Labours Lost Voters
- Thread starter Doon frae Troon
- Start date
jp5
Q-School Graduate
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.
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
Ryder Cup Winner
Thats missed out the bit where Gordon Brown greatly increased borrowing and went on a public spending frenzy in his final death knoll.
jp5
Q-School Graduate
... and what was the increased borrowing for?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Living beyond our means.
Last edited:
jp5
Q-School Graduate
Hard to tell if you're playing silly or genuinely don't know.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I did pick up the Guardian by mistake the other day
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!
craigstardis1976
Head Pro
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.
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
Q-School Graduate
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Blackballed
Fact that it would have happened as I have shown in my sources
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
Head Pro
I quite agree. There is a lot of great Tony Benn quotes out there!
jp5
Q-School Graduate
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
Blackballed
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!
Last edited:
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Q-School Graduate
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.
C
c1973
Guest
Good point, well put.
shagster
Head Pro
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
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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 £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
.
Last edited:
shagster
Head Pro
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
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