Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Labour leading in the Voting Polls.

With no policies, a wet leader and a record of authoritarianism and economic ruin.

What can you say, people are **** stupid.

[markavfc40]

What can you say, people are **** stupid.

Given that they were **** brain dead enough to vote the Tories in then I guess anything is possible.

[thetrees]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories. How long can your denial of the Blair/Brown crimes against this and future generations carry on for?

On a positive note nice to see local businessman and major philanthropist Bob Edmiston make it to the Lords, and also Sir Gulam Noon, another philanthropist that I shook hands with once. Better them than failed MPs.......

[Awol]

What can you say, people are **** stupid.

Given that they were **** brain dead enough to vote the Tories in then I guess anything is possible.

Granted the Tories were not a great option, but five more years of insanity Brown? Did you really expect people to elect a mentally ill PM? Plenty of people on benefits may have rightly feared a Tory victory but anyone with a functioning brain cell could see Gordon was literally crazy. Well, maybe you didn't, but you catch my drift.

[chrisp65]

Oona fecking King - the people have rejected her twice and so the party machine puts her into a position of power anyway.

spot on

Labour 'yes person' unable to win gets in anyway

Plaid's Daf Wigley is a nice guy from what I've seen of him. Supporter of his local footy club (Caernarfon) he made a point of looking after us when my local team went bust and we had to all chip in for boot money and a bus to get a stand in pub team to complete our fixtures, including a trip to Caernarfon.

Even laid on food and drink for the Barry supporters that made the trip AND put the local boy's straight that made the classic gog error of presuming nobody in our party would be able to speak or understand Welsh.

[peterms]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories. How long can your denial of the Blair/Brown crimes against this and future generations carry on for?

If you mean the Iraq war, then "crimes" is a suitable term.

You probably don't, though. You probably mean the economic mess, in which case you really need to look a bit more closely at the impact of financial deregulation which, though it certainly wasn't her personal brainwave (did she have any?), Thatcher implemented fully and without the slightest quiver of doubt.

It's probably been the single biggest factor in the utter, total mess we and so many other countries are in.

[markavfc40]

What can you say, people are **** stupid.

Given that they were **** brain dead enough to vote the Tories in then I guess anything is possible.

Did you really expect people to elect a mentally ill PM?

They did on the 6th May 2010! and a **** pompous brain dead Chancellor to boot. Go figure.

Plenty of people on benefits may have rightly feared a Tory victory

You think just people on benefits feared them? I've personally never claimed benefits in my 36 years on this earth and hopefully am never in a position to have to but there are millions of people besides those claiming benefits who now regret these incompetent, lying, bastards being elected.

What they are doing is **** disgusting and based on ideologies and not down to simply trying to reduce the deficit. The fact that some blue boys and girls are stupid enough to believe it is a little sad but not surprising.

[Risso]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories. How long can your denial of the Blair/Brown crimes against this and future generations carry on for?

If you mean the Iraq war, then "crimes" is a suitable term.

You probably don't, though. You probably mean the economic mess, in which case you really need to look a bit more closely at the impact of financial deregulation which, though it certainly wasn't her personal brainwave (did she have any?), Thatcher implemented fully and without the slightest quiver of doubt.

It's probably been the single biggest factor in the utter, total mess we and so many other countries are in.

Well Bliar and Brown took the baton and sprinted with it. Establishing the FSA was effectively that **** Brown's legacy to the country.

[thetrees]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories. How long can your denial of the Blair/Brown crimes against this and future generations carry on for?

If you mean the Iraq war, then "crimes" is a suitable term.

You probably don't, though. You probably mean the economic mess, in which case you really need to look a bit more closely at the impact of financial deregulation which, though it certainly wasn't her personal brainwave (did she have any?), Thatcher implemented fully and without the slightest quiver of doubt.

It's probably been the single biggest factor in the utter, total mess we and so many other countries are in.

I believe that Mrs Thatcher was long gone when a stable economy, with a small budget deficit, was handed over to Blair and Brown in 1997.

They did not jump to undo any of her, or anyone else's, 'brainwaves' and they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford.

This was all masked by regular utterings of "prudent fiscal management" and "no more boom and bust" from Brown, while he was happy to allow all financial institutions to create an aura of prosperity that made him and his government look good.

The reality is that they have destroyed the future of this country, should have their pensions scrutinised just like any other banker, and should be put on trial for gross dereliction of duty in a public office.

And Iraq I honestly couldn't give a damn about, except for the fact that it cost UK lives and yet more money that we didn't have.

[peterms]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories. How long can your denial of the Blair/Brown crimes against this and future generations carry on for?

If you mean the Iraq war, then "crimes" is a suitable term.

You probably don't, though. You probably mean the economic mess, in which case you really need to look a bit more closely at the impact of financial deregulation which, though it certainly wasn't her personal brainwave (did she have any?), Thatcher implemented fully and without the slightest quiver of doubt.

It's probably been the single biggest factor in the utter, total mess we and so many other countries are in.

Well Bliar and Brown took the baton and sprinted with it. Establishing the FSA was effectively that **** Brown's legacy to the country.

A bit like asking a rowing boat to contain a drug smuggling operation based on a thousand high speed inflatables.

The problem was not the rowing boat, but the smugglers...and of course those who gave them licence to operate.

I see as well as baling out the shortsighted fuckwits in the banks, we're paying multiple millions to their chums in the accountancy firms, for "consultancy" which stopped short of offering advice which could have offset this crisis, and "auditing" which didn't quite reveal what was going on.

[snowychap]

...they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford...

What 'spending spree' was that?

[Ads]

The arrogance of Lord Young and the fact that Cameron will not sack him shows Cameron's ideals at face value.

I thought the BBC 5Live analysis of his comments was pretty spot on. Essentially they said his generalisation was wrong, but you can make a decent argument if you move into specifics for him being right. People on trackers for example who are in employment will have done very well so far. Those with savings will have lost out due to the low interest rates.

They also compared this recession with the recessions of the early 80’ds and 90’s and how unemployment, interest rates and inflation have remained a lot lower, leaving fewer people losing out. The obvious difference being the huge debt we face now and how it takes longer to work its way out the system.

Still, his comments weren’t the sort to be made while being wined and dined and he shouldn’t have made crass generalisations and deservedly walked.

As an aside, I'm struggling to think why I read this thread given some of the inane contributions in it.

[peterms]

I believe that Mrs Thatcher was long gone when a stable economy, with a small budget deficit, was handed over to Blair and Brown in 1997.

They did not jump to undo any of her, or anyone else's, 'brainwaves' and they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford.

This was all masked by regular utterings of "prudent fiscal management" and "no more boom and bust" from Brown, while he was happy to allow all financial institutions to create an aura of prosperity that made him and his government look good.

The reality is that they have destroyed the future of this country, should have their pensions scrutinised just like any other banker, and should be put on trial for gross dereliction of duty in a public office.

And Iraq I honestly couldn't give a damn about, except for the fact that it cost UK lives and yet more money that we didn't have.

You must live in a complete fantasy land.

The biggest single problem with the economy (and even more so with Ireland's) is that it has largely been in thrall to a boom in house prices based on - well, nothing , really, other than telling ourselves that houses are worth more each year.

The biggest culprits in this are the financial institutions, who profited immensely from selling this myth, and from retailing their financial "products" (the very name should make you realise there's some charlatanry about). The second biggest are we, the general public, who were so enamoured of the three card trick that we failed to apply the common sense test to what we were being told. Yes, we can get richer every year by doing nothing! Yes, it's great! Yes, it will last forever!

Some way after that come governments. Thatcher was especially culpable, actively looking for ways to profit her mates and take money away from those her narrow Grantham upbringing had conditioned her to believe were workshy scroungers (a term far more suited to the likes of Fred Goodwin and chums).

And yes, Brown as well. His claims of having relegated boom and bust to the history books were hubristic and misplaced. But not malicious and intentionally destructive, like most of the shite talked by Thatcher.

And a stable economy! Stable as in the horse has bolted, perhaps, but in no other respect whatever.

The economy in 1997 was well on the way to being what it is now, overly dependent on private debt funding the purchase of imports and financial "products" which enriched the parasites in the financial "industries". It is this which has brought us to the current state of collapse. Brown didn't challenge this or move us off the path, but neither did he create it. As for Blair, he wouldn't have had the first idea about what was happening, and it seems a bit like bullying even to expect the silly tart to know anything about it.

The notion about "small budget deficit" as a synonym for "responsible government" is of course economically illiterate tosh. Government deficits are a useful way of helping the economy. The real problem is the level of private indebtedness, sucking in imports and fuelling a mad and unsustainable house price bubble.

And yes, your views on Iraq come as no surprise, as I indicated previously. Pretty sad, really. How narrow your horizons must be.

[thetrees]

I believe that Mrs Thatcher was long gone when a stable economy, with a small budget deficit, was handed over to Blair and Brown in 1997.

They did not jump to undo any of her, or anyone else's, 'brainwaves' and they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford.

This was all masked by regular utterings of "prudent fiscal management" and "no more boom and bust" from Brown, while he was happy to allow all financial institutions to create an aura of prosperity that made him and his government look good.

The reality is that they have destroyed the future of this country, should have their pensions scrutinised just like any other banker, and should be put on trial for gross dereliction of duty in a public office.

And Iraq I honestly couldn't give a damn about, except for the fact that it cost UK lives and yet more money that we didn't have.

You must live in a complete fantasy land.

The biggest single problem with the economy (and even more so with Ireland's) is that it has largely been in thrall to a boom in house prices based on - well, nothing , really, other than telling ourselves that houses are worth more each year.

The biggest culprits in this are the financial institutions, who profited immensely from selling this myth, and from retailing their financial "products" (the very name should make you realise there's some charlatanry about). The second biggest are we, the general public, who were so enamoured of the three card trick that we failed to apply the common sense test to what we were being told. Yes, we can get richer every year by doing nothing! Yes, it's great! Yes, it will last forever!

Some way after that come governments. Thatcher was especially culpable, actively looking for ways to profit her mates and take money away from those her narrow Grantham upbringing had conditioned her to believe were workshy scroungers (a term far more suited to the likes of Fred Goodwin and chums).

And yes, Brown as well. His claims of having relegated boom and bust to the history books were hubristic and misplaced. But not malicious and intentionally destructive, like most of the shite talked by Thatcher.

I live in complete fantasy land, but basically we agree. It appears that the only area in which we differ is that I believe that the government could see what I and many others saw, the idiocy of spending money that didn't exist, but happily let the banks dupe unsuspecting ordinary people into borrowing the same 'money' as it created a huge amount of spending and therefore a 'boom' economy.

And yes, your views on Iraq come as no surprise, as I indicated previously. Pretty sad, really. How narrow your horizons must be.

Hmm, narrow.

Socialists tend to want to deny our imperialistic past, where we ruled large parts of the world, yet at the same time seem to want us to interfere in other countries.

Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing to me. If they are dominated by 'bad' governments, so what? I don't think the Chinese rulers are very cuddly, but successive governments in this country seem happy to cuddle up to them.

Basically there are bad governments and oppression everywhere, but I don't think that it is our role in the world to protect the civilian population of foreign lands from their own people. If that is a 'narrow horizon' then so be it.

[snowychap]

As an aside, I'm struggling to think why I read this thread given some of the inane contributions in it.

Perhaps it's for the other posts which, in my view, have made this thread a pretty decent read over the past thirty or forty pages.

[thetrees]

...they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford...

What 'spending spree' was that?

Mainly expansion of the public sector. How many jobs was it that they 'created'?

Chuck in a couple of wars and excessive health service expenditure and you are soon looking at billions down the drain.

In comparison the Millenium Dome and the Olympics look cheap :winkold:

[snowychap]

...they went on a spending spree that we just could not afford...

What 'spending spree' was that?

Mainly expansion of the public sector. How many jobs was it that they 'created'?

Chuck in a couple of wars and excessive health service expenditure and you are soon looking at billions down the drain.

The same 'spending spree' to which the Conservative party was committed pretty much pound for pound (until November '08), then?

Gotcha.

[peterms]

I live in complete fantasy land, but basically we agree. It appears that the only area in which we differ is that I believe that the government could see what I and many others saw, the idiocy of spending money that didn't exist, but happily let the banks dupe unsuspecting ordinary people into borrowing the same 'money' as it created a huge amount of spending and therefore a 'boom' economy.

Your post stated that the (Labour) government embarked on a spending spree. That's nonsense. Public spending tends to vary only slightly over years (didn't the tories this week say how close their spending would be to what the last government spent?). My post said that the problem was private debt, not public deficits. You suggest that we are saying the same thing, when we are plainly not. Your comments for the most part make no sense. Though the final comment which I have quoted is one with which I agree.

And yes, your views on Iraq come as no surprise, as I indicated previously. Pretty sad, really. How narrow your horizons must be.

Hmm, narrow.

Socialists tend to want to deny our imperialistic past, where we ruled large parts of the world, yet at the same time seem to want us to interfere in other countries.

Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing to me. If they are dominated by 'bad' governments, so what? I don't think the Chinese rulers are very cuddly, but successive governments in this country seem happy to cuddle up to them.

Basically there are bad governments and oppression everywhere, but I don't think that it is our role in the world to protect the civilian population of foreign lands from their own people. If that is a 'narrow horizon' then so be it.

My view is that we should treat other countries, like other people, as we would wish to be treated. You clearly don't feel the same. If you think that exploitation, invasion, undermining and so on are perfectly acceptable, then I think we are so far apart that dialogue is pointless.

You also seem to miss the point by a remarkable extent. It's not that we uniquely have a role in protecting people from their own governments (though I think we as others, have a moral duty to do that, which usually, like in Rwanda, we fail); it's that we should stop interfering in other countries for our own benefit.

[Gringo]

Nice to see another thread descend into the socialists chucking it at the Tories.

What socialists? I can only see tory-lite nulabourites throwing mud?

[Gringo]

I believe that Mrs Thatcher was long gone when a stable economy, with a small budget deficit, was handed over to Blair and Brown in 1997.

With the family silver sold off, the housing stock flogged off at 30% of value, with the water and energy telecoms companies flogged off. They did a shit job, but they were handed a shit hand - the tories had sold off anything they reasonably could, and given away the stuff they couldn't sell. That's what kept the budget in check in those days, but when there's nothing left to sell what do you do? Sell more - nulabour, just like the tories but different. There's nothing nulabour did in terms of the economy that the tories wouldn't have done - independeny BoE - tories claimed they would have done it - increase the NHS internal market - a tory dream - NHS costs through the roof - privatise education - nulabour would have never got the academy bills through parliament without 'Dave's' help.

Tories are always quick to claim that thatcher's rule changed the country, and always slow to accept responsibility for those changes.