Politics

[Christmas Tree 4679]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

 

 

My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished.

 

The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from.

 

Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

 

I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives.

 

I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things.

- Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here?

- To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion.

 

 

What happened to not arguing for the sake of it

 

I used the quote to back up what Brown has done and where he got the idea. Suprised you missed that unless your just after a fight.

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to directly post a link that shows Brown was responsible for unreasonable termination clauses, rather than this convoluted argument based on pure supposition though?

 

Do you stand by your arguement that it is Labour's fault we are getting two aircraft carriers, and if you do, will you back it up? Or alternatively it would be alright to admit you made a mistake.

 

 

Dont really understand your second point????

 

Anyway, David Cameron house of commons today advises parliament that due to the termination terms agreed by Brown, it is cheaper to go ahead with the order than to cancel it. Has written proof from BAE. Sure he'll send you a link if you want it.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Must say another stellar performance by Cameron.

 

Red Ed was simply shocking today and looked and sounded like a first year uni student. Mumbled everything and had Harmen sitting next to him contorting her face in order to try and make head nor tail of what he was saying. Very very weak.

[Happy Face 29]

42,000 to be laid off by MoD

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

 

That won't help the benefits bill.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

42,000 to be laid off by MoD

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

 

That won't help the benefits bill.

 

 

Helps the public spending bill tho

[PaddockLad 17063]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

You've got it the wrong way round.....it would be BAE who insisted on the clauses being inserted. They are the closest thing to a nationalised industry we have left. A little known fact is that any contract they take on for any foreign government is guaranteed by the British taxpayer. We stump up the money if the contract tender price is exceeded beyond a certain level.And we keep on paying...and on and on. And you can imagine how easy it is to make a contract hit that magic point?....or if a government doesn't want a certain product after all:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...-ship-deal.html

 

key phrase here:

 

BAE's share price rose 0.6 to 334.4p despite the announcement.

 

[Christmas Tree 4679]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

You've got it the wrong way round.....it would be BAE who insisted on the clauses being inserted. They are the closest thing to a nationalised industry we have left. A little known fact is that any contract they take on for any foreign government is guaranteed by the British taxpayer. We stump up the money if the contract tender price is exceeded beyond a certain level.And we keep on paying...and on and on. And you can imagine how easy it is to make a contract hit that magic point?....or if a government doesn't want a certain product after all:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...-ship-deal.html

 

key phrase here:

 

BAE's share price rose 0.6 to 334.4p despite the announcement.

 

 

Its matterless really. Usually its the customer spending billions who has the clout to say fuck off to terms they are not happy with. You can take the view that he was either extremely weak in the bargaining process or cynical enough to make the deal unbreakable for his local friends and voters.

 

Either way he has hamstrung the current government into being unable to cancel the order.

 

Personally, given the fact he stood at the dockyards and spoke about the tories stealing tripod for plymouth and making their contracts unbreakable, I think he knew exactly what he had agreed too which is why he brought it up.

 

Negligent either way tbf,

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

Good point raised in another thread CT- if Thatcher croaks soon, should we spend anything giving the old witch a state funeral?

Times is hard and that.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

She was one of the most successful politicians in the country's history, of course she'll get one.

[The Fish 10682]

She was one of the most successful politicians in the country's history, of course she'll get one.

You'd give her one?

 

 

 

 

hurrhurr

[peasepud 59]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Good point raised in another thread CT- if Thatcher croaks soon, should we spend anything giving the old witch a state funeral?

Times is hard and that.

 

No.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

Aye. Good luck ladies and gents.

Mrs. Fist is on the list.

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

[spongebob toonpants 3925]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

 

Your lack of self awareness is quite astonishing

[Christmas Tree 4679]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

 

Your lack of self awareness is quite astonishing

 

 

Yawn

[Park Life 71]

. I know my beliefs and allegiances, I don't hide it.

 

Yeah what are you again, a socialist who uses BUPA?

 

That's him.

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

Surely you can see though CT , that career advice from Camerons biggest fan , today of all days, could be seen as a touch insensitive?

You might as well just quote Norman Tebbitt.

 

This is not meant as a dig btw, just pointing out that a lot of people on this board will be fearing for their jobs today, and won't share your view of the best PM in your lifetime.

[spongebob toonpants 3925]

Interesting article.

 

Purely as a Labour supporter one of the most depressing things about the current situation is the Tories succesful domination of the narrative of the cuts

 

The myth needs nailing that Brown, not bankers, caused our economic woes. Then the case against cuts can be made

 

In France, they are already rioting on the streets. An estimated 3.5 million of them, according to one trade union estimate, from Lyon to Paris to Nanterre, either striking, marching or taking direct action in fury at changes to their pensions. Within hours, they had closed down schools, disrupted the travel network and prompted alarm about the nation's fuel supplies.

 

Contrast that with the scene that played out in London at the same time. Here, a demonstration against the cuts to be announced in full by George Osborne tomorrow brought a few thousand activists to wave their banners and chant their chants in Parliament Square. The closest they got to a threat was when Unison's Dave Prentis warned: "If the government doesn't listen to us today, they won't have heard the last of us." Storming the Bastille, it wasn't.

 

Why the difference? You could write a learned thesis on the contrasting political traditions of the two countries, how the French take to the streets at the merest tweak to their welfare arrangements. But there is another explanation that goes beyond British habits of passivity. Right now, even those people who fear and loathe the government's cuts don't blame the government.

 

Today a YouGov poll for the Sun asked voters who is most to blame for the current spending cuts. Only 18% named the coalition, a figure dwarfed by the 48% who pointed the finger at the last Labour government.

 

That outcome is the fruit of a strategy pursued with iron discipline by the Conservatives and Lib Dems. No minister can so much as remark on the weather without pointing out that they "inherited this mess from Labour". David Cameron said so when he unveiled the strategic defence review today, Vince Cable did the same last week, as he explained his volte-face on tuition fees and Osborne will do it too. You may not hear much about the Tory inheritance tax these days, but "inherited" is the coalition's favourite word.

 

So far it's working, the public believing that however painful the government's actions, they are merely the unavoidable consequence of Labour recklessness. For as long as this holds, anger will be directed not at Cameron, Osborne and Clegg but at the opposition. It means the public will close its ears to any alternative message Labour attempts to offer. This is why some in the party's top ranks now admit that "the most important issue" for the party's future is its immediate past. It has to nail the claim that the country's woes are the fault of the last Labour government. Put simply, it has to win the blame game.

 

That effort starts with setting the record straight. The coalition's case is that Labour behaved like the pools winners of yesteryear, showering tenners around like confetti. The 13 years of New Labour rule are recast as a binge whose golden rule was spend, spend, spend. Before that storyline takes hold for good – and it may already be too late – Labour needs to lay out a few facts.

 

The first should come in the form of a question. If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time?

 

Could it be because things were not actually that bad? A quick look at the figures confirms that, until the crash hit in September 2008, the levels of red ink were manageably low. The budget of 2007 estimated Britain's structural deficit – that chunk of the debt that won't be mopped up by growth – at 3% of gross domestic product. At the time, the revered Institute for Fiscal Studies accepted that two-thirds of that sum comprised borrowing for investment, leaving a black hole of just 1% of GDP. If the structural deficit today has rocketed close to 8%, all that proves is that most of it was racked up dealing with the banking crisis and subsequent slump – with only a fraction the result of supposed Labour profligacy. After all, even the Tories would have had to pay out unemployment benefit.

 

This is why Ed Balls was right to declare in his summer Bloomberg lecture – which remains Labour's most robust effort yet to redirect the finger of blame away from itself – that "it is a question of fact that we entered this financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country".

 

In other words, the position was relatively sound until the crash struck. The coalition would prefer voters forgot about that event; they mention it only rarely. But in this era of collective short-term memory loss, it is worth reminding people that the financial crisis was not limited to those territories ruled by Gordon Brown: it was global, it was systemic and it was caused by the larcenous greed of bankers.

 

Some will say that Labour, nevertheless, bore some particular responsibility – if not for the crisis itself then for Britain's exposure to it, not least through Brown's indulgence of the City and light-touch regulation of finance. Some can say that – but not the Tories. The only problem they had with Brown's deregulation is that there wasn't more of it. One small reminder: Cameron endorsed John Redwood's 2007 report on competitiveness which declared that there was "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision – this just as the contagion of sub-prime mortgages was about to take down the world banking system.

 

Which brings us to the real source of the deficit: the colossal borrowing Labour had to undertake in order to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy. The party has to insist that it wasn't spending for the hell of it or because it was incontinent with the public's cash. It had to pump money into the economy to prevent a recession turning into a depression, to prevent the spiralling unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies that had accompanied previous downturns, to stop the banks collapsing. People mocked Brown when he accidentally claimed to have "saved the world" but it's true that his approach was copied the world over – and many did indeed believe his recapitalisation plan rescued the global financial system.

 

It will require great boldness for Labour to make this case. It amounts to rehabilitating the deficit itself, asking voters not to see it as some evil monster that has to be slayed immediately – but rather as the price that had to be paid to prevent unemployment tripling, interest rates galloping and the economy falling off a cliff. Lots of countries, from the US to Japan, have paid it with deficits of their own – or does the coalition think those are all Labour's fault too?

 

Only once this case is made can Labour go on to make its wider critique of the coalition: arguing that the government's response to the deficit is panicked and hysterical, that the surest way to enlarge, not reduce, the deficit is to cut in the midst of a downturn, that growth and jobs have to come first, that serious spending cuts are wise only once the economy is back to health.

 

This is the argument Labour has to win. Rather than the shadow chancellor cracking jokes about picking up a "primer on economics for beginners" – the dumbest self-inflicted wound since Liam Byrne told his successor "there's no money left" – Labour has to dispel the myth that it's all their fault. If they fail, it will take them a generation to recover.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...bour-blame-game

[Christmas Tree 4679]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

Surely you can see though CT , that career advice from Camerons biggest fan , today of all days, could be seen as a touch insensitive?

You might as well just quote Norman Tebbitt.

 

This is not meant as a dig btw, just pointing out that a lot of people on this board will be fearing for their jobs today, and won't share your view of the best PM in your lifetime.

 

First of all I dont think PP is that sensitive. Secondly, the remarks were genuine remarks about the it news announced yesterday, given his background and as already pointed out, not a piss take.

 

Thirdly, people fearing for their jobs today have a lot of people they should be focussing their anger on before they get to Cameron.

 

Finally, I dont think there is anybody on this board or elsewhere taking pleasure in the job losses and cuts that will effect all of us. I would much rather have a tory government inheriting a budget surplus and being able to spend rather than having too cut.

 

Finally, finally.... How you have the brass neck to talk about others being insensitive while in another post launching Thatchers dead body off off a grimbsy trawler beggers belief.

[peasepud 59]

I didnt take the comment badly however I can agree with how it can be seen as bad taste when someone basically says (as this government is) "you and 499,999 others are going to lose your job today but dont worry we've got 20 appearing in the new cyber crime division"

 

We can pile numerous people into cyber crime but at the end of the day they'll just be current employees of whatever department takes responsibility for it. Probably Home Office Id suspect, if you dont already work in the Home Office therefore then you've got bugger all chance of getting a move there after today.

 

No department will take on any staff in the foreseeable future, merely move people from one role to another and again, this doesnt help the matter. Instead of pulling in experts* in the topic they'll move paper jockeys from a no longer needed section and retrain them on this.

 

*if they did want external experts then Id be knackered anyway

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

well todays the day, some of us may still have jobs come 5pm.

 

Cyber security seems to be the big new thing. No chance of getting in on that gig?

The sheer brass neck on CT.

 

 

It wasn't a piss take it was a serious question!

 

PP mentions now and again about trips to London so he is obviously higher up the chain than the average IT person. The Government announced yesterday about all the money they will be chucking at cyber terrorism. Not only does it sound like a secure gig to get into I would also think it could be very interesting.

Surely you can see though CT , that career advice from Camerons biggest fan , today of all days, could be seen as a touch insensitive?

You might as well just quote Norman Tebbitt.

 

This is not meant as a dig btw, just pointing out that a lot of people on this board will be fearing for their jobs today, and won't share your view of the best PM in your lifetime.

 

First of all I dont think PP is that sensitive. Secondly, the remarks were genuine remarks about the it news announced yesterday, given his background and as already pointed out, not a piss take.

 

Thirdly, people fearing for their jobs today have a lot of people they should be focussing their anger on before they get to Cameron.

 

Finally, I dont think there is anybody on this board or elsewhere taking pleasure in the job losses and cuts that will effect all of us. I would much rather have a tory government inheriting a budget surplus and being able to spend rather than having too cut.

 

Finally, finally.... How you have the brass neck to talk about others being insensitive while in another post launching Thatchers dead body off off a grimbsy trawler beggers belief.

That was Kitman

I suggested Ark Royal.

[ChezGiven 0]

Interesting article.

 

Purely as a Labour supporter one of the most depressing things about the current situation is the Tories succesful domination of the narrative of the cuts

 

The myth needs nailing that Brown, not bankers, caused our economic woes. Then the case against cuts can be made

 

In France, they are already rioting on the streets. An estimated 3.5 million of them, according to one trade union estimate, from Lyon to Paris to Nanterre, either striking, marching or taking direct action in fury at changes to their pensions. Within hours, they had closed down schools, disrupted the travel network and prompted alarm about the nation's fuel supplies.

 

Contrast that with the scene that played out in London at the same time. Here, a demonstration against the cuts to be announced in full by George Osborne tomorrow brought a few thousand activists to wave their banners and chant their chants in Parliament Square. The closest they got to a threat was when Unison's Dave Prentis warned: "If the government doesn't listen to us today, they won't have heard the last of us." Storming the Bastille, it wasn't.

 

Why the difference? You could write a learned thesis on the contrasting political traditions of the two countries, how the French take to the streets at the merest tweak to their welfare arrangements. But there is another explanation that goes beyond British habits of passivity. Right now, even those people who fear and loathe the government's cuts don't blame the government.

 

Today a YouGov poll for the Sun asked voters who is most to blame for the current spending cuts. Only 18% named the coalition, a figure dwarfed by the 48% who pointed the finger at the last Labour government.

 

That outcome is the fruit of a strategy pursued with iron discipline by the Conservatives and Lib Dems. No minister can so much as remark on the weather without pointing out that they "inherited this mess from Labour". David Cameron said so when he unveiled the strategic defence review today, Vince Cable did the same last week, as he explained his volte-face on tuition fees and Osborne will do it too. You may not hear much about the Tory inheritance tax these days, but "inherited" is the coalition's favourite word.

 

So far it's working, the public believing that however painful the government's actions, they are merely the unavoidable consequence of Labour recklessness. For as long as this holds, anger will be directed not at Cameron, Osborne and Clegg but at the opposition. It means the public will close its ears to any alternative message Labour attempts to offer. This is why some in the party's top ranks now admit that "the most important issue" for the party's future is its immediate past. It has to nail the claim that the country's woes are the fault of the last Labour government. Put simply, it has to win the blame game.

 

That effort starts with setting the record straight. The coalition's case is that Labour behaved like the pools winners of yesteryear, showering tenners around like confetti. The 13 years of New Labour rule are recast as a binge whose golden rule was spend, spend, spend. Before that storyline takes hold for good – and it may already be too late – Labour needs to lay out a few facts.

 

The first should come in the form of a question. If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time?

 

Could it be because things were not actually that bad? A quick look at the figures confirms that, until the crash hit in September 2008, the levels of red ink were manageably low. The budget of 2007 estimated Britain's structural deficit – that chunk of the debt that won't be mopped up by growth – at 3% of gross domestic product. At the time, the revered Institute for Fiscal Studies accepted that two-thirds of that sum comprised borrowing for investment, leaving a black hole of just 1% of GDP. If the structural deficit today has rocketed close to 8%, all that proves is that most of it was racked up dealing with the banking crisis and subsequent slump – with only a fraction the result of supposed Labour profligacy. After all, even the Tories would have had to pay out unemployment benefit.

 

This is why Ed Balls was right to declare in his summer Bloomberg lecture – which remains Labour's most robust effort yet to redirect the finger of blame away from itself – that "it is a question of fact that we entered this financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country".

 

In other words, the position was relatively sound until the crash struck. The coalition would prefer voters forgot about that event; they mention it only rarely. But in this era of collective short-term memory loss, it is worth reminding people that the financial crisis was not limited to those territories ruled by Gordon Brown: it was global, it was systemic and it was caused by the larcenous greed of bankers.

 

Some will say that Labour, nevertheless, bore some particular responsibility – if not for the crisis itself then for Britain's exposure to it, not least through Brown's indulgence of the City and light-touch regulation of finance. Some can say that – but not the Tories. The only problem they had with Brown's deregulation is that there wasn't more of it. One small reminder: Cameron endorsed John Redwood's 2007 report on competitiveness which declared that there was "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision – this just as the contagion of sub-prime mortgages was about to take down the world banking system.

 

Which brings us to the real source of the deficit: the colossal borrowing Labour had to undertake in order to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy. The party has to insist that it wasn't spending for the hell of it or because it was incontinent with the public's cash. It had to pump money into the economy to prevent a recession turning into a depression, to prevent the spiralling unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies that had accompanied previous downturns, to stop the banks collapsing. People mocked Brown when he accidentally claimed to have "saved the world" but it's true that his approach was copied the world over – and many did indeed believe his recapitalisation plan rescued the global financial system.

 

It will require great boldness for Labour to make this case. It amounts to rehabilitating the deficit itself, asking voters not to see it as some evil monster that has to be slayed immediately – but rather as the price that had to be paid to prevent unemployment tripling, interest rates galloping and the economy falling off a cliff. Lots of countries, from the US to Japan, have paid it with deficits of their own – or does the coalition think those are all Labour's fault too?

 

Only once this case is made can Labour go on to make its wider critique of the coalition: arguing that the government's response to the deficit is panicked and hysterical, that the surest way to enlarge, not reduce, the deficit is to cut in the midst of a downturn, that growth and jobs have to come first, that serious spending cuts are wise only once the economy is back to health.

 

This is the argument Labour has to win. Rather than the shadow chancellor cracking jokes about picking up a "primer on economics for beginners" – the dumbest self-inflicted wound since Liam Byrne told his successor "there's no money left" – Labour has to dispel the myth that it's all their fault. If they fail, it will take them a generation to recover.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...bour-blame-game

 

This is the truth, the Conservatives are liars and cunts.

 

Any response from the Tory voters? One that addresses the state of the economy pre and post-crisis and the Tory/Redwood recommendations?

[Guest alex]

Finally, finally.... How you have the brass neck to talk about others being insensitive while in another post launching Thatchers dead body off off a grimbsy trawler beggers belief.

Can't believe the difference needs pointing out to even you. Potentially wasting money after taking away people's jobs compared to a joke on an internet forum?