# Labours Lost Voters



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 13, 2015)

Interesting looking back on Labour's GE voting history and where they lost votes.
Especially Milliband in 2015 compared to Blair in 2005.
Apart from Blair in 1997 [when a kangaroo would have been voted in] Kinnoch had the largest vote and lost.

74 Wilson 11.47m
79 Callachan  11.53m
83 Foot 8.45m
87 Kinnoch 10.02m
92 Kinnoch 11.56m
97 Blair 13.51m
01 Blair 10.72m
05 Blair 9.55m
10 Brown 8.60m
15 Milliband 9.37


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2015)

Those numbers are an almost completely irrelevance!

As, i'm afraid to say, you seem to be!

And the SNP in Westminster certainly is! 

How's the rest of the fishing up there?


----------



## shewy (Jul 13, 2015)

I'm one of the lost, till they get their house in order I think they won't mount a credible opposition for a while. I'm no tory but I think they are going down the right path.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Those numbers are an almost completely irrelevance!

As, i'm afraid to say, you seem to be!

And the SNP in Westminster certainly is! 

How's the rest of the fishing up there?
		
Click to expand...

Eh! What on earth has this post to do with the SNP ?
Perhaps you are becoming paranoid.

Blair lost nearly 4 million Labour voters in 12 years.
Milliband must have polled more votes in England then many of his predecessors.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 13, 2015)

Labour have 2-3 years to get things right. Choose the correct leader, get a decent back bench team in and then build. Similar to what Blair did. Block by block, get it right. Plenty of time.


----------



## delc (Jul 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting looking back on Labour's GE voting history and where they lost votes.
Especially Milliband in 2015 compared to Blair in 2005.
Apart from Blair in 1997 [when a kangaroo would have been voted in] Kinnoch had the largest vote and lost.

74 Wilson 11.47m
79 Callachan  11.53m
83 Foot 8.45m
87 Kinnoch 10.02m
92 Kinnoch 11.56m
97 Blair 13.51m
01 Blair 10.72m
05 Blair 9.55m
10 Brown 8.60m
15 Milliband 9.37
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the population of the UK has increased quite significantly during this period (thanks mainly due to Labour's immigration policies), so the percentage of the National vote for the Labour Party would have fallen anyway on these numbers!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2015)

The Labour Party pandering (because that what it feels like in their desperation) to how the majority of the electorate currently think is not IMO the best way to form principle-based policy.  Basically it says that the Labour Parties principles will become those that are the nearest fit to the current proclivities of the largest proportion of the electorate - perhaps excluding the far right.


----------



## alexbrownmp (Jul 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



*Those numbers are an almost completely irrelevance!*

*As, i'm afraid to say, you seem to be!*

And *the SNP in Westminster certainly is! *

*How's the rest of the fishing up there*?
		
Click to expand...

spot on!


----------



## Val (Jul 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting looking back on Labour's GE voting history and where they lost votes.
Especially Milliband in 2015 compared to Blair in 2005.
Apart from Blair in 1997 [when a kangaroo would have been voted in] Kinnoch had the largest vote and lost.

74 Wilson 11.47m
79 Callachan  11.53m
83 Foot 8.45m
87 Kinnoch 10.02m
92 Kinnoch 11.56m
97 Blair 13.51m
01 Blair 10.72m
05 Blair 9.55m
10 Brown 8.60m
15 Milliband 9.37
		
Click to expand...

Only relevant if you quote as a percentage of the overall casting vote of the GE and that of the other parties.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 13, 2015)

Val said:



			Only relevant if you quote as a percentage of the overall casting vote of the GE and that of the otherparties.
		
Click to expand...

Is it?

Surely if 13.5m people voted for Labour in one year, and only 9.4m in another, then that is a decline of 4.1m, no matter how many other people voted. Whether they voted for someone else, or didn't vote, doesn't matter. The only real difference I would guess is the % of the first number that passed away between the two votes.


----------



## Val (Jul 13, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Is it?

Surely if 13.5m people voted for Labour in one year, and only 9.4m in another, then that is a decline of 4.1m, no matter how many other people voted. Whether they voted for someone else, or didn't vote, doesn't matter. The only real difference I would guess is the % of the first number that passed away between the two votes.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it's a decline but only relevant if figures show that they are the only party that declined by that %.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 13, 2015)

Val said:



			Yes it's a decline but only relevant if figures show that they are the only party that declined by that %.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, does the decline represent the electorate's disillusionment with Labour or with politics in general?

Of course that wouldn't suit DFT's agenda. Lies, damned lies and statistics.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 13, 2015)

Nope not my agenda. [on this one anyway]

Just curious how the Torisiation of Labour by New Labour seems to have risen up and bit them on the bum.
Amazingly, despite what happened in Scotland, they still seem to be lost down that avenue.

As a party I think they could do worse than elect Corbyn, at least folk will know what they are voting for.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			As a party I think they could do worse than elect Corbyn, at least folk will know what they are voting for.
		
Click to expand...

Or not voting for, as the case (quite likely) may be.

I saw an interview with him tonight, he's in a wee world of his own, I fear.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 13, 2015)

The best person Labour have to move them forward has decided against standing for the leadership this time round...


----------



## freddielong (Jul 14, 2015)

The SNP have to be given some credit  for removing  the faux socialist party as a force in English politics  given that Scotland used to be a major labour strong hold and a bucket full of easy seats for them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2015)

If they are ever so stupid to put that Jeremy Corbyn as leader then they will seal their death knoll.    His policies would put the UK in a similar situation to Greece.   Come to think of it just the same as Nicola Sturgeon would!


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

People may agree with Corbyn or hate his views, but at least they can probably agree that he stands for something and his positions and policies are pretty clear. Liz Kendall is also pretty clear too - she is a Tory in Labour clothing, but the other two seem willing to pivot or slide around to what is politically expedient, and illustrate what many hate about modern politicians. They stand for nothing and move according to the wind of public opinion and the main media players.

I joined Labour as a registered supporter purely to vote for Corbyn in the forthcoming election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate who is traditional Labour, supports the NHS, the working classes, a strong welfare state and who seeks to restrain the out of control private companies and big money interests who currently fund the Tory party. The mistake Labour made was to believe that the public supported a move to the centre under Blair. They didn't. They (and initially I) bought into a cult of personality but as soon as he showed his true colours, support started to wane until they reached the depths under Moribund. But they still think that the public wants them to stay in the centre, in a sort of Tory-lite place. I don't believe that, but they have allowed Tories to set the narrative for recent elections, and that narrative is about Europe, immigrants and welfare recipients both being evil and austerity, and they have forgotten small stuff like the NHS, education, and getting more decent well paying jobs. Labour don't even know where they stand on austerity. Pretty much every credible economist in the western world knows where to stand on it - against it, but Labour are frightened and incapable of taking the issue on because they are driven by focus groups, opinion polls and media opinion. 

I think they need to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and start over again. Find some principles and ideals in line with their natural constituency and build a credible narrative around those. Don't let the Tories set the terms of the debate, stick to their principles and it can't possibly take them anyplace worse than where they currently are. 

On the voter numbers, in 1979, Thatcher got 13.67 million votes against 11.33 million in 2015. They won both times, obviously. The difference between now and then is that overall turnout is lower, and there are more than 2 parties getting decent shares of the vote. In 1979 only 3 parties got more than 1 million vote, Liberals in 3rd place. In 2015, 6 parties got more than a million votes.


----------



## delc (Jul 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting looking back on Labour's GE voting history and where they lost votes.
Especially Milliband in 2015 compared to Blair in 2005.
Apart from Blair in 1997 [when a kangaroo would have been voted in] Kinnoch had the largest vote and lost.

74 Wilson 11.47m
79 Callachan  11.53m
83 Foot 8.45m
87 Kinnoch 10.02m
92 Kinnoch 11.56m
97 Blair 13.51m
01 Blair 10.72m
05 Blair 9.55m
10 Brown 8.60m
15 Milliband 9.37
		
Click to expand...

Neil Kinnock probably would have won if the Labour Party hadn't held that stupid American style triumphal pre-election rally. I wish politicians would stop copying American ideas because the UK is not America. I think most Brits thought they were counting their chicks before they hatched! I still haven't forgiven 'New Labour' for involving us in US led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for all Gordon Brown's stealth taxes and welfare reforms.. Ed Milliband was a complete no-hoper as a potential Prime Minister and probably dragged Labour's vote down at the last election. They also seemed to take Scotland for granted as a power base and got kicked where it hurts by the SNP!


----------



## chrisd (Jul 15, 2015)

A very good summary Ethan but Corbyn will see the end of Labours chances of election. The reason the Tories get/got elected was that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls presided over the collapse of the economy and Ed Milliband was so clearly unelectable and that Cameron had turned the economy around, by enough, that the undecided voters wouldn't be swayed by the quite hopeless Milliband. They needed to move to policies that you call Torylite to even stand a chance of being electable. 

Labour, to stand a chance of re election in the future need to have sound policies that won't bankrupt the nation, look after a more modernised, streamlined and waste cutting NHS, properly stop economic migration and look after the businesses that pay all our wages without burdening small businesses with red tape, fines for everything in the tax regime, and, ever increasing benefits that micro businesses can't afford.


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			A very good summary Ethan but Corbyn will see the end of Labours chances of election. The reason the Tories get/got elected was that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls presided over the collapse of the economy and Ed Milliband was so clearly unelectable and that Cameron had turned the economy around, by enough, that the undecided voters wouldn't be swayed by the quite hopeless Milliband. They needed to move to policies that you call Torylite to even stand a chance of being electable. 

Labour, to stand a chance of re election in the future need to have sound policies that won't bankrupt the nation, look after a more modernised, streamlined and waste cutting NHS, properly stop economic migration and look after the businesses that pay all our wages without burdening small businesses with red tape, fines for everything in the tax regime, and, ever increasing benefits that micro businesses can't afford.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure Cameron turned the economy round. The world economies all recovered at greater or lesser speed, but unfortunately Cameron now believes his strategy worked, despite the fact that quite the opposite strategy was used in other countries, so he is doubling down, as they say in the US. 

There is a valid argument about whether a better economic strategy would be to invest in infrastructure and parts of the economy that generate more jobs, more tax revenue and more money circulating in the system. Then you get a lot more of the micro-businesses you refer to. They pay people, who spend the money which pays others etc etc, all of whom pay tax. VAT on the stuff they buy. When you give money to the super-rich they stick it in the Caymans and it doesn't do anyone else any goof. Most serious economists like this approach better than austerity. No good business prospers just because they cut costs. That is a short term way of stopping the bleeding, but the business has to start to peopler invest, innovate and produce something in order to really get out. That is where the UK is now. The Tories sold this idea that the deficit/national debt is akin to a families bank account. Osborne and anyone with half a brain knows that it isn't like that at all. The UK is not like Greece which has nothing more than tourism and farming. It won't go bankrupt unless the Tories continue to sell off every asset left to their private investor and party donor friends. Just as the Greeks are being forced to do, so the hole they are in is actually getting deeper. 

The issue with the NHS isn't clinical waste in prescribing and missed appointments, it is billions wasted in costly and economically insane PFI schemes, pseudo-marketisation and management consultancy.


----------



## delc (Jul 15, 2015)

Politicians of all colours seem to be forgetting the Keynesian truth that workers are also consumers. Austerity measures and continually pushing down wages doesn't really help. There are only so many rich foreigners we can sell things to!


----------



## chrisd (Jul 15, 2015)

I was mainly referring to the way many voters looked at the election, and many took the view, IMO, that Cameron had turned things round etc etc and that was enough to put an X in Tory, most aren't interested in the detail just as many Labour voters do so "because my parents and their parents always have". If things felt better then that's good to secure a second term, especially against a Labour Party devoid of ideas and lead by an unelectable no hoper 

I don't disagree with your economics but if I remember rightly it was the Labour Party who bought in PFI's and we've certainly paid the cost of that blunder


----------



## delc (Jul 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I was mainly referring to the way many voters looked at the election, and many took the view, IMO, that Cameron had turned things round etc etc and that was enough to put an X in Tory, most aren't interested in the detail just as many Labour voters do so "because my parents and their parents always have". If things felt better then that's good to secure a second term, especially against a Labour Party devoid of ideas and lead by an unelectable no hoper 

I don't disagree with your economics but if I remember rightly it was the Labour Party who bought in PFI's and we've certainly paid the cost of that blunder
		
Click to expand...

PFI's enabled Tony Blair and Co to boast about how many new hospitals they had built. We will be paying the costs of them for many years to come!


----------



## chrisd (Jul 15, 2015)

delc said:



			PFI's enabled Tony Blair and Co to boast about how many new hospitals they had built. We will be paying the costs of them for many years to come!
		
Click to expand...

A very high price indeed but there are millions of voters out there who know nothing about them and the damaging effect on the current economy


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			A very high price indeed but there are millions of voters out there who know nothing about them and the damaging effect on the current economy
		
Click to expand...

A high price I agree - but surely that is to do with the ludicrous terms that were agreed with the PFI partners - the need in 1997 for improving the infrastructure - including our hospitals - was obvious (though as Ethan says you do wonder about the rationale behind some of the schemes).  Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.
		
Click to expand...

But they do have to find the money to fund such improvements yesterday


----------



## DCB (Jul 15, 2015)

Well, last year I had the misfortune to be in three of Edinburghs hospitals as i was treated after my accident. I started off in an all singing all dancing PFI hospital. Nice, airy, bright, modern. Was operated on in an early 1960s unit in another hospital, tired, dated but functional and underwent my rehab in a much older hospital in a unit built in the 1950s. It did show it's age.

I'll take a PFI hospital any day of the week folks. What we need is a health service that can do something to invest and turn these older units into something comparable with a modern PFI site. This is 2015 and we are still trying to treat people in units that were built almost 100 years ago. The governments of this country need to stop squabling and picking on what the other lot did in the past and they need to look to the future and plan out a pat to upgrade all our facilities to meed the modern demand. Yes it'll cost, but it needs to be done.


----------



## delc (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			A high price I agree - but surely that is to do with the ludicrous terms that were agreed with the PFI partners - the need in 1997 for improving the infrastructure - including our hospitals - was obvious (though as Ethan says you do wonder about the rationale behind some of the schemes).  Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.
		
Click to expand...

The Labour Party are noted for their lack of common sense when it comes to financial negotiations. I guess that this is because few of their politicians have ever lived in the real world. Typical examples includes Doctors' pay, which is why you can't now see one at weekends, and Gordon Brown selling off our Gold reserves in one lump at a rock bottom price!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 15, 2015)

delc said:



			The Labour Party are noted for their lack of common sense when it comes to financial negotiations. I guess that this is because few of their politicians have ever lived in the real world. Typical examples includes Doctors' pay, which is why you can't now see one at weekends, and *Gordon Brown selling off our Gold reserves in one lump at a rock bottom price*!
		
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion.  And others are available, like this one from that famous left leading paper that knows nothing about finances and the economy, The Morning Star  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fwtWyCd3


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well, I am not sure Cameron turned the economy round. The world economies all recovered at greater or lesser speed, but unfortunately Cameron now believes his strategy worked, despite the fact that quite the opposite strategy was used in other countries, so he is doubling down, as they say in the US.
		
Click to expand...

We had the highest growth and recovery in the EU.


----------



## delc (Jul 15, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			That's a matter of opinion.  And others are available, like this one from that famous left leading paper that knows nothing about finances and the economy, The Morning Star  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fwtWyCd3

Click to expand...

I would have thought that even a cretin like Brown would understand that if you dump a lot of a commodity on the market at one time it will lower the market price!


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

DCB said:



			Well, last year I had the misfortune to be in three of Edinburghs hospitals as i was treated after my accident. I started off in an all singing all dancing PFI hospital. Nice, airy, bright, modern. Was operated on in an early 1960s unit in another hospital, tired, dated but functional and underwent my rehab in a much older hospital in a unit built in the 1950s. It did show it's age.

I'll take a PFI hospital any day of the week folks. What we need is a health service that can do something to invest and turn these older units into something comparable with a modern PFI site. This is 2015 and we are still trying to treat people in units that were built almost 100 years ago. The governments of this country need to stop squabling and picking on what the other lot did in the past and they need to look to the future and plan out a pat to upgrade all our facilities to meed the modern demand. Yes it'll cost, but it needs to be done.
		
Click to expand...

So you are saying you like a shiny new hospital over an old dilapidated one. Who wouldn't?

The question is why can't the NHS build such hospitals using public money. That would create employment rather than profits which go offshore and would be much cheaper in the long run. 

PFI is very expensive. The financiers often sell the contracts at massive profit because they are a license to print money. Maintenance contracts are punitive as well. And at the end of the contract the financiers can kick you out, or more likely renegotiate terms to screw the NHS even more.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			People may agree with Corbyn or hate his views, but at least they can probably agree that he stands for something and his positions and policies are pretty clear. Liz Kendall is also pretty clear too - she is a Tory in Labour clothing, but the other two seem willing to pivot or slide around to what is politically expedient, and illustrate what many hate about modern politicians. They stand for nothing and move according to the wind of public opinion and the main media players.

I joined Labour as a registered supporter purely to vote for Corbyn in the forthcoming election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate who is traditional Labour, supports the NHS, the working classes, a strong welfare state and who seeks to restrain the out of control private companies and big money interests who currently fund the Tory party. The mistake Labour made was to believe that the public supported a move to the centre under Blair. They didn't. They (and initially I) bought into a cult of personality but as soon as he showed his true colours, support started to wane until they reached the depths under Moribund. But they still think that the public wants them to stay in the centre, in a sort of Tory-lite place. I don't believe that, but they have allowed Tories to set the narrative for recent elections, and that narrative is about Europe, immigrants and welfare recipients both being evil and austerity, and they have forgotten small stuff like the NHS, education, and getting more decent well paying jobs. Labour don't even know where they stand on austerity. Pretty much every credible economist in the western world knows where to stand on it - against it, but Labour are frightened and incapable of taking the issue on because they are driven by focus groups, opinion polls and media opinion. 

I think they need to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and start over again. Find some principles and ideals in line with their natural constituency and build a credible narrative around those. Don't let the Tories set the terms of the debate, stick to their principles and it can't possibly take them anyplace worse than where they currently are. 

On the voter numbers, in 1979, Thatcher got 13.67 million votes against 11.33 million in 2015. They won both times, obviously. The difference between now and then is that overall turnout is lower, and there are more than 2 parties getting decent shares of the vote. In 1979 only 3 parties got more than 1 million vote, Liberals in 3rd place. In 2015, 6 parties got more than a million votes.
		
Click to expand...

Great and all as those ideals are, I'm afraid Blair (who I detest) got it right about getting into power being more important than preaching the traditional (and frequently quite reasonable imo) Labour views to the electorate in the hope of converting the swing voters! Imo, Kinnoch was the last of the 'traditional' Labour leaders (even though he was pretty much a moderate/centre left) and the fact that he failed to win against a ridiculously weak Tory campaign in 1992 was really the last straw for that style of approach imo! 

I never thought Miliband was electable (quite the opposite in fact) but the Union bloc backed him ahead of his, far more effective imo, brother!

UK Politics is now driven so much by 'the Leader' that is essential to have one that the public can accept! None of the candidates for leader of  Scottish Labour stand out in this regard! And the same is quite possibly true for England as well!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 15, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Great and all as those ideals are, I'm afraid Blair (who I detest) got it right about getting into power being more important than preaching the traditional (and frequently quite reasonable imo) Labour views to the electorate in the hope of converting the swing voters! Imo, Kinnoch was the last of the 'traditional' Labour leaders (even though he was pretty much a moderate/centre left) and the fact that he failed to win against a ridiculously weak Tory campaign in 1992 was really the last straw for that style of approach imo! 

I never thought Miliband was electable (quite the opposite in fact) but the Union bloc backed him ahead of his, far more effective imo, brother!

UK Politics is now driven so much by 'the Leader' that is essential to have one that the public can accept! None of the candidates for leader of  Scottish Labour stand out in this regard! And the same is quite possibly true for England as well!
		
Click to expand...

Some very fair points made there.  If they'd have chosen David over Ed then British politics would be in a very different place.  And much as I admire a leader with principals, if Labour just chose another trade union endorsed candidate with little appeal to middle England then it will play straight into the Tories hands, they will exploit it to the hilt and it will allow them to swing even further to the right.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			...

I joined Labour as a registered supporter purely to vote for Corbyn in the forthcoming election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate who is traditional Labour, supports the NHS, the working classes, a strong welfare state and who seeks to restrain the out of control private companies and big money interests who currently fund the Tory party. The mistake Labour made was to believe that the public supported a move to the centre under Blair. They didn't. They (and initially I) bought into a cult of personality but as soon as he showed his true colours, support started to wane until they reached the depths under Moribund. But they still think that the public wants them to stay in the centre, in a sort of Tory-lite place. I don't believe that, but they have allowed Tories to set the narrative for recent elections, and that narrative is about Europe, immigrants and welfare recipients both being evil and austerity, and they have forgotten small stuff like the NHS, education, and getting more decent well paying jobs. Labour don't even know where they stand on austerity. Pretty much every credible economist in the western world knows where to stand on it - against it, but Labour are frightened and incapable of taking the issue on because they are driven by focus groups, opinion polls and media opinion. 

I think they need to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and start over again. *Find some principles and ideals in line with their natural constituency and build a credible narrative around those. Don't let the Tories set the terms of the debate, stick to their principles and it can't possibly take them anyplace worse than where they currently are...*

Click to expand...

BiB - I liked Mhairi Black on her observations on the Labour Party and quoting Tony Benn in her maiden speech (which was not at all bad btw) - when she said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts.  I need a Labour Party of signposts rather than the one that we seem to be heading towards - one that spins in whatever direction public opinion may blow it.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/vb.6622931938/10153075784641939/?type=2&theater


----------



## DCB (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			So you are saying you like a shiny new hospital over an old dilapidated one. Who wouldn't?

The question is why can't the NHS build such hospitals using public money. That would create employment rather than profits which go offshore and would be much cheaper in the long run. 

PFI is very expensive. The financiers often sell the contracts at massive profit because they are a license to print money. Maintenance contracts are punitive as well. And at the end of the contract the financiers can kick you out, or more likely renegotiate terms to screw the NHS even more.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with what you say, but, we went through far too long a period without serious investment which meant that it was too costly to do even simple lifecycle upgrades to the existing estate never mind rebuilding new hospitals etc. PFI was seen as a way round the problem. It only created a new problem. Focus on sensible, planned expenditure has to be the goal to provide facilities suitable for 2015 and beyond. PFI was a kneejerk reaction.

That said, our local hospital infrastructure was changed with the opening of a PFI hospital. If that hadn't happened, we'd still be going to old victorian sites for treatment.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

Putting Corbyn at the head of the Labour party would be repeating the mistake of Michael Foot.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			BiB - I liked Mhairi Black on her observations on the Labour Party and quoting Tony Benn in her maiden speech (which was not at all bad btw) - when she said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts.  I need a Labour Party of signposts rather than the one that we seem to be heading towards - one that spins in whatever direction public opinion may blow it.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/vb.6622931938/10153075784641939/?type=2&theater

Click to expand...

Shock horror, SILH liking someone Scottish


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Putting Corbyn at the head of the Labour party would be repeating the mistake of Michael Foot.
		
Click to expand...


Trying to "boss the centre ground" hasn't done them many favours either...

There's plenty of support for Labour out there... Just need to persuade them out of their cosy living rooms on polling day...
Perhaps a battle cry from the leftside might be what is needed... Plus being even more tee'd off with austerity measures another five years down the line...


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

DCB said:



			Totally agree with what you say, but, we went through far too long a period without serious investment which meant that it was too costly to do even simple lifecycle upgrades to the existing estate never mind rebuilding new hospitals etc. PFI was seen as a way round the problem. It only created a new problem. Focus on sensible, planned expenditure has to be the goal to provide facilities suitable for 2015 and beyond. PFI was a kneejerk reaction.

That said, our local hospital infrastructure was changed with the opening of a PFI hospital. If that hadn't happened, we'd still be going to old victorian sites for treatment.
		
Click to expand...

PFI was also favoured by HMG because at that time the cost was off the balance sheet.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Trying to "boss the centre ground" hasn't done them many favours either...

There's plenty of support for Labour out there... Just need to persuade them out of their cosy living rooms on polling day...
Perhaps a battle cry from the leftside might be what is needed... Plus being even more tee'd off with austerity measures another five years down the line...
		
Click to expand...

That would be the austerity measures that has created the highest growth rate in the EU, huge increases in jobs, a steady reduction in the National defect and lower tax thresholds, would it?     Seems quite progressive to me.

Personally I hope some left wing looney like Corbyn gets the Labour leaders job as it will assist to keep Labour from ruining the country again.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			That would be the austerity measures that has created the highest growth rate in the EU, huge increases in jobs, a steady reduction in the National defect and lower tax thresholds, would it?     Seems quite progressive to me.
		
Click to expand...


If you are amongst those that have been perched on the wrong end of the pineapple... 
Being progressive will be the least of your concerns...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Shock horror, SILH liking someone Scottish 

Click to expand...

Didn't say I liked her...but did her observations on the Labour Party.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jul 15, 2015)

As a floating voter who voted for UKIP last time and the lib dems before. I am and will continue to be a floater. My problem is that through what has happened to the miners I cannot find it in me to vote for the Tories and also Labour who could of helped the "working class" but did not. Non of what I have said is new news.
however I have one foot in the retirement door so my personal interests/priorities in policies will change.
re Labour I will struggle to name anyone or recognise anyone in there party. The one I do who seems to be half sensible is Harriet Harmen who will not be standing as the next leader of Labour. So that leaves us with nobby no names as leader of a party who has a couple of years to turn things around with policies that have not yet been decided. 
The only thing that could bring voters flooding back is if the Torys majorly screw up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Personally I hope some left wing looney like Corbyn gets the Labour leaders job as it will assist to keep Labour from ruining the country again.
		
Click to expand...

Labour didn't ruin the country - it was a joint effort with the bankers in which Labour may well have been the junior partner.  Or were the banking crisis and the bailouts figments of my imagination.  Don't think so.  Anyway - lets blame Labour for the greedy and destructive proclivities of the banks as  well - it's neater that way and makes for an easier story.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Labour didn't ruin the country - it was a joint effort with the bankers in which Labour may well have been the junior partner.  Or were the banking crisis and the bailouts figments of my imagination.  Don't think so.  Anyway - lets blame Labour for the greedy and destructive proclivities of the banks as  well - it's neater that way and makes for an easier story.
		
Click to expand...

Who mentioned anything about Labour creating the Banking Crisis?   I don't believe I did !

What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services.  It was Brown that brought in this ludicrous Tax Credit system that was another of his ploys just like mass immigration to try and get more people voting Labour.    They always do the same things and leave the country broke so the next Tory government have to impose austerity means to pay off the debt.   Their biggest fault though is thinking the electorate wont see through it and vote them in again.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Who mentioned anything about Labour creating the Banking Crisis?   I don't believe I did !

What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services.  It was Brown that brought in this ludicrous Tax Credit system that was another of his ploys just like mass immigration to try and get more people voting Labour.    They always do the same things and leave the country broke so the next Tory government have to impose austerity means to pay off the debt.   Their biggest fault though is thinking the electorate wont see through it and vote them in again.
		
Click to expand...

You said Labour ruined the country - I believe it was a joint effort with the banks


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Who mentioned anything about Labour creating the Banking Crisis?   I don't believe I did !

What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services.  It was Brown that brought in this ludicrous Tax Credit system that was another of his ploys just like mass immigration to try and get more people voting Labour.    They always do the same things and leave the country broke so the next Tory government have to impose austerity means to pay off the debt.   Their biggest fault though is thinking the electorate wont see through it and vote them in again.
		
Click to expand...

PlOys? Ha, look at the Selfservatives. They pay off their donors by giving them access to buy off public services and as we speak are trying to prevent unions from donating to Labour. They also have the gall to demand a 40% vote in IA votes when they got elected on less than 25% of the total available vote. And they are planning to gerrymander constituencies to further hit the Labour vote. 

The best trick the Tories ever pulled off was to convince the small business "hard working families" that the Tories were their friends, when in fact the Tories despise them. Plebs indeed. They persuaded the feckless voters by blowing dog whistles of immigration, anti-welfare and anti-Europe. And then in every budget they bash this group of supporters, but they distract the "hard working families" by making the headlines about the welfare recipients. Working class who vote Tory are complete mugs.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Who mentioned anything about Labour creating the Banking Crisis?   I don't believe I did !

What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services.  It was Brown that brought in this ludicrous Tax Credit system that was another of his ploys just like mass immigration to try and get more people voting Labour.    They always do the same things and leave the country broke so the next Tory government have to impose austerity means to pay off the debt.   Their biggest fault though is thinking the electorate wont see through it and vote them in again.
		
Click to expand...

Austerity isn't mandated by the economic recession, it just fits in well with the Tory narrative.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services..
		
Click to expand...

The now Chancellor said in 2007 he'd match Labour's spending. He didn't seem to think there was a problem at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

jp5 said:



			The now Chancellor said in 2007 he'd match Labour's spending. He didn't seem to think there was a problem at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Click to expand...

He hadn't seen their note saying there was no money left at that point.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You said Labour ruined the country - I believe it was a joint effort with the banks
		
Click to expand...

I did indeed but never mentioned anything about the banking Crisis!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			PlOys? Ha, look at the Selfservatives. They pay off their donors by giving them access to buy off public services and as we speak are trying to prevent unions from donating to Labour. They also have the gall to demand a 40% vote in IA votes when they got elected on less than 25% of the total available vote. And they are planning to gerrymander constituencies to further hit the Labour vote. 

The best trick the Tories ever pulled off was to convince the small business "hard working families" that the Tories were their friends, when in fact the Tories despise them. Plebs indeed. They persuaded the feckless voters by blowing dog whistles of immigration, anti-welfare and anti-Europe. And then in every budget they bash this group of supporters, but they distract the "hard working families" by making the headlines about the welfare recipients. Working class who vote Tory are complete mugs.
		
Click to expand...

A damning inditement on 'Working class' Tory voters (Who ever these 'working class' are these days)

I just love the way you decide that anyone who thinks we have suffered too much immigration or spend too much on welfare are mugs and are so thick should be denied the vote.    Stalin had a lot of people who also thought that the proletariat didn't know what was good for them.   Maybe the answer is Gulags for stupid 'Hard Working Families'


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			...

What Labour do in Government is mismanage the economy by spending too much of our money on Public Services. 
...
		
Click to expand...

The 'counter' argument to that is that the Tories (in cahoots with Lib-Dems last parliament) mismanage the assets of the country by selling them off at what is subsequently deemed to a far too low price!

Which one you decide takes priority really depends on you natural political point of view imo!

Gordon Brown did, however, demonstrate how much closer Labour had shifted towards the Conservatives by actually managing to both increase the public sector portion of the economy AND sell off assets at lower than optimum!!  

Imo, the 2008 Banking Crisis would have battered the Conservatives just as much as it battered Labour! I think, on the whole, it was handled pretty well by 'the government', much of which was non-political - following advice from the likes of Bank of England etc. Even the story of how Brown talked Lloyds's Chairman into the 'merger' with HBOS (a deal that subsequently caused the need for Lloyds to be bailed out) wasn't 'political', simply something any government would have probably wished to achieve!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			The 'counter' argument to that is that the Tories (in cahoots with Lib-Dems last parliament) mismanage the assets of the country by selling them off at what is subsequently deemed to a far too low price!

Which one you decide takes priority really depends on you natural political point of view imo!

Gordon Brown did, however, demonstrate how much closer Labour had shifted towards the Conservatives by actually managing to both increase the public sector portion of the economy AND sell off assets at lower than optimum!!  

Imo, the 2008 Banking Crisis would have battered the Conservatives just as much as it battered Labour! I think, on the whole, it was handled pretty well by 'the government', much of which was non-political - following advice from the likes of Bank of England etc. Even the story of how Brown talked Lloyds's Chairman into the 'merger' with HBOS (a deal that subsequently caused the need for Lloyds to be bailed out) wasn't 'political', simply something any government would have probably wished to achieve!
		
Click to expand...

I reiterate that I do not blame Labour directly for the banking Crisis of 2008.    Maybe they should have ensured the FSA had a better handle of the situation though.


----------



## Ethan (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			A damning inditement on 'Working class' Tory voters (Who ever these 'working class' are these days)

I just love the way you decide that anyone who thinks we have suffered too much immigration or spend too much on welfare are mugs and are so thick should be denied the vote.    Stalin had a lot of people who also thought that the proletariat didn't know what was good for them.   Maybe the answer is Gulags for stupid 'Hard Working Families'
		
Click to expand...

Typical response avoiding the point and resorting to personal attacks instead. How Tory of you. 

You know perfectly well that I was saying that the Tories con these people by pandering to issues which distract from the real issues. They are very good at it. But the Tories are not friends of the 'hard working families', a term Cameron uses with a derisive tone to allow people to self identify against the non working, and therefore untrustworthy spongers. When budget time comes, the hard working families get screwed. When Cameron says 'We are all in this together', what he means is 'You plebs are all in this together'.


----------



## pendodave (Jul 15, 2015)

We talk about the banking crisis as if it was politically neutral. Global finance pays for the Tories, lobbies through the Tories and cost this country (and the global economy) billions(trilions). No brown stuff adheres.

Trade unions conduct a legally controlled ballot and conduct a legal dispute with TFL over changes to working conditions that adversely affect the lives of their members and the labour party gets dragged through the mire by all sides of the press.

It's a crazy world, and not in a good way


----------



## shagster (Jul 15, 2015)

where is the reduction in the deficit.
under labour it was in billions
under the tories we are now in trillions
that is an increase, or it was under labours maths, may not be under rose coloured torie specs

shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

shagster said:



			where is the reduction in the deficit.
under labour it was in billions
under the tories we are now in trillions
that is an increase, or it was under labours maths, may not be under rose coloured torie specs

shagster
		
Click to expand...

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the National Debt and the Deficit.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			He hadn't seen their note saying there was no money left at that point.
		
Click to expand...

And why was there 'no money left'?


----------



## c1973 (Jul 15, 2015)

'Coz it was all spent?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Typical response avoiding the point and resorting to personal attacks instead. How Tory of you. 

You know perfectly well that I was saying that the Tories con these people by pandering to issues which distract from the real issues. They are very good at it. But the Tories are not friends of the 'hard working families', a term Cameron uses with a derisive tone to allow people to self identify against the non working, and therefore untrustworthy spongers. When budget time comes, the hard working families get screwed. When Cameron says 'We are all in this together', what he means is 'You plebs are all in this together'.
		
Click to expand...

Oh! I know what you were saying alright.  suggesting anyone with a different political view to yours are thick and stupid. Such a typical Socialist ploy.

You seem to ignore how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown used that term 'Hard Working Families" relentlessly :http://jackthurston.com/articles/hardworking-families/


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			'Coz it was all spent? 






Click to expand...

And more :thup:


----------



## shagster (Jul 15, 2015)

ok socket, please enlighten me
all i know is the national debt is rising
please can you put your spin on it as it will be interesting

shagster


----------



## jp5 (Jul 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			'Coz it was all spent? 






Click to expand...

on.....?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 15, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I reiterate that I do not blame Labour directly for the banking Crisis of 2008.    Maybe they should have ensured the FSA had a better handle of the situation though.
		
Click to expand...

And I never stated you did!

As for the FSA...This was an entirely Tory creation - as was Deregulation! So it's easily arguable that THEY should have been the ones to set it up better!

I'm also not actually assigning blame, just showing how Labour got stuffed by circumstances rather than by actual incompetence. 

Even that other Tory 'creation' (PFI) that Brown made far too much (imo) use of - as it was 'off book' -  has been misused by the Tories (imo), in spite of Osborne's criticism of it when in opposition!

So it's all really just a matter of who has the best PR imo (and natural leanings as I previously posted).

Btw. The Tax Credits system would probably a lot less expensive if it was actually integrated into the PAYE system. But there are a few blockages to doing that, one of which is the inability of the central HMRC system (developed and maintained via a PFI contract I believe) to be amended economically!




MegaSteve said:



			If you are amongst those that have been perched on the wrong end of the pineapple...
		
Click to expand...

A fantastic expression that I can't recall having heard before!


----------



## c1973 (Jul 15, 2015)

Stuff that was badly needed mostly? 






Edit: @jp5


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			on.....?
		
Click to expand...

Welfare, civil service, Iraq.  Need I go on?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

shagster said:



			ok socket, please enlighten me
all i know is the national debt is rising
please can you put your spin on it as it will be interesting

shagster
		
Click to expand...

If you can't work out that the Deficit and the National Debt are different things then go look it up and come back when you know what you are talking about!


----------



## shagster (Jul 16, 2015)

i asked you to explain, as you disagreed with my statement, any reason you are unwilling to

shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

shagster said:



			i asked you to explain, as you disagreed with my statement, any reason you are unwilling to

shagster
		
Click to expand...

Because you don't understand the subject.   As I suggested, go look it up and when you know what you are talking about we may be able to have a sensible discussion.


----------



## shagster (Jul 16, 2015)

obviously unable to answer my question.
i looked it up and what ever tory spin you wish to put on it, we are borrowing more each year, something you do not or can not accept or admit
but as you seem to understand the subject far better than us mere workers, what is your answer, and perhaps you can enlighten good old dave so he can spin it some more

shagster


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Welfare, civil service, Iraq.  Need I go on?
		
Click to expand...

A small fraction of welfare aside, all things that would have happened under a Cameron/Osborne administration - no?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Oh! I know what you were saying alright.  suggesting anyone with a different political view to yours are thick and stupid. Such a typical Socialist ploy.
...
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:





shagster said:



			ok socket, please enlighten me
all i know is the national debt is rising
please can you put your spin on it as it will be interesting

shagster
		
Click to expand...

If you can't work out that the Deficit and the National Debt are different things then go look it up and come back when you know what you are talking about!
		
Click to expand...

 Socket. No offence intended, but have you suddenly acquired some Socialist traits? :rofl:

@shagster 

Indeed, the National Debt is rising, because there continues to be a Deficit each year. However, the Tories have stated (and budgeted for) the Deficit to reduce to zero over the course of this Parliament. Of course, they made the same statement at the beginning of the last one and failed, but that's all forgotten now!

@jp5 

As you imply, I'm pretty sure the Tories would have tagged along with the US into the illegal Iraq War. I'm pretty sure they would have sold in a better way than Blair's method - using spin rather than facts and reasoning.

I think it's rather more than 'a small fraction of Welfare' involved! 

And Labour is renowned for massively increasing the Civil Service (or at least those paid from the Public Purse - Qangos etc). They need to increase the civil service in order to administer all the new rules/methods/overseeing bodies they create! Of course, that also has a side benefit of potentially reducing the Unemployment statistics!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

shagster said:



			obviously unable to answer my question.
i looked it up and what ever tory spin you wish to put on it, we are borrowing more each year, something you do not or can not accept or admit
but as you seem to understand the subject far better than us mere workers, what is your answer, and perhaps you can enlighten good old dave so he can spin it some more

shagster
		
Click to expand...

If you have bothered to understand the difference you will notice that since 2010 the deficit has reduced year on year and is projected into surplus around 2019/2020.    Just prior to 2010 the deficit grew by a very large amount.

It doesn't need spin to explain and for your information you do your fellow workers a disservice suggesting they don't understand these things.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			A small fraction of welfare aside, all things that would have happened under a Cameron/Osborne administration - no?
		
Click to expand...

You are welcome to an opinion.


----------



## DCB (Jul 16, 2015)

I remember the day when no self respecting golf club would have socialist as members... what's the world coming to


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You are welcome to an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

That was fact, not opinion


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

Foxholer said:



 Socket. No offence intended, but have you suddenly acquired some Socialist traits? :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I did pick up the Guardian by mistake the other day


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			That was fact, not opinion 

Click to expand...

In your opinion


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

So in summary, the credit crunch and ensuing recession would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Whoever took the reins after the global recession was going to enjoy a surge in popularity.

I don't see any of the current leadership candidates ultimately being PM. I think Labour will be out in the cold for a few election cycles.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			So in summary, the credit crunch and ensuing recession would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Whoever took the reins after the global recession was going to enjoy a surge in popularity.

I don't see any of the current leadership candidates ultimately being PM. I think Labour will be out in the cold for a few election cycles.
		
Click to expand...

Thats missed out the bit where Gordon Brown greatly increased borrowing and went on a public spending frenzy in his final death knoll.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats missed out the bit where Gordon Brown greatly increased borrowing and went on a public spending frenzy in his final death knoll.
		
Click to expand...

... and what was the increased borrowing for?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			... and what was the increased borrowing for?
		
Click to expand...

Living beyond our means.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Living beyond our means.
		
Click to expand...

Hard to tell if you're playing silly or genuinely don't know.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I did pick up the Guardian by mistake the other day 

Click to expand...

I trust you spent 5 mins scrubbing up afterwards!

Actually, if you want facts, The Grauniad is better than the Torygraph imo! But Torygraph Sport is better and Matt and Alex are unbeatable! :thup:



jp5 said:





SocketRocket said:





jp5 said:



			A small fraction of welfare aside, all things that would have happened under a Cameron/Osborne administration - no?
		
Click to expand...

You are welcome to an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

That was fact, not opinion 

Click to expand...


@JP5 How can you tout that as fact when it didn't happen? It can only be opinion!


----------



## craigstardis1976 (Jul 16, 2015)

I truly think it does not matter who is voted in any more or with what majority. Since the era of Thatcher, it seems as if the business of running the country has become of one taking sweeping generalizations, applying them without having to fully explain or account for them and just continuing along that route knowing you will have the back up of spin doctors and pr individuals to fend off the tough questions and a media that has lost its political teeth. 

In my opinion, the three greatest parliamentary orators of the last forty years of the twentieth century were Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and Tony Benn. Whatever you thought of their political views they were undoubtedly intellectual men, capable of defending their positions in intellectual and rational terms. 

Interestingly, it was those qualities (as well as some of their more radical views, an extension of logic that sometimes put them in political corners from which they could not escape) that kept them from holding high office. 

However, for the current situation to change, someone with those intellectual qualities needs to be the backbone to a Prime Minister and a cabinet capable of applying those qualities to party policy and they need to be able to explain them in rational and intellectual terms and then try to carry them out. The Spin Doctors need to head to the dole queue...

But who has the political nerve to publicly say this and then act on it....ifyou asked all the members of parliament, I think the chamber would be resounding...in its silence as they contemplate lunch or their shoe polish.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			I trust you spent 5 mins scrubbing up afterwards!

Actually, if you want facts, The Grauniad is better than the Torygraph imo! But Torygraph Sport is better and Matt and Alex are unbeatable! :thup:




@JP5 How can you tout that as fact when it didn't happen? It can only be opinion!
		
Click to expand...

Fact that it would have happened as I have shown in my sources


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 16, 2015)

craigstardis1976 said:



			I truly think it does not matter who is voted in any more or with what majority. Since the era of Thatcher, it seems as if the business of running the country has become of one taking sweeping generalizations, applying them without having to fully explain or account for them and just continuing along that route knowing you will have the back up of spin doctors and pr individuals to fend off the tough questions and a media that has lost its political teeth. 

In my opinion, the three greatest parliamentary orators of the last forty years of the twentieth century were Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and Tony Benn. Whatever you thought of their political views they were undoubtedly intellectual men, capable of defending their positions in intellectual and rational terms. 

Interestingly, it was those qualities (as well as some of their more radical views, an extension of logic that sometimes put them in political corners from which they could not escape) that kept them from holding high office. 

However, for the current situation to change, someone with those intellectual qualities needs to be the backbone to a Prime Minister and a cabinet capable of applying those qualities to party policy and they need to be able to explain them in rational and intellectual terms and then try to carry them out. The Spin Doctors need to head to the dole queue...

But who has the political nerve to publicly say this and then act on it....ifyou asked all the members of parliament, I think the chamber would be resounding...in its silence as they contemplate lunch or their shoe polish.
		
Click to expand...

It was interesting to hear Mhairi Black quote Tony Benn in her quite brilliant maiden speech.
Surely this is the sort of attack that, what is left of the Labour party, should follow.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/14/mhairi-black-first-commons-speech-snp


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Fact that it would have happened as I have shown in my sources 

Click to expand...

The only fact was that he said he'd match/use Labour's budgeted expenditure! Classic pre-election statement!

Did Labour actually stick to what they'd predicted? Of course they didn't! By an enormous amount (though much of the latter part was down to the 2008 Banking Crisis!)! 

I very much doubt that any Chancellor has actually had results match budget in the last 50 years at least!


----------



## craigstardis1976 (Jul 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It was interesting to hear Mhairi Black quote Tony Benn in her quite brilliant maiden speech.
Surely this is the sort of attack that, what is left of the Labour party, should follow.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/14/mhairi-black-first-commons-speech-snp

Click to expand...

I quite agree. There is a lot of great Tony Benn quotes out there!


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			The only fact was that he said he'd match/use Labour's budgeted expenditure! Classic pre-election statement!

Did Labour actually stick to what they'd predicted? Of course they didn't! By an enormous amount (though much of the latter part was down to the 2008 Banking Crisis!)! 

I very much doubt that any Chancellor has actually had results match budget in the last 50 years at least!
		
Click to expand...

Oh I know that promises bear very little integrity in politics.

But I was referring to Osborne declaring that he would match Labour's spending. That intent was a fact. And it is that spending which many of the Tory persuasion now seek to renounce as excessive. Easy to be wise after the event.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Oh I know that promises bear very little integrity in politics.

But I was referring to Osborne declaring that he would match Labour's spending. That intent was a fact. And it is that spending which many of the Tory persuasion now seek to renounce as excessive. Easy to be wise after the event.
		
Click to expand...

Er....No!

It was the ACTUAL spending that Tories now seek to renounce! Well, maybe not, as the implication is often sufficient! But the actual spending by Labour has virtually always been above budget - a least when the 'off-book' expenditure is included!

I actually know a fairly high powered accountant type bod that was once 'invited' to a meeting with Gordon Brown and harangued by him about the 'fiddles' that he was using to reduce his clients tax obligations. The meeting was cut short when my acquaintance stated that what he was doing was no different from what Brown was doing with PFI contracts!

So, can you simply answer....Did Labour stick to the budgeted spending? And by how much did they miss by? It was/is the ACTUAL spending that Tories can claim was excessive! Though that won't actually stop them from claiming Labour overspend anyway - that's one of their standard arguments! But most of the time they are actually correct! - and the same argument actually applies to them too, but it's all about concepts!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Hard to tell if you're playing silly or genuinely don't know.
		
Click to expand...

Not playing and not silly!  This may explain a little of how he and his party managed the Countries finances in fairly good times:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1635/cheering_for_gordon_brown


----------



## jp5 (Jul 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Not playing and not silly!  This may explain a little of how he and his party managed the Countries finances in fairly good times:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1635/cheering_for_gordon_brown

Click to expand...

Not easy to find an impartial view, but as that article is written by a Conservative party member I'll give it a swerve!

I'm no Labour supporter wouldn't be surprised if Labour did overspend on their budget - quite frankly I don't have the inclination or motivation to trawl through the numbers.

What grates with me is the pinning of the global crisis and the massive inherited deficit on Labour's overspending. 

People are susceptible to being fed porkies and taking them at face value, and in my books it's irresponsible of highly educated people to be tricking the electorate into believing their narrative.

It does go both ways - the notion that the Tories have failed as the debt has doubled during their time in Government (as one previous poster in this thread had been taken in by) is equally deceptive.

But in my experience it seems to be the Tories that are more conniving, not least highlighted by the Telegraph's campaign to encourage Tories to vote for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election!

For what it's worth I think Corbyn would at least bring clear aims and a principled opposition, though he'd be the least electable. The other three I can't really tell what separates them, or why they'd be any better than Ed.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not easy to find an impartial view, but as that article is written by a Conservative party member I'll give it a swerve!

I'm no Labour supporter wouldn't be surprised if Labour did overspend on their budget - quite frankly I don't have the inclination or motivation to trawl through the numbers.
*
What grates with me is the pinning of the global crisis and the massive inherited deficit on Labour's overspending. 

People are susceptible to being fed porkies and taking them at face value, and in my books it's irresponsible of highly educated people to be tricking the electorate into believing their narrative.

It does go both ways - the notion that the Tories have failed as the debt has doubled during their time in Government (as one previous poster in this thread had been taken in by) is equally deceptive.*

But in my experience it seems to be the Tories that are more conniving, not least highlighted by the Telegraph's campaign to encourage Tories to vote for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election!

For what it's worth I think Corbyn would at least bring clear aims and a principled opposition, though he'd be the least electable. The other three I can't really tell what separates them, or why they'd be any better than Ed.
		
Click to expand...

Good point, well put.


----------



## shagster (Jul 16, 2015)

still waiting for an answer rocket
how did you confuse a newspaper like the guardian with a rag like the mail
so when the tories promised to cut the deficit by the 2015 election, which bit have i missed, because this seems like complete failure
also, how much surplus are they actually going to need just to break even?
defecit, surplus are just terms used to hide the fact that our debt is increasing year on year.
you are quick to blame the labour party for the results of one if not the biggest recession we have had, yet the tories were a fiasco with black monday etc 

shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 16, 2015)

shagster said:



			still waiting for an answer rocket
how did you confuse a newspaper like the guardian with a rag like the mail
so when the tories promised to cut the deficit by the 2015 election, which bit have i missed, because this seems like complete failure
also, how much surplus are they actually going to need just to break even?
defecit, surplus are just terms used to hide the fact that our debt is increasing year on year.
you are quick to blame the labour party for the results of one if not the biggest recession we have had, yet the tories were a fiasco with black monday etc 

shagster
		
Click to expand...

I dont understand what answer you are waiting for!   You seem to be very confused by it all and making rather silly comments!   I will try to explain one more time but if you still cant understand then I'll give it up as a wasted effort.

The National Debt is all the money the country has borrowed over years and not repaid, It's a bit like an overdraft that you have to pay interest on.  Currently around Â£1.5 Trillion.

The Defect is the difference between what the Government receive in income and how much more they spend each year.   It's a bit like getting your wages each month and spending more, the extra you spend is a defect.  The defect grows each Month/Year and adds to the Total Debt.

The current Government have been reducing the defect year on year since 2010 but that does not reduce the National Debt, it only reduces the speed it grows.  They hope to reduce it such that by 2020 it will be removed and after this we can move into a surplus.  They hoped to do it earlier but Hey Ho its taking longer.   Hope you're keeping up.

The National Debt will still be there and we will still be wasting vast amounts of money in interest payments to service it.   They will then hope to start paying off the Debt year by year.   So unless there is another major international financial crisis or we get another Labour Government we will eventually fix what was broken.

The Guardian comment was a joke that seems to have gone over your head .


----------



## shagster (Jul 16, 2015)

wow you are good
you do not understand irony either, as i know you would not pick up a paper that may have a differing view, only a tory rag
of course i new about deficit surplus and debt, its amazing the things you learn at school and by reading various articles from all sides of the political spectrum rather than someone who seems to think the sun and the mail are the policial opinion of everyone and no one else's views count
my point, which seems way above your head, was that the tories promised to reduce the deficit but they know know the the problems were far deeper rooted than the labour party, but easy to blame
when i mention the debt, that is the bottom line, like the wage packet, you look at the nett income not gross, that does not pay the bills
we are saddled with debt, this is not going to reduce much in my life time, if at all
there are many many issues that need sorting out, and it is not about who but how this is done, but you really need to take of the rose coloured specs you wear.
yes labour borrowed and spent on infrastructure etc, but if the tories had been in power at that time, they would have done the same. its called vote catching.
if you cannot see that then i am wasting my time because you just follow the popular head line and not the full facts. try using the internet or reading articles of differing political views.
who is going to pay for all the tories bright ideas like hs2 etc, the have sold off all the utilities etc. 
if cameron had been in power, we would still have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and spent billions so please do not blame it all on labour, a lot of it has been world events, that the UK try to stand up to and support the weak, a bit like the welfare state, but i expect you want that abolished as well
i do not have all, or any of the answers but one day we may get a government for all rather than the few, so everyone's voice can be heard

shagster


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 16, 2015)

shagster said:



			yes labour borrowed and spent on infrastructure etc, but if the tories had been in power at that time, they would have done the same.

if cameron had been in power, we would still have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and spent billions
		
Click to expand...

Don't know whether you're right or wrong but can I borrow your all-seeing crystal ball for the lottery numbers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2015)

shagster said:



			wow you are good
you do not understand irony either, as i know you would not pick up a paper that may have a differing view, only a tory rag
of course i new about deficit surplus and debt, its amazing the things you learn at school and by reading various articles from all sides of the political spectrum rather than someone who seems to think the sun and the mail are the policial opinion of everyone and no one else's views count
my point, which seems way above your head, was that the tories promised to reduce the deficit but they know know the the problems were far deeper rooted than the labour party, but easy to blame
when i mention the debt, that is the bottom line, like the wage packet, you look at the nett income not gross, that does not pay the bills
we are saddled with debt, this is not going to reduce much in my life time, if at all
there are many many issues that need sorting out, and it is not about who but how this is done, but you really need to take of the rose coloured specs you wear.
yes labour borrowed and spent on infrastructure etc, but if the tories had been in power at that time, they would have done the same. its called vote catching.
if you cannot see that then i am wasting my time because you just follow the popular head line and not the full facts. try using the internet or reading articles of differing political views.
who is going to pay for all the tories bright ideas like hs2 etc, the have sold off all the utilities etc. 
if cameron had been in power, we would still have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and spent billions so please do not blame it all on labour, a lot of it has been world events, that the UK try to stand up to and support the weak, a bit like the welfare state, but i expect you want that abolished as well
i do not have all, or any of the answers but one day we may get a government for all rather than the few, so everyone's voice can be heard

shagster
		
Click to expand...

Hope you feel better getting that lot off your chest?  You really are struggling to express yourself here but keep trying, it can only get better.

Try using paragraphs, it will help you to put some structure into your posts.  Also a capital letter at the start of sentences will assist with readability.

I'm really interested in what this "Government for all" pans out like, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for it .

Take care


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not easy to find an impartial view, but as that article is written by a Conservative party member I'll give it a swerve!

I'm no Labour supporter wouldn't be surprised if Labour did overspend on their budget - quite frankly I don't have the inclination or motivation to trawl through the numbers.

What grates with me is the pinning of the global crisis and the massive inherited deficit on Labour's overspending. 

People are susceptible to being fed porkies and taking them at face value, and in my books it's irresponsible of highly educated people to be tricking the electorate into believing their narrative.

It does go both ways - the notion that the Tories have failed as the debt has doubled during their time in Government (as one previous poster in this thread had been taken in by) is equally deceptive.

But in my experience it seems to be the Tories that are more conniving, not least highlighted by the Telegraph's campaign to encourage Tories to vote for Corbyn in the Labour leadership election!

*For what it's worth I think Corbyn would at least bring clear aims and a principled opposition, though he'd be the least electable. The other three I can't really tell what separates them, or why they'd be any better than Ed*.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with the Torygraph on that one.   Corbyn would be another Michael Foot and would make Labour even more unelectable.   I have never rated Harriet Harman much but I liked the way she admitted that Labour needed to listen to the Public regarding subjects like welfare.


----------



## shagster (Jul 17, 2015)

So sorry.

My spelling and grammar are not to your high standards, and no capital letters, which must have made reading my view difficult.

I was only expressing a view, which i can only send my apologies for as it is not a tory view, which to some of you seem offensive.

i never said labour was right, and after all Blair was a tory in drag, all i ever said was the tories and their spin machines were not the view of everyone.

I will let you get back to your small daily mail world and I will carry on with my view, as we are both entitled to different opinions, i have no problem with that, yet you seem to have trouble excepting my view, right or wrong, it is only a view

Shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2015)

shagster said:



			So sorry.

My spelling and grammar are not to your high standards, and no capital letters, which must have made reading my view difficult.

I was only expressing a view, which i can only send my apologies for as it is not a tory view, which to some of you seem offensive.

i never said labour was right, and after all Blair was a tory in drag, all i ever said was the tories and their spin machines were not the view of everyone.

I will let you get back to your small daily mail world and I will carry on with my view, as we are both entitled to different opinions, i have no problem with that, yet you seem to have trouble excepting my view, right or wrong, it is only a view

Shagster
		
Click to expand...

That's better, don't be sorry :thup:

You are quite entitled to your view however misguided.   I would never suggest otherwise.

It's 'accepting' by the way not 'excepting'


----------



## shagster (Jul 17, 2015)

You are correct as always, spell check is not very good and its bloody american as well, and i hated English at skool

Its strange that we are both misguided individuals, i hope our golf is better.

shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 17, 2015)

shagster said:



			You are correct as always, spell check is not very good and its bloody american as well, and i hated English at skool

Its strange that we are both misguided individuals, i hope our golf is better.

shagster
		
Click to expand...

You need a new spell chequer


----------



## jp5 (Jul 17, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm with the Torygraph on that one.   Corbyn would be another Michael Foot and would make Labour even more unelectable.   I have never rated Harriet Harman much but I liked the way she admitted that Labour needed to listen to the Public regarding subjects like welfare.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly, but you never know what might happen. I think people wanting him to become leader, but opposed to Labour, are unwise given that in that position there is a chance - however small - that he will become PM.

Anything could happen between now and 2020 - we could leave the EU and trigger another recession. There could be another housing crash. Boris could get elected as Tory leader!

As is attributed to Harold Macmillan when asked what would bring down his Government - "events, my dear boy, events"


----------

