Renton 21226 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Debateable, they objected to it at the time, a move that is seen as universally disastrous with hindsight. In fact I do think Brown deserves a lot of praise for his handling of the crisis, so the prefix 'the terrible legacy Labour left us' is more than a bit galling since the tories at best would have done just as bad as Labour, but at worst would have caused the entire economy to collapse. I take your point like but opposition is different to being in power. I reckon they'd have bailed the banks out were they in power though. Especially as the US did so. Agree but still think Brown deserves credit for his leading role in the international crisis, which largely pre-empted the US actions iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15365 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'll never give Brown the slightest shred of praise for his handling of the economy. Preaching "I've abolished boom or bust" while everyone with half a brain knew the country's "growth" was based on an unsustainable, Dutch tulip-style real estate bubble FFS. The fact that the only tangible opposition to his regime would have done exactly the same thing is depressing beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Debateable, they objected to it at the time, a move that is seen as universally disastrous with hindsight. In fact I do think Brown deserves a lot of praise for his handling of the crisis, so the prefix 'the terrible legacy Labour left us' is more than a bit galling since the tories at best would have done just as bad as Labour, but at worst would have caused the entire economy to collapse. I take your point like but opposition is different to being in power. I reckon they'd have bailed the banks out were they in power though. Especially as the US did so. Agree but still think Brown deserves credit for his leading role in the international crisis, which largely pre-empted the US actions iirc. Fair dos. Must wish he never bothered now like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21226 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2 is an outright lie you've swallowed but never backed up. 1 is the cause of all the problems you now associate with 3 and was largely, if not almost completely, out of the government's control. It's completely disingenuous of the tories to heap everything back on Labour when the tories said nothing in opposition that suggests they would have done any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 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 In a nutshell. This could have being written by Renton. Moaning and crying long after the horse has bolted about how unfair it all is. I think my response to Alex's post gives a fair account of history and really Labour has lost this argument and imo to try and keep on about it will do them no good. Johnson tried this today but it just ended up looking weak and an opposition with no new ideas. A bit like the Tories did in the years following 1997. The bottom line is they lost the election. The public had had enough. I think the gulf between tired old Labour and this new reforming coalition is vast. Some of the things they annouced today to protect the young, old and genuinely needy were admirable. Unfortunately for Labour, not only will the Bankrupt Britain, no money left stigma stick, they have also elected a very poor candidate as their public voice. Unless something goes really tits up, Labour face a long time in opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Opposition to what? More of the same? It's naive in the extreme to think that both parties don#t cow to the same puppetmasters. Bet nobody could name even 5 significant differances between the parties. Even regarding Euro there is little between them. Edited October 20, 2010 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2.'s a lie isn't it? 1. - I'll give you that but we don't agree on who's most to blame. The rest's opinion which we'll never agree on. Could you prove 2 is correct though? With figures. TBH I cant be bothered to look for figures and even if I found some, you would find some others that dispelled them etc etc I thought it was genuinely take for red that Labour idealogically believed in a big state and the Conservatives in a smaller one. I think there are quite a lot of Labour supporters who will look back on Labours reign and think a lot more should and could have been done during the good years. My honest opinion is that the infighting between the Blair and Brown factions prevented a lot of stuff getting done. They started like a house on fire but quickly lost that edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT. I'll not pretend to be competent, never mind an expert talking about those times, however how you could have prevented the unstoppable march to the cheap wages of the East is beyond me. If it was simply down to the Tories why didnt Labour redress it during their 13 years. I would also add that had the unions being more realistic about which way the world was heading (East) surely it would have been better to modernise and at least try and compete. Thats whats happened since in all walks of life. (unsuccesfully in a lot of industries). Edited October 20, 2010 by Christmas Tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4365 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) I thought it was genuinely take for red that Labour idealogically believed in a big state and the Conservatives in a smaller one. Nobody centralised government more than Thatcher (see controlling council budget via poll/council tax limits as an example). Cameron's supposed devolving of power to councils/people is probably the most anti-Thatcher thing he's proposed. Edited October 20, 2010 by NJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT. I'll not pretend to be competent, never mind an expert talking about those times, however how you could have prevented the unstoppable march to the cheap wages of the East is beyond me. If it was simply down to the Tories why didnt Labour redress it during their 13 years. How did Germany do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'll never give Brown the slightest shred of praise for his handling of the economy. Preaching "I've abolished boom or bust" while everyone with half a brain knew the country's "growth" was based on an unsustainable, Dutch tulip-style real estate bubble FFS. The fact that the only tangible opposition to his regime would have done exactly the same thing is depressing beyond belief. QFT tbh and I honestly believe that the only essential difference we'd see today (if it had been the Tories in power) is that not only would we be without money to invest for the next 5 years now, we'd also have had fuck all investment for the previous 10 years. Not being a twat here but when you look around and see Sure Start and decent hospital and school buildings etc (and I know the funding aspect is a separate argument) I honestly think "thank fuck for that", because I tell you what, you're not going to see building like that for a long time yet. Possibly for decades. So at least we've got those facilities now because we sure as shit wouldnt have got them under the Tories, it'd have just been pissed up the wall in tax breaks. The parallel universe of the Tories having been in charge for the last 15 years only for the decaying facilities we had then to be now getting worse and worse (and having to last us for another 20 years or whatever) is just unthinkable. I tell you what that is serious fucking consolation for me and I don't mind admitting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2 is an outright lie you've swallowed but never backed up. 1 is the cause of all the problems you now associate with 3 and was largely, if not almost completely, out of the government's control. It's completely disingenuous of the tories to heap everything back on Labour when the tories said nothing in opposition that suggests they would have done any better. Fucking hell Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21226 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2.'s a lie isn't it? 1. - I'll give you that but we don't agree on who's most to blame. The rest's opinion which we'll never agree on. Could you prove 2 is correct though? With figures. TBH I cant be bothered to look for figures and even if I found some, you would find some others that dispelled them etc etc I thought it was genuinely take for red that Labour idealogically believed in a big state and the Conservatives in a smaller one. I think there are quite a lot of Labour supporters who will look back on Labours reign and think a lot more should and could have been done during the good years. My honest opinion is that the infighting between the Blair and Brown factions prevented a lot of stuff getting done. They started like a house on fire but quickly lost that edge. That would be a no then. The figures on the health of the economy though are given in that very article you dismiss purely because it's written in a left-leaning newspaper. Figures on public sector employees are given throughout this thread as well you know, you just ignore them. I completely agree about the ideological differences, perhaps now you can see why there is concern the Conservsatives are using the deficit as a smoke screen to bludgeon the state faster than they could have ever hoped for previously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4365 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 it'd have just been pissed up the wall in tax breaks. Probably causing the crash earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21226 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2 is an outright lie you've swallowed but never backed up. 1 is the cause of all the problems you now associate with 3 and was largely, if not almost completely, out of the government's control. It's completely disingenuous of the tories to heap everything back on Labour when the tories said nothing in opposition that suggests they would have done any better. Fucking hell Renton What? Every single time they speak, they bring up the deficit as something that Labour was entirely responsible for, which can be shown to be a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously. Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT. I'll not pretend to be competent, never mind an expert talking about those times, however how you could have prevented the unstoppable march to the cheap wages of the East is beyond me. If it was simply down to the Tories why didnt Labour redress it during their 13 years. How did Germany do it? Much easier to quote what they did and how and then explain why Labour didnt do it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously. Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Edited October 20, 2010 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4365 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 What? Every single time they speak, they bring up the deficit as something that Labour was entirely responsible for, which can be shown to be a lie. I know that people like me can be accused of harping back to Thacher's time in power but one thing I will say for New Labour - they didn't spend 13 years or even 5 as far as I can remember mentioning her every fucking day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15365 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 What? Every single time they speak, they bring up the deficit as something that Labour was entirely responsible for, which can be shown to be a lie. I know that people like me can be accused of harping back to Thacher's time in power but one thing I will say for New Labour - they didn't spend 13 years or even 5 as far as I can remember mentioning her every fucking day. She'd been out of power for 7 years by the time they took over though, and you'll remember they spent pretty much their entire first term talking about the mess the Tories left behind. When that excuse expired - as it will for Cleggeron - there was nothing for it but to go to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). 2 is an outright lie you've swallowed but never backed up. 1 is the cause of all the problems you now associate with 3 and was largely, if not almost completely, out of the government's control. It's completely disingenuous of the tories to heap everything back on Labour when the tories said nothing in opposition that suggests they would have done any better. Fucking hell Renton What? Every single time they speak, they bring up the deficit as something that Labour was entirely responsible for, which can be shown to be a lie. Seriously? What do you expect them to do? Did I expect you to comment today on all the good stuff that was announced such as tax credits going up for the needy, winter fuel payments to pensioners put in place for good (not just elections - nice one George ) etc etc Ofcourse not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on. Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks. The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts. 1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc) 2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector. 3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc. Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides. Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics. Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today? Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight? Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses). Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT. I'll not pretend to be competent, never mind an expert talking about those times, however how you could have prevented the unstoppable march to the cheap wages of the East is beyond me. If it was simply down to the Tories why didnt Labour redress it during their 13 years. How did Germany do it? Much easier to quote what they did and how and then explain why Labour didnt do it, no? They concertrated on quality and innovation and are currently the only Euro country with a trade surplus. What they didn't do which the Tories did was give up and try and compete against the far east with the bargain basement stuff. The also didn't start portrraying workers as the enemy or greedy or unreasonable, the worked with them to develop excellent chemical industry, car industry, and hi tech and engineering products. In England of course we did the opposite, Thatcher started a war with the workers. i'vve read through some fo this thread and although I detect a lot of passion and energy, you really are very poorly informed, regurgitating the worst kind of nonsense. Edited October 20, 2010 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tuco Ramirez Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Rejection, Self Respect is the one thing you must never lose. Wipe the tears from your eyes and re mem ber you're. ONE IN MILLION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now