Latest Election Poll. Labour seem to be slipping...

[beorhthelm]

I see what you are saying and I pretty much agree, likewise the improvement of the economy in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in that image can be attributable to Gordon Brown's policies.

not so much as the Tories had the emergency budget and tore up the spending plans and instigated significant cuts. though that's not to say we aren't living with the legacy of Browns policies, that have burdened us with a greatly enlarged state. (not putting it Darling's door, he came in too late and apparently had penciled in similar policies to Osborne - he understood what was required)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Labour promised to keep to Conservative budgets and as far as im aware they broadly did so. hence the utilities windfall tax and the pensions raid, to give them something extra to spend. its quite typical for the first few years of any government to have the hang over from the previous budgets, as they are projected out two or three years at least. and going back to the diagram, when in your opinion does the boom years start, because anything after 2002 is running a deficit.

I'm not saying it isn't, or any of [MENTION=240]larus[/MENTION] subsequent arguments. But factually you cannot say 'even during the boom years he ran a deficit' when he didn't. The reasons why he didn't are complicated / tax receipts / PFI / whatever you want to say about why, but the fact remains there was a surplus.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It could just as easily be argued that because Chancellor Osborne has taken the deficit seriously and taken responsibility that businesses have taken confidence from this and then invested and recruited as a result.

Everyone would have taken the deficit seriously, if anything Darling gained a lot of respect for how he handled the initial stages of the financial crisis which even gave Labour a lift toward the 2010 GE. What some might not have done is hit the most vulnerable quite so hard to pay for it while also cutting top rates of tax. As for recruitment, since 2009 unemployment has dropped just 500,000 in 5 years, to 2m. It's hardly the success story.

 

[beorhthelm]

... the fact remains there was a surplus.

the fact is there was a surplus 98-01. are you saying these are the "boom" years, and ignoring the following 6 years? because Brown certainly thought it was those years that were the boom.

 

[Bold Seagull]

the fact is there was a surplus 98-01. are you saying these are the "boom" years, and ignoring the following 6 years? because Brown certainly thought it was those years that were the boom.

I wasn't the one who said it!

 

[pb21]

not so much as the Tories had the emergency budget and tore up the spending plans and instigated significant cuts. though that's not to say we aren't living with the legacy of Browns policies, that have burdened us with a greatly enlarged state. (not putting it Darling's door, he came in too late and apparently had penciled in similar policies to Osborne - he understood what was required)

So, to summarise:

When its good during a labour government its due to the previous tory government;
when its bad during a labour government its due to the current labour government;
When its good during a tory government its due to the current tory government; and
when its bad during a tory government its due to the previous labour government.

Gotcha.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

So, to summarise:

When its good during a labour government its due to the previous tory government;
when its bad during a labour government its due to the current labour government;
When its good during a tory government its due to the current tory government; and
when its bad during a tory government its due to the previous labour government.

Gotcha.

Well summed up

 

[Pavilionaire]

Everyone would have taken the deficit seriously, if anything Darling gained a lot of respect for how he handled the initial stages of the financial crisis which even gave Labour a lift toward the 2010 GE. What some might not have done is hit the most vulnerable quite so hard to pay for it while also cutting top rates of tax. As for recruitment, since 2009 unemployment has dropped just 500,000 in 5 years, to 2m. It's hardly the success story.

But in terms of net migration our population has increased by 2m in 5 years, so to achieve a 500,000 cut in unemployment against that backdrop is impressive. And compared to other leading European economies like France, Spain and Italy our unemployment rates are much better.

The problem with the hitting the vulnerable hard is that there are still thousands camping in Calais desperate to come over here. I accept that many are having to use food banks, and yet the UK is still the "go to" destination for generous benefits.

 

[bobby baxter]

Why do people quote untruths so often? So easy to just check something before you post. No excuse for misinformation really…

Because, as someone once said, If you repeat a lie often enough it will eventually become accepted as the truth.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So, to summarise:

When its good during a labour government its due to the previous tory government;
when its bad during a labour government its due to the current labour government;
When its good during a tory government its due to the current tory government; and
when its bad during a tory government its due to the previous labour government.

Gotcha.

That does appear to be the gist of it!

 

[Buzzer]

Everyone would have taken the deficit seriously, if anything Darling gained a lot of respect for how he handled the initial stages of the financial crisis

Very good point. He was certainly the first person I recall who was warning people publicly about the mess that was about to come. I'm pretty sure that his predecessor, Gordon Brown, would never have been so candid about it.

Apropos of nothing, you know people like to refer to George Osborne by his first name Gideon.....why didn't anyone ever refer to Gordon Brown by his first name...James? I think Labour Party missed a trick there. "Get on up, get on down, Here's the Rt Hon James Brown. Like a sex machine."

 

[Biscuit]

16.7 billion surplus in 2000! Doesn't seem fathomable now..

Save another 40billion in 2011 and this country will be firing on all cylinders again. A debt it fine as long as it's serviceable.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Sad state of affairs when you come to the conclusion that the only politicians of any genuine conviction in that line-up are UKIP and The Greens.

 

[Gwylan]

Yes it is. The seats where labour tend to be stronger have, on average, less voters per seat. I'm surprised that this hasn't been addressed by the boundary commission, but from memory it only gets reviewed every 10 years (I could be wrong on this though).

Ah, the boundary commission fiasco was what demonstrated to me that Cameron was a poor politician. What happened was this: there was an agreement reached with the Lid Dems that the Tories would support direct elections to the House of Lords and, in return, the LDs would support a review of the parliamentary seats - at the moment, they're hugely beneficial to Labour.

But when it came to the vote on the Lords, the Tories reneged on the deal so, in a tit for tat move, the LDs voted down the boundary changes. That has always seemed bone-headed politics to me: the Tories could be two or three percent ahead at the next election and still lose. Cameron was already getting rattled by UKIP,I've no idea why he wanted to make it even harder to get elected. That's when I thought he's lost the plot

 

[Biscuit]

Sad state of affairs when you come to the conclusion that the only politicians of any genuine conviction in that line-up are UKIP and The Greens.

 

[Gwylan]

Apropos of nothing, you know people like to refer to George Osborne by his first name Gideon.....why didn't anyone ever refer to Gordon Brown by his first name...James? I think Labour Party missed a trick there. "Get on up, get on down, Here's the Rt Hon James Brown. Like a sex machine."

Slight difference. George isn't part of his name, he just chose to be known by it. Gordon Brown just dropped his first name and chose to be known by his middle name. It's something that really clever people like to do

EDIT: You could also say the same for Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson ... and Boris Johnson

 

[pb21]

Sad state of affairs when you come to the conclusion that the only politicians of any genuine conviction in that line-up are UKIP and The Greens.

I saw Ed Milliband give at an event a few years ago whilst he was secretary of state for energy, or whatever it was, and he convinced me, rightly or wrongly, that he is a genuine person and in a sense has his convictions but he appreciated, and he said this, that you can’t have polices that are unelectable.

In other words if you believe in y, but y won’t get you elected, instead stand for x and try and work towards y.

It’s easy for UKIP and the Green Party to have convictions and stick to them, because they aren’t vying for power, they aren’t trying to get a couple of percent more than the tories.

 

[Buzzer]

Slight difference. George isn't part of his name, he just chose to be known by it. Gordon Brown just dropped his first name and chose to be known by his middle name. It's something that really clever people like to do

EDIT: You could also say the same for Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson ... and Boris Johnson

You're spot on. What I don't understand is that he changed his name to George when he was 13. When I was that age I would have called myself Obi Wan or Crockett or Elvis. Something a bit more imaginative than George. He could have gone for Ozzy. No imagination, that man.

 

[virtual22]

If there is another hung parliament the old excuse for not moving to proportional representation, that it nearly always results in a party not getting a majority, is weakened as the first past the post is not producing a majority either. At least under proportional representation though every vote really does count. I have total apathy towards a general election as where I live it's a done deal the Tories will get in.

 

[Gwylan]

You're spot on. What I don't understand is that he changed his name to George when he was 13. When I was that age I would have called myself Obi Wan or Crockett or Elvis. Something a bit more imaginative than George. He could have gone for Ozzy. No imagination, that man.

Yeah that should tell you something about him (he named himself after his grandfather apparently). The only other politician I can think of who's known by a non-given name is Paddy Ashdown - he'd be Jeremy (which does sound a lot worse)