Hmmm, those 2 massive recessions under the Conservatives and the risible 'green shoots of recovery" that never actually happened until Labour took power in 1997 - I just completely imagined those, did I ?
Labour were following conservative spending plans well into the early 00's, even ran a surplus under those plans then the borrowing started right back up again.
Labour were following conservative spending plans well into the early 00's, even ran a surplus under those plans then the borrowing started right back up again.
When the evidence doesn't fit, just ignore it, eh ?
How the Tories have got the nerve to accuse Labour of being the "borrowing" party is just the biggest joke of them all.
They're leading us to ruin, selling us down the swanee.
But do they care? No. Because after their term is over, they'll all still be multi millionaires,
and as per usual, it will be the people who suffer the consequences.
The Tories cannot be trusted with anything. The NHS, the welfare state, education, public services, statistics, facts, the country, the truth, nothing!
How the Tories have got the nerve to accuse Labour of being the "borrowing" party is just the biggest joke of them all.
They're leading us to ruin, selling us down the swanee.
But do they care? No. Because after their term is over, they'll all still be multi millionaires,
and as per usual, it will be the people who suffer the consequences.
The Tories cannot be trusted with anything. The NHS, the welfare state, education, public services, statistics, facts, the country, the truth, nothing!
So you are advocating more cuts?
The borrowing figures would have been the same under any party that had been elected, you simply cannot cut a £150 billion (that Labour left) deficit down to nothing in a couple of years.
The borrowing figures would have been the same under any party that had been elected, you simply cannot cut a £150 billion (that Labour left) deficit down to nothing in a couple of years.
No. Cuts are not the solution. At least, not cuts that directly affect the public so heavily. And not as fast and deep as the ones this government's made.
Growth is part of the solution, but this country had no growth for the first 3+ years of the coalition and has only just started to get into +% growth again.... just!
They could've generated some money from our national assets, if only they hadn't privatised them all...
How much of that 150 billion deficit was fiscal stimulus packages as an attempt to fix the damage done by the global credit crunch / global financial downturn / global recession?
How much of it was used for bailing out the banks?
Have the banks paid any of it back?
The Tories killed growth, wasted all the money from those stimulus packages and led us back into another recession, resulting in us losing our AAA credit rating.
All as an excuse to bring in the cuts they originally came into politics for in the first place.
But the Tories are still trying to blame Labour for the global crisis.
Oh, and it's been 4 years, not 2
(and almost 6 years since the crisis).
You're right though, we'd undoubtedly be in a mess no matter who was in power.
It's just the way of the world these days...
Under the present system, I'm not sure if there is a solution.
Imperialism didn't work.
Communism didn't work.
Capitalism is failing (or already has).
What next?
People power and true democracy maybe? Yeah, as if....
How the Tories have got the nerve to accuse Labour of being the "borrowing" party is just the biggest joke of them all.
They're leading us to ruin, selling us down the swanee.
But do they care? No. Because after their term is over, they'll all still be multi millionaires,
and as per usual, it will be the people who suffer the consequences.
The Tories cannot be trusted with anything. The NHS, the welfare state, education, public services, statistics, facts, the country, the truth, nothing!
You need to learn a bit a about how economics work.
It doesn't matter who you vote for, that deficit has got to be cut, not to zero, now we have to generate a surplus every year for the next 20 years.
If you want to import 6 million people, somebodies got to pay for them.
Hmmm, those 2 massive recessions under the Conservatives and the risible 'green shoots of recovery" that never actually happened until Labour took power in 1997 - I just completely imagined those, did I ?
bullsh*t. absolute bullsh*t.
the recovery was well on the way before 1997. i lived and worked through that period.so yes, you imagined it. as for after 97, all i can say is thank god brown stuck to the tory spending plans for the first two years of his teunre as chancellor.
No. Cuts are not the solution. At least, not cuts that directly affect the public so heavily. And not as fast and deep as the ones this government's made.
Growth is part of the solution, but this country had no growth for the first 3+ years of the coalition and has only just started to get into +% growth again.... just!
They could've generated some money from our national assets, if only they hadn't privatised them all...
How much of that 150 billion deficit was fiscal stimulus packages as an attempt to fix the damage done by the global credit crunch / global financial downturn / global recession?
How much of it was used for bailing out the banks?
Have the banks paid any of it back?
The Tories killed growth, wasted all the money from those stimulus packages and led us back into another recession, resulting in us losing our AAA credit rating.
All as an excuse to bring in the cuts they originally came into politics for in the first place.
But the Tories are still trying to blame Labour for the global crisis.
Oh, and it's been 4 years, not 2
(and almost 6 years since the crisis).
You're right though, we'd undoubtedly be in a mess no matter who was in power.
It's just the way of the world these days...
Under the present system, I'm not sure if there is a solution.
Imperialism didn't work.
Communism didn't work.
Capitalism is failing (or already has).
What next?
People power and true democracy maybe? Yeah, as if....
explain to me how this economic system of people power would work?
I agree and don't understand how people on here can continually blame the Labour party for mass immigration from Europe, its not as if the Tories have done anything about it either.
Labour do need to reconnect with the working class of this country, they need more people in the party who come from ordinary backgrounds.
Labour unnecessarily allowed unlimited EU immigration from new member states in 2004. Now they say it was a mistake !
Reconnecting with the working class isn't going to happen because we're no longer in the 1970s. Most of them were taught about aspiration and the "carrot and stick" in the 1980s.
New Labour was a new party that bore little resemblance to its previous form and is increasingly made up of metropolitan, middle class professionals who live in the bubble of comfort and feel they know best how to protect (and patronise) the working classes.
The character of a clown. UKIP might do alright in an election the voters don't take seriously, but at the next general election it will be back under 5% and still seatless.
It won't. UKIP will do very well and I think a few MPs will happen. Get Nigel in the House of Commons.
I think many people see Farage as a refreshing change from the other three leaders who are privileged and have not made their own way. In that sense he's seen to be in touch and on the people's side.
I think many people see Farage as a refreshing change from the other three leaders who are privileged and have not made their own way. In that sense he's seen to be in touch and on the people's side.
Why is a person (son of a stockbroker) who went to public school and went on to become a commodities broker "in touch with the people" any more than other leaders from middle class backgrounds who went to public school??
Why is a person (son of a stockbroker) who went to public school and went on to become a commodities broker "in touch with the people" any more than other leaders from middle class backgrounds who went to public school??
Maybe because he seems to care about the people of this country more.
He gives the impression of wanting to do something for his country and the people, rather than the career politicians, who just want to serve themselves.
Why is a person (son of a stockbroker) who went to public school and went on to become a commodities broker "in touch with the people" any more than other leaders from middle class backgrounds who went to public school??
Unlike you GGP, I have no chip on my shoulder and am able to make a judgment about someone not based on whether he had a private education or not.
He focuses on the expensive and excessive EU political process and how it removes decision making from the people. That shows me how he's more in touch than the others.
I think many people see Farage as a refreshing change from the other three leaders who are privileged and have not made their own way. In that sense he's seen to be in touch and on the people's side.
Once Nigel is in the house of Commons and fighting on the behalf of British patriots and seeking freedom from European tyranny, it will be a great day indeed.
Most politicians come and go without attaining out highest attention and concentration and admiration. Now and then an individual appears marking his advent with evidences of marvelous superiority to his contemporaries in some higher sphere of human action. We can not always define his name or traits but want of a better term, we say he is gifted among mere mortals with genius. Such is Nigel Farage, he is a very genius of a leader.
Unlike you GGP, I have no chip on my shoulder and am able to make a judgment about someone not based on whether he had a private education or not.
He focuses on the expensive and excessive EU political process and how it removes decision making from the people. That shows me how he's more in touch than the others.
I think many people see Farage as a refreshing change from the other three leaders who are privileged and have not made their own way. In that sense he's seen to be in touch and on the people's side.
I believe it was you who mentioned the other leaders had privileged backgrounds, and then got a little miffed when it was pointed out that Farage had a similar privileged background.
Farage is totally out of touch with me and my values.
In order for UKIP to attract both Labour and Tory voters they'd have to:
a)Occupy the central ground - which they don't, and
b) have credible budgetted and deliverable policies worth voting for - which they don't.
An interesting premise, but I just can't see how they can target Labour voters whilst also supposedly appealing to the tory right.
I think they fair well in the euro elections because the public aren't all the switched onto MEP goings on and quite like the idea of having a fly in the EU ointment but in a general election I still don't see UKIP winning a single seat because they're more a protest group than a party and without Farage at the helm they'd be nothing...
I believe it was you who mentioned the other leaders had privileged backgrounds, and then got a little miffed when it was pointed out that Farage had a similar privileged background.
Farage is totally out of touch with me and my values.
I wasn't "miffed", as you interpreted. I knew he was privately educated and had worked in the City. He does, however, have more of an idea about life's difficulties and struggling to survive than Cameron, Clegg or Miliband.
Comments
Labour were following conservative spending plans well into the early 00's, even ran a surplus under those plans then the borrowing started right back up again.
You have not posted anything that even looks like evidence.
If this is regarding Britains fall in GDP rankings as BA says it does not factor in debt.
My point still stands blair inherited an economy that was growing and followed conservative spending plans which led to a budget surplus.
It was part of their election pledge that they would follow the Conservative spending plans for two years.
They had no choice but to, the bonds had already been sold.
You mean the national debt that's risen from £0.76 trillion to $1.33 trillion under this government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
How the Tories have got the nerve to accuse Labour of being the "borrowing" party is just the biggest joke of them all.
They're leading us to ruin, selling us down the swanee.
But do they care? No. Because after their term is over, they'll all still be multi millionaires,
and as per usual, it will be the people who suffer the consequences.
The Tories cannot be trusted with anything. The NHS, the welfare state, education, public services, statistics, facts, the country, the truth, nothing!
So you are advocating more cuts?
The borrowing figures would have been the same under any party that had been elected, you simply cannot cut a £150 billion (that Labour left) deficit down to nothing in a couple of years.
No. Cuts are not the solution. At least, not cuts that directly affect the public so heavily. And not as fast and deep as the ones this government's made.
Growth is part of the solution, but this country had no growth for the first 3+ years of the coalition and has only just started to get into +% growth again.... just!
They could've generated some money from our national assets, if only they hadn't privatised them all...
How much of that 150 billion deficit was fiscal stimulus packages as an attempt to fix the damage done by the global credit crunch / global financial downturn / global recession?
How much of it was used for bailing out the banks?
Have the banks paid any of it back?
The Tories killed growth, wasted all the money from those stimulus packages and led us back into another recession, resulting in us losing our AAA credit rating.
All as an excuse to bring in the cuts they originally came into politics for in the first place.
But the Tories are still trying to blame Labour for the global crisis.
Oh, and it's been 4 years, not 2
(and almost 6 years since the crisis).
You're right though, we'd undoubtedly be in a mess no matter who was in power.
It's just the way of the world these days...
Under the present system, I'm not sure if there is a solution.
Imperialism didn't work.
Communism didn't work.
Capitalism is failing (or already has).
What next?
People power and true democracy maybe? Yeah, as if....
You need to learn a bit a about how economics work.
It doesn't matter who you vote for, that deficit has got to be cut, not to zero, now we have to generate a surplus every year for the next 20 years.
If you want to import 6 million people, somebodies got to pay for them.
bullsh*t. absolute bullsh*t.
the recovery was well on the way before 1997. i lived and worked through that period.so yes, you imagined it. as for after 97, all i can say is thank god brown stuck to the tory spending plans for the first two years of his teunre as chancellor.
explain to me how this economic system of people power would work?
it sound like just empty words.
Labour unnecessarily allowed unlimited EU immigration from new member states in 2004. Now they say it was a mistake !
Reconnecting with the working class isn't going to happen because we're no longer in the 1970s. Most of them were taught about aspiration and the "carrot and stick" in the 1980s.
New Labour was a new party that bore little resemblance to its previous form and is increasingly made up of metropolitan, middle class professionals who live in the bubble of comfort and feel they know best how to protect (and patronise) the working classes.
Ah! The "patriot" line.
Now where have I heard this approach before......?
I think many people see Farage as a refreshing change from the other three leaders who are privileged and have not made their own way. In that sense he's seen to be in touch and on the people's side.
Why is a person (son of a stockbroker) who went to public school and went on to become a commodities broker "in touch with the people" any more than other leaders from middle class backgrounds who went to public school??
Maybe because he seems to care about the people of this country more.
He gives the impression of wanting to do something for his country and the people, rather than the career politicians, who just want to serve themselves.
Unlike you GGP, I have no chip on my shoulder and am able to make a judgment about someone not based on whether he had a private education or not.
He focuses on the expensive and excessive EU political process and how it removes decision making from the people. That shows me how he's more in touch than the others.
Most politicians come and go without attaining out highest attention and concentration and admiration. Now and then an individual appears marking his advent with evidences of marvelous superiority to his contemporaries in some higher sphere of human action. We can not always define his name or traits but want of a better term, we say he is gifted among mere mortals with genius. Such is Nigel Farage, he is a very genius of a leader.
I believe it was you who mentioned the other leaders had privileged backgrounds, and then got a little miffed when it was pointed out that Farage had a similar privileged background.
Farage is totally out of touch with me and my values.
a)Occupy the central ground - which they don't, and
b) have credible budgetted and deliverable policies worth voting for - which they don't.
An interesting premise, but I just can't see how they can target Labour voters whilst also supposedly appealing to the tory right.
I think they fair well in the euro elections because the public aren't all the switched onto MEP goings on and quite like the idea of having a fly in the EU ointment but in a general election I still don't see UKIP winning a single seat because they're more a protest group than a party and without Farage at the helm they'd be nothing...
...and they aren't that much with him!!
I wasn't "miffed", as you interpreted. I knew he was privately educated and had worked in the City. He does, however, have more of an idea about life's difficulties and struggling to survive than Cameron, Clegg or Miliband.
and what if you intended to keep everything the same as it is now, except get out of Europe, why would you need any policies?