likes of you without thought to the implications?

>The only fair way at this point in time is a freeze for all

You clearly have a different definition of fair to me...

>although again reward for those that have done well shoudl not be ruled out.

Well make your mind up...which is it to be - pay freeze for all or only some?


Glad we agree on that possibility...


Which is far from the same as ALL...

>It is a luxury within the public sector to know that the company will never go bust!

No but you can at a stroke be removed from existence should the Govt of the day decide you are surplus to requirement...eg as the Tories are proposing with many of the NDPBs

In reply to MJH:


I.E. a payrise / bonus for those that are performing and none for those taht are not or just average.


So we can agree that a 0.3% payrise would be accpetbale (based on the latest availbel figures for RPI).


And this is different from the private sector in precisely just what way?

In reply to chris j: None of which is evidence to say there has been a pay freeze in the public sector....

The figures you are quoting are averages across very disparate jobs - so hardly a like for like comparison is it?

In reply to Frodo: How many private sector companies are removed from existnece by the result of a general election - directly by the Govt (and not indirectly)?

In reply to MJH:


that most of the lowskilled jobs in the public sector have been outsourced gives a nice bias for starters.

In reply to MJH:

There my friend you have it. The indirect consequence of government decisons can have dramatic consequences for private suppliers and consulatncies.

This is not really the issue at hand though is it?

In reply to Frodo: Of course it does and that isn't at doubt, but as you say - it isn't what we were talking about.

In reply to RickyJ634:

Here's an outsiders assessment of our economy

http://tinyurl.com/ycw42lu

I don't think a mere successful chancellor would leave us in this mess!

In reply to MJH:

That would be my point - there hasn't.


and quoting from one of your earlier posts...


So you don't want to accept individual examples of pay freezes and reductions in the private sector and you don't want to accept national average figures that pay is rising slower in the private sector than the public sector. Let me guess, you work in the public sector, don't you?

But as another individual example which you will undoubtedly dismiss - I've taken a 40% pay hit this year from a combination of day rate decreases and simple lack of work. Given the mess the public finances are in, it would be encouraging to see the public sector willing to take some of the pain. You seem unwilling to accept anything that says life can't continue for you just as it did through the boom. If you are representative of public sector attitudes no wonder we have such a large structural deficit and no politician is willing to talk the talk about what we need to do to sort it out.

It will have to be sorted out and it would be better for it to be done sooner rather than later - research has suggested that a short sharp shock will mean the economy returning to growth sooner than the 8 year drift that Darling is suggesting, even if it is harder for many in the short term. And if the politicians don't sort it out then sooner or later the markets will demand it, as with Ireland and Greece.

In reply to thomasfoote:

I am a socialist , hourly paid and i work in the private sector. These figures quoted from the ONS about the massive differences between public and private sector benefits and performance etc have really thrown me.
The company i work for has gone from 250 employees in late 2007 to 75 with 3 rounds of awful pay offs and 6 months struggling to pay bills on a 29 hr week .
The employees that are left are expected to share the work previously done by those that had to take a walk down the road , we also had to surrender two days holiday to show our parent company we would do what it takes to cut costs . Ok volumes have dropped considerably but we are working much much harder than ever ,it really is frantic and i am cream crackered every worknight and if im ill i will phone up and take a holiday rather than take off company time to help save money .
I am very fortunete to still have a job but when i see how easy the people who i pay taxes to are getting it it makes me rather annoyed.

In reply to chris j:
There is the public sector and there is the public sector. Certainly there are those in the public sector who blithly go on earning top wack (much like those in the private sector ie bankers) but those low down in the public sector are currently facing redundancy and loss of earnings so it isn't all chocolates and roses.

In reply to chris j: Oops should have course have said la k of evidence of pay freeze in private sector.

And fwiw I most definitely work in the private sector and I have seenlittle evidence in my or friends lines if work to suggest pay freezes. The private and public sectors are so disparate both to each other and even within that sector that crass and wide sweeping generalisations are meaningless.

The fact remains that the poorest paid (whether in public or private sector) are the people who can least afford generalised pay freezes.

In reply to chris j: Ps you seem unable to understand that average figures are not evidence of pay freezes or that if you compare average wages across different jobs then it becomes meaningless. It is like railing against one profession being paid more than another - if you don't like it and it bothers you that much then change jobs.

In reply to MJH:

Good for you. What line of work are you in? If this year is like last I'll be needing a career change.


That's blindingly obvious.


You've misread my arguments. I and others gave examples of individual jobs where there has been pay freezes. I then gave figures to suggest that across the private sector as a whole pay is rising slower than the public sector as a whole. Nowhere did I say that the whole of either sector was subject to a pay freeze; this would indeed be rubbish. I was using the figures to suggest than conditions in general are harsher in the private sector than the public sector at the present. Obviously there are exceptions but generalisations can be made without them being meaningless.

You seem to suggest that despite the dire state of the public finances, there is no reason why public sector workers should receive a pay freeze or cut. I would be very interested to hear how you think the deficit should be brought back under control without this or mass redundancies in the sector.

Though given the generalised productivity figures from the ONS, if public sector productivity on average had increased at the same rate as in the private sector we could either get by with 2/3 the number of public sector employees we have now (which could mean more people setting up private companies, inventing things the world wants to buy and therefore generating income and tax revenue and also a lower tax burden to pay for the public services) or blindingly good services for the same money we are paying now!


I'm not railing against pay inequalities, simply stating that conditions in the industry I work in have worsened and if they don't improve I will need to find another job, simple as that. If I am railing against anything it is that public spending needs to be reduced and while people agree that is the case very few seem prepared to accept any of the inevitable consequences of that.

In reply to chris j: None of which is what I said but don't let that stop you. For the sake of clarity I siad that a general public sector pay freeze is a crude tool to use for such a wide and varied sector given the implications for those at the lowest paid end of the scale. That is very different from saying that there should be no pay freezes or cuts if targetted.

In reply to MJH:

So you do agree that there is a need to reduce the costs of public sector employment, either by targeted pay freezes or cuts or by improvements in productivity and reduction in head count? You just don't think it should be aimed at poorer workers. Amazingly for UKC I think a point of agreement has been reached!

In reply to chris j: Yes, I do!

In reply to thomasfoote: if you ask them nicely tehy may even let you be the fox