The General Election Thread

[SWP's back]

By the fact that you seem to believe that it was only the 'global capital markets' and that the UK's position was not made much worse by Brown and Balls.

You must not have listened to the ample evidence - or choose to listen to Balls's bullocks - anyway your choice. As I say it is easier

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

 

[DelToro]

By the fact that you seem to believe that it was only the 'global capital markets' and that the UK's position was not made much worse by Brown and Balls.

You must not have listened to the ample evidence - or choose to listen to Balls's bullocks - anyway your choice. As I say it is easier

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

Which Western economy wasn't in the shit?

 

[The perfect fumble]

By the fact that you seem to believe that it was only the 'global capital markets' and that the UK's position was not made much worse by Brown and Balls.

You must not have listened to the ample evidence - or choose to listen to Balls's bullocks - anyway your choice. As I say it is easier

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

The budget deficit was nothing out of the ordinary prior to the crash, either historically or in comparison to other advanced industrial nations, post crash he borrowed to mitigate the effects.

Brown and Darling were praised around the world for their reaction to the crash. It was only when Cameron and Clegg got in that the narrative became all about the deficit and how it was all about welfare and the poor.

That narrative remains, it's a lie of course, but because the election will be fought on the deficit and nothing else I suspect now, for the first time, that the Tories will scrape through as the largest party.

 

[mcfc1632]

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

There has been plenty of evidence put forward - including comments on this forum, but in the main it is just shouted down by some posters on here that simply want to drown out 'dissenting voices'. This is why I struggle to call up the energy to debate on here - few people do debate, just state what they do not know as if they were facts. They seem to work on a basis of the more they post it the more it will be accepted - even if they do not actually know any facts.

I am not suggesting you are one of these BTW.

I am fortunate to be someone that does know some facts - and I am not some dyed in the wool Tory. I come from a comprehensively Labour voting background.

Whilst not wanting to get into a 'to-ing and fro-ing' of posts some facts that I do know are:

* Brown adopted use of PFI to extreme levels and 'enforced' its use to 'disguise' debt - he mandated its use across government even when there were clearly cheaper funding options available

* Business cases for large PFI schemes were 'developed' in such a manner that they brought forward a recommendation on the option that Brown wanted - i.e. PFI. Sometime there had to be a lot of massaging (sorry refinement) to get the right answer that meant that Treasury could approve.

* The Terms & Conditions for large PFI contracts were 'developed' to ensure that the interests of the private companies and their bankers were utterly protected - even to the point where if contracts had to be terminated through contractor incompetence - then the government generally still had to pay them compensation!!!

* The FSA became incapable of being tough on financial institutions. Generally whenever they tried all the organisation, say a bank, had to do was make a phone call and fret about loss of influence from London to Frankfurt - then the FSA was instructed to 'soften'

And many more such examples - and these are facts.

Yes there was a global financial crisis and poor regulation was a significant factor. At such times you do not behave in the reckless way Brown and Balls did. There is a saying - "when in a hole - stop digging' - they ignored that totally and just splurged. The details of some of these PFI contracts have on going consequences - which will hamstring us for a generation(or two) - no matter who gets in..

I was fortunate that these policies provided good business outcomes for people like me - but they fucked the economy - 5 years of Balls in a repeat act!! Scary.

And I say this as a man from a Labour background - I desperately want Labour to put forward a credible economic plan - but they do not have seemed to have learned and likely just to set us back again.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I accept you have access to information etc and I will not argue with what you have identified and the conclusions you have drawn from it. PFI was never the panacea that politicians of several parties claimed that it was.

In the great scheme of things I think it is dwarfed by bigger events, bigger philosophies and the impact of unfettered (or very loosely fettered) global money markets.

Chabal - thanks for a measured reply. I was in positions where I knew these things to be facts.

I agree with the thrust of your points regarding 'loose regulation' of financial industry and I would not wish to portray that Brown's obsession with keeping things off balance sheet so more and more could be borrowed was the 'primary reason' for the precarious predicament of 2010 - which was much worse than most people appreciate.

What concerns me is the 'judgement' demonstrated by Brown and Balls in the 2000 - 2007 period. They were in charge of setting the UK economic strategy and then the management of the economy to steer our way through.

All comparisons on this subject are crass, but when seafarers see a massive storm coming they stay in port or batten down the hatches - not charge ahead on full sail. When you are out of work and have no new income identified you do (or at least should not) book a world cruise etc.

I know these are trivial examples but Brown and Balls showed equally bad judgement on a national scale and fucked up the economy for a protracted period. You will notice that I place the responsibility firmly with Brown and Balls and not more widely with Labour, although Blair making Brown wait also had an impact. There was a need for medicine and the approach the Tories took has proved to be the right sort of medicine for the illness we had at the time - more of the same from Balls would have been terminal.

I do not give them full credit though - for me it also has to be viewed that the medicine necessary at the time matched the Tory ideology. There is danger in going too far in any ideological direction. I would be concerned that Osborne might risk the patient through such focus, but that concern fades when compared to my utter belief that Balls's lack of credentials and his proven incapability is a serious risk to our country.

I have also worked at the top levels of DH and the NHS and I would say that the issues with a number of key areas of government business, and most specifically the Health and Social Care sector, is that the approach needed for their strategy and management is totally at odds with the UK electoral process. For the NHS there needs to be a 10 – 20 year strategy and the management capability and freedom from political interference to implement it. Proper governance arrangements should be in place to ensure that there are controls & regulation – but this continuous fucking about with the NHS every time a new government comes in is pathetic – and again just sets everything back and diverts so much money from service through ‘management changes’

You read on here posts about the NHS that are so ill-informed – but that is another topic I guess.

For me it would be better to place management of areas that need the implementation of long term strategies under central controls that can be proof against the vandalism that happens at every change of government, with all parties causing change upon change. The NHS is certainly one example – for me so is the economy, there are others.

 

[inbetween]

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

The budget deficit was nothing out of the ordinary prior to the crash, either historically or in comparison to other advanced industrial nations, post crash he borrowed to mitigate the effects.

Brown and Darling were praised around the world for their reaction to the crash. It was only when Cameron and Clegg got in that the narrative became all about the deficit and how it was all about welfare and the poor.

That narrative remains, it's a lie of course, but because the election will be fought on the deficit and nothing else I suspect now, for the first time, that the Tories will scrape through as the largest party.

Blair gave the man who precided over the largest UK corporate loss in history a knighthood, let's not forget that. They held power over a regulatory system which allowed the banks to do what they wanted. They were in power and they were very much responsible for what happened. Today's deficit is a result of a mixture of irresponsible spending at a time when money became so short. Of course the election will be fought on the deficit, it is the reason we are seeing so many cuts, you can't spend money you don't have, many Labour voters need to realize that Labour will increase taxes to pay for everything they plan, that is money out of your own pocket.

A Conservative majority will see those cuts continue but also according to forecasts result in rapid increases in public spending by the end of the next parliament. At the same time though we pay less tax, petrol is at an all time low and there are hundreds of jobs available. All Ed proposes is rebalancing the economy by handing out money to dole dossers and us tax payers will be paying for it. A return to a world owes me everything, socialist, Labour governed state, no thanks.

 

[Len Rum]

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

The budget deficit was nothing out of the ordinary prior to the crash, either historically or in comparison to other advanced industrial nations, post crash he borrowed to mitigate the effects.

Brown and Darling were praised around the world for their reaction to the crash. It was only when Cameron and Clegg got in that the narrative became all about the deficit and how it was all about welfare and the poor.

That narrative remains, it's a lie of course, but because the election will be fought on the deficit and nothing else I suspect now, for the first time, that the Tories will scrape through as the largest party.

Blair gave the man who precided over the largest UK corporate loss in history a knighthood, let's not forget that. They held power over a regulatory system which allowed the banks to do what they wanted. They were in power and they were very much responsible for what happened. Today's deficit is a result of a mixture of irresponsible spending at a time when money became so short. Of course the election will be fought on the deficit, it is the reason we are seeing so many cuts, you can't spend money you don't have, many Labour voters need to realize that Labour will increase taxes to pay for everything they plan, that is money out of your own pocket.

A Conservative majority will see those cuts continue but also according to forecasts result in rapid increases in public spending by the end of the next parliament. At the same time though we pay less tax, petrol is at an all time low and there are hundreds of jobs available. All Ed proposes is rebalancing the economy by handing out money to dole dossers and us tax payers will be paying for it. A return to a world owes me everything, socialist, Labour governed state, no thanks.

Have you ever done a 5 year business plan?
The current year and following year usually reflect reality. Five years out and it's fantasy land when everything looks rosy Hence the Tory promise that in five years time.there will be rapid increase in public spending.
If you're taken in by that, then I'm not surprised you've been taken in by the rest of their 'promises'.

 

[yerwot?]

"A Conservative majority will see those cuts continue but also according to forecasts result in rapid increases in public spending by the end of the next parliament. At the same time though we pay less tax, petrol is at an all time low and there are hundreds of jobs available. All Ed proposes is rebalancing the economy by handing out money to dole dossers and us tax payers will be paying for it. A return to a world owes me everything, socialist, Labour governed state, no thanks."

A paragraph that proves the power of the right-wing media propaganda.
"Rapid increases in public spending?". Now that would be a truly remarkable thing to behold, a party ideologically opposed to public spending suddenly spending money on public works.
Claiming petrol is cheaper due to Tory influence is not worth discussing, it's so ridiculous.
"Hundreds of jobs available" hundreds? thank goodness, our troubles are over. Fuckin ell.
"Handing out money to dole dossers". According to the chancellor there are now less than 3 million claiming unemployment benefit, £59 per week x 3m is not even half of one percent of the tax take. "Us taxpayers" will have a field-day when that saving is passed on.
" The world owes me everything" is a cap that fits better on those who employ advisers to find ever more arcane ways to avoid paying their taxes, from bogus charities in Bulgaria to off-shoring bank accounts, and no doubt countless other schemes. But that's ok because window cleaners and gardeners work for cash-in-hand. Well that's how the mail portrays the situation.
In the entire history of the conservatives, they have never ever committed to a well-paid well educated population, in fact they are committed to the opposite. Illustrated so bleakly by the plight of the poor during the industrial revolution.
More "rule by the rich, for the rich" . No thanks, Ive seen the slums in India and I don't fancy that for some reason. Fabulous wealth for a fraction of the population, hopeless never-ending deprivation for the rest. Truly a tory dream come true

 

[kas_tippler]

I much prefered The General Erection Thread

 

[Rascal]

Interesting survey in the MEN today.

It is pleasing that Manchester remains broadly Socialist, which begs the questions where do all you Tory twats live and are we becoming like the rags?

 

[whp.blue]

Interesting survey in the MEN today.

It is pleasing that Manchester remains broadly Socialist, which begs the questions where do all you Tory twats live and are we becoming like the rags?

Most of the Tories live in the suburbs and only visit the centre of Manchester where the great unwashed socialists live when they have to so they wont show up on the MEN survey PS it is the MEN when all said and done so it is probably made up bollocks anyway.

 

[SWP's back]

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

The budget deficit was nothing out of the ordinary prior to the crash, either historically or in comparison to other advanced industrial nations, post crash he borrowed to mitigate the effects.

Brown and Darling were praised around the world for their reaction to the crash. It was only when Cameron and Clegg got in that the narrative became all about the deficit and how it was all about welfare and the poor.

That narrative remains, it's a lie of course, but because the election will be fought on the deficit and nothing else I suspect now, for the first time, that the Tories will scrape through as the largest party.

No, you don't understand. He ran a deficit during sustained growth.

That goes against Keynesian economic theory and Brown being profligate meant the cuts had to come harder and faster than they otherwise could have done.

 

[SWP's back]

Which ample evidence?

There was an international financial crash.

Was that the fault of the Labour government?

The Labour government must bear responsibility for not regulating the markets tightly enough. Unfortunately they did not repeal the deregulation of the Tory Government in 1987.

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

Which Western economy wasn't in the shit?

So you agree he was fooling to run a deficit during those years?

Or will you just ask another question?

 

[TCIB]

One day i will have enough cash to employ a sweep.

Atm i have a camp accountant with a miniture poodle that runs around your feet when you drop in to see him.
You don't see him though because he is always in barbados on my meagre pennies, nah he is a sound lad tbf and his receptionist/assistant is a die hard blue.

 

[Rascal]

[quote="SWP's back"

That goes against Keynesian economic theory and Brown being profligate meant the cuts had to come harder and faster than they otherwise could have done.[/quote]

Osborne has also ignored Keynes, who advised public investment and tax cuts in an economic downturn. He cut investment and raised VAT.

Fact is Keynesian thinking has been overtaken by Hayek and Friedman. Neo-Liberalism rules the economic roost with all its associated small state ideology. Thats the real reason for this mindless austerity.

You being a bright lad must see the lies that have been spouted so this course of action can be undertaken.

 

[mcfc1632]

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

The budget deficit was nothing out of the ordinary prior to the crash, either historically or in comparison to other advanced industrial nations, post crash he borrowed to mitigate the effects.

Brown and Darling were praised around the world for their reaction to the crash. It was only when Cameron and Clegg got in that the narrative became all about the deficit and how it was all about welfare and the poor.

That narrative remains, it's a lie of course, but because the election will be fought on the deficit and nothing else I suspect now, for the first time, that the Tories will scrape through as the largest party.

No, you don't understand. He ran a deficit during sustained growth.

That goes against Keynesian economic theory and Brown being profligate meant the cuts had to come harder and faster than they otherwise could have done.

You would think that it would not be difficult to understand wouldn't you. "There are none so blind............"

 

[Mustard Dave]

Interesting survey in the MEN today.

It is pleasing that Manchester remains broadly Socialist, which begs the questions where do all you Tory twats live and are we becoming like the rags?

Denton, and before that, Audenshaw.

 

[Len Rum]

There has been plenty of evidence put forward - including comments on this forum, but in the main it is just shouted down by some posters on here that simply want to drown out 'dissenting voices'. This is why I struggle to call up the energy to debate on here - few people do debate, just state what they do not know as if they were facts. They seem to work on a basis of the more they post it the more it will be accepted - even if they do not actually know any facts.

I am not suggesting you are one of these BTW.

I am fortunate to be someone that does know some facts - and I am not some dyed in the wool Tory. I come from a comprehensively Labour voting background.

Whilst not wanting to get into a 'to-ing and fro-ing' of posts some facts that I do know are:

* Brown adopted use of PFI to extreme levels and 'enforced' its use to 'disguise' debt - he mandated its use across government even when there were clearly cheaper funding options available

* Business cases for large PFI schemes were 'developed' in such a manner that they brought forward a recommendation on the option that Brown wanted - i.e. PFI. Sometime there had to be a lot of massaging (sorry refinement) to get the right answer that meant that Treasury could approve.

* The Terms & Conditions for large PFI contracts were 'developed' to ensure that the interests of the private companies and their bankers were utterly protected - even to the point where if contracts had to be terminated through contractor incompetence - then the government generally still had to pay them compensation!!!

* The FSA became incapable of being tough on financial institutions. Generally whenever they tried all the organisation, say a bank, had to do was make a phone call and fret about loss of influence from London to Frankfurt - then the FSA was instructed to 'soften'

And many more such examples - and these are facts.

Yes there was a global financial crisis and poor regulation was a significant factor. At such times you do not behave in the reckless way Brown and Balls did. There is a saying - "when in a hole - stop digging' - they ignored that totally and just splurged. The details of some of these PFI contracts have on going consequences - which will hamstring us for a generation(or two) - no matter who gets in..

I was fortunate that these policies provided good business outcomes for people like me - but they fucked the economy - 5 years of Balls in a repeat act!! Scary.

And I say this as a man from a Labour background - I desperately want Labour to put forward a credible economic plan - but they do not have seemed to have learned and likely just to set us back again.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I accept you have access to information etc and I will not argue with what you have identified and the conclusions you have drawn from it. PFI was never the panacea that politicians of several parties claimed that it was.

In the great scheme of things I think it is dwarfed by bigger events, bigger philosophies and the impact of unfettered (or very loosely fettered) global money markets.

Chabal - thanks for a measured reply. I was in positions where I knew these things to be facts.

I agree with the thrust of your points regarding 'loose regulation' of financial industry and I would not wish to portray that Brown's obsession with keeping things off balance sheet so more and more could be borrowed was the 'primary reason' for the precarious predicament of 2010 - which was much worse than most people appreciate.

What concerns me is the 'judgement' demonstrated by Brown and Balls in the 2000 - 2007 period. They were in charge of setting the UK economic strategy and then the management of the economy to steer our way through.

All comparisons on this subject are crass, but when seafarers see a massive storm coming they stay in port or batten down the hatches - not charge ahead on full sail. When you are out of work and have no new income identified you do (or at least should not) book a world cruise etc.

I know these are trivial examples but Brown and Balls showed equally bad judgement on a national scale and fucked up the economy for a protracted period. You will notice that I place the responsibility firmly with Brown and Balls and not more widely with Labour, although Blair making Brown wait also had an impact. There was a need for medicine and the approach the Tories took has proved to be the right sort of medicine for the illness we had at the time - more of the same from Balls would have been terminal.

I do not give them full credit though - for me it also has to be viewed that the medicine necessary at the time matched the Tory ideology. There is danger in going too far in any ideological direction. I would be concerned that Osborne might risk the patient through such focus, but that concern fades when compared to my utter belief that Balls's lack of credentials and his proven incapability is a serious risk to our country.

I have also worked at the top levels of DH and the NHS and I would say that the issues with a number of key areas of government business, and most specifically the Health and Social Care sector, is that the approach needed for their strategy and management is totally at odds with the UK electoral process. For the NHS there needs to be a 10 – 20 year strategy and the management capability and freedom from political interference to implement it. Proper governance arrangements should be in place to ensure that there are controls & regulation – but this continuous fucking about with the NHS every time a new government comes in is pathetic – and again just sets everything back and diverts so much money from service through ‘management changes’

You read on here posts about the NHS that are so ill-informed – but that is another topic I guess.

For me it would be better to place management of areas that need the implementation of long term strategies under central controls that can be proof against the vandalism that happens at every change of government, with all parties causing change upon change. The NHS is certainly one example – for me so is the economy, there are others.

To use your analogy of the seafarer battening down the hatches because of an impending storm , if there is another financial crash ( which is more than a remote possibility with nations having piled up debt and with their economies in the shit) , then as with Brown and Balls you would have to equally lambast Osborne for abandoning his borrowing targets in 2012 ,piling up the national debt, and leaving the country exposed to this second financial crash.
What's the difference?

 

[Cheesy]

Does the way you vote really matter anyway?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.voterpower.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.voterpower.org.uk/</a>

Constituency = Tamworth

Voter Power Index = 115 out of 650

Average UK voting power = 0.253

My voting power = 0.507

Basicaly, my vote is twice as important as the average UK voter :)

 

[dickie davies]

Does the way you vote really matter anyway?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.voterpower.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.voterpower.org.uk/</a>

Constituency = Tamworth

Voter Power Index = 115 out of 650

Average UK voting power = 0.253

My voting power = 0.507

Basicaly, my vote is twice as important as the average UK voter :)

Where I live will be similar, but the website isn't right

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.voterpower.org.uk/weaver-vale" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.voterpower.org.uk/weaver-vale</a>

Only goes up to 2005

Labour lost the seat to the Torys, who have a majority of only 1000

 

[DelToro]

Because Brown ran a deficit rather than a surplus during a sustained period of economic growth.

It's the same as getting pay rise after pay rise and always increasing your credit card limit rather than saving (like the Germans) and then losing your job.

Then the crash happened, the UK had nothing put aside and were right in the shit.

Of course cuts had to be made. brown had gone on a ten year ideologically inspired spending trip.

Which Western economy wasn't in the shit?

So you agree he was fooling to run a deficit during those years?

Or will you just ask another question?

You make an assertion and I ask a question to clarify when I think your assertion needs clarification.

That seems a reasonable and civilised way of going about things.