Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
Another thing that has not been mentioned much is Interest rates.
Like them or not, the Tories have managed an economy that has kept them rock bottom.
Anyone willing to wager where they will be should Ed balls get his hands on the cookie jar lid?
But I suppose we should all share any tiny bit of wealth we've got. More fool me for getting a mortgage!
First point -Low interest rates has been international trend and is not confined to this country.
At this late stage, I would like to commend the vast majority of posters on here from all sides. I was telling colleagues this morning that the most interesting debate I have seen in this election period was on a Charlton forum. I won't include the poster who flagged me for nothing in that - you know and I know who you are
It is looking like an election where there won't be a party with a clear majority and even a coalition with a clear majority. This is a bit exciting as it is new and uncertain. I think the aftermath will be interesting as I expect Johnson to become Tory leader quite quickly which will spice everything up. I think Cameron has fought a lacklustre campaign and I do know a lot of conservatives think that too - before people say how do you know - I do and there have also been quotes highlighted in this thread from senior conservatives saying as much. I think Miliband has done better than people expected him to - and I told people this would be the case in the beginning. I realised a couple of days ago that I am actually supporting him in this election rather than his party. I would prefer no party to have control as I think the two party system is outdated and needs changes. I am relieved above all that there probably won't be a Euro referendum - If it was going to happen it had to happen now - not in two years. We saw in Scotland the economic damage the uncertainty whether they would stay in the Union or not caused and this would be multiplied in the next couple of years. It didn't seem to be the biggest issue in this election, but I think it should have been.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
the left forget that most tories are still one nation tories. Who believe the rich has a duty to help the poor and to make britains class system fluid and encourage social mobility. They're still stuck on the throwaway remark thatcher made in a woman's mag about there being no such thing as society. Then again there are some on the right that think all labour are commies and want to live in a world where we are all in poverty.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
What leftist media?
It is an incontrovertible fact that this Labour Party and the Labour Party of Blair and every Labour Party since the war have been the party that has advocated policies to help the less privileged.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the less privileged have suffered terribly under this Tory/Lib Dem coalition and have suffered under every Tory government since the war.
The Sun and the rest of the right wing media can spin their nonsense about the Labour Party not looking out for the interests of the less privileged till the cows come home. It won't change the facts. And the electorate are not stupid enough to fall for that spin.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
the left forget that most tories are still one nation tories. Who believe the rich has a duty to help the poor and to make britains class system fluid and encourage social mobility. They're still stuck on the throwaway remark thatcher made in a woman's mag about there being no such thing as society. Then again there are some on the right that think all labour are commies and want to live in a world where we are all in poverty.
I agree but there are a sizeable number with too loud a voice in the current party who are not. I have great respect for Tories like Kenneth Clarke who has been a great politician. But a powerful conservative party would be very dangerous. I don't think we will be getting that though - at the extreme it will be a Conseravtive - Liberal Dem coalition.
the left forget that most tories are still one nation tories. Who believe the rich has a duty to help the poor and to make britains class system fluid and encourage social mobility. They're still stuck on the throwaway remark thatcher made in a woman's mag about there being no such thing as society. Then again there are some on the right that think all labour are commies and want to live in a world where we are all in poverty.
If only someone could invent the mythical money tree, I, and I suspect many Tories would happily become Socialists. Unfortunately I live in the real world rather than some fantasy world where everyone can have everything they want and not even have to work for it.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
What leftist media?
It is an incontrovertible fact that this Labour Party and the Labour Party of Blair and every Labour Party since the war have been the party that has advocated policies to help the less privileged.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the less privileged have suffered terribly under this Tory/Lib Dem coalition and have suffered under every Tory government since the war.
The Sun and the rest of the right wing media can spin their nonsense about the Labour Party not looking out for the interests of the less privileged till the cows come home. It won't change the facts. And the electorate are not stupid enough to fall for that spin.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the less privileged have suffered terribly under this Tory/Lib Dem coalition and have suffered under every Tory government since the war.
I wouldn't say i'm priveledged, but i'm no scrounger and think this ToryDem coalition has been acceptable... Not amazing but it helped me become a first time buyer when I was 25.
Is there a party that takes the good bits of Lab and the Good bits of Cons without gaining too many of the shit bits from both?
There used to be. It was called "New Labour". Everyone liked them for a while. They won a majority three elections running. But the novelty kind of wore off and they only came second last time.
@Grapevine49 To be cited not once but twice is an honour but I'm not sure I made myself clear 1) on the 2007-09 crash: the point is that there was a global failure of regulation and understanding of complex models and risk. Deregulation started in 1980 but clearly the Labour government failed to address core issues for fear of being labelled anti business or simply killing the golden goose and all those tax receipts. On a point of fact the banking system did not collapse for it went on life support and Gordon Brown helped lead the ER team to keep the life support system going. My question about Labour is why they didn't grasp this nettle three years ago and state they now have proper plans to regulate financial services - the centre left often claim they can manage capitalism but I haven't seen a coherent solution across Europe which is criminal given the political opportunity and inevitability of another crash. Asking institutions to hold more capital or less leverage simply doesn't mitigate the risks of a repeat. 2) on deficits, I am entirely disappointed by the Greek lefts failure to propose reforms to get them out of jail. My observations were made on a 3% deficit and I have been extremely clear that anything above that should be solved with asset sales and a cessation to tax cuts NOT attacks on welfare. 3% is sustainable if you have growth and inflation and the path to growth is to invest in capital (building) projects and raising spending power / living standards of the worst off. We should also focus on growing the industries where we are global leaders and the Tory "policies" on immigration do just the opposite. Personnally I believe that more low cost housing will ease the housing benefit bill and increasing the minimum wage should reduce the government subsidy to large corporations.
Neither party is particularly specific on how welfare can be reduced to eliminate these subsidies arising from the post war settlement 70 years ago.
But to finish on a note of agreement, neither party is addressing the demographic time bomb re. Health cost inflation and more people living longer on retirement plans designed in the last century. If the mainstream do not address this then someone else will. 3% deficit is my limit as I don't believe in money trees and neither do the markets.
For the avoidance of doubt, the French and Italian governments need to address underperformance in the Euro area vs Germany and deregulation / structural reform is the obvious answer. I met the author of one book at an event and he knows these people "to deliver the required reforms without civil unrest they need growth". The current domination of policy by Germany and other creditors is only recently being challenged and shifting policy, years after the US and UK introduced quantitative easing!
This is all relevant to today's election because I don't see a coherent post crash agenda anywhere in Europe. The US are delivering but they haven't wasted time banging on about austerity!
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
This is the great fallacy, the great lie peddled by the Leftist media, that enables the Labour party to get anywhere near forming government. This, and by portraying the Tories as evil people who hate the poor and only care about the rich. In the absence of such lies, the Labour party would have no advantage whatsoever over the Conservatives, so of course they push it hard. If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
What leftist media?
It is an incontrovertible fact that this Labour Party and the Labour Party of Blair and every Labour Party since the war have been the party that has advocated policies to help the less privileged.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the less privileged have suffered terribly under this Tory/Lib Dem coalition and have suffered under every Tory government since the war.
The Sun and the rest of the right wing media can spin their nonsense about the Labour Party not looking out for the interests of the less privileged till the cows come home. It won't change the facts. And the electorate are not stupid enough to fall for that spin.
My office is 7 people. I'm the only Labour voter 4 tories, 1 not voting and 1 green. I quite enjoy all the generic nonsense they are all spouting about the evil Labour party. They're talking to me as if I've got leprosy
My office is 7 people. I'm the only Labour voter 4 tories, 1 not voting and 1 green. I quite enjoy all the generic nonsense they are all spouting about the evil Labour party. They're talking to me as if I've got leprosy
@Grapevine49 To be cited not once but twice is an honour but I'm not sure I made myself clear 1) on the 2007-09 crash: the point is that there was a global failure of regulation and understanding of complex models and risk. Deregulation started in 1980 but clearly the Labour government failed to address core issues for fear of being labelled anti business or simply killing the golden goose and all those tax receipts. On a point of fact the banking system did not collapse for it went on life support and Gordon Brown helped lead the ER team to keep the life support system going. My question about Labour is why they didn't grasp this nettle three years ago and state they now have proper plans to regulate financial services - the centre left often claim they can manage capitalism but I haven't seen a coherent solution across Europe which is criminal given the political opportunity and inevitability of another crash. Asking institutions to hold more capital or less leverage simply doesn't mitigate the risks of a repeat. 2) on deficits, I am entirely disappointed by the Greek lefts failure to propose reforms to get them out of jail. My observations were made on a 3% deficit and I have been extremely clear that anything above that should be solved with asset sales and a cessation to tax cuts NOT attacks on welfare. 3% is sustainable if you have growth and inflation and the path to growth is to invest in capital (building) projects and raising spending power / living standards of the worst off. We should also focus on growing the industries where we are global leaders and the Tory "policies" on immigration do just the opposite. Personnally I believe that more low cost housing will ease the housing benefit bill and increasing the minimum wage should reduce the government subsidy to large corporations.
Neither party is particularly specific on how welfare can be reduced to eliminate these subsidies arising from the post war settlement 70 years ago.
But to finish on a note of agreement, neither party is addressing the demographic time bomb re. Health cost inflation and more people living longer on retirement plans designed in the last century. If the mainstream do not address this then someone else will. 3% deficit is my limit as I don't believe in money trees and neither do the markets.
For the avoidance of doubt, the French and Italian governments need to address underperformance in the Euro area vs Germany and deregulation / structural reform is the obvious answer. I met the author of one book at an event and he knows these people "to deliver the required reforms without civil unrest they need growth". The current domination of policy by Germany and other creditors is only recently being challenged and shifting policy, years after the US and UK introduced quantitative easing!
This is all relevant to today's election because I don't see a coherent post crash agenda anywhere in Europe. The US are delivering but they haven't wasted time banging on about austerity!
I think you are right (hate saying that ) on the big failing of Labour in this campaign, they focussed on a big winner of the NHS, and it has become a central issue, but seem to have totally avoided addressing the other major one which is Trust on the economy, and got caught badly on the leaders debate (amateurish). I think only a commitment in terms of a spending formula or something else, might have turned that round, but needed to be done yonks back.
Result is their poll lead has slumped to -1.
I'm still confused as to how the UKIP vote may effect results, particularly the return of Tory incumbents - interesting stuff.
the left forget that most tories are still one nation tories. Who believe the rich has a duty to help the poor and to make britains class system fluid and encourage social mobility. They're still stuck on the throwaway remark thatcher made in a woman's mag about there being no such thing as society. Then again there are some on the right that think all labour are commies and want to live in a world where we are all in poverty.
If only someone could invent the mythical money tree, I, and I suspect many Tories would happily become Socialists. Unfortunately I live in the real world rather than some fantasy world where everyone can have everything they want and not even have to work for it.
You quote a comment saying "don't tar me with your brush" as you hold your own in the other hand.
Comments
If only the electorate were as well informed as your good self GV. I hate to see good people taken in by blatant lies but the Labour party have turned it into an art form. Anyway a great post as usual GV, I wish you had posted it a few days earlier as it may possibly influence a few voters.
At this late stage, I would like to commend the vast majority of posters on here from all sides. I was telling colleagues this morning that the most interesting debate I have seen in this election period was on a Charlton forum. I won't include the poster who flagged me for nothing in that - you know and I know who you are
It is looking like an election where there won't be a party with a clear majority and even a coalition with a clear majority. This is a bit exciting as it is new and uncertain. I think the aftermath will be interesting as I expect Johnson to become Tory leader quite quickly which will spice everything up. I think Cameron has fought a lacklustre campaign and I do know a lot of conservatives think that too - before people say how do you know - I do and there have also been quotes highlighted in this thread from senior conservatives saying as much. I think Miliband has done better than people expected him to - and I told people this would be the case in the beginning. I realised a couple of days ago that I am actually supporting him in this election rather than his party. I would prefer no party to have control as I think the two party system is outdated and needs changes. I am relieved above all that there probably won't be a Euro referendum - If it was going to happen it had to happen now - not in two years. We saw in Scotland the economic damage the uncertainty whether they would stay in the Union or not caused and this would be multiplied in the next couple of years. It didn't seem to be the biggest issue in this election, but I think it should have been.
It is an incontrovertible fact that this Labour Party and the Labour Party of Blair and every Labour Party since the war have been the party that has advocated policies to help the less privileged.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the less privileged have suffered terribly under this Tory/Lib Dem coalition and have suffered under every Tory government since the war.
The Sun and the rest of the right wing media can spin their nonsense about the Labour Party not looking out for the interests of the less privileged till the cows come home. It won't change the facts. And the electorate are not stupid enough to fall for that spin.
the left forget that most tories are still one nation tories. Who believe the rich has a duty to help the poor and to make britains class system fluid and encourage social mobility. They're still stuck on the throwaway remark thatcher made in a woman's mag about there being no such thing as society. Then again there are some on the right that think all labour are commies and want to live in a world where we are all in poverty.
If only someone could invent the mythical money tree, I, and I suspect many Tories would happily become Socialists. Unfortunately I live in the real world rather than some fantasy world where everyone can have everything they want and not even have to work for it.
I wouldn't say i'm priveledged, but i'm no scrounger and think this ToryDem coalition has been acceptable... Not amazing but it helped me become a first time buyer when I was 25.
I don't know what happened to them after that.
To be cited not once but twice is an honour but I'm not sure I made myself clear
1) on the 2007-09 crash: the point is that there was a global failure of regulation and understanding of complex models and risk. Deregulation started in 1980 but clearly the Labour government failed to address core issues for fear of being labelled anti business or simply killing the golden goose and all those tax receipts. On a point of fact the banking system did not collapse for it went on life support and Gordon Brown helped lead the ER team to keep the life support system going.
My question about Labour is why they didn't grasp this nettle three years ago and state they now have proper plans to regulate financial services - the centre left often claim they can manage capitalism but I haven't seen a coherent solution across Europe which is criminal given the political opportunity and inevitability of another crash.
Asking institutions to hold more capital or less leverage simply doesn't mitigate the risks of a repeat.
2) on deficits, I am entirely disappointed by the Greek lefts failure to propose reforms to get them out of jail. My observations were made on a 3% deficit and I have been extremely clear that anything above that should be solved with asset sales and a cessation to tax cuts NOT attacks on welfare. 3% is sustainable if you have growth and inflation and the path to growth is to invest in capital (building) projects and raising spending power / living standards of the worst off.
We should also focus on growing the industries where we are global leaders and the Tory "policies" on immigration do just the opposite.
Personnally I believe that more low cost housing will ease the housing benefit bill and increasing the minimum wage should reduce the government subsidy to large corporations.
Neither party is particularly specific on how welfare can be reduced to eliminate these subsidies arising from the post war settlement 70 years ago.
But to finish on a note of agreement, neither party is addressing the demographic time bomb re. Health cost inflation and more people living longer on retirement plans designed in the last century. If the mainstream do not address this then someone else will. 3% deficit is my limit as I don't believe in money trees and neither do the markets.
For the avoidance of doubt, the French and Italian governments need to address underperformance in the Euro area vs Germany and deregulation / structural reform is the obvious answer. I met the author of one book at an event and he knows these people "to deliver the required reforms without civil unrest they need growth". The current domination of policy by Germany and other creditors is only recently being challenged and shifting policy, years after the US and UK introduced quantitative easing!
This is all relevant to today's election because I don't see a coherent post crash agenda anywhere in Europe. The US are delivering but they haven't wasted time banging on about austerity!
Result is their poll lead has slumped to -1.
I'm still confused as to how the UKIP vote may effect results, particularly the return of Tory incumbents - interesting stuff.
If only someone could invent the mythical money tree, I, and I suspect many Tories would happily become Socialists. Unfortunately I live in the real world rather than some fantasy world where everyone can have everything they want and not even have to work for it.
You quote a comment saying "don't tar me with your brush" as you hold your own in the other hand.