Hi Maunder. Did Labour also cause the recessions and debt problems experienced by many countries around the world? One of the great triumphs of the Tory govt. and the ruling business and media elite has been to hoodwink most voters into putting all the blame on brown. Yes, they did run a structural deficit but it was manageable until the banking crisis struck. This is not the time to get into another debt debate but again voters have been conned by the media establishment into believing the argument that we must slash public services and help for the poor and less fortunate in order to balance the books, at the same time as ignoring the billions lost to tax avoidance by big business, the billions spent on maintaining so many nukes and all the billions wasted on foreign wars. The Tories have done a superb propaganda job. Endless stories in the Sun about single mums, immigrants and benefit "scroungers" whilst the likes of Philip Green get away with tax avoidance and Barclays gets away with paying a fraction of what they owe to HMRC. The Big fish look after themselves and manipulate the little people into fighting one another. Thatchers legacy is nearly complete. Society is gone. The working classes are divided, no one trusts anyone else whilst the ruling elites are free to get richer and richer. Sorry, rant over!

LOL. What nonsense

"Society is gone. The working classes are divided, no one trusts anyone else whilst the ruling elites are free to get richer and richer."

True, to quite a significant degree. However, it's true because a detestable bunch of lefty progressives, starting from just after the war, decided that they despised the way that this country was and wanted it ripped up.

So followed a social liberalism which first allowed and then drove people to behave more selfishly, inevitably leading them to distrust those around them. So followed the surrender in the fight against crime with the abandonment of stern punishments that kept this an orderly society. So followed the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity from the working classes by forcing on them comprehensive education. So followed the mass immigration that can't fail to degrade the sense of unity and togetherness in communities. So followed the obsessive legalism and the human rights agenda that turns people into litigants and makes villains into victims. So followed the ongoing attempts to abolish the traditional family. So followed the attempt to completely obliterate British society by subsuming into some pan-European melting pot (this last one isn't going too well so far, but don't bet against it winning out in the end). I could go on...

Note that all of these things affected the poorest much more than the well-to-do. The rich even benefited from some of them! If you looking for those who have destroyed society - most notably for the working classes - you can lay the blame very firmly at the door of your own liberal / lefty friends.

LOL. What nonsense

"Society is gone. The working classes are divided, no one trusts anyone else whilst the ruling elites are free to get richer and richer."

True, to quite a significant degree. However, it's true because a detestable bunch of lefty progressives, starting from just after the war, decided that they despised the way that this country was and wanted it ripped up.

So followed a social liberalism which first allowed and then drove people to behave more selfishly, inevitably leading them to distrust those around them. So followed the surrender in the fight against crime with the abandonment of stern punishments that kept this an orderly society. So followed the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity from the working classes by forcing on them comprehensive education. So followed the mass immigration that can't fail to degrade the sense of unity and togetherness in communities. So followed the obsessive legalism and the human rights agenda that turns people into litigants and makes villains into victims. So followed the ongoing attempts to abolish the traditional family. So followed the attempt to completely obliterate British society by subsuming into some pan-European melting pot (this last one isn't going too well so far, but don't bet against it winning out in the end). I could go on...

Note that all of these things affected the poorest much more than the well-to-do. The rich even benefited from some of them! If you looking for those who have destroyed society - most notably for the working classes - you can lay the blame very firmly at the door of your own liberal / lefty friends.

To borrow a phrase, "LOL. What nonsense"

Hi Maunder. Did Labour also cause the recessions and debt problems experienced by many countries around the world?

See my post in the CC thread - trend growth in the UK economy may now be as low as 1% (down from 2.75%). It highlights the need for even bigger public spending cuts, because the ship is even smaller and poxier than appeared until even recently. In simple english we can afford even less public spending in the years ahead than we thought we could.

LOL. What nonsense

"Society is gone. The working classes are divided, no one trusts anyone else whilst the ruling elites are free to get richer and richer."

True, to quite a significant degree. However, it's true because a detestable bunch of lefty progressives, starting from just after the war, decided that they despised the way that this country was and wanted it ripped up.

So followed a social liberalism which first allowed and then drove people to behave more selfishly, inevitably leading them to distrust those around them. So followed the surrender in the fight against crime with the abandonment of stern punishments that kept this an orderly society. So followed the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity from the working classes by forcing on them comprehensive education. So followed the mass immigration that can't fail to degrade the sense of unity and togetherness in communities. So followed the obsessive legalism and the human rights agenda that turns people into litigants and makes villains into victims. So followed the ongoing attempts to abolish the traditional family. So followed the attempt to completely obliterate British society by subsuming into some pan-European melting pot (this last one isn't going too well so far, but don't bet against it winning out in the end). I could go on...

Note that all of these things affected the poorest much more than the well-to-do. The rich even benefited from some of them! If you looking for those who have destroyed society - most notably for the working classes - you can lay the blame very firmly at the door of your own liberal / lefty friends.

To borrow a phrase, "LOL. What nonsense"

As I was writing that post, I was thinking that you would probably appreciate it a lot

Hi Maunder. Did Labour also cause the recessions and debt problems experienced by many countries around the world?

See my post in the CC thread - trend growth in the UK economy may now be as low as 1% (down from 2.75%). It highlights the need for even bigger public spending cuts, because the ship is even smaller and poxier than appeared until even recently. In simple english we can afford even less public spending in the years ahead than we thought we could.

Erm... doesn't that actually mean that we need to cut LESS? Surely cutting more will just exacerbate the lack of growth and so on in an ever downward spiral.

Hi Maunder. Did Labour also cause the recessions and debt problems experienced by many countries around the world?

See my post in the CC thread - trend growth in the UK economy may now be as low as 1% (down from 2.75%). It highlights the need for even bigger public spending cuts, because the ship is even smaller and poxier than appeared until even recently. In simple english we can afford even less public spending in the years ahead than we thought we could.

Erm... doesn't that actually mean that we need to cut LESS? Surely cutting more will just exacerbate the lack of growth and so on in an ever downward spiral.

The economic growth and deficit debacles in Britain are clearly structural not cyclical. It's no coincidence that Osborne is now comparing the British economy with Greece and Portugal rather than France and Germany (Flanders or Peston discussed this today). Other countries are running pedal to the metal as we saw today. The FT's research suggests there is little spare capacity in the economy, because a disproportionate amount of 'wealth' was being generated by a few people in the financial services who are no longer....

"Most of the puzzle can be explained by job reductions in the sectors with the highest levels of output per job – financial services and the oil industry – leaving less scope elsewhere for output to rise without companies hitting capacity constraints" 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e1ff056-7b41-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1MGVmSWpP

Hi Maunder. Did Labour also cause the recessions and debt problems experienced by many countries around the world?

See my post in the CC thread - trend growth in the UK economy may now be as low as 1% (down from 2.75%). It highlights the need for even bigger public spending cuts, because the ship is even smaller and poxier than appeared until even recently. In simple english we can afford even less public spending in the years ahead than we thought we could.

Erm... doesn't that actually mean that we need to cut LESS? Surely cutting more will just exacerbate the lack of growth and so on in an ever downward spiral.

The economic growth and deficit debacles in Britain are clearly structural not cyclical. It's no coincidence that Osborne is now comparing the British economy with Greece and Portugal rather than France and Germany (Flanders or Peston discussed this today). Other countries are running pedal to the metal as we saw today. The FT's research suggests there is little spare capacity in the economy, because a disproportionate amount of 'wealth' was being generated by a few people in the financial services who are no longer....

"Most of the puzzle can be explained by job reductions in the sectors with the highest levels of output per job – financial services and the oil industry – leaving less scope elsewhere for output to rise without companies hitting capacity constraints" 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e1ff056-7b41-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1MGVmSWpP

I have no idea how that answers my point.

You cut spending, you cut the chances of growth. As for the reason Osbourne is not comparing the British economy with that of Greece and Portugal - that's because such a comparison gives him an argument (as he presents it) to pursue his cuts agenda.

 As for the reason Osbourne is not comparing the British economy with that of Greece and Portugal - that's because such a comparison gives him an argument (as he presents it) to pursue his cuts agenda.

 I said is comparing. So by your line of reasoning the comparison gives him an argument to increase public spending. Bizarre Nick. Your understanding seems a tad hazy, but perhaps it's the time of day.  

 As for the reason Osbourne is not comparing the British economy with that of Greece and Portugal - that's because such a comparison gives him an argument (as he presents it) to pursue his cuts agenda.

 I said is comparing. So by your line of reasoning the comparison gives him an argument to increase public spending. Bizarre Nick. Your understanding seems a tad hazy, but perhaps it's the time of day.  

It's clear to me that Nick's merely added a 'not' where there shouldn't be one (probably due to changing what he was going to say halfway through typing - if he's anything like me )

 As for the reason Osbourne is not comparing the British economy with that of Greece and Portugal - that's because such a comparison gives him an argument (as he presents it) to pursue his cuts agenda.

 I said is comparing. So by your line of reasoning the comparison gives him an argument to increase public spending. Bizarre Nick. Your understanding seems a tad hazy, but perhaps it's the time of day.  

It's clear to me that Nick's merely added a 'not' where there shouldn't be one (probably due to changing what he was going to say halfway through typing - if he's anything like me )

Correct. It is a bit late. But surely not too hard to see what I did... unless you're trying to find reasons to criticise.

Still not sure how Brian's response to my earlier post actually responded to it... but maybe my understanding's just hazy.

 As for the reason Osbourne is not comparing the British economy with that of Greece and Portugal - that's because such a comparison gives him an argument (as he presents it) to pursue his cuts agenda.

 I said is comparing. So by your line of reasoning the comparison gives him an argument to increase public spending. Bizarre Nick. Your understanding seems a tad hazy, but perhaps it's the time of day.  

Increasing public spending also increases the chance of less growth and higher interest rates later on.

Increasing public spending also increases the chance of less growth

Sorry, but you'll have to substantiate that one.

Increasing public spending also increases the chance of less growth

Sorry, but you'll have to substantiate that one.

Conservatives close to a single point with ComRes - 38/39/11:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3574

YouGov/News International

Con 39% Lab 41% Lib-Dem 9% Lab Lead 2%

MORI

Con 35% (-5) Lab 42% (+2) Lib-Dem 10% (+1) Lab Lead 7%

I think the lumpenproletariat has got the message now, that Bank deregulation caused the crisis and is laid firmly at the door of the Thatcher government. The older members of the electorate (i.e. those who vote) have also connected Tory administrations with rioting in the streets. They don't like it and they will say so at the next election.

Lets face it, Blair never was any good but the electorate correctly determined that another Tory term was a worse option. History is repeating itself.

That's a surprise poll. I expected the tories to get a boost from recent events like the fall in unemployment, sickness benefit cuts and the Obama visit not to mention the continuing bad press for Ed

Remember the last MORI poll had the Conservatives and Labour tied on 40% each. That was probably a bit of an outlier and this one probably better reflects the current situation.

I think the lumpenproletariat has got the message now, that Bank deregulation caused the crisis and is laid firmly at the door of the Thatcher government. The older members of the electorate (i.e. those who vote) have also connected Tory administrations with rioting in the streets. They don't like it and they will say so at the next election.

Lets face it, Blair never was any good but the electorate correctly determined that another Tory term was a worse option. History is repeating itself.

There was the Bradford riots under Labour and then the economic mess they left behind but hay you carry on blaming the Tories for everything if it makes you feel better.