What do you think a Tory gov will or should do?

[beorhthelm]

...lots of benefits listed...

fair points. but would you care to strip out all those that are not from central government (ex. milk for welsh kids), were result of work in progress from the Tories (low inflation, good friday agreement), not the result of fudged numbers/process (waiting lists, school results), inevitable (cancer death rates down, Kyoto targets), job half done (teachers - wheres the improvement?), or gimmicks (trust funds).

 

[clapham_gull]

Section 28 was a bit stupid though Bushy, I presume you think it was something that applied to schools when actually it was nothing of the sort.

 

[strings]

were result of work in progress from the Tories (low inflation, good friday agreement)

This is interesting, I mean the Good Friday Agreement. You are right that the Major Governement especially did a lot of good work to help prepare this, but I don't think a Conservative government would ever have sucessfully brokered the Good Friday agreement. That is by no means a criticism of the Tories, I just think that a new government was needed so that all sides involved perceived that there was a fresh start.

Major had lost a lot of his credibility with Unionists by admitting to holding secret negotions with Sinn Fein and the IRA - in those days Sinn Fein were still seen as a terrorist organisation. However, this work by Major's Conservative government did one very important thing, bringing groups that were previously outsiders into the political process.

Major's groundwork laid the basis for the Good Friday agreement, however I don't think a final agreement would ever have been reached without a change in Westminster goverment.

 

[User removed 4]

Section 28 was a bit stupid though Bushy, I presume you think it was something that applied to schools when actually it was nothing of the sort.

my understanding is that it prohibited the active promotion of homosexuality in schools ? sounds as though i'm about to be corrected though.

 

[larus]

What the Tories don't get is that in a civilised society you have to look out for everyone rather than just step over them on the way to buying your next mercedes.

Your list is probably lifted from the Labour propoganda machine. No doubt it could be argued about, but let's not go there.

The simple fact is; 'It's the economy' that's the only important thing. All of the things you list are things that have been funded by goverment. So what funds government - taxes. Taxes are generated from a vibrant economy, not one that's totally f***ed. EVERY LABOUR ADMINISTRATION ALWAYS SPENDS TOO MUCH, WHICH FUCKS THE ECONOMY. So yes, you have a few good years from borrowing, but it's an illusion which cannot last, as Gordon Twat Brown has skillfully proved.

I always get the impression that Labour voters would be happier if we were all poorer but poorer together, rather than accepting that those who work hard and succeed earn more, and a by-product of this is that the poorer get better off as well. Yes, the rich get proportionately better off, but they've worked hard, or maybe taken chances; more intelligent, or whatever.

 

[clapham_gull]

my understanding is that it prohibited the active promotion of homosexuality in schools ? sounds as though i'm about to be corrected though.

It applied to local authorities, not schools and the legislation has never been used. Having said that, it probably had the desired effect because many schools and teachers thought it applied to them.

Notting Hill Dave has subsequently apologised for his party introducing it in the first place.

 

[DJ Leon]

Your list is probably lifted from the Labour propoganda machine. No doubt it could be argued about, but let's not go there.

The simple fact is; 'It's the economy' that's the only important thing. All of the things you list are things that have been funded by goverment. So what funds government - taxes. Taxes are generated from a vibrant economy, not one that's totally f***ed. EVERY LABOUR ADMINISTRATION ALWAYS SPENDS TOO MUCH, WHICH FUCKS THE ECONOMY. So yes, you have a few good years from borrowing, but it's an illusion which cannot last, as Gordon Twat Brown has skillfully proved.

I always get the impression that Labour voters would be happier if we were all poorer but poorer together, rather than accepting that those who work hard and succeed earn more, and a by-product of this is that the poorer get better off as well. Yes, the rich get proportionately better off, but they've worked hard, or maybe taken chances; more intelligent, or whatever.

Well we have had an unprecedented length of economic stability under Labour followed by the biggest crash since 1929. However, it's not really fair to say that we're f***ed because Labour spent too much, the global recession is not Labour's fault, though fair enough they, along with everyone else, did nothing to prevent it. Boom/bust has been a genuine long-term Tory policy though and so I think it's wrong to suggest that prudent economic management on behalf of the Tories will give us economic stability.

PS Labour and it's voters are no longer the kind of socialists you seem to hate.

PPS I have never voted Labour and am not a Labour supporter.

 

[User removed 4]

Well we have had an unprecedented length of economic stability under Labour

So did most of the world, the period of prosperity occurred despite gordon brown , not because of him.

 

[DJ Leon]

So did most of the world, the period of prosperity occurred despite gordon brown , not because of him.

Disagree, not sure that I think he makes a good leader, but as a chancellor his record was good.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Disagree, not sure that I think he makes a good leader, but as a chancellor his record was good.

So selling of our gold reserves at the bottom of the gold market was a good move was it?

 

[Simster]

Your list is probably lifted from the Labour propoganda machine. No doubt it could be argued about, but let's not go there.

The simple fact is; 'It's the economy' that's the only important thing. All of the things you list are things that have been funded by goverment. So what funds government - taxes. Taxes are generated from a vibrant economy, not one that's totally f***ed. EVERY LABOUR ADMINISTRATION ALWAYS SPENDS TOO MUCH, WHICH FUCKS THE ECONOMY. So yes, you have a few good years from borrowing, but it's an illusion which cannot last, as Gordon Twat Brown has skillfully proved.

I always get the impression that Labour voters would be happier if we were all poorer but poorer together, rather than accepting that those who work hard and succeed earn more, and a by-product of this is that the poorer get better off as well. Yes, the rich get proportionately better off, but they've worked hard, or maybe taken chances; more intelligent, or whatever.

Ignoring your economic beliefs, I really object to this notion that the rich are the ones who work harder. That really is a crock of shit to be honest. Of course there are rich people who have got there by hard work, but other wealthy members of society have simply got family money behind them, like vast inheritence or trust funds. How is it fair that these people benefit over and above tax paying working people?

 

[User removed 4]

Disagree, not sure that I think he makes a good leader, but as a chancellor his record was good.

Yep, our pension funds went from strength to strength under him didnt it ?he pressed ahead with his f***ing DISASTROUS plans on abolishing tax relief , despite treasury advice on how it would undermine the system, the man is a f***ing buffoon.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

It shows how desperate they are in that they name giving a Banana to some kids at School is one of their major achievements.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

So did most of the world, the period of prosperity occurred despite gordon brown , not because of him.

That is spot on. Brown inherited the healthies and most robust economy of any new government since the second world war. The wealth flowed despite Brown mostly built up on credit as it now transpires.

 

[larus]

Ignoring your economic beliefs, I really object to this notion that the rich are the ones who work harder. That really is a crock of shit to be honest. Of course there are rich people who have got there by hard work, but other wealthy members of society have simply got family money behind them, like vast inheritence or trust funds. How is it fair that these people benefit over and above tax paying working people?

I accept the point of the wealthy who inherit, and yes, I despise a lot of the hooray henrys as well. I come from a 'poorish' background. I went to Tideway school, but I feel as though I want the government to support those who aspire to achieve. I have been fairly lucky with work and I am comfortable. I have worked hard, staying away, getting up early, long commutes, etc, etc. I know a lot of other people have done this as well, and maybe have not been as fortunate as I have (please don't assume I'm loaded, as this is far from the case). Even as a teenager, I had aspirations to work hard and achieve, and therefore have always felt that Labour would always penalise me if I was successful.

I support the provision of free services; i.e the NHS, education, etc. I believe the welfare state should be there to support those who fall on hard times, to support those who truely cannot work due to illness/disability. However, I object to it being used by many as a way of living. It's not what is was set-up for.

I object to the view from the 'left-wingers' that if you support free-enterprise/business/capitalism, you are selfish. Far from it, I believe that to be able to provide good services for the needy, the country needs to be successful. If entrepreneurs take risks and generate a lot of wealth for themselves and at the same time create jobs, taxes, then great. But don't kill the incentive to take chances and succeed, as in the long run, it kills the economy. Keep the rate of tax fair (is 50% really a fair rate of tax?), and you increase the tax revenue.

One last point, if this bust is to be blamed on the bankers/financial services industry, then the previous 'boom' must be credited to them as well, as this is where about 25% of the goverments revenues were coming from. Can't have it both ways.

 

[larus]

Well we have had an unprecedented length of economic stability under Labour followed by the biggest crash since 1929. However, it's not really fair to say that we're f***ed because Labour spent too much, the global recession is not Labour's fault, though fair enough they, along with everyone else, did nothing to prevent it. Boom/bust has been a genuine long-term Tory policy though and so I think it's wrong to suggest that prudent economic management on behalf of the Tories will give us economic stability.

PS Labour and it's voters are no longer the kind of socialists you seem to hate.

PPS I have never voted Labour and am not a Labour supporter.

The stability was laid down by Kenneth Clarke. Go back and see what level of budget surplus he was forecasting in his last budget, which is what Twat Brown inherited and subsequently squandered.

The stability was partly created many years of cheap imports from developing countries, and also by the notion of wealth in house prices.

As for Boom-Bust under the Tories, there always has been an economic cycle of growth followed by recession. However, we are seriously exposed as our level of borrowing at the end of the growth phase was too high, so we had little room to manouvere. We're far from being in the same level as a PIIGS economy, but we have been seriously let down by Brown.

 

[DJ Leon]

So selling of our gold reserves at the bottom of the gold market was a good move was it?

I didn't say that it was.

 

[severnside gull]

The stability was laid down by Kenneth Clarke.

f*** me I've heard of clutching at straws but that is ridiculous!

just goes to show what a waste of time it is trying to change someone's view once they have made up their (political) mind

 

[larus]

f*** me I've heard of clutching at straws but that is ridiculous!

just goes to show what a waste of time it is trying to change someone's view once they have made up their (political) mind

From David Smith (David Smith's EconomicsUK.com).

Whether it was just the Bank, or whether it was a bit more than that, it is hard to find too much to criticise in the macroeconomic record of the past 10 years. Any chancellor who leaves office having presided over growth in every single quarter can be proud (Kenneth Clarke did so too, but over four years, not 10). But unless the economy takes a dive in the next few weeks, that will be Brown’s achievement. Continuous growth has been accompanied by low levels of both inflation and unemployment.

But has he made the most of this benign economic environment, and has he left the economy in a better shape than he found it? Both public spending and the tax burden have risen sharply, and the public finances, despite the rules, have shifted heavily into the red. In effect we have seen two chancellors. “Austerity” Brown, the one in charge for the first couple of years, succeeded in reducing public spending to just 37.1 per cent of gross domestic product in 1999-2000, from the 40.8 per cent he inherited in 1997. “Expansionary” Gordon has pushed it back up to 42.5 per cent this year, an extraordinary rise in six years or so.

The picture on taxation has been more consistently upwards, from 34.8% of GDP in 1996-7, to an estimated 37.3 per cent in 2006-7 (with further increases built into the numbers). Austerity Brown appeared bent on repaying the national debt, running a budget surplus of 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2000-1. Expansionary Gordon, in contrast, is running a deficit of 3 per cent of GDP.

There is more, of course, to tax and spend than just the numbers. Critics would say that Brown’s legacy is a tax system of enormous complexity, in an economy that has been extensively re-regulated. They would also point to relatively poor return for taxpayers’ money in terms of improvements in public services.

---------------------------

I read that as Brown has been spending more than the tax take, at the height of the economic cycle, rather than reducing debt further. Also, as you can see, he INHERITED stability, didn't have to start with a mess. But, please, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

[User removed 4]

I accept the point of the wealthy who inherit, and yes, I despise a lot of the hooray henrys as well. I come from a 'poorish' background. I went to Tideway school, but I feel as though I want the government to support those who aspire to achieve. I have been fairly lucky with work and I am comfortable. I have worked hard, staying away, getting up early, long commutes, etc, etc. I know a lot of other people have done this as well, and maybe have not been as fortunate as I have (please don't assume I'm loaded, as this is far from the case). Even as a teenager, I had aspirations to work hard and achieve, and therefore have always felt that Labour would always penalise me if I was successful.

I support the provision of free services; i.e the NHS, education, etc. I believe the welfare state should be there to support those who fall on hard times, to support those who truely cannot work due to illness/disability. However, I object to it being used by many as a way of living. It's not what is was set-up for.

I object to the view from the 'left-wingers' that if you support free-enterprise/business/capitalism, you are selfish. Far from it, I believe that to be able to provide good services for the needy, the country needs to be successful. If entrepreneurs take risks and generate a lot of wealth for themselves and at the same time create jobs, taxes, then great. But don't kill the incentive to take chances and succeed, as in the long run, it kills the economy. Keep the rate of tax fair (is 50% really a fair rate of tax?), and you increase the tax revenue.

One last point, if this bust is to be blamed on the bankers/financial services industry, then the previous 'boom' must be credited to them as well, as this is where about 25% of the goverments revenues were coming from. Can't have it both ways.

Top Quality Post.