Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 1)

Again, how do we do all this Redflag. ?

Do hope he's not waiting for a better offer.

bobby wrote:OW I hear Greece is looking for good street fighters.

Hi bobby

I have wondering why Greece has not pulled out of the euro, have you got any ideas why ? what is happening in Greece will be happening here in the UK at one point this year people will start to be evicted from there council houses when they lose there housing benefit and working tax credits.

There is such things as placards and I take it for granted we all have a good loud voices, it would be great to see scam..er..ons face seeing how much the UK hates his and his gov't guts

No one likes cuts Redflag but a government has to take responsibility for the nations finances and for our future generations. This is something I dont think you will ever understand and dont want to either

blueturando wrote:-
No one likes cuts Redflag but a government has to take responsibility for the nations finances and for our future generations. This is something I dont think you will ever understand and dont want to either

Only a Tory voter would say what you have said blue, we know there has to be cuts, what is pissing everybody off is the people that caused this problem are DEFINITELY not paying the price. It's the people that DID not cause it that are paying and that is only going to get worse come this April, so I hope you will be very happy when families are living on the streets at the moment people are having to depend on food banks to feed their families and they are working families. You and your Incompetent gov't will not be happy until the days of Charles Dickens books is alive and kicking on the streets of the UK 2013.

You have a nerve saying that we do not understand or listen, that same trait can be put on the shoulders of YOUR GOV'T.

""blueturando wrote:-
No one likes cuts Redflag but a government has to take responsibility for the nations finances and for our future generations. This is something I dont think you will ever understand and dont want to either""".

From an "apolitical" point of view, I dont agree. What you, yourself are missing here, is that the right wing Tory's have an inherent loathing of the welfare State and the role of the State, and so Cameron is using this deficit to systematically whittle away and run down both.

If David Cameron really wanted to cut the deficit, he could do this a number of ways without hurting the most vulnerable in our society.

Well put bobby. But I would never refer to the Tories as incompetent. They are very "competent" in Government, because they always look after their own.

Well put bobby



I thank you for getting my Name right.

bobby wrote:Well put bobby



I thank you for getting my Name right.

That's okay, Fred.

bobby wrote:
I must say I totally disagree with you (now there’s a surprise). You will not hear one labour member saying we don’t need cuts, because we all know that after the damage caused by the Banks, we where in the doggy poo. The problem is that your Tories are using those problems as an excuse to push through their ideological plans, policies that they have wanted to implement since he conception of the welfare state and its implementation in 1948.
[/color]

You will find at least one, bobby. We don't need cuts - not now, at the bottom of an economic cycle exacerbated (as you say) by the cost of the banking crisis and then 2.5 years of (probably deliberate) economic mismanagement.

Every single cut made during a downturn is counterproductive, sucking money out of the economy and intensifying the problem. The only possible reasons to do it are either stupidity or that you have ideological aims you value far more than economic recovery and a healthy society. I tend to favour the latter as explaining the actions of this government. 'Crisis' is a useful excuse for the cuts and state-shrinking this lot have been itching to make for years - and, as I've written on my blog, it's documented and pretty much uncontested that if a convenient crisis doesn't come along, the neolibs will pretend or even manufacture one:

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/o-canada-when-right-wing-crisis-engineering-came-out-of-the-closet/

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/proven-imf-brings-down-economies-intentionally/

If there's a time to cut, it's well onto the upswing. For now, not only do we not need to cut - we need not to cut!

Ivanhoe wrote:Well put bobby. But I would never refer to the Tories as incompetent. They are very "competent" in Government, because they always look after their own.

Good post Ivanhoe and Bobby you both know your Tories and what they are capable of WELL SAID the both of you.

Here is a PS to add to my post blue it did not take you very long to find your Inner Tory but then again I knew it lay right below the surface trying to get out and as a true blue Tory the Ideology always wins the day.

bobby wrote:Good Day Sky.
I understand fully what you are saying (well I think I do ) and I agree fully in that we don’t need cuts that will and are damaging our economy and ability to grow.

The cuts I have no problem with are to the true benefit scrounger, I know one person who is genuinely disabled and gets the highest rate DLA which means she has access to a car in exchange for some of her benefit. After several years disabled she has now become severely agraphobic, so the car she gets as part of her benefits is used solely by her husband to go back and forth to work or to football on Saturdays. Cases like this certainly need to be looked at and if necessary cut. The problem we are now suffering is that we have a Government with a one size fits all mentality, and instead of targeting area’s where sensible cuts wouldn’t do much if any damage, or targeting the other minority, the real benefit thief, we have a government that cut and slash at every one on benefits irrespective of need.

We have a NHS that is one of the best and most expensive institutions in the country and again this rancid Government make sweeping cuts. I would expect that some departments could do with some cuts whereas others are in desperate need for higher investment. All of these things need to be looked at individually and not expect sweeping cuts to be the only answer or necessity.

Some cuts would if I had my way simply be used to strengthen our failing infrastructure and build more affordable housing and put many of the unemployed back to the work most of them crave for. But then would they be cuts or reallocation of funds. I certainly don’t agree with one cut being made for the sake of ideology.

I know what you mean, mate - but (just as you pose the question to yourself) I wouldn't call that a cut. That's just managing the awarding of benefits properly, something in which this government has no real interest. They're consistent, at least - they claim they want to control tax avoidance but cut HMRC etc.

Ultimately, in an economic downturn, it almost doesn't matter whether the benefit allocation is justified or not, though. The overriding factor is to get money circulating in the economy, as that promotes growth and confidence. If a few people get benefit who shouldn't, but they spend it, that's a lot better than any of the measures this government is taking, such as injecting money into banks who just sit on it. The banks benefit, but nobody else does. Circulation and demand are key - and you won't get the latter without the former.

I'm also working, off and on, on an article with the working title of 'Yes, benefit scroungers exist. So what?' In the wider sense of 'scrounging', there is a small minority of people who are just idle - and it's completely irrelevant, doesn't matter a jot.

Why? Because we have <500k vacant jobs and over 1.5m unemployed people. If you succeed in forcing a 'scrounger' into work, all that happens is that you have someone lazy in a job and someone who wants to work still on the dole. Benefit-scrounging only becomes relevant when you have full employment, or very nearly so. Anything the government says about 'getting scroungers back to work' is meaningless rhetoric in the current situation - but sadly few people think deeply enough about the issue as it really is for them to see how full of holes the posturing is.

Oh, and no 'y', by the way. It's just my name, not an allusion to Star Wars.

Oh, and no 'y', by the way. It's just my name, not an allusion to Star Wars.

So may we refer to our illustrious moderator as "sk"?

oftenwrong wrote:Oh, and no 'y', by the way. It's just my name, not an allusion to Star Wars.

So may we refer to our illustrious moderator as "sk"?

If you want. Or 'Steve'. That'll do.

skwalker1964 wrote:

bobby wrote:Good Day Sky.
I understand fully what you are saying (well I think I do ) and I agree fully in that we don’t need cuts that will and are damaging our economy and ability to grow.

The cuts I have no problem with are to the true benefit scrounger, I know one person who is genuinely disabled and gets the highest rate DLA which means she has access to a car in exchange for some of her benefit. After several years disabled she has now become severely agraphobic, so the car she gets as part of her benefits is used solely by her husband to go back and forth to work or to football on Saturdays. Cases like this certainly need to be looked at and if necessary cut. The problem we are now suffering is that we have a Government with a one size fits all mentality, and instead of targeting area’s where sensible cuts wouldn’t do much if any damage, or targeting the other minority, the real benefit thief, we have a government that cut and slash at every one on benefits irrespective of need.

We have a NHS that is one of the best and most expensive institutions in the country and again this rancid Government make sweeping cuts. I would expect that some departments could do with some cuts whereas others are in desperate need for higher investment. All of these things need to be looked at individually and not expect sweeping cuts to be the only answer or necessity.

Some cuts would if I had my way simply be used to strengthen our failing infrastructure and build more affordable housing and put many of the unemployed back to the work most of them crave for. But then would they be cuts or reallocation of funds. I certainly don’t agree with one cut being made for the sake of ideology.

I know what you mean, mate - but (just as you pose the question to yourself) I wouldn't call that a cut. That's just managing the awarding of benefits properly, something in which this government has no real interest. They're consistent, at least - they claim they want to control tax avoidance but cut HMRC etc.

Ultimately, in an economic downturn, it almost doesn't matter whether the benefit allocation is justified or not, though. The overriding factor is to get money circulating in the economy, as that promotes growth and confidence. If a few people get benefit who shouldn't, but they spend it, that's a lot better than any of the measures this government is taking, such as injecting money into banks who just sit on it. The banks benefit, but nobody else does. Circulation and demand are key - and you won't get the latter without the former.

I'm also working, off and on, on an article with the working title of 'Yes, benefit scroungers exist. So what?' In the wider sense of 'scrounging', there is a small minority of people who are just idle - and it's completely irrelevant, doesn't matter a jot.

Why? Because we have <500k vacant jobs and over 1.5m unemployed people. If you succeed in forcing a 'scrounger' into work, all that happens is that you have someone lazy in a job and someone who wants to work still on the dole. Benefit-scrounging only becomes relevant when you have full employment, or very nearly so. Anything the government says about 'getting scroungers back to work' is meaningless rhetoric in the current situation - but sadly few people think deeply enough about the issue as it really is for them to see how full of holes the posturing is.

Oh, and no 'y', by the way. It's just my name, not an allusion to Star Wars.

Here we are again, back to the stigmatization of the unemployed. Jesus, will some people ever ever give it a rest ??????. No wonder the rotten Tories are always leaping on this issue, its because they use it to get support from a gaga public.

Ivanhoe wrote:

skwalker1964 wrote:

bobby wrote:Good Day Sky.
I understand fully what you are saying (well I think I do ) and I agree fully in that we don’t need cuts that will and are damaging our economy and ability to grow.

The cuts I have no problem with are to the true benefit scrounger, I know one person who is genuinely disabled and gets the highest rate DLA which means she has access to a car in exchange for some of her benefit. After several years disabled she has now become severely agraphobic, so the car she gets as part of her benefits is used solely by her husband to go back and forth to work or to football on Saturdays. Cases like this certainly need to be looked at and if necessary cut. The problem we are now suffering is that we have a Government with a one size fits all mentality, and instead of targeting area’s where sensible cuts wouldn’t do much if any damage, or targeting the other minority, the real benefit thief, we have a government that cut and slash at every one on benefits irrespective of need.

We have a NHS that is one of the best and most expensive institutions in the country and again this rancid Government make sweeping cuts. I would expect that some departments could do with some cuts whereas others are in desperate need for higher investment. All of these things need to be looked at individually and not expect sweeping cuts to be the only answer or necessity.

Some cuts would if I had my way simply be used to strengthen our failing infrastructure and build more affordable housing and put many of the unemployed back to the work most of them crave for. But then would they be cuts or reallocation of funds. I certainly don’t agree with one cut being made for the sake of ideology.

I know what you mean, mate - but (just as you pose the question to yourself) I wouldn't call that a cut. That's just managing the awarding of benefits properly, something in which this government has no real interest. They're consistent, at least - they claim they want to control tax avoidance but cut HMRC etc.

Ultimately, in an economic downturn, it almost doesn't matter whether the benefit allocation is justified or not, though. The overriding factor is to get money circulating in the economy, as that promotes growth and confidence. If a few people get benefit who shouldn't, but they spend it, that's a lot better than any of the measures this government is taking, such as injecting money into banks who just sit on it. The banks benefit, but nobody else does. Circulation and demand are key - and you won't get the latter without the former.

I'm also working, off and on, on an article with the working title of 'Yes, benefit scroungers exist. So what?' In the wider sense of 'scrounging', there is a small minority of people who are just idle - and it's completely irrelevant, doesn't matter a jot.

Why? Because we have <500k vacant jobs and over 1.5m unemployed people. If you succeed in forcing a 'scrounger' into work, all that happens is that you have someone lazy in a job and someone who wants to work still on the dole. Benefit-scrounging only becomes relevant when you have full employment, or very nearly so. Anything the government says about 'getting scroungers back to work' is meaningless rhetoric in the current situation - but sadly few people think deeply enough about the issue as it really is for them to see how full of holes the posturing is.

Oh, and no 'y', by the way. It's just my name, not an allusion to Star Wars.

Here we are again, back to the stigmatization of the unemployed. Jesus, will some people ever ever give it a rest ??????. No wonder the rotten Tories are always leaping on this issue, its because they use it to get support from a gaga public.

I am glad Ivanhoe and skywalker are on the Labour side that way we know the truth will always be out there for all to see, your posts frighten and scare me although I know they are the true, I see the "drip drip effect" the Tories have spun to the unsuspecting public if it was left to him he would have his bully boys tipping the disabled out of there wheelchairs.

Ivanhoe wrote:Here we are again, back to the stigmatization of the unemployed. Jesus, will some people ever ever give it a rest ??????. No wonder the rotten Tories are always leaping on this issue, its because they use it to get support from a gaga public.

Am I misreading you, or are you seriously saying I stigmatise the unemployed? If so, you've badly misread me, mate.

bobby wrote:Steve. Many appologies for the Y. It only goes to prove the psycologists right in that we see what we expect to and not what is actualy there. Just like the Tories, smoke and mirrors.

No worries at all mate - happens all the time! I have to search 'skywalker1964' on Twitter to see half of what's directed at me lol.

skwalker1964 wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:Here we are again, back to the stigmatization of the unemployed. Jesus, will some people ever ever give it a rest ??????. No wonder the rotten Tories are always leaping on this issue, its because they use it to get support from a gaga public.

Am I misreading you, or are you seriously saying I stigmatise the unemployed? If so, you've badly misread me, mate.

"""""""""""I'm also working, off and on, on an article with the working title of 'Yes, benefit scroungers exist. So what?' In the wider sense of 'scrounging', there is a small minority of people who are just idle - and it's completely irrelevant, doesn't matter a jot.

Why? Because we have <500k vacant jobs and over 1.5m unemployed people. If you succeed in forcing a 'scrounger' into work, all that happens is that you have someone lazy in a job and someone who wants to work still on the dole. Benefit-scrounging only becomes relevant when you have full employment, or very nearly so. Anything the government says about 'getting scroungers back to work' is meaningless rhetoric in the current situation - but sadly few people think deeply enough about the issue as it really is for them to see how full of holes the posturing is"""""""""""

skywalker, You have my deepest apologies. I would very much like to read your article when you have finished writing it. If I may ?

I do sincerely have difficulty understanding how the 2010 election resulted in such a disaster for the UK economy. The resultant coalition tore up every paragraph of their pre-election manifestos to introduce a scorched-earth policy that might have been appropriate to a hostile invading army.

Whether you adhere to the conspiracy theory of History or the "cock-up" alternative, it's difficult to credit our elected Leader with the intelligence or acumen to have developed those policies all on his own. So are we perhaps seeing the hand of some eminence gris controlling the decision process?

Such an abrupt and destructive change in the way a country is governed must have some explanation which has not so far emerged. Who is really pulling Britain's strings?

Ivanhoe wrote:
skywalker, You have my deepest apologies. I would very much like to read your article when you have finished writing it. If I may ?

Thank you! And of course I'll post it here when it's done.

Ivanhoe wrote:-
There will have to a be a no confidence vote against the coalition, and this will have to come from within the H/O/C.

Section 2 of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for early general elections when either of the following conditions is met:
- if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House (including vacant seats) or without division or;
- if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days by means of a confidence motion.
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06111.pdf

If Labour put forward a motion of no confidence in the government, and if the Lib Dems and a dozen other non-Tory MPs supported it, the government would fall. There would then be 14 days to see if a new coalition government could be formed. After that, a general election would be automatically triggered.

Ivan wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:-
There will have to a be a no confidence vote against the coalition, and this will have to come from within the H/O/C.

Section 2 of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for early general elections when either of the following conditions is met:
- if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House (including vacant seats) or without division or;
- if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days by means of a confidence motion.
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06111.pdf

If Labour put forward a motion of no confidence in the government, and if the Lib Dems and a dozen other non-Tory MPs supported it, the government would fall. There would then be 14 days to see if a new coalition government could be formed. After that, a general election would be automatically triggered.

Oh how I wish that would happen Ivan, you would get the other parties in the H.O.C to support BUT doubt that the L/Ds would, maybe John Pugh Andrew George and a couple of others but not enough to force a general election the L/Ds could not let there Tory paymasters down, and believe it or not the L/Ds already know that there party is FINISHED come the next G.E.

Did anybody get any other fantasy story books for Christmas. The problem being of course that Labour offer no alternatives and know they'd face the same concerns. Sorry labour would still look after their banker friends with a light finger touch (assuming they could still remember what they've promised).

tittf, Are you a Tory ?

tlttf wrote:Did anybody get any other fantasy story books for Christmas. The problem being of course that Labour offer no alternatives and know they'd face the same concerns. Sorry labour would still look after their banker friends with a light finger touch (assuming they could still remember what they've promised).

The only party that would have a lighter touch in regard to (B(W)ankers and the City hedge fund managers would be the TORIES after all that is where Tory party funds come from, as for FANTASY story Books we know that the likes of yourself would have bought Charles Dickens "OLIVER TWIST" because that is the Tory IDEOLOGY.

Redflag wrote:

tlttf wrote:Did anybody get any other fantasy story books for Christmas. The problem being of course that Labour offer no alternatives and know they'd face the same concerns. Sorry labour would still look after their banker friends with a light finger touch (assuming they could still remember what they've promised).

The only party that would have a lighter touch in regard to (B(W)ankers and the City hedge fund managers would be the TORIES after all that is where Tory party funds come from, as for FANTASY story Books we know that the likes of yourself would have bought Charles Dickens "OLIVER TWIST" because that is the Tory IDEOLOGY.

New Labour's courting of the bankers was bad, and the more that Labour eschews any such thoughts now, the nearer to its real roots it will be.

However, it must never be forgotten that while Cameron was opposition leader and before the banking crisis, he was campaigning hard for more deregulation.
Any condemnation of New Labour for its stance and actions regarding the banks is purest hypocrisy (and therefore entirely expected!).

Blair and Brown embraced Thatcher's free market for 13 years.

Ivanhoe wrote:Blair and Brown embraced Thatcher's free market for 13 years.

Indeed they did. It's one reason why I am no fan of New Labour, and campaign constantly for a wholehearted return to traditional Labour values.

skwalker1964 wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:Blair and Brown embraced Thatcher's free market for 13 years.

Indeed they did. It's one reason why I am no fan of New Labour, and campaign constantly for a wholehearted return to traditional Labour values.

I could not agree more.

To the person that started this thread you got your title "SPOT ON" Cameron wants to stay in power until 2020 he THINKS he is going to win the next general election in 2015, it is true he has not got two brain cells to rub together to cause a SPARK.

He is DELUDED after what his policies are doing to the working man/women or for that matter what about the people in the NHS and the public sector that he has sacked or the Police or Armed forces does he expect these people to vote for him he is barking up the wrong tree, is he really that stupid he is behind in the polls he must think taking working tax credits from the low paid is going to make them vote Tory and all the other NASTY policies that him and the yellow tories have brought in and the uni students will not vote Tory or L/D for all it was the L/Ds that promised not to charge for Uni but they also know that both Tory and L/Ds passed this policy.

Redflag, David Cameron is not a moron. He is a well educated Tory who just happens to be right wing.

I would not be surprised if his party did win the next general on a mammoth victory, because I would never take the stupid British electorate for granted.

You only have to look at what the stupid Tory supports say on here.

The British stiff upper lip comes into play here, and continued British greed and stupidity.

I just wish Milliband would start putting Labour's manifesto before us all, it is this which will make the difference.

skwalker said: Indeed they did. It's one reason why I am no fan of New Labour, and campaign constantly for a wholehearted return to traditional Labour values.

Steve, Although I agree with most of what you have to say, I’m afraid I can not go along with you on this one. But there again I guess its all a matter perception. I do not believe that New Labour embraced Thatcher’s free market policies. to refer to allowing a free market to flourish, is sweet FA to do with Thatcher, its been hapening since time began.

What I believe Tony Blair did was to try to Govern for the Country as a whole. What is wrong with British politics (other than the politicians themselves) is that many if not most of the people want a political party that’s suits just them, i.e. Labour for the working classes and the Conservatives for the upper classes. What we need is a Government who will look after the interests of all, and this is what Tony Blair’s New Labour tried to do, with what was known as the Third Way. They helped business to prosper which got unemployment down which means more people paying taxes, more cash for hospitals and schools, minimum wage etc. Tony Blair’s New Labour promised to get rid of Boom and Bust, which was under any Conservative Government part and parcel of Tory Governance, and until the banking crisis, he achieved exactly that, they gave us ten unprecedented years of growth, and a stable economy which in my opinion is a pre requisite to a healthy Nation.

I am aware that the rich did get richer and the divide between rich and poor expanded, but I don’t see that as a major problem so long as those at the bottom are eased up beyond poverty levels, which in the main they where, The minimum wage and pensions went up year on year at least in line with inflation (I believe).

What has since happened under Herr Cameron is that the Conservatives onlybeing in it for themselves and those that directly benefit them, whereas unlike New Labour they are a party with allegiance only to their own and not Britain as a whole, where they are forcing down the ability to live a decent existence for the lower classes, whilst raising their own income to unprecedented high’s.

I honestly believe to call anything New Labour did as Thatcherite is a total misnomer, if that was truly the case New Labour wouldn’t have needed to make any changes in 1997, instead of fulfilling over 80% of their manifesto promises within the first Parliament after 18 years of Tory domination and cruelty.

Traditional Labour values where a part of New Labour but so was a need to join the 20^th century, as good as the old guard Labour politicians where in their day, and I believed in almost all they stood for, we had to join the rest of the world in order to compete.

Unfortunately Thatcher with her necessary war on trades unions went too far where she allowed industry to fail in order to cripple the Trade Union Movement, and did the usual Tory thing of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Unions where too powerful and thought they where the Governors and they came up against a bitch who cared nothing for those who ended up on the scrap heap so long as she won the war.

So yes for me Tony Blair’s third Way and New Labour was the way to go, as I think was proven by his achievements, and if it wasn’t for the Tory press lying about Brown being the architect of our Financial crash and the Iraq war, Labour would have won the 2010 General Election and we wouldn’t now be having this debate.

bobby wrote:skwalker said: Indeed they did. It's one reason why I am no fan of New Labour, and campaign constantly for a wholehearted return to traditional Labour values.

Steve, Although I agree with most of what you have to say, I’m afraid I can not go along with you on this one. But there again I guess its all a matter perception. I do not believe that New Labour embraced Thatcher’s free market policies. to refer to allowing a free market to flourish, is sweet FA to do with Thatcher, its been hapening since time began.

What I believe Tony Blair did was to try to Govern for the Country as a whole. What is wrong with British politics (other than the politicians themselves) is that many if not most of the people want a political party that’s suits just them, i.e. Labour for the working classes and the Conservatives for the upper classes. What we need is a Government who will look after the interests of all, and this is what Tony Blair’s New Labour tried to do, with what was known as the Third Way. They helped business to prosper which got unemployment down which means more people paying taxes, more cash for hospitals and schools, minimum wage etc. Tony Blair’s New Labour promised to get rid of Boom and Bust, which was under any Conservative Government part and parcel of Tory Governance, and until the banking crisis, he achieved exactly that, they gave us ten unprecedented years of growth, and a stable economy which in my opinion is a pre requisite to a healthy Nation.

I am aware that the rich did get richer and the divide between rich and poor expanded, but I don’t see that as a major problem so long as those at the bottom are eased up beyond poverty levels, which in the main they where, The minimum wage and pensions went up year on year at least in line with inflation (I believe).

What has since happened under Herr Cameron is that the Conservatives onlybeing in it for themselves and those that directly benefit them, whereas unlike New Labour they are a party with allegiance only to their own and not Britain as a whole, where they are forcing down the ability to live a decent existence for the lower classes, whilst raising their own income to unprecedented high’s.

I honestly believe to call anything New Labour did as Thatcherite is a total misnomer, if that was truly the case New Labour wouldn’t have needed to make any changes in 1997, instead of fulfilling over 80% of their manifesto promises within the first Parliament after 18 years of Tory domination and cruelty.

Traditional Labour values where a part of New Labour but so was a need to join the 20^th century, as good as the old guard Labour politicians where in their day, and I believed in almost all they stood for, we had to join the rest of the world in order to compete.

Unfortunately Thatcher with her necessary war on trades unions went too far where she allowed industry to fail in order to cripple the Trade Union Movement, and did the usual Tory thing of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Unions where too powerful and thought they where the Governors and they came up against a bitch who cared nothing for those who ended up on the scrap heap so long as she won the war.

So yes for me Tony Blair’s third Way and New Labour was the way to go, as I think was proven by his achievements, and if it wasn’t for the Tory press lying about Brown being the architect of our Financial crash and the Iraq war, Labour would have won the 2010 General Election and we wouldn’t now be having this debate.

""""I do not believe that New Labour embraced Thatcher’s free market policies""".

New Labour under Blair and Brown embraced Thatcher's privatisation, bank deregulation, and a dwindling State including the beginnings of welfare reform.

Ivanhoe wrote:

New Labour under Blair and Brown embraced Thatcher's privatisation, bank deregulation, and a dwindling State including the beginnings of welfare reform.

Thatcher legislation was carefully drafted so as to render any attempt at reversal impossibly expensive.
The bill for compensation alone would have bankrupted the Nation.

I thought most people knew that.