Do the Tories have anything to offer us other than myths and lies?

First topic message reminder :

We were warned two years ago that Cameron is an obnoxious and loathsome individual, but not enough people were listening:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/04/david-cameron-what-the-experts-say-115875-22017276/

The evil unions are weak and the 'left' in the UK are now limited to the fringes of society. You are all dinosaurs and your politics are out dated and irrelevent in todays world

Hear hear, well said.

Look over the waters at Germany, one of the most successful manufacturers and economies in the world, Thatcherism in action.

German Industry often has worker-representatives on a Board of Directors.

Like here, except there are no worker-representatives in British boardrooms.

blueturando wrote:Red....My misguided little friend. I am sad at her death, but happy that she acheived most of what she wanted while in power. Not all was good far from it, but most was needed....Not that many of you would understand, you're too blinkered and brianwashed.

Also had to laugh at the street parties. Looking at most of them its what I expected...Crusty, smelly looking right-on young students who were not even alive when she was PM. Many of these same people will probably turn Tory once they leave Uni, return to leafy Surrey and live in the real world for a few years


So RED, yes I am feeling the love, her job is done. The evil unions are weak and the 'left' in the UK are now limited to the fringes of society. You are all dinosaurs and your politics are out dated and irrelevent in todays world

One of her sycophants like many others I heard today and some spouting like yourself who if she was alive would stab her in the back AGAIN, she will be remembered for all that is wrong in this country by a majority of people she and her cohorts trampled over ALL for the sake of MONEY & GREED GREED GREED.. Come May 2015 the people of the UK will give you and your like there opinion of Thatcher and Camerons Incompetent gov't, but I think you already know that and it is the reason for your recent PRICKLY posts.

Today I saw a gentleman in every aspect of the word in the H.O.C. Ed Miliband he could of made political feast of today but being the perfect gentleman he did not UNLIKE Osbourn and Cameron who did, with the Phillpott case and SIX murdered kids, who in there Tory Ideology tried to show every benefit claimant to be the same as that murderer what a pair of typical tory dick heads willing to do anything to hold on to power even to use SIX kids death to help in there climb up the greasy pole of Tory politics.

So today this gave me the feeling of PRIDE and love coming from my leader, knowing that he is the BEST of Men and knows how to behave unlike some

10 months ago I said the government was lying re 120,000 'problem families'. Now the 'problem families tsar' finally admits it:
http://wp.me/p2sftc-6Xz

skwalker1964 wrote:10 months ago I said the government was lying re 120,000 'problem families'. Now the 'problem families tsar' finally admits it:
http://wp.me/p2sftc-6Xz

Skywalker the majority of what comes out of their mouths is LIES, they would not know the TRUTH if it came up and bit them in the butt it has came to the stage where I can spot a Tory Lie at ten paces.

When everything you say is intended to maintain your own interests above all else, it probably doesn't seem like lying. Just commonsense self-preservation.

Never apologise, never explain.

Today I saw a gentleman in every aspect of the word in the H.O.C. Ed Miliband he could of made political feast of today but being the perfect gentleman he did not UNLIKE Osbourn and Cameron who did, with the Phillpott case and SIX murdered kids, who in there Tory Ideology tried to show every benefit claimant to be the same as that murderer what a pair of typical tory dick heads willing to do anything to hold on to power even to use SIX kids death to help in there climb up the greasy pole of Tory politics.

Again RED you have just made this up. Please do some research and look at the quote osbourne made, come back to me with the facts and then we can discuss.
I cannot debate or discuss pure lies

blueturando’s rules for others:-

Please do some research

blueturando’s rule for himself:-

I don't need to post a link for everything Ivan, I just lived through it...that was enough

blueturando wrote:-

I can debate or discuss pure lies

LOL. So says the man who repeated the tired old Tory lie about a “dependency culture” in the UK. He then tried to prove its existence with one source which said it was a myth and another which was all about New Zealand, whilst repeatedly ignoring the fact that only 0.3% of households in the UK have two generations that have never worked.

IVAN......Please take a trip in the real world and you will quickly see there is a dependency culture out there...lets not try to kid eachother hey. Even people in your own party admit this.

I am not saying all these people are to blame as there are many factors....Lack of education, lack of training, poor wages, bad parenting, a criminal record, to name a few...and there are 'some' that just do not want to work, and that has always been the case for as far as you want to go back in time to.

We cannot have the debate if you are going to pretend that this does not happen. Even the Thickest of Thick people knows it happens

Blue
Maybe you are right and there are some people who don't want to work and are happy to spend their lives claiming benefits - I don't know - I've never met them, )although I do regularly meet people who can't find a job that will pay the bills, can't afford their rent and are suffering fuel poverty and hunger - so you see I'm quite familiar with benefit claimantrs as a class)
IF those people exist, though, if there are people who are getting benefits that a caring society would deny them, then those people are a statistically insignificant number.
I don't think we're going to 'fix' the economy by hunting down those people and taking away their benefits - now maybe if we looked at the tax avoidance, tax evasion, and did something about rents - THAT might put a bit more money in the coffers.

I haven't posted any links, but I think the DWP website gives statisitics for benefit fraud etc, so maybe yopu can look there if you don't believe me

Lack of education, lack of training, poor wages, bad parenting, a criminal record, to name a few

Then perhaps the Tories should spend their time trying to fix these problems instead of wailing like banshees about benefits claiments and a "dependency culture." There, like here in the US, the "right of center" folks are spreading those myths and lies to get people to think that the majority of claiments are simply lazy. The more people who think this, the more votes Tory candidates will receive when they start thumping the podium about reducing benefits and privatizing NHS.

In America, there is a popular internet meme often used by right-wing conservatives in forum debates. It goes something like this:

"I was in the grocery store yesterday, and I watched the fat lady in front of me buy a cart load of junk food, steak, lobster, beer, and cigarettes with food stamps, then she went outside and climbed into a brand new Cadillac Escalade and drove off. I work hard for my money and I can't afford steak and lobster much less an Escalade!"

It may have happened once or twice, but given the immense numbers of conservatives who have claimed to have had this "experience" coupled with how the details are always the same (steak and lobster, customer being fat, Cadillac Escalade, etc. ) it's obviously a meme and one that conservatives love to use as justification for benefits reform.

Whether or not there is a "culture of dependency" is really irrelevant to the issue - except as a misleading term to imply laziness. Only a small percentage of benefits claiments are actually employable yet still do nothing. The vast majority of them are on benefits because it's the only way to survive, and if you're on benefits long enough, no one would hire you anyway, so you just keep collecting.

I once asked a bunch of American business owners who regularly whined and moaned about welfare in this country if they would actually hire a person who has been on welfare for 2 years or more. Let's say they really decided they wanted to finally pick themselves off the floor and better their lives and were looking at you for the opportunity to do so. Would you hire them? Train them? Pay them a decent wage?

Silence. Yep. Boy did that thread die in a big hurry. Yeah, there is a NAMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") attitude about benefits claiments. If you have a gap in your employment history, you're resume gets put at the bottom of the pile - unless you have some major experience and sterling credentials. Most people on benefits have neither. People like to complain about the money spent on benefits claiments - but if these people aren't willing to spend their taxes on the poor, why in hell would they want to spend their profits on hiring and training them? Well ... they don't. It's a case of, "Yeah, you should go out and get a job! Just don't ask ME for one!" And when the majority of business owners adopt that attitude? Well guess what happens ...

So the REAL blame should be placed where the real blame lies - with the uppity snobbery that often takes place when the successful leer down their noses that the not-so-successful. Quite often the poor are stereotyped as drunks, drug addicts, ex-cons, and psychotics - or just plain lazy. Who wants to hire someone like THAT!?

Think about it. The right-wing propaganda does what it so often does - exacerabates the problem they are trying to solve.

Hear hear Shirina

Of course, a real right-wing society will employ those people - on slave wages, in zero-hours jobs - and maybe that's the reason behind all the rhetoric about 'lazy' benefit claimants and a culture of dependency.
Tell that lie often enough and loud enough and people's self-esteem is so low they'll take the starvation wages, they'll accept the zero-hours contracts, and they'll go cap-in-hand to the charities for food parcels because they can't afford to feed themselves and their families.

Excellent post Shirina, perhaps with your wisdom you can enlighten us as to why after 13 years of interrupted government the labour party (apart from allowing unmitigated uneducated immigration) did nothing to help the youth of this country gain an education, in fact they ensured that due to the convenient benefit system in place they ensured kids would stay at school (benefits to stay on and not to show on unemployment figures) yet when they finally left the system they could barely sign their name, never mind read and write. This present coalition in my opinion wear the same clothes as the last emperors entourage yet at least they are trying to do something regarding basic schooling.

QUOTE "....yet when they finally left the system they could barely sign their name...."

Ah, yes. "They". They are responsible for so many of our ills.

They say that everyone is to blame. That's how ambulance-chasing lawyers earn a good living.

How extremely droll (as usual) OW). If that's the only failing on my post then am I safe to "assume" you at least partially agree.

He forget to mention that it's never ' safe to assume...'

boatlady wrote:Hear hear Shirina

Of course, a real right-wing society will employ those people - on slave wages, in zero-hours jobs - and maybe that's the reason behind all the rhetoric about 'lazy' benefit claimants and a culture of dependency.
Tell that lie often enough and loud enough and people's self-esteem is so low they'll take the starvation wages, they'll accept the zero-hours contracts, and they'll go cap-in-hand to the charities for food parcels because they can't afford to feed themselves and their families.

Thank you boatlady some common sense, maybe if the gov't encouraged the private sector employers to pay decent wages, that would allow people to pay their way, rent gas electric and put food on the table for their families, the welfare bill would not be so high through having to give people benefits to top up their wages.

the labour party (apart from allowing unmitigated uneducated immigration)

tlttf. Put a sock in it, you moron. Your crap postings get worse and worse. That pathetic lie has been answered many times on this forum. There has never been a time when people can walk into this country and stay here free of any checks. You just make yourself look ridiculous by repeating your lie, you won't convince anyone with it.

did nothing to help the youth of this country gain an education

No, Labour only doubled spending on education, after the Tories had run down schools, no doubt in order to be able to justify privatisation when it suited them – which is exactly what Gove is doing by stealth now. The Tories are so concerned about education that they are allowing free schools to employ untrained teachers. Try listening to the Glenda Jackson 'tribute' to Thatcher and learn what schools were like in those days.

the convenient benefit system in place they ensured kids would stay at school

Yes, the Education Maintenance Allowance, which gave poor children the chance to stay on at school and fulfil their potential. They may even have gone on to university as well – until the Tories and Lib Dems trebled tuition fees. But we don't want the plebs getting above their station, do we?

Excellent post Shirina, perhaps with your wisdom you can enlighten us as to why after 13 years of interrupted government the labour party (apart from allowing unmitigated uneducated immigration) did nothing to help the youth of this country gain an education

People put too much stock in the government when it comes to education. The best they can do is fund it, but it cannot make kids learn. Teachers do that as well as parents - who need to rise to the occasion. Perhaps parenting classes are in order? Kids running around feral is not the fault of the kids but the parents.

Now, here's the big problem, the same problem we have over here in the US. If you want good teachers then you have to PAY them a good salary. A starting salary of just under 22,000 pounds is NOT a good salary given the importance of their job and the credentials needed to become a teacher. If a nation wishes to attract the best and brightest into the teaching profession, you need a MUCH bigger carrot. Otherwise, those people are going to take their talents and education into the private sector.

When I went through college and received a degree in education, there was something I noticed: MOST of the students were female and entered the profession simply because they love kids. They had no passion for their field of study or what they would be teaching. I went into teaching because I love history and I love teaching it NOT because I wanted to be a surrogate mom to hundreds of kids. You end up with a lot of mediocre teachers who are great with kids but screw the pooch when it comes to actually teaching them something. Instead, they rely on the textbooks to educate the kids. Most of those with a passion for their subject move on to bigger and better things (and higher salaries). I left teaching to pursue a masters and then a planned doctorate to become a professor of history rather than teaching in a public school. I know what it's like.

Think of it. Even shop workers (23,500 pounds) and confectionary workers *boggle* (26,500 pounds) get a higher starting pay than teachers. Oh yeah, so do retirement home care workers (24,250) are paid higher to start. Naturally, investment bankers, lawyers, pharmaceutical workers, accountants, etc. rank much higher. Not to mention there is far more upward mobility in the private sector. Why take your shiny new degree in engineering, physics, mathematics, science, or economics to a classroom when you can take them to a board room? I earned a degree in both history and education because I wanted to be well qualified. Yet most teachers have ONLY a degree in education and enter the classroom with only the most rudimentary knowledge of their subject matter - well intentioned girls, usually, who simply want to be around children. That is not good.

blueturando wrote:-
Please take a trip in the real world and you will quickly see there is a dependency culture out there...lets not try to kid each other hey…..We cannot have the debate if you are going to pretend that this does not happen. Even the Thickest of Thick people knows it happens

That must be me. I’m really thick because I have to use sources to get my facts, I’m not intelligent enough to rely on my memory of what I’ve lived through, hearsay or the odd snippet from ‘The Daily Mail’. However, I never post lies on this forum or anywhere else, and I strongly resent any suggestions from you or your pal that I do.

Let’s start with what Osborne said about the Philpott case: “It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled.” That’s using one very extreme case to imply that that’s what happening throughout the welfare state (which most Tories would like to abolish). As Zoe Williams put it: “It is vitriolic, illogical depersonalisation to ascribe the grotesqueness of one wild, unique crime to tens of thousands of people on benefits.”

You want a link? Have two:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/osbornes-intervention-over-philpott-case-new-low

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/dont-get-mad-about-use-of-philpotts-tarnish-poor

You talk about us having a debate about the myth of welfare dependency, but we did have one last month. You can see here where it reached on 19 March:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t565p840-where-should-the-labour-party-position-itself

‘The Daily Mail’ likes to quote social security expenditure at about £209 billion, but 42% of that goes to pensioners. We’re living longer and there are more people reaching pensionable age because of the post-war baby boomers, so that percentage has escalated considerably. Housing benefit accounts for 20%; 15% goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8% on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4% on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4% goes on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people, while only 3% goes on jobseeker’s allowance. That leaves about 4% on other benefits, such as maternity pay.

This rancid government has repeatedly claimed that welfare expenditure grew unsustainably under Labour. In fact, total expenditure on welfare was 11.6% of GDP in 1996/97; under Labour it averaged 10.7% up to the crash. Afterwards benefits for children and working age adults rose from an average 4.9% of GDP up to 2007/08 to 6%, which is what you would expect during a recession.

The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3% where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year.

When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1% of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So “inter-generational worklessness” is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a “work ethic”.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-welfare-reform/

If you still want more evidence, read here:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/myth-welfare-scrounger

Put a sock in it, you moron. Your crap postings get worse and worse. That pathetic lie has been answered many times on this forum. There has never been a time when people can walk into this country and stay here free of any checks. You just make yourself look ridiculous by repeating your lie, you won't convince anyone with it.

Oh dear Ivan, your true caring/sharing nature is beginning to show. Still while your here abusing me it's safe to walk down streets I guess. Be careful though the moderator may chastise you.

Doubling the cost of something isn't always an improvement, simply because the government spent money on more and more on administration and control it doesn't improve the end product. Until you can you remove your thinking from around "spending other peoples money is easy" and start to manage the money as if it was your own then nothing ever improves. Remember Ivan socialism is a lovely dream only sustainable if we have a strong capitalist market and sensible government policies.

The Tory teaching is that Socialism doesn't work, and Capitalism doesn't either for 90% of the population.

I was not sure which thread to post this one on........But as it about more troy lies i decided to post it here...

Grant Shapps under fire over website 'sham' which used models featured on Australian university site to make Tory activists look 'youthful and in touch with Britain'
Tory 'Team 2015' recruitment website uses stock image to promote campaign
The same photo was used on an Australian universities information site
Mr Shapps has previously posed under an alias to promote own business

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308460/Grant-Shapps-office-online-trickery-sham-used-models-make-Tory-activists-look-youthful-touch-Britain.html

The lie.......
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/13/article-2308460-1944440B000005DC-106_634x449.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/13/article-2308460-19443EF3000005DC-683_634x477.jpg

The truth........
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/13/article-2308460-19449490000005DC-157_634x286.jpg

Remember the Tory poster advert picture of Tony Blair?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/13/article-2308460-15248739000005DC-265_634x676.jpg

I trust everyone has noticed that Thatcher's death has been used to extensively promote centre ground neo-liberal politics and thoroughly denounce leftist ideas as completely redundant. It is an effort to implant seeds in people's minds that Thatcher saved us from dreaded socialism and further reinforce the notion that any leftist ideas are dangerous and crackpot. I suspect that Thatcher's death and the 'use' of it may have been planned well in advance.......I have little doubt it will be to the advantage of tories come election time. They will play on the 'red' Ed tag to belittle him and make him appear out of touch.........even Blair is sticking the boot in.

Makes you sick, doesn't it?
I do think some people are aware of the cynical manipulation going on, but whether it's enough, come election time, to make a difference, remains to be seen.
Personally, I shall be resplendent in red on Wednesday - little enough, I guess, but I'll bore anyone who will listen with my reasons

Great cartoon and good points! However, happily the hoped-for 'Thatcher bounce' hasn't materialised, as a quick look at the 'latest polls' thread will show.

sickchip wrote:-
I suspect that Thatcher's death and the 'use' of it may have been planned well in advance.......I have little doubt it will be to the advantage of Tories come election time.

What irritates me is that we’re all supposed to applaud, or at least keep quiet, while a ten-day party political funeral on behalf of the Tory Party takes place.

However, I think you’re being unduly pessimistic about the future. If the election doesn’t happen for another two years, Thatcher will be even more history than she is now. The debate about her legacy has reminded very many people of how toxic and divisive Tory policies are, and I can’t see voters wanting any more of them when they get the chance to express an opinion. Do you really think anyone who didn’t vote Tory in 2010 will be likely to do so in 2015?

Ivan wrote:

sickchip wrote:-
I suspect that Thatcher's death and the 'use' of it may have been planned well in advance.......I have little doubt it will be to the advantage of Tories come election time.

What irritates me is that we’re all supposed to applaud, or at least keep quiet, while a ten-day party political funeral on behalf of the Tory Party takes place.

However, I think you’re being unduly pessimistic about the future. If the election doesn’t happen for another two years, Thatcher will be even more history than she is now. The debate about her legacy has reminded very many people of how toxic and divisive Tory policies are, and I can’t see voters wanting any more of them when they get the chance to express an opinion. Do you really think anyone who didn’t vote Tory in 2010 will be likely to do so in 2015?

Her true Legacy here in Scotland will not be played out until 18th September 2014, her time as the PM proved to the people of Scotland just how nasty the Tories are and it was not Scots that voted her in and she used Scotlands gas and oil money on giving tax breaks to her rich and wealthy friends. That is the reason for Scotland got the Poll tax a year before it hit England which seen decent people going to prison and ending up with a criminal record and the bailiffs turning up at peoples door to sell there household goods to pay the poll tax our memories here in Scotland are very long.

Thanks to the Thatcher years the SNP party took hold and the cry from some for Scotland for Independence from the UK, then in 2010 England once again elected a Tory gov't once again giving the SNP the ammunition they needed to fight the 2011 Scottish Parliament election and there Manifesto with the Independence referendum in which on polling night I had to watch so many good Labour MSP lose there seats I was one of those making sure that the count was legal and above board.

I hope this explains to all of you the people I call my friends in this forum and in the Labour party why the hatred is so very strong here in Scotland, and why my own hatred goes very deep as a young mother trying to bring up 3 young kids my husband through an accident at work at been killed leaving me with a 3 year old 1 year old and my son of 19 days to cope with and no family near enough to help me, sister in London with health problems of her own a mother in Newcatle Upon Tyne who had not agreed my choice of husband. It was strangers neighbours who gave me help in those early days although my sister did come up from London after signing herself out of hospital.

I do not know how many realize the true effects of the Poll tax at the time I was working 40 hoiurs per week for £70.00 per week before tax & NI paying £25.00 per month while the CEO of the company that I worked for was paying £25.00 per month but his salary was MUCH MUCH more than £70.00 per week.

Fair points - Ivan, Redflag, skwalker. Thanks for posting that cartoon, ow.

I will endeavour to rein in my usual pessimism re: the Labour party, and focus on making sure the Tory party are definitely not re-elected for a very long time. I guess that's the best we can do, and aim for, for now.

It goes without saying that Prime Minister Thatcher was not a believer in Socialism, but it is equally true that she had little time for the "Landed Gentry" component of the Conservative Party, and might well have begun to sort out that little lot, given time.

That's why she wasn't given the time, but escorted off the premises.

sickchip wrote:Fair points - Ivan, Redflag, skwalker. Thanks for posting that cartoon, ow.

I will endeavour to rein in my usual pessimism re: the Labour party, and focus on making sure the Tory party are definitely not re-elected for a very long time. I guess that's the best we can do, and aim for, for now.

Thank you sickchip but it not just us the Labour party members and voters that have a hard job, the Labour party itself has to work out how to fight these LYING Cheating SPINNERS and then work out how to undo the HAVOC that the Tories have created through Tory Ideology.

The Proof is there - the Tory Party cannot achieve a majority on its own, so will always now need to enter into a coalition.

The lesson: Don't vote for minority Parties.
You don't know what they will do.

oftenwrong wrote:The Proof is there - the Tory Party cannot achieve a majority on its own, so will always now need to enter into a coalition.

The lesson: Don't vote for minority Parties.
You don't know what they will do.

That will include the Lib-Dems come 2015, so the L/Ds will now be known as one of the MINORITY parties beside the Green party.

I’m sure blueturando won’t believe a word of this and will continue to peddle his same tired old Tory myths about benefits:-

Conservative claims about benefits are not just spin, they're making it up: government ministers like Iain Duncan Smith and Grant Shapps are misrepresenting official statistics for political gain

"Readers of mainstream UK newspapers have learned a number of things about the UK social security system and those who rely on it. These stories have a number of things in common. Each is based on an official statistic. Each tells us about how claimants have responded to welfare policy changes. Each includes a statement from a member of the government. And each is demonstrably inaccurate."

The details can be found here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/conservative-claims-about-benefits-not-spin

I have always assumed that the Tory-led Coalition were making it up as they went along. Just count the reversals of "Policy" since the 2010 manifestos.

oftenwrong wrote:I have always assumed that the Tory-led Coalition were making it up as they went along. Just count the reversals of "Policy" since the 2010 manifestos.

I quite agree OW, but to count the reversals they would have to take their shoes and socks off so that they could use their toes for counting with.

How many times have you had to suffer Tory tripe about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold reserves?

Gold earns nothing and storing it costs money. The proceeds from what Brown sold were invested in foreign currencies. After 1979, the price of gold went downhill or sideways, therefore losing money compared to any other assets.

Gold is normally regarded as an inflation hedge; it ‘keeps its value’. So when things look inflationary, or the value of nominal financial assets looks under pressure it rises in value. In 1979, for the first time since the 1920s, there arrived a British government with an absolute intention to kill inflation if necessary by crunching unemployment, high rates etc.

Geoffrey Howe could have known with great certainty that from Britain’s point of view gold was going to become less valuable. Why didn’t Howe sell? And how much did it cost us that he didn’t? Holding onto 600 tonnes of expensive inflation-hedge, while actively trying to kill inflation, was a costly mistake by the Tories.

The point of central bank reserves is to have something you can sell that has external value. It can’t be your domestic currency because you have as much of that as you need. Liquid currency, like dollars, from trusted foreigners will do as well.

Adapted from an article by Giles Wilkes:-
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/24/why-tories-are-deluding-themselves-over-browns-gold-sell-off/

Cameron should offer Gordon Brown a Knighthood for Services to the British Pound. He kept us out of the Euro.

That's one error by the previous administration which won't be reversed by the Tory-led Coalition.

The politics of envy is crass and embarrassing. That is the same for philpott-envy as for Labour's criticisms of the Tory party's Greed as Policy. It isn't hard to find the flaws in Cameron's intent to put as much of the country on ration books as he can, to reduce the balance of payments and make imported goods unaffordable to the majority.

That is one approach to acknowledging that we are poor as church mice, as a nation, once we look beyond the debt economy which is what we are currently using to pay for everything we need.

We need a Keynes or an Adam Smith to reveal the flaws in Monetarism and offer an alternative to the current system, which by the way is a global system, in case you hadn't noticed. We also need to be more self-sustaining and competitive, by which I mean we need to start small - inventing and creating stuff again.

This little gold-fish bowl of back-patting here reminds me of Labour Party in-fighting. It doesn't deliver a package that will work. Labour isn't working, as I think someone once said.

Leadership is about leading from the front.
If you don't know what you are leading people into or out of then you will go round in circles. Gordon Brown trod first into the mire of monetarism, and realised how deep a trap it was, but too late, and we are stuck, fast, because it was and is a global trap and we don't have an alternative.

Suggestions in a hat please.

Gold goes up and down in value like any other commodity - the international Gold Standard is only an aspiration for people who have a lot of the stuff. Gold, however, like anything else, is only valuable if people want it, and now the value is dropping again world-wide.