Who are you voting for in the next election?

[leicsmac]

One of the reasons Gove was selected for the role, adopted into a Labour supporting family and thrown into a state school. Ended up rising to levels completely unexpected through hard work and dedication.

He should be still on a council estate in Aberdeen dependant on the state, they'll hate him for what he's achieved.

Like a Scottish version of an Uncle Tom to a Black man.

See above. If Gove was any other minister, I'd applaud the success story. But he is pursuing a one size fits all education policy that is going to leave thousands of potentially capable students unable to learn in one particular way by the wayside.

If you consider that acceptable collateral then fair enough.

[Alf Bentley]

One of the reasons Gove was selected for the role, adopted into a Labour supporting family and thrown into a state school. 

 

In what way was he "thrown into" a state school?

 

Didn't his adoptive parents just apply like everyone else - or, at least, everyone else not using their wealth to buy social and educational privilege and to avoid their children coming into contact with scummy normal people?

[Guest MattP]

Not at all - it's work or get no support while trying to find an actual job. It's essentially work or starve - that is slave labour.

 

Austerity doesn't aid growth - it's simple economics: growth requires spending: if we sit on our money and keep it stagnant it won't be distributed amongst the country and be in the economy: Think of it this way: what is going to get more money circulating:

 

a) The government stops spending and leaves people competing to survive economically.

b) The government pays a grant to, say, bakers. These bakers can then use that to produce more and hire some help - this produce is then brought by people and the wages go to the new employee. The new employee then goes down the road and buys from the butcher, giving that money to him. The butcher takes that as a wage and goes to the farmer and buys some fruit and veg, giving the money to the farmer, the farmer takes that money and invests in some new equipment to improve productivity (say some gardening stuff), then the garden centre employees gain that money and spend it on something else and so on, and so on.

 

In the case of a - there is no money circulating, the economy sees no aid, in b the economy gets a good boost because the money is spreading around and being circulated.

 

I'm not citing Stone and Parker as fiscal geniuses, I'm pointing out that even they could recognise good fiscal practice better than the tories.

 

But austerity measures (along with a lot of other things) showed we were getting our house in order and looking at controlling our debt and spending is what has kept confidence in our markets that has kept people investing in the country, go have a look at how many companies are now pulling out of the USA with their current credit rating.

 

When you have that you get the huge job creation we have had (I believe it's about 1.5million new jobs now since the coalition took over) that puts money into peoples pockets that they spend that then creates growth.

 

Your b) scenario is lovely written down but unfortunately in todays World completely unrealistic.

 

There are many ways to achieve growth and at some point you are going to accept a man you refused to believe could succeed has found one.

 

Now I'm off for a few pints, and yet again I expect the pubs to be packed tonight as unlike 2-3 years back people seem to have cash on the hip.

In what way was he "thrown into" a state school?

 

Didn't his adoptive parents just apply like everyone else - or, at least, everyone else not using their wealth to buy social and educational privilege and to avoid their children coming into contact with scummy normal people?

 

Bad wording yes.

 

My point was people would love to throw though "typical tory, private school, knows nothing about the education system at him" - the fact he went to a state school was probably the reason he was given this task.

[RobHawk]

But austerity measures (along with a lot of other things) showed we were getting our house in order and looking at controlling our debt and spending is what has kept confidence in our markets that has kept people investing in the country, go have a look at how many companies are now pulling out of the USA with their current credit rating.

 

When you have that you get the huge job creation we have had (I believe it's about 1.5million new jobs now since the coalition took over) that puts money into peoples pockets that they spend that then creates growth.

 

Your b) scenario is lovely written down but unfortunately in todays World completely unrealistic.

 

There are many ways to achieve growth and at some point you are going to accept a man you refused to believe could succeed has found one.

 

Now I'm off for a few pints, and yet again I expect the pubs to be packed tonight as unlike 2-3 years back people seem to have cash on the hip.

 

Bad wording yes.

 

My point was people would love to throw though "typical tory, private school, knows nothing about the education system at him" - the fact he went to a state school was probably the reason he was given this task.

 

Which just highlights how out of touch the conservatives are, 1 MP went to a state school so he must be the best man for education. Not only that, but we'll leave him to it so he can **** things up as much as wants! I still can't understand how curious George became the chancellor of the exchequer, maybe he had a days work experience at the bank of England as teenager! 

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Shame most politicians are corrupt and evil

[Guest MattP]

Which just highlights how out of touch the conservatives are, 1 MP went to a state school so he must be the best man for education. Not only that, but we'll leave him to it so he can **** things up as much as wants! I still can't understand how curious George became the chancellor of the exchequer, maybe he had a days work experience at the bank of England as teenager! 

 

Shows how much of a public image game politics is, the Tories have to flash off someone like that, Labour did the same courting business under Blair, Lib Dems probably threw up Clegg as he was a married Hetrosexual.

 

How did George become CofTE?

 

Maybe Cameron knew he had the ability to take us from being in a recession to the fastest growing economy in Western Europe in just three years? Just a thought.

[Alf Bentley]

 

Now I'm off for a few pints, and yet again I expect the pubs to be packed tonight as unlike 2-3 years back people seem to have cash on the hip.

 

Bad wording yes.

 

My point was people would love to throw though "typical tory, private school, knows nothing about the education system at him" - the fact he went to a state school was probably the reason he was given this task.

 

Does that "bad wording" betray an attitude, though, Matt?

 

I appreciate that this is a bit of a personal question that you might not want to answer, but what sort of school did you go to?

 

I went to a state grammar school down in Kent, where they still have selective state education (my brother and most of my primary school friends went to the secondary modern, which created a few tensions). It had the sort of Victorian ethos that Gove would love. As a fairly bright, obedient, hard-working lad, I got good O-levels (GSCEs to younger readers) but had my natural interest in learning ground down to the extent that I ended up dropping out and doing unskilled work for several years.

 

I acquired all the meaningful qualifications and skills that I now use through evening classes, self-tuition and university as a mature student. It does occasionally make me wonder where I might have been if I'd received a more rounded, less Gove-ian secondary education. Not that I'm bitter, as I've probably led a more interesting life as a result. However, I hate the idea that my daughter might be subjected to the same narrow-minded, reactionary approach to learning.

 

If Gove went to a Scottish state school, that would be a peculiar reason for choosing him as education secretary for England as Scotland has a completely different education system - one that is highly rated for quality and breadth, to the extent that the percentage using private schools is much lower than in England. Responsibility for education is devolved in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, I think.

 

Enjoy your pints. I'll be out for another "Burton Bridge Stairway to Heaven" or five tonight (a product that I'm proud to advertise for free). Went back last night and the bvggers had broken the beer pump - hope that's sorted by now!

[Guest MattP]

Does that "bad wording" betray an attitude, though, Matt?

 

I appreciate that this is a bit of a personal question that you might not want to answer, but what sort of school did you go to?

 

I went to a state grammar school down in Kent, where they still have selective state education (my brother and most of my primary school friends went to the secondary modern, which created a few tensions). It had the sort of Victorian ethos that Gove would love. As a fairly bright, obedient, hard-working lad, I got good O-levels (GSCEs to younger readers) but had my natural interest in learning ground down to the extent that I ended up dropping out and doing unskilled work for several years.

 

Enjoy your pints. I'll be out for another "Burton Bridge Stairway to Heaven" or five tonight (a product that I'm proud to advertise for free). Went back last night and the bvggers had broken the beer pump - hope that's sorted by now!

 

Brookvale and Groby Community College, had to apply to get in, but still a state school in every way (though facilities far better than the average one), decent GCSE's (all passes, a few A-B's, A* in English Lit believe it or not) and A-Levels (would have got me into a half decent uni had I wanted to), tried Leicester for a bit and decided very shortly it wasn't for me and decided to get out into the World of work.

 

Regrets? A few, I could have worked far harder and I never remembered revising for a single exam. That's life though. (To be honest between the age of 16-18 I spent twice as much time in the Stamford Arms and Betting Shop in the village than I did in college)

 

I think they have that pint in the Black Horse, I'll try one next time I'm in.

[absolutelegend]

Unelectable is the term you're looking for I think 

 

Haha....indeed it is.  Thankyou.  

[RobHawk]

Shows how much of a public image game politics is, the Tories have to flash off someone like that, Labour did the same courting business under Blair, Lib Dems probably threw up Clegg as he was a married Hetrosexual.

 

How did George become CofTE?

 

Maybe Cameron knew he had the ability to take us from being in a recession to the fastest growing economy in Western Europe in just three years? Just a thought.

I won't start another debate about George and his policies but agree with your first point that they are all as bad as each other.

 

Personally im finding the process of deciding who to vote for harder and harder as ultimately i feel they are all as bad as each other and none of them represent me. Traditionally i've been a labour voter but Ed's just another private school toff playing politics. It seems to me that MP's are getting dumber and greedier and thats not the politics i want to be a part of.

[Strokes]

Not at all - it's work or get no support while trying to find an actual job. It's essentially work or starve - that is slave labour.

Austerity doesn't aid growth - it's simple economics: growth requires spending: if we sit on our money and keep it stagnant it won't be distributed amongst the country and be in the economy: Think of it this way: what is going to get more money circulating:

a) The government stops spending and leaves people competing to survive economically.

b) The government pays a grant to, say, bakers. These bakers can then use that to produce more and hire some help - this produce is then brought by people and the wages go to the new employee. The new employee then goes down the road and buys from the butcher, giving that money to him. The butcher takes that as a wage and goes to the farmer and buys some fruit and veg, giving the money to the farmer, the farmer takes that money and invests in some new equipment to improve productivity (say some gardening stuff), then the garden centre employees gain that money and spend it on something else and so on, and so on.

In the case of a - there is no money circulating, the economy sees no aid, in b the economy gets a good boost because the money is spreading around and being circulated.

I'm not citing Stone and Parker as fiscal geniuses, I'm pointing out that even they could recognise good fiscal practice better than the tories.

We aren't sitting on our money, we are just spending less of what we don't have.

[Rincewind]

Matt are you saying the parties are as bad as each other? I have been saying that for ages and I am sure you disagreed with me.

[Alf Bentley]

One of the reasons Gove was selected for the role, adopted into a Labour supporting family and thrown into a state school. Ended up rising to levels completely unexpected through hard work and dedication.

 

He should be still on a council estate in Aberdeen dependant on the state, they'll hate him for what he's achieved.

 

Like a Scottish version of an Uncle Tom to a Black man.

 

Enjoy the "Stairway to heaven" if you find it. I can't think of an ale that I'd recommend more strongly - and thanks for sharing your educational history. I'm aware that I was cheeky asking, but you don't generally seem to have a problem with cheek. 

 

Re. Gove: I just looked into his background (quiet day for work) and he only seems to have attended state school until 11.

After that he got a scholarship to Aberdeen's most prestigious private school (fees currently £11.5k per year, apparently). Obviously, nobody is responsible for where they go to school and I wouldn't judge anyone on that basis, but it does slightly undermine the image of him as a man from a humble background who has thrived purely through hard graft. His Dad ran a successful fish-processing business, so I doubt very much that he grew up on a council estate...

[Bagworthblue]

Warning - High horse moment coming. ( You may just be best advised to skip reading this post knowing I at least feel better for having posted it)

 

Haven't a clue how to vote any more. i've always been a socialist but I can't vote labour this time around due to their stance on the energy debate. As I am close to this and know the truth, I have lost my faith in their position on matters I don't know so much about + selfishly if they get in, my career spanning 20 years will be at further risk :-)

 

I work for one of the big 6 and  Labour are capitalising on an issue they know is a big concern to the general public and simply banding about statements and policies people want to hear to win votes. ( I know - that is what politics is all about but I am close to this and hence it gets my goat)

 

Don't for a minute believe what the papers say. Energy prices are high but the public certainly aren't being ripped off.

 

85% of the bill is the wholesale cost + transportation costs. of the 15% remaining circa 10-11 is OPEX. = 3.5% - 4% profit

 

3.5% margin on energy sales means circa £40 per customer profit per annum. If no profit were made would the £40 we all save actually ease pressure on peoples finances? I think most people want to save £40 per month not per annum and no profit means no investment = no lights. We need investment  to meet green targets, we can't keep using coal. Carbon capture and renewables are extremely expensive. Windfarms etc are expensive and inefficient (and a bit ugly!).

 

We have some of the lowest energy prices in Europe despite transportation costs to the uk being higher. We are mandated to fit smart meters to all homes by 2020 ( A good thing to be fair ) but the cost to suppliers is huge.

 

I've seen many a colleague lose his job as work is migrated overseas to try to reduce the next price rise by half a percent to try to stay competitive.. Labour's policy of freezing prices (if companies don't just put them up in advance to mitigate this risk which they will) would lead to job losses to further reduce OPEX, customer service degradation and power losses of that I am sure. When Labour announced the policy last year £4.8billion was wiped off the Energy Companies value over night. How is that helping the economy.

 

All of this represents my own personal view and is not an official position from the company I work for ( which I haven't divulged anyway) :-)

 

I can't bring myself to vote Tory, Lib Dems are clueless and I disagree with most of the UKIP policies so god only knows what I will vote. 

 

rant over.

[Alf Bentley]

[...]

 

I work for one of the big 6 and  Labour are capitalising on an issue they know is a big concern to the general public and simply banding about statements and policies people want to hear to win votes. ( I know - that is what politics is all about but I am close to this and hence it gets my goat)

 

Don't for a minute believe what the papers say. Energy prices are high but the public certainly aren't being ripped off.

 

85% of the bill is the wholesale cost + transportation costs. of the 15% remaining circa 10-11 is OPEX. = 3.5% - 4% profit

 

[...]

 

I don't have your inside knowledge of the energy companies, but it isn't just the papers or the Labour Party that reckon the "big six" are over-charging.

 

Here's OFGEN, the energy regulator, quoted in the Telegraph (hardly a pro-Labour paper): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10472758/Profits-at-Big-Six-energy-companies-have-rocketed-since-the-financial-crisis-began.html

 

"Profits at Britain's 'Big Six' energy suppliers are five times higher than they were in 2009 as millions of households suffer record bills for their gas and electricity, regulators revealed today.

Labour politicans launched fresh attacks on the Government over the cost of living tonight after Ofgem admitted competition in the energy sector "is not working as well as it could".

Ofgem said the 'Big Six' - British Gas, Npower, Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF - made a combined £1.2 billion in their household supply businesses last year, up 75 per cent on 2011 and five times higher than £221 million in 2009".

 

Here's an interesting "fact check" piece, suggesting that the "big six" make most of their profits from their upstream generating businesses: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/energy_generation_profits-29248

So, presumably they charge high prices to their retail businesses, which pass those high prices on to retail customers allowing them to claim that their retail businesses are only making a small profit....

"Conclusion

Neither the 5% profit margins quoted by energy companies nor the 24% alternatives put forward by their detractors are inaccurate in their own terms, although nor does either give the full picture. While on average 3.6% of a consumer's bill went towards profits for the Big Six in 2012, these companies made a profit margin of 21.6% on average when it came to their generation businesses. Overall, the 7.2% profit made by the parent companies overseeing all these operation might represent the bigger picture.

Whether or not these profits are 'excessive' - as Sir John Major suggested earlier this week - depends a great deal on whether or not the energy companies' claims that the profits are required to fund investment are accepted. While the projected scale of investment required certainly dwarves the current profit raised by the Big Six, it isn't necessarily the case that increases in profits are solely funding infrastructure spending. 

A significant proportion of profits are also spent on providing dividends to shareholders. For example, in 2012 Centrica spent £816 million on shareholder dividends (around 34% of profits before tax, or 60% of profits afterwards), which the company has said reflects "our policy of delivering sustained real growth in the ordinary dividend, and is a reflection of the significant increase in earnings we have delivered during the year." Friends of the Earth has also claimed that dividend payments have risen significantly in recent years across the Big Six companies."

[Bagworthblue]

 

I don't have your inside knowledge of the energy companies, but it isn't just the papers or the Labour Party that reckon the "big six" are over-charging.

 

Here's OFGEN, the energy regulator, quoted in the Telegraph (hardly a pro-Labour paper): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10472758/Profits-at-Big-Six-energy-companies-have-rocketed-since-the-financial-crisis-began.html

 

"Profits at Britain's 'Big Six' energy suppliers are five times higher than they were in 2009 as millions of households suffer record bills for their gas and electricity, regulators revealed today.

Labour politicans launched fresh attacks on the Government over the cost of living tonight after Ofgem admitted competition in the energy sector "is not working as well as it could".

Ofgem said the 'Big Six' - British Gas, Npower, Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF - made a combined £1.2 billion in their household supply businesses last year, up 75 per cent on 2011 and five times higher than £221 million in 2009".

 

Here's an interesting "fact check" piece, suggesting that the "big six" make most of their profits from their upstream generating businesses: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/energy_generation_profits-29248

So, presumably they charge high prices to their retail businesses, which pass those high prices on to retail customers allowing them to claim that their retail businesses are only making a small profit....

"Conclusion

Neither the 5% profit margins quoted by energy companies nor the 24% alternatives put forward by their detractors are inaccurate in their own terms, although nor does either give the full picture. While on average 3.6% of a consumer's bill went towards profits for the Big Six in 2012, these companies made a profit margin of 21.6% on average when it came to their generation businesses. Overall, the 7.2% profit made by the parent companies overseeing all these operation might represent the bigger picture.

Whether or not these profits are 'excessive' - as Sir John Major suggested earlier this week - depends a great deal on whether or not the energy companies' claims that the profits are required to fund investment are accepted. While the projected scale of investment required certainly dwarves the current profit raised by the Big Six, it isn't necessarily the case that increases in profits are solely funding infrastructure spending. 

A significant proportion of profits are also spent on providing dividends to shareholders. For example, in 2012 Centrica spent £816 million on shareholder dividends (around 34% of profits before tax, or 60% of profits afterwards), which the company has said reflects "our policy of delivering sustained real growth in the ordinary dividend, and is a reflection of the significant increase in earnings we have delivered during the year." Friends of the Earth has also claimed that dividend payments have risen significantly in recent years across the Big Six companies."

 

 

Hmm I can't think of a way of fully answering this without going to a level of detail regarding the company I work for. I can assure you the need for investment is huge. The one thing I don't agree with is the salaries of some of the top brass upstream although even this if divvied out across energy consumers would still not impact prices by more than a couple of pence p.a.

 

What I will say is that the regulator is under pressure and also needs to 'be seen' to be effective, challenging and taking a tough stance. 

 

NB post tax margins including upstream are still less than 6%

[Webbo]

Some blogs go under a group name. I contribute to a facebook page and do not add my name but if I get the story from somewhere else via a link I acknowledge the source. If there is a writer to be credited it will be mentioned otherwise it will be plagiarism.

Also if there is a story we check the source so as not to be in danger of libel suite.

Yeah but who is the person writing the blog? What is his motivation and qualification to comment. For all we know that could be written by Alistair Campbell, Nick Griffin or a shelf stacker at Asda.

 

An anonymous blog has all the credibility of saying "some bloke at the pub told me".

[deejdeej]

At the risk of sounding immature I wont be voting, they're all as bad as one another in my eyes, all seem to be smarmy gits as well!

[Dr The Singh]

Would have voted conservative, will not in light of conservatives handling of british assistance enquiry of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs

[Alf Bentley]

 

Hmm I can't think of a way of fully answering this without going to a level of detail regarding the company I work for. I can assure you the need for investment is huge. The one thing I don't agree with is the salaries of some of the top brass upstream although even this if divvied out across energy consumers would still not impact prices by more than a couple of pence p.a.

 

What I will say is that the regulator is under pressure and also needs to 'be seen' to be effective, challenging and taking a tough stance. 

 

NB post tax margins including upstream are still less than 6%

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that top executive salaries wouldn't impact "prices" by more than a couple of pence.

 

Here's the Centrica CEO reportedly on £36,000 per week after tax (£1.87m), while also doing 2 other jobs worth £125,000 p.a.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324068/Shareholder-fury-soccer-star-salaries-British-Gas-chiefs-energy-bills-soar-millions-families.html

 

Centrica/British Gas are reported to have 15m customers, so that one salary is costing more than 10p per customer, isn't it?

 

Of course, those are business expenses deducted from income before profits are calculated. So, these companies pay multi-million pound salaries, still accrue massively increased post-tax profits of 6% (taking your figure) by hiking prices, distribute 60% of those profits (£816m) as dividends...and you feel that Labour is unfair to challenge them as competition is squeezing them tightly?! To the extent that it causes you to change the way you might otherwise vote?!

 

Maybe your colleagues wouldn't have their jobs migrated to countries with cheaper labour if the energy companies distributed fewer hundreds of millions in dividends or paid their executives just that little bit less than £36,000 per week tax free?

 

I know that Labour is being opportunistic in seizing on this - and with your in-house expertise, you could produce figures that would bamboozle me, but some of my (admittedly crude) figures suggest they might have a case, and maybe you're allowing your loyalty to your employer to affect your electoral decisions too much? I say that as a disillusioned ex-Labour voter (would prefer them to the Tories, but am highly critical of some of their policies).

[MooseBreath]

Austerity doesn't aid growth - it's simple economics: growth requires spending: if we sit on our money and keep it stagnant it won't be distributed amongst the country and be in the economy: Think of it this way: what is going to get more money circulating:

a) The government stops spending and leaves people competing to survive economically.

b) The government pays a grant to, say, bakers. These bakers can then use that to produce more and hire some help - this produce is then brought by people and the wages go to the new employee. The new employee then goes down the road and buys from the butcher, giving that money to him. The butcher takes that as a wage and goes to the farmer and buys some fruit and veg, giving the money to the farmer, the farmer takes that money and invests in some new equipment to improve productivity (say some gardening stuff), then the garden centre employees gain that money and spend it on something else and so on, and so on.

In the case of a - there is no money circulating, the economy sees no aid, in b the economy gets a good boost because the money is spreading around and being circulated.

I'm not citing Stone and Parker as fiscal geniuses, I'm pointing out that even they could recognise good fiscal practice better than the tories.

Austerity doesn't directly aid growth, no, but growth at any cost is not good economic policy. Yes we could borrow more and more money, spend it and see increased growth. But then you're in debt, and debt has to be paid back with interest. Getting a loan to buy something nice is dumb. Very dumb. You probably remember the credit crunch? When people had borrowed so much to buy so many nice things that it nearly brought the whole financial system down? You've no doubt seen what happened to countries like Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece, whose excessive borrowing has quite plainly destroyed prospects for millions of people with little hope of improvement for probably an entire generation at least.

We've been borrowing far too much for far too long and the challenge now is to cut spending while still axhieving growth. Even Labour now admit they agree. The tories havent had it east but the fact that we're now more or less the fastest growing economy in the developed world, and the fact that we're on course to be the dominant force in Europe in just a few years, is cast iron, indisputable proof that their policy has been a resounding success.

[Father Ted]

Conservatives.

 

Doing an excellent job cleaning up years of Bliar and Labour's mess. If only they can begin to adopt a similar stance to UKIP regarding EU. Long may it continue!

[The Doctor]

Austerity doesn't directly aid growth, no, but growth at any cost is not good economic policy. Yes we could borrow more and more money, spend it and see increased growth. But then you're in debt, and debt has to be paid back with interest. Getting a loan to buy something nice is dumb. Very dumb. You probably remember the credit crunch? When people had borrowed so much to buy so many nice things that it nearly brought the whole financial system down? You've no doubt seen what happened to countries like Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece, whose excessive borrowing has quite plainly destroyed prospects for millions of people with little hope of improvement for probably an entire generation at least.

We've been borrowing far too much for far too long and the challenge now is to cut spending while still axhieving growth. Even Labour now admit they agree. The tories havent had it east but the fact that we're now more or less the fastest growing economy in the developed world, and the fact that we're on course to be the dominant force in Europe in just a few years, is cast iron, indisputable proof that their policy has been a resounding success.

 

Yes, growth at any cost is quite a risk take, but there's a difference between increasing spending or continuing it as it is, and adjusting where the spending goes: Re-direct the money into subsidies in businesses, into enterprise schemes and you can get the money circulating well again. This is the issue the right wing have - they fail to see the world in more than black and white.

 

Conservatives.

 

Doing an excellent job cleaning up years of Bliar and Labour's mess. If only they can begin to adopt a similar stance to UKIP regarding EU. Long may it continue!

 

                           - Prior to the global financial crisis we had the strongest economy we'd had in post war times - you can hardly blame labour for the crash given it was a global one. They didn't create a mess, they had a good situation destroyed by a global collapse - and why were we so affected by a global collapse? Because the tories sold the country down the river to create an economic centre, offering financial services and very little else.

[Oasisedup]

                           - Prior to the global financial crisis we had the strongest economy we'd had in post war times - you can hardly blame labour for the crash given it was a global one. They didn't create a mess, they had a good situation destroyed by a global collapse - and why were we so affected by a global collapse? Because the tories sold the country down the river to create an economic centre, offering financial services and very little else.

 

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

 

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

 

Absolute bull.

 

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

 

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

 

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

 

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

 

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for  "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.  

 

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

 

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

[Strokes]

This is perhaps the most irritating argument of all Labourites.

"Oh, I know we spent wildly. I know that we were reckless (at best) when we spent eyewatering amounts of public money on welfare, pensions, Iraq, the EU, the NHS, Surestart etc. But...but...it was a global crisis. We weren't to blame. Give us another go."

Absolute bull.

Labour stuck to the Tories rigid spending plans for the first two years after 1997. Perhaps they were mindful of the need to build up Labour credibility on the economy after the disaster of the Winter of Discontent and the Callaghan/Wilson years.

Public debt had got down to 29% of GDP in 2002.

Then Labour got silly. Brown began declaring "an end to boom and bust". Public spending went out of control. Debt became cheap. House prices rose by around 200%. The Bank of England became independent and "light touch" banking regulation became the order of the day.

Gordon Brown of course knew that the banking and consumer boom was financed by debt, which was secured against property prices. He knew that house prices were volatile. He knew that savings were low. He knew that personal and national debt was reaching painful levels. And he did nothing.

He didn't introduce credit controls. He didn't attempt to introduce tighter financial regulation. He didn't clearly define the responsibility of the BofE, the FSA and the Treasury. Instead, he revelled in the praise. He took praise for "prudence" and "stability" with one hand whilst throwing public money away with the other.

Of course, the UK could never have been immune from the financial crisis. But Labour's disastrous economic management over 13 years made it so much worse than it might otherwise have been.

Labour have to accept that fully before they regain the public's trust. And they never will.

One of the best posts I have read on here, sums my feelings up.