spring hall convert
Well-known member
Didn't Dave say that George would have it all sorted by now at the last election?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2015
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
Didn't Dave say that George would have it all sorted by now at the last election?
Machiavelli
Well-known member
He did. Whereas the alternative proposed by Darling would lead the country to ruin. It transpires that the alternative proposed by Darling -- cutting the deficit by a half -- has been achieved, and plenty of us can confirm, that it has led the country to ruin.
They're still saying the same thing at this election too. What was that comment about not fooling the fools all of the time?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Yeah, but he kept his word over immigration, didn't he?
And Greenest Government ever and all that.
Tyreman123
Member
- Jun 27, 2013
- 97
Its all bullshit!! every labour Government overspends!!FACT, puts us in the shit and then they have to be booted out while the bad Tories come in and try to clean up the frigging mess! after a while of success (to varying degrees), but with spending cuts in place, those peskey ordinary people don't like it any more and so we have to bring in Labour again to woft around , Harry Enfield style ,wads of money that isn't theirs to get people to like them again! (next appearance around May time!!) and so it will go on for ever or until the eastern and western cultures of the planet collide and we literally blow the whole frigging place up! this whole thing is duplicated throughout various housing estates and homes throughout the country,and even with many people we all know , many trying to make out how successful they are , when in reality they are so far in the Shit that all reality has gone!!! you know how it goes,someone in the house spends too much , someone tries to stop it happening, etc etc you get the drift, and the whole cycle of boom and bust just goes on and on!! There ive ranted!
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Not really a proper rant when you've copied and pasted your post from a different thread from yesterday
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Not really a proper rant when you've copied and pasted your post from a different thread from yesterday
Now that really is worth another
Irrespective of whether you've copied and pasted from previous posts I share your anger and despair about the state of politics in this country. It amazes me that people can slavishly follow one party or another without ever having the humility to accept that their party ever gets it wrong or that another party ever gets it right, and as witnessed frequently on this thread. The "divide" between the different parties is what creates millions and millions of pounds of additional expenditure each year as the respective parties pursue their own ideological agendas when in power then it changes at the next election and starts all over again.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,367
You are right that there is a cycle of Tory-Labour voting, but miss the point that this is caused by the public's attitude to how much needs to be invested in the public sector. The tories under invest and this takes time to show in the infrastructure. Each time Labour are elected they spend more, not because they are trying to buy popularity, but because schools, hospitals, services have all been underfunded for a period of time.
What happens in public sector management when savings have to be found is that managers cut investment in the future in order to avoid passing on cuts to present service users. The nonsense which will be spouted at the next election about having a duty to cut the defecit for the next generation, will ignore the fact that, by attempting to pass on less of a debt, the tories would pass on a crumbling public sector infrastructure which the next generation will have to borrow to repair.
None of the political parties will go against the Thatcherite double speak that says that governments can improve services without raising taxation. Until they do the cycle of under-invest - borrow to invest will continue and more money and property will be put into the hands of the super rich who don't need it, but are motivated to covet it and unable, or unwilling, to see the danger increased inequality poses, not just to society, but to them and their inheritors.
A friend of mine once put in the terms:
'I'm earning very well and I want to make sure that I am taxed enough to make sure that other people are relatively content, because, if I don't, eventually, they'll come and rob my house.'
The 'keep people happy enough for them not to rob your house' theory would have been good counsel for the Romans and for the French aristocracy and for the Russian bourgeoisie and to an extent to colonialists across the planet. It would also be wise counsel for the current super rich and their supporters in politics.
Democratic socialism has had overlooked useful consequences for the rich, as it has brought enough equality for most to have some investment in maintaining the status quo. When Marx warned of revolution it was because of extreme economic inequality. Those at the top who took heed shared out enough to ensure that his warnings did not come true. We are now reaching the point where a lot at the top believe they have defeated the socialist message and can take more and more ad infinitum. If they continue down this path, eventually, they will be proved wrong.
- Thread starter
- #1,230
Not going to cut the NHS budget either.
That may be the best reason for the redistribution of wealth via taxation that I've ever seen. Genius.
Tyreman123
Member
- Jun 27, 2013
- 97
Not really a proper rant when you've copied and pasted your post from a different thread from yesterday
well spotted northern fellow!
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,367
That was my reaction when he said it. I should add that he has an accent like Mark Steel's and that he followed this gem with:
'I know it would happen because, if I had nothing and nobody would help, I'd rob my house.'
They haven't it has risen in real terms by 4% under the Tories, the last cut to the budget was under Labour.Wales budget has been cut by over 8% by the Labour administration.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,367
The open letter from the Sussex A&E doctor raises the point that 'protecting frontline services' is more double speak. If you underfund social care, the health service has to fulfill the need. If you underfund local authorities, teachers spend their time doing admin instead of teaching.
Protecting spend on the NHS was a political move made because Cameron knew he was not trusted on the NHS. The NHS reorganisation which he promised not to do has cost millions from the budget and has shown that the electorate were right not to trust him with the NHS. Recent polling shows that they still don't.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I see Labour are now on a mission to get everyone healthy, why don't they f&*k off and stop telling people what to do.
Because they are the honourable custodians of the nanny state, didn't you know??
- Thread starter
- #1,238
I've seen the results when the English are left unattended; it isn't pretty.
Racist
It's not really a fact though.
1924 Labour government lost partly because of communist fears (Campbell case and Zinoviev letter) and partly because the Liberal vote collapsed (Labour vote actually went up)
1929 Labour government collapsed as a result of the depression triggered by collapse of US stock market and exacerbated by determination to stick to the gold standard. In fact, the economy only recovered in the mid-30s when the country started spending money to re-arm itself
1950 Labour government did spend heavily but the Conservatives did little to turn the clock back- it kept the NHS and the nationalised industries
1965 Wilson government was hampered by a big trade deficit when it came to office (Reginald Maudling's note to his successor said "There's no money left, cock"), Wilson then exacerbated this by trying to prop up the pound (as Macdonald did with the Gold Standard). He did keep public spending under control but Wilson did raise taxes significantly. He was eventually hammered by an unusually large trade deficit - these things really mattered in the 60s.
1975 The Callaghan government didn't overspend: its problem was a determination to keep firm control on public spending and limit wage rises. This in turn led to a wave of public sector strikes, coupled with a degree of militancy in the private sector. Throw in and big increase in unemployment and the stage was set for a Thatcher win. One of her first acts was to implement the proposals of the Clegg commission and increase public sector pay. In fact, public spending went up 13% during Thatcher's years in office.
So, out of six Labour governments, only one could really be accused of over-spending that needed correction by the incoming government. You could certainly say the Attlee government did, but the Churchill government didn't correct it and you could say Wilson taxed too much but your "fact" that ALL Labour governments overspend doesn't really have much substance