Mervyn King is speaking the truth - that the coalition has to bring in cuts and tax rises. There is no choice in the matter, and he would be saying the same if Labour had clung onto power.
In one sense, moox, Labour were "lucky" not to win the last general election because if they had then they would be implementing the harsh cuts now and they too would have gone down to a crushing 1997-style defeat in 2015.
It doesn't help matters presentationally that some of the current cabinet members and MPs seem to be enjoying and relishing the cuts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkqKbBVC09M&feature=related thus making things worse for the current government.
Mervyn King is speaking the truth - that the coalition has to bring in cuts and tax rises. There is no choice in the matter, and he would be saying the same if Labour had clung onto power.
Spending cuts have to be met with a plan for private sector growth, the two go hand in hand. The Conservatives have none (not my words, those of the CBI Chairman), just as they did in the 1980s.
And in the meantime. Labour deny any responsibility and throw the blame on the conservatives for removing labours bribes. If they had spent the last 13 years promoting private sector investments. Then we'd have high employment and a smaller national debt. Yet Labour supporters still cling to the myth that it's all Thatchers fault.
Labour aren't accepting at all that they are responsible for the deficit and debt, they are a major party when it comes to why the credit crunch was so bad, and that they fuelled a property boom (that they want to continue even today, as evidenced by a question asked by the Shadow Housing Minister).
No, instead they are simply saying "no" to anything the coalition wants to do, without thinking why the coalition is being forced to do it, or what they themselves would do if they were on the other side of the house.
Spending cuts have to be met with a plan for private sector growth, the two go hand in hand. The Conservatives have none (not my words, those of the CBI Chairman), just as they did in the 1980s.
And Labour had no idea what "private sector growth" meant, except when it came to hobnobbing with the banks or when it came to the property boom.
I am not suggesting that what the coalition is doing is marvellous, but it has to be done, and it isn't their fault. It's Labour's.
I don't 'hate' them and I did say I would give them a chance and I have and IMO they have'nt changed, in fact to some degree they are worse, so now I know I will never 'trust' them and from what I have seen up to now from this government I will find it hard to trust the Lib Dems in the future also.
Hopefully huge swathes of the population feel as you do. The only good thing about the cuts is that they are illustrating exactly how damaging tory ideology is.
I've always hated what the tories stand for, I will never trust them. Self interested, self satisfied and completely devoid of compassion.
I am not suggesting that what the coalition is doing is marvellous, but it has to be done, and it isn't their fault. It's Labour's.
Do you honestly think they wouldn't be doing much of the same thing otherwise? They love to sell things off, get their fangs into the BBC, cut the public sector, remove workers rights etc etc
They were selling off things like the rail service to their rich mates long, long, long into the Tory regime.
You mean like the publicly traded BT, the (what was) publicly traded Railtrack, the publicly traded utilities companies? I can buy shares in all of these companies, as can you. Your private pension fund likely also includes these in their portfolio.
Not quite an oligarchy on the scale of Yeltsin's Russia, is it?
Why do they have a better electoral success record over the past 30 years than anyone else? Infact they are Britain's most successful party? But they're the most hated, everyone I know hates them.
Britain needs to go far far to left if it is to survive.
You mean like the publicly traded BT, the (what was) publicly traded Railtrack, the publicly traded utilities companies? I can buy shares in all of these companies, as can you. Your private pension fund likely also includes these in their portfolio.
Not quite an oligarchy on the scale of Yeltsin's Russia, is it?
You can buy shares in them can you, lucky you, a lot of people in this country can barely afford to eat. Do you think they have a choice to trade in shares or even afford to travel by rail nowadays for that matter.
We now pay more toward the rail service in subsidies than we did when it was nationally owned, still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale.
You can buy shares in them can you, lucky you, a lot of people in this country can barely afford to eat.
We now pay more toward the rail service than we did when it was nationally owned, still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale.
We now pay more toward the rail service than we did when it was nationally owned, still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale.
How do you know that costs wouldn't be the same had BR remained? You can't compare the cost of a ticket in 1993 to the cost of a ticket in 2011, as there are many factors that are not in the control of BR or of the privatised operators.
The closest we have to a comparison is what East Coast charges for its tickets, since it is the only government owned and operated train operator. Are their prices in line with that of other TOCs?
[citation needed] on " still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale."
I think you know full well that I meant "you can if you want to", not whether you can afford it.
You can if you're well off enough to be able to afford them you mean. If you're not very well off, not aware of the ins and outs of share trading, tough, you may well have once owned them through the state, but not no more and you never are likely to either.
When was the last time a political party had more than 50.1% of the popular vote?
Whether you're left, right or whatever, you have to admit that no party really has any bragging rights because no one can seem to get over 50.1% of the popular vote.
When was the last time a political party had more than 50.1% of the popular vote?
Whether you're left, right or whatever, you have to admit that no party really has any bragging rights because no one can seem to get over 50.1% of the popular vote.
Bill Clinton never got over 50% of the vote but is regarded being one of America's best modern presidents ever. Bush did however but that doesn't make him better does it?
LOL, CaveMan, and in four years' time the electorate will be, in no uncertain terms, saying, '**** off Dave!'.
Even Bank of England Governor Mervyn King thinks so: "they will end up being so unpopular, as a result of all the cuts and tax hikes they’ll have to bring in, that they won’t win another Election for a whole generation"
The full quote from Mervyn King started "Whichever party wins the election, ..."
Any reason why you chopped this bit off?
King, like any half intelligent person, knew that had Labour been elected they would also be cuts similar to those being made by the government.
It's a shame that the Labour party and it's supporters don't have the decency to be honest about this, and are instead living in collective denial of the plans they had to cut, penciled in before the election - pretending instead that the cuts being made are somehow unnecessary, in order to score cheap political advantage. It's pathetic, really.
I have to admit even as lefty there's definitely a labour slant on here.
I mean the tories got 36.1% of vote in real life and yet in this forum you'd think it's only 10%. Ah well keep it up though.
Being Tory support myself, it could be argued against them that majority didn't support Tory. However, even more people didn't support Labour and even more didn't support Lib Dems.
I wonder if we will ever see a party winning sixty percent of the popular vote?
They crush the poor and squeeze the middle all the time. I think its a case of "who my father voted for" most of the time.
I think that attitude is far more common among Labour voters.
How do you explain the fact that the Conservatives win in working class areas? How about those of us who grew up in rough council estates but realised that the way forward was to lose the 'born working class, die working class' old Labour mentality?
I think that attitude is far more common among Labour voters.
How do you explain the fact that the Conservatives win in working class areas? How about those of us who grew up in rough council estates but realised that the way forward was to lose the 'born working class, die working class' old Labour mentality?
Oh yes. What working class areas would they be then? Look at an electoral map of the country: the shires and the smarter suburbs are Tory and the big cities are Labour. Even the urban Tories always represent the posh bits of the city.
As David Davies pointed out on Andrew Neil's programme the Tories did used to get a deferential vote from the working classes but Thatcher destroyed that when she made clear that she despised them. (Davies didnt say the latter bit I should make clear.)
But back to the question yes I will certainly always hate the Tories and am just relieved so many people have cottoned on so early in the Parliament that they havent changed a bit.
Comments
In one sense, moox, Labour were "lucky" not to win the last general election because if they had then they would be implementing the harsh cuts now and they too would have gone down to a crushing 1997-style defeat in 2015.
It doesn't help matters presentationally that some of the current cabinet members and MPs seem to be enjoying and relishing the cuts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkqKbBVC09M&feature=related thus making things worse for the current government.
Spending cuts have to be met with a plan for private sector growth, the two go hand in hand. The Conservatives have none (not my words, those of the CBI Chairman), just as they did in the 1980s.
Labour aren't accepting at all that they are responsible for the deficit and debt, they are a major party when it comes to why the credit crunch was so bad, and that they fuelled a property boom (that they want to continue even today, as evidenced by a question asked by the Shadow Housing Minister).
No, instead they are simply saying "no" to anything the coalition wants to do, without thinking why the coalition is being forced to do it, or what they themselves would do if they were on the other side of the house.
And Labour had no idea what "private sector growth" meant, except when it came to hobnobbing with the banks or when it came to the property boom.
I am not suggesting that what the coalition is doing is marvellous, but it has to be done, and it isn't their fault. It's Labour's.
Hopefully huge swathes of the population feel as you do. The only good thing about the cuts is that they are illustrating exactly how damaging tory ideology is.
I've always hated what the tories stand for, I will never trust them. Self interested, self satisfied and completely devoid of compassion.
They were selling off things like the rail service to their rich mates long, long, long into the Tory regime.
It's all about a selfish ideology and greasing the palms of rich friends at the countries expense.
Do you honestly think they wouldn't be doing much of the same thing otherwise? They love to sell things off, get their fangs into the BBC, cut the public sector, remove workers rights etc etc
They crush the poor and squeeze the middle all the time. I think its a case of "who my father voted for" most of the time.
You mean like the publicly traded BT, the (what was) publicly traded Railtrack, the publicly traded utilities companies? I can buy shares in all of these companies, as can you. Your private pension fund likely also includes these in their portfolio.
Not quite an oligarchy on the scale of Yeltsin's Russia, is it?
Britain needs to go far far to left if it is to survive.
You can buy shares in them can you, lucky you, a lot of people in this country can barely afford to eat. Do you think they have a choice to trade in shares or even afford to travel by rail nowadays for that matter.
We now pay more toward the rail service in subsidies than we did when it was nationally owned, still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale.
They're all up each others bums!:eek::p:eek:
I think you know full well that I meant "you can if you want to", not whether you can afford it.
How do you know that costs wouldn't be the same had BR remained? You can't compare the cost of a ticket in 1993 to the cost of a ticket in 2011, as there are many factors that are not in the control of BR or of the privatised operators.
The closest we have to a comparison is what East Coast charges for its tickets, since it is the only government owned and operated train operator. Are their prices in line with that of other TOCs?
[citation needed] on " still a few Tory friends of the government at the time did very well out of it's sale."
..... by me they will be...:o
You can if you're well off enough to be able to afford them you mean. If you're not very well off, not aware of the ins and outs of share trading, tough, you may well have once owned them through the state, but not no more and you never are likely to either.
Greed.
Whether you're left, right or whatever, you have to admit that no party really has any bragging rights because no one can seem to get over 50.1% of the popular vote.
I mean the tories got 36.1% of vote in real life and yet in this forum you'd think it's only 10%. Ah well keep it up though.
Bill Clinton never got over 50% of the vote but is regarded being one of America's best modern presidents ever. Bush did however but that doesn't make him better does it?
The full quote from Mervyn King started "Whichever party wins the election, ..."
Any reason why you chopped this bit off?
King, like any half intelligent person, knew that had Labour been elected they would also be cuts similar to those being made by the government.
It's a shame that the Labour party and it's supporters don't have the decency to be honest about this, and are instead living in collective denial of the plans they had to cut, penciled in before the election - pretending instead that the cuts being made are somehow unnecessary, in order to score cheap political advantage. It's pathetic, really.
Being Tory support myself, it could be argued against them that majority didn't support Tory. However, even more people didn't support Labour and even more didn't support Lib Dems.
I wonder if we will ever see a party winning sixty percent of the popular vote?
What just like Labour voters
Hey, come on - that's not fair!
Not everyone in Labour's heartlands vote according to family traditions...
...many of them switched allegiances to the BNP.
I think that attitude is far more common among Labour voters.
How do you explain the fact that the Conservatives win in working class areas? How about those of us who grew up in rough council estates but realised that the way forward was to lose the 'born working class, die working class' old Labour mentality?
Oh yes. What working class areas would they be then? Look at an electoral map of the country: the shires and the smarter suburbs are Tory and the big cities are Labour. Even the urban Tories always represent the posh bits of the city.
As David Davies pointed out on Andrew Neil's programme the Tories did used to get a deferential vote from the working classes but Thatcher destroyed that when she made clear that she despised them. (Davies didnt say the latter bit I should make clear.)
But back to the question yes I will certainly always hate the Tories and am just relieved so many people have cottoned on so early in the Parliament that they havent changed a bit.