[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well looking back in history - everytime a labour govt leaves power it leave the country in a total state

so not sure who is going to vote for them?

That's what will happen again LT,watch this space.the only thing it seems they can run is this country to the ground.

[bots]

I never believe polls. I always think back to the Neil Kinnock election where every exit poll predicted Labour would win. The cameras were in his house showing his reaction to the results as they happened, expecting to be interviewing the new Prime Minister elect. They lost. It was uncomfortable viewing.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well looking back in history - everytime a labour govt leaves power it leave the country in a total state

so not sure who is going to vote for them?

That actually is incorrect, in 1951, Winston Churchill took over a pretty good economy from Clement Attlee's Labour,that had been dealt with pretty good after the war.

Equally too, the Conservatives left a really good economy in the main when they left office in 1964.

In 1970, despite the devaluation problem in 1967, Labour left a fair surplus and only 500,000 unemployed when they lost office.

By 1971,The Conservatives presided over the first 1,000,000 to be unemployed since the war.
Then in Feb 1974, the Conservatives left power with the UK in the grip of a crippling miners strike and the Nation on a 3 day week,which it had been for over 2 months to the election.

Beween 1974 and 1979, the Labour party did have to call the IMF in around 1977 but in a working programme with the Liberals up to 1978, they got that sorted and were doing pretty much okay until the Unions,(who are supposed to get everything they want from Labour govts; but clearly don't),called strikes that again held the nation to ransom.

The economy was still not that bad but industrial relations were since that Labour govt; refused to give in to the Unions just as Edward Heath's Conservative govt; refused to do with the miners in 1973/4 too.

Margaret Thatcher then very rightly came in and got to work curbing Union powers and getting rid of the ridiculous secondary picketing.
Full credit to her for doing that too.
However, during those 18 years of govt; we had 2 recessions and the ERM fiasco in the early 90s that cost the UK heavily.

Labour did take over a pretty good economy by 1997 after John Major's govt; but had a totally wrecked NHS in 1997.
Then for 11 years had in a row,an unprecedented period of economic stability between 1997 and 2007,both years inclusive,the UK had growth every year and no recessions.

The global financial/banking crisis that hit many countries in 2008 would have come no matter what govt; had been in power.

However, even then, after the deepest recession post war, caused by that crisis in the main, by 2009 we were out of recession and in 2010, had growth of 1% and no recession looming.
That was then when this coalition took power.

So it is mixed bag as to who leaves a mess and who doesn't really and in fairness too..

This govt; only appears to be doing better because it has downgraded all of its targets set in 2010, firstly in the budget of 2011 and then the autumn statement of that year,the same again as to both in 2012 and the same again as to both in 2013.
From 2014 ,as was said on the daily politics today, they have only got better looking figures becasue of the heavily reduced new targets they brought in from the years of failure.
If this govt; was being judged on its targets set actually by itself in 2010, it would have failed to achieve a single one,except for unemployment falling.

You can be selective in what you perceive as to be the case but the one thing that cannot be done is to re-write history.
Both parties in govt; at times, have left good economical situations to take over by the other.
Vice versa too, both parties have left bad situations to take over by the other too.

There is also a lot more to governing than just economics, there are many sections and issues of society that need good govt; too,rather than just being in any way economically competent.

Even as to the NHS,neither party in govt' left great problems there really right up to the start of the 80s.
Until however the govt between 1983 and 1997,in 1997,it was in utter chaos.
By 2010, despite still many problems here and there, it was far better.

Now in 2015,it is in chaos again.
Until this last 25 years or so, no party really failed the NHS too,until the last 2 Conservative govts:

Governing is not easy by any means but the history of what govts; really leave is clear, by looking at the facts of history.

Whether Labour or the Conservatives had been in power in 2008,when the almost worldwide financial/banking crisis hit and the inevitable recession that came with that,no matter what party was in then would have left a great mess, either as to major financial problems or major mass unemployment problems for the other to deal with.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That actually is incorrect, in 1951, Winston Churchill took over a pretty good economy from Clement Attlee's Labour,that had been dealt with pretty good after the war.

Equally too, the Conservatives left a really good economy in the main when they left office in 1964.

In 1970, despite the devaluation problem in 1967, Labour left a fair surplus and only 500,000 unemployed when they lost office.

By 1971,The Conservatives presided over the first 1,000,000 to be unemployed since the war.
Then in Feb 1974, the Conservatives left power with the UK in the grip of a crippling miners strike and the Nation on a 3 day week,which it had been for over 2 months to the election.

Beween 1974 and 1979, the Labour party did have to call the IMF in around 1977 but in a working programme with the Liberals up to 1978, they got that sorted and were doing pretty much okay until the Unions,(who are supposed to get everything they want from Labour govts; but clearly don't),called strikes that again held the nation to ransom.

The economy was still not that bad but industrial relations were since that Labour govt; refused to give in to the Unions just as Edward Heath's Conservative govt; refused to do with the miners in 1973/4 too.

Margaret Thatcher then very rightly came in and got to work curbing Union powers and getting rid of the ridiculous secondary picketing.
Full credit to her for doing that too.
However, during those 18 years of govt; we had 2 recessions and the ERM fiasco in the early 90s that cost the UK heavily.

Labour did take over a pretty good economy by 1997 after John Major's govt; but had a totally wrecked NHS in 1997.
Then for 11 years had in a row,an unprecedented period of economic stability between 1997 and 2007,both years inclusive,the UK had growth every year and no recessions.

The global financial/banking crisis that hit many countries in 2008 would have come no matter what govt; had been in power.

However, even then, after the deepest recession post war, caused by that crisis in the main, by 2009 we were out of recession and in 2010, had growth of 1% and no recession looming.
That was then when this coalition took power.

So it is mixed bag as to who leaves a mess and who doesn't really and in fairness too..

This govt; only appears to be doing better because it has downgraded all of its targets set in 2010, firstly in the budget of 2011 and then the autumn statement of that year,the same again as to both in 2012 and the same again as to both in 2013.
From 2014 ,as was said on the daily politics today, they have only got better looking figures becasue of the heavily reduced new targets they brought in from the years of failure.
If this govt; was being judged on its targets set actually by itself in 2010, it would have failed to achieve a single one,except for unemployment falling.

You can be selective in what you perceive as to be the case but the one thing that cannot be done is to re-write history.
Both parties in govt; at times, have left good economical situations to take over by the other.
Vice versa too, both parties have left bad situations to take over by the other too.

There is also a lot more to governing than just economics, there are many sections and issues of society that need good govt; too,rather than just being in any way economically competent.

Even as to the NHS,neither party in govt' left great problems there really right up to the start of the 80s.
Until however the govt between 1983 and 1997,in 1997,it was in utter chaos.
By 2010, despite still many problems here and there, it was far better.

Now in 2015,it is in chaos again.
Until this last 25 years or so, no party really failed the NHS too,until the last 2 Conservative govts:

Governing is not easy by any means but the history of what govts; really leave is clear, by looking at the facts of history.

Whether Labour or the Conservatives had been in power in 2008,when the almost worldwide financial/banking crisis hit and the inevitable recession that came with that,no matter what party was in then would have left a great mess, either as to major financial problems or major mass unemployment problems for the other to deal with.

Very selective summary is all I'm going to say about this

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Very selective summary is all I'm going to say about this

Well at least it is all historically accurate and far more balanced than all your one sided attitude.
I have balanced that post the best way I could,from historical facts as to both main parties of govt;

Enlighten us however as to what parts are not historically correct, history itself deals with facts, credit has to be given and criticism has to be given to most PMs and govts; that have been in power post war.
That is what I did.

Setting a different balance however from facts, rather than your opinion that always condemns one party is with respect,in my view, a far better way to proceed.

So with even fuller respect,laugh all you like in your pettiness,at least it is better to give someone a laugh anyday.

[Ross.]

Can't see UKIP getting as many seats as people think they will tbh

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well at least it is all historically accurate and far more balanced than all your one sided attitude.
I have balanced that post the best way I could,from historical facts as to both main parties of govt;

Enlighten us however as to what parts are not historically correct, history itself deals with facts, credit has to be given and criticism has to be given to most PMs and govts; that have been in power post war.
That is what I did.

Setting a different balance however from facts, rather than your opinion that always condemns one party is with respect,in my view, a far better way to proceed.

So with even fuller respect,laugh all you like in your pettiness,at least it is better to give someone a laugh anyday.

That's a bit harsh

You have covered so much history in a quick summary that its really to much to go in to detail with. I will however cover the key points of the last labour government that were extremely damaging to the country.

1. Pensions. Gordon Brown robbed the pension funds bringing the whole pension funding crisis to a head.

2. Mobile phone networks. Gordon Brown put the bandwidth up for auction forcing our top companies such as Vodafone to cripple themselves bidding far too much and making them less able to compete globally.

3. Gordon Brown sold off the gold reserves at the point where there were worth the least .. very smart move - not.

4. Gordon Brown sold off as much state property as he could

All the money generated from the above was squandered before the the global crisis hit. He basically removed all the buffers that we had making any economic downturn much more difficult to deal with.

Just a few examples.....

The labour party didn't do a good job during their years in office. Blaming the economic downturn for all the country's ills is not reflecting the true state of affairs.

[JoshBB]

arista, in that poll UKIP are also on 7%. They normally poll around 13%-15% so my bet is that this is an outlier and the vote has gone there

[empire]

I do not want another labour ruling country, they will piss are money up the wall again, ruin are small run businesses, rise green tax, more pro eu rules, replace are pound to the euro, in turn we will end up being another greece, eu rules have treated british workers like second and third class citizens, because of the last labour government.

[Kizzy]

Youtube video

[arista]

"Gordon Brown was a disastrous PM,"


Bang on Right
Wise Joey

[Crimson Dynamo]

Nicola Sturgeon was very good in a live 1 hour Your Call on 5 Live there with Nicky Campbell.

Tune in at 9am on Friday to hear Nigel Farage take the calls

should be good.




you can listen again here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/programmes/schedules#on-now

[arista]

She I Love Her
Killing Labour MP's

Bloodbath
Bliss

[MTVN]

Andrew Neil ripped Bennett to shreds on the Daily Politics again, all this talk she gave about "wait for our fully costed manifesto" but it's barely credible, the economics don't work

[Kizzy]

Where are the costings for the 8m pledged for the NHS by the conservatives?
It's so annoying that some parties the greens and labour are continually pressed for figures prior to their manifesto outlining specific spending. Whilst the conservatives and lib dem are allowed to pluck figures from thin air and the electorate say 'oh wow aren't they wonderful 8 million! how generous...that will be such a big help'
It's just laughable.

[MTVN]

Elizabeth Truss got hammered by Neil as well, I don't see any media conspiracy in support of the coalition against the poor Labour and Greens. I agree the Tories need to explain more how they'll fund that and also where the major cuts will be made, and they've been criticised for that aplenty.

The Greens economics are pretty incoherent on a basic level though, like a failure to grasp that after a certain point you actually get less revenue coming in the higher you tax the income of the most wealthy - raising the top tax rate to 60p won't work and certainly is not likely to raise the £2b that the Greens are claiming. The Greens are also saying that they can raise £30bn in clamping down on tax avoidance - that's 6 times more than the Tories are saying they can raise and 5 times more than Labour think can be raised - what's the Green's secret? And from the BBC politics feed:

And the man who wrote the manifesto numbers, Brian Heatley, has told me they can't really be sure how much their new wealth tax would work because it hasn't been tried before. In a sense, refreshingly candid. In another way, extremely problematic for a party that wants to be taken seriously on a tax that they need to raise £20 billion. The Greens also say in their manifesto they would carry on spending more each year than the government gets from revenue. Does that mean deficits for ever? The Greens won't say

And this is all after we were told to wait for weeks before criticising Green policies because their fully costed manifesto would comprehensively cover everything. Doesn't seem that way.

[Livia]

I'm surprised at the amusement about David Cameron being told to "F*c* off back to Eton". (Am I surprised? Am I really...?). If someone told Labour MP Emily Thornberry to "F*c* off back to her council estate" the same people laughing at Cameron would be up in arms. It's fine to rip the piss out of someone because of their "class" so long as it's not the lower class. Seems like a ridiculously transparent double-standard to me.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm surprised at the amusement about David Cameron being told to "F*c* off back to Eton". (Am I surprised? Am I really...?). If someone told Labour MP Emily Thornberry to "F*c* off back to her council estate" the same people laughing at Cameron would be up in arms. It's fine to rip the piss out of someone because of their "class" so long as it's not the lower class. Seems like a ridiculously transparent double-standard to me.

Indeed it does.

Mind you, that lone protester on his day up North was pretty good going, he got a really good reception over all to be honest, even in Stockton.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Indeed it does.

Mind you, that lone protester on his day up North was pretty good going, he got a really good reception over all to be honest, even in Stockton.

Got to agree... one lone protester is amazing really.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Indeed it does.

Mind you, that lone protester on his day up North was pretty good going, he got a really good reception over all to be honest, even in Stockton.

Stockton on Tees is that, I can actually see the Conservatives holding that seat even in a poor election for them overall.

They have in place there a first class MP to be fair in James Wharton, who deserves credit for some good hard work done in the region by him.

He and Rory Stewart for Penrith and the Borders should be rising stars of the Conservative party and could really transform the party the way they see things.

2 really good Northern constituency MPs in my view.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Stockton on Tees is that, I can actually see the Conservatives holding that seat even in a poor election for them overall.

They have in place there a first class MP to be fair in James Wharton, who deserves credit for some good hard work done in the region by him.

He and Rory Stewart for Penrith and the Borders should be rising stars of the Conservative party and could really transform the party the way they see things.

2 really good Northern constituency MPs in my view.

STOCKTON South might just hold their seat Joey, not too sure mind, a very tight margin.
I must say, James and Rory are two of the brighter stars in the Tory party for me.
James is my MP and he has indeed worked hard for us locally.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

STOCKTON South might just hold their seat Joey, not too sure mind, a very tight margin.
I must say, James and Rory are two of the brighter stars in the Tory party for me.
James is my MP and he has indeed worked hard for us locally.

James Wharton is a really good guy,I know some people feel he could have done better with his private members bill than going for the EU referendum with it.

At least he tried to get the date set in stone and it is disappointing he didn't get the full support of his party in that to ensure it succeeded.

He is as you say a really hard working MP,decent guy totally.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm surprised at the amusement about David Cameron being told to "F*c* off back to Eton". (Am I surprised? Am I really...?). If someone told Labour MP Emily Thornberry to "F*c* off back to her council estate" the same people laughing at Cameron would be up in arms. It's fine to rip the piss out of someone because of their "class" so long as it's not the lower class. Seems like a ridiculously transparent double-standard to me.

Totally agree.

I wish everyone was like us where we hate everyone equally...

[arista]

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by arista

I love the Labour-SNP deal will raise taxes warns Bank



and we are listening to what Banks say because why?