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 concern - for those of us with a left perspective - is the risk of another hung Parliament. I for one would find the idea of co-operating with the LDs unpalatable at the moment.

Hello Steve, As I have said before, If we did end up with a hung Parliament and Labour held a majority, I would rather Labour ran with a Minority than to do a deal with the Lib-Dems. If they did opt for a Coalition with the Lib-Dems (with or without Clegg) I would immediately tear up my Labour Party membership card.

We have said time and again how despicably the Lib-Dems have acted during the course of this evil Coalition, and have said that Herr Cameron would have been Ham Strung in getting his policies through Parliament without his lap dog Clegg. But then again Clegg couldn’t have given the support he has to Herr Cameron without the support from the rest of his spineless arsehole party. So come election time we must never forget just how evil the Tories are and how spineless the Lib-Dems are.

If Labour had a minority Government we would then see exactly what the true policies of the Lib-Dems are, If they continued to oppose Labour and stayed true to what they are sayin now or if they turned yet again and opposed their bed buddies the Tories, just to show us that bugger all of what they say means anything..

The LibDem Party is to any prospective partner in Coalition akin to what Christine Keeler was to John Profumo...

Bluey, would it please you to see Herr Cameron followed by his herd of snydes, Osborne, Iain Dumkopf Schmidt and Michael The Lip Gove back in just to give us more growth, just like the growth they have given us over the past almost 3 years

Hi Bobby and I hope you are well sir. I admit there would have to be some changes as the Tories ( Coalition ) is not doing enough to promote and encourage growth. Getting the deficit and welfare bill down is one thing, but these measures are useless unless we have more sustained growth in the economy. I would like to know what happened to all the money that was passed onto the banks (post the general election) that was supposed to be used to support business and new enterprise? It seems it has disappeared into a black hole.

I do not expect Labour to come out with any policies at the moment, and why should they? But I am not holding out any hope that come the next GE Miliband and Co. have any useful ideas on growth and reducing the nations debt either, so my point is that I believe under scrutiny Labour will be found wanting.

Its plain to see that Osbourne is not up to the job and dispite what the die hards here will say, Balls is not up to the job either. Both Balls and Osbourne are the trump cards for the opposition partys.

IDS has a difficult job in cutting an inflated welfare budget, but it has to be done and also has popular support amongst the voting public.

Gove has to sort a state education system that has failed our youngsters for years and I believe it will take years to get it to where it should be.

Labour always seem to take the easier option....

Its easier to dumb down exams rather than invest in educating our youngsters properly

Its easier to pay people enough not to work rather than invest in training and development.

Its easier to import immigrants and migrants to do the jobs British people cant be bothered to do

Its easier to hand over powers and rebates to the EU so there is always someone else to blame if it all goes wrong

Its easy to say there needs to be a massive social housing building programme, but consistantly failed to meet targets when in power and in times of plenty

Its easier to appear that you would like to clamp down on tax avoidance and reckelss banking practices, but did absolutley FA when you were in power for 13 years.

As for recessions, well they usually start under Labour and then the Tories take over the mess....1979 + 2010

As for recessions, well they usually start under Labour and then the Tories take over the mess....1979 + 2010.

blueturando. Here we go again. The UK wasn't in recession in either May 1979 or May 2010. In both of those years, we were recovering well from earlier financial troubles until ideologically-driven Tories came to power and messed things up. The rest of your diatribe - which doesn't contain a single fact - hardly merits consideration either. Gove is in his job because he was a Murdoch hack; he doesn't know the first thing about education.

For the last time, the welfare budget is not "inflated", it's been in line with GDP over many years - that is if, unlike 'The Daily Mail', you're honest to exclude the state retirement pension (and the ever-increasing number of pensioners) from 'benefit' calculations.

Of course starving benefit claimants - or "lying, thieving bastards" as they've been called (see the link below) - is popular with thick oiks who swallow all the filth that crap tabloid papers publish. Capital punishment, and maybe even burning witches, is also no doubt popular with the cerebrally challenged who can't see the wood for the trees - and those who don't want to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21196616

The rest of your diatribe - which doesn't contain a single fact - hardly merits consideration either

Then you don't have to consider it Ivan. Its the usual Labour way to ignore what you dont want to hear even when the facts have been well documented, discussed at length and almost universally agreed...Just not in your mind though (selective hearing)

Of course starving benefit claimants - or "lying, thieving bastards"

Yes they have been called that by some cowboy recruitment company who should not be paid by the government to do this job for the disabled.....and whats your point?

The UK wasn't in recession in either May 1979 or May 2010

1979.....Hmmm the mess left by Labour and the militant unions had to be sorted...Once again it was left to the tories to clear up your mess. I may have to buy Labour a bib

2010....No recession...you are joking right? If there was no recession, why did Gordon Brown say there would have to be cuts if he stayed in power. Did the Tories make the EU have a recession to?

to ignore what you dont want to hear even when the facts have been well documented, discussed at length and almost universally agreed...Just not in your mind though (selective hearing)

blueturando. What hypocrisy! How many times have you posted the same trash about welfare, only to regurgitate it when it's been shown to be a pack of lies and tabloid bigotry?

1979.....Hmmm the mess left by Labour and the militant unions had to be sorted...Once again it was left to the tories to clear up your mess.

Just keep repeating the same old lies. First you claimed the country was in recession in 1979, which it wasn’t. Stop being so bloody lazy and do some research for once before you open your trap. Then you change it from recession to ‘mess’? What mess? The economy was growing and inflation, though around 10%, was falling due to Callaghan and Healey's 5% wage ceiling. After a year of Thatcher, who hiked up VAT from 8% to 15%, closed down industries and threw tens of thousands out of work, we were in recession, as we were again by the end of her decade. Your idea of ‘mess’ seems to be trade unions seeking a living wage for their members when the Tories would rather be boosting corporate profits.

2010....No recession...you are joking right?

No, I’m not joking. Do your own research for once. The UK economy was out of recession by the end of 2009 and grew 2.7% between September 2009 and September 2010. It was growing again until Osborne put us back into recession with cuts that were too fast – and because he destroyed business confidence by talking claptrap about us being like Greece.

You've turned into a troll, interested only in spreading untruths and winding up people. Your earlier post didn't contain a single fact, and anyone who has sympathy for IDS doing "his difficult job", when he's a nasty, vicious, serial liar with blood on his hands, is beneath contempt.

Blueturando said: 2010....No recession...you are joking right? If there was no recession, why did Gordon Brown say there would have to be cuts if he stayed in power. Did the Tories make the EU have a recession to?

We went into recession after and due to the banking bail out, Gordon Brown and the very able Alastair Darling got us out of recession and back into growth, The growth that Herr Cameron's wankers turned back into recession, but just to make certain they did it properly they then put us into a double dip recession.

Yes Gordon Brown along with every other Labour front bencher did say their would have to be cuts, the difference was the speed and depth of those cuts. The very fact that our economy was growing and unemployment decreasing shows that despite what you keep telling us, Labour do have policies that work, It was your lot with their no nuffin ideas that stifled that growth and effectively killed any chance of a reversal.

The Tories persistently peddle the lie that every Labour government leaves behind a financial mess. It wasn’t true in 1951, not true in 1970, not true in 1979, and only true in 2010 because Brown had no alternative but to bail out the bankers when global capitalism proved itself to be a failure.

What the Tories don’t tell you is that they needed an IMF loan in 1956, they left behind a massive balance of payments deficit in 1964, they gave us double-digit inflation in 1974 and then left a debt equivalent to 43.76% of GDP in 1997. They don’t tell you that Thatcher left office in 1990 with inflation higher than when she came in, or that the Tories left office in 1997 with unemployment higher than when they came to power on the strength of those ‘Labour isn’t working’ posters in 1979. (They also don’t remind you that crime doubled in those 18 years.)

The longest uninterrupted period of growth in the UK economy in the last 200 years occurred when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Tories supported Labour’s spending plans until the global credit crunch occurred, and the Tories supported the bailout of their banking cronies. But still they peddle their lies, because that's all they have to offer and the only way they can ever win power.

Aren't facts lovely?

Blair facts and Brown noses

In Perspective column by Chris Harman, May 2007

"The longest period of uninterrupted growth in the industrial history of our country." So claimed Gordon Brown in his budget speech. This supposedly miraculous economic record is one thing on which the Blairite and Brownite factions of New Labour agree. Except it simply is not true.

There was a far longer period of uninterrupted growth, lasting 25 years, from 1948 to 1973. It was also at a faster rate than we have known under New Labour. The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain reported that "from 1949 to 1973, the UK economy grew at an average rate of 3.0 percent per annum." Growth has only been at an average of 2.3 percent since 2000, according to National Institute Economic Review (NIER) figures.


http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9951

Once again, commentary upon the current Administration turns out to be all about the Opposition.

There's something about the Labour Party ............

Although the left leaning members of this forum regularly present pages of facts and commentary that seem to support their statements, I have noticed, Blue and tlttf, that the evidence you both present often seems thin, partisan and unconvincing.
As there seems to be a chance that another term of Tory rule and austeristy may be on the cards, I for one would be very grateful for any hard facts that support the various propositions on which the current government relies in setting its policies (things like the ballooning and unaffordable 'welfare' bill, the unmanageable level of immigration - given today's news that Romanian workers are being actively recruited, the numbers of disability benefit claimants PROVEN not to need disability benefits) Maybe you boys can provide some respectable and credible sources for the above allegations, to start with.
I await my further political education.

"I have noticed, Blue and tlttf, that the evidence you both present often seems thin, partisan and unconvincing."

There is a very good reason for that, boatlady...

tlttf wrote:-
Aren't facts lovely?

Yes they are, but they aren’t the same thing as opinions. I’m gobsmacked that a right-wing extremist such as you would choose a ‘Socialist Review’ article dating from 2007 as your source of ‘evidence’. I can imagine what you would have said if I’d been that desperate, but I guess it’s any port in a storm.

So in the opinion of Chris Harman (is he one of those invisible people you talk about?), the sources listed below are wrong. I notice you carefully omitted Harman’s more accurate remarks – “The economy has so far avoided a repetition of the terrible economic crises of the early 1980s and early 1990s” and “Income inequality rose enormously under Margaret Thatcher and John Major - more than in any other advanced industrial country.” Still, just sweep all that under the carpet, since it doesn’t fit in with your prejudices.

I take it these sources must be false, since you've found one person who says otherwise on a journal which you wouldn’t touch with a barge pole:-

“The economy is enjoying its longest period of uninterrupted growth for more than 200 years – indeed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”
http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Economic+Stability+%E2%80%93+But+for+How+Much+Longer%3F

"The credit crunch of 2008 brought about a monumental shift in British politics. Bringing to an end the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in post-war history...."
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/politics/research/politics-in-crisis/call-for-papers.aspx

“Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown (who became Prime Minister in June 2007) presided over a period of unbroken GDP growth from 1992 to 2008, the longest period of uninterrupted expansion on record.”
http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/uk-economic-history.html

So, as OW implies, when are you and your chum blueturando going to give us lots of positive reasons (on another thread – this one is for ‘Latest polls’) as to why we should all be voting Tory and helping Cameron to sell off the entire state to his corporate backers, a process which Mussolini correctly described as fascism?

Whatever happened to the "trickle-down theory" of equal opportunity?

blueturando wrote:The latest polls, whether it shows the Tories gaining ground on Labour or not are pretty meaningless as there is 2 years to the next GE and the ratings will change a thousand times between now and then.
The only poll that matters will be the next GE, where Labour will eventually have to present some policies to the people and this is where they will be found wanting and come up short. We will therefore see a Tory overall majority and Daivid Cameron as PM for a another term. Milliband will be consigned to the political halls of history

After tonight's news about the people up in arms about HS2, going through there back yard Osbourn's constituency is giving him the sack so read the news and weep blue.

1) April brings in the UNFAIR Housing benefit cuts along with bedroom taxand when people fell the force of that, the Mealy Mouthed gov't will not last till 2015.

2) October brings the unfair Universal credit and that will cut the people that are on benefits money down to the bone, and you think that people to vote for this Mealy Mouthed gov't your living in cloud Cuckoo land.

3) Ed Miliband could shoot a baby in the face but it will be him that gets the keys to N010 Downing street in 2015, not a bunch of Mealy Mouthed SHYSTERS, watch in April how the polls will shoot up and stay up for the LABOUR party. For Ed Miliband

Although the left leaning members of this forum regularly present pages of facts and commentary that seem to support their statements, I have noticed, Blue and tlttf, that the evidence you both present often seems thin, partisan and unconvincing.

There are no pages and pages of facts Boatlady....just endless one sided, half truth and very selective left wing propaganda. The kinda diatribe that the New Labour spin machine spewed out on a weekly basis

Ivan wrote:

tlttf wrote:-
Aren't facts lovely?

Yes they are, but they aren’t the same thing as opinions. I’m gobsmacked that a right-wing extremist such as you would choose a ‘Socialist Review’ article dating from 2007 as your source of ‘evidence’. I can imagine what you would have said if I’d been that desperate, but I guess it’s any port in a storm.

So in the opinion of Chris Harman (is he one of those invisible people you talk about?), the sources listed below are wrong. I notice you carefully omitted Harman’s more accurate remarks – “The economy has so far avoided a repetition of the terrible economic crises of the early 1980s and early 1990s” and “Income inequality rose enormously under Margaret Thatcher and John Major - more than in any other advanced industrial country.” Still, just sweep all that under the carpet, since it doesn’t fit in with your prejudices.

I take it these sources must be false, since you've found one person who says otherwise on a journal which you wouldn’t touch with a barge pole:-

“The economy is enjoying its longest period of uninterrupted growth for more than 200 years – indeed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”
http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Economic+Stability+%E2%80%93+But+for+How+Much+Longer%3F

"The credit crunch of 2008 brought about a monumental shift in British politics. Bringing to an end the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in post-war history...."
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/politics/research/politics-in-crisis/call-for-papers.aspx

“Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown (who became Prime Minister in June 2007) presided over a period of unbroken GDP growth from 1992 to 2008, the longest period of uninterrupted expansion on record.”
http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/uk-economic-history.html

So, as OW implies, when are you and your chum blueturando going to give us lots of positive reasons (on another thread – this one is for ‘Latest polls’) as to why we should all be voting Tory and helping Cameron to sell off the entire state to his corporate backers, a process which Mussolini correctly described as fascism?

Once again Ivan thank you for telling like it REALLY is and not how Blue or tittf would like it to be, besides the Mealy Mouthed party will NEVER get any votes from Scotland the 18 years of Thatcher was more than enough to put Scotland off for CENTURIES.

For the last time, the welfare budget is not "inflated", it's been in line with GDP over many years - that is if, unlike 'The Daily Mail', you're honest to exclude the state retirement pension (and the ever-increasing number of pensioners) from 'benefit' calculations.

So Ivan, what is your response going to be about Labour when they start making cuts to welfare...velvet gloved facists?

Liam Byrbe (The Guardian)

Asked whether a Labour government would introduce further welfare savings, Byrne conceded cuts were likely because of the "dog's breakfast" Labour would inherit if it returned to power.

"The national debt is going to be over £400bn higher than it was at the last parliament," he said. "Savings are going to have to be made and I think there will be savings that are needed on welfare spending too, and our challenge is how we spend that money differently to support people in work."

Byrne said the "zero-based review" that Ed Miliband would conduct if Labour won the 2015 general election would look at the "balance" between universal and targeted benefits.

Ivan....Im giving you some facts to chew on. I know you wont be used to them, but enjoy the read anyway

GCSE and A-level exams have become easier over the past decade, according to reports published by Ofqual – the exams regulator – yesterday.

The watchdog singles out geography A-level for particular criticism, as well as changes in the assessment of biology and chemistry A-levels between 2003 and 2008. "As a result, students did not have as many opportunities to show their higher order skills," says the report.

The regulator also criticises GCSE papers in biology and chemistry for reducing the content of the syllabus – although this was now being acted upon.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "Ofqual's reports show evidence of a gradual decline in standards."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exams-are-easier-now-report-finds-7704278.html

Blue....said

Its easy to say there needs to be a massive social housing building programme, but consistantly failed to meet targets when in power and in times of plenty

Some more facts for you Ivan and another LABOUR FAIL

Labour had pledged to stick to the previous government’s spending plans in its 1997 election manifesto. As a result, housing investment in Great Britain fell to its lowest level for decades. In 1997/98, just over £4 billion was spent by the government on social housing - less than in any year during the Conservative’s 18-year reign beforehand (see box, overleaf). In fact Labour spent significantly less each year on social housing during its first term than the Tories during its final four. The big increase only came during Labour’s third period in office: between 2005/06 and 2008/09 it doubled investment from the historically low levels of its first term to £32.6 billion. The increase was ‘too little, too late’ for Chris Holmes, director of homelessness charity Shelter from 1995 to 2000. ‘Eventually, the boom years of the Homes and Communities Agency came but the opportunity was really missed,’ he says.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/labour%E2%80%99s-legacy/6509704.article

blueturando wrote:The UK wasn't in recession in either May 1979 or May 2010

1979.....Hmmm the mess left by Labour and the militant unions had to be sorted...Once again it was left to the tories to clear up your mess. I may have to buy Labour a bib

2010....No recession...you are joking right? If there was no recession, why did Gordon Brown say there would have to be cuts if he stayed in power. Did the Tories make the EU have a recession to?

So you are saying we have never been in recession, I am afraid your loosing your marbles blue, we are just about to hit a TRIPLE dip recession and could lose our triple A status the one that Osbourn brags about I wonder what he will brag about now Oh Yes his constituents are sacking him come the 2015 general election because he want to drive HS2 through there homes.

The reason for the mess at the moment goes back to the last Tory gov't de-regulating the banks so they had a free hand to do whatever they effing liked, the money that Gordon Brown had to go and borrow to bail the effing Backstuds, out should never of happened he should have allowed them to sink to the bottom of any ocean as long as it was deep enough.

Just keep repeating the same old lies. First you claimed the country was in recession in 1979, which it wasn’t. Stop being so bloody lazy and do some research for once before you open your trap. Then you change it from recession to ‘mess’? What mess? The economy was growing and inflation, though around 10%, was falling due to Callaghan and Healey's 5% wage ceiling. After a year of Thatcher, who hiked up VAT from 8% to 15%, closed down industries and threw tens of thousands out of work, we were in recession, as we were again by the end of her decade. Your idea of ‘mess’ seems to be trade unions seeking a living wage for their members when the Tories would rather be boosting corporate profits.

Again Ivan you present just part of the story as if the rest never happened. The 5% ceiling introduced by Healey and Callaghan was phase 4 of their white paper and yes you're right...This was a drive to reduce inflation from a high of somewhere around 27% in the mid 70's. But because this was not made a legal requirement the unions renaged on the deal and the Callaghan government crumbled under union wage demands and strikes (winter of discontent)

Oil tanker drivers - 15%
Ford workers - 17%
refuse collectors - 11%
Grave diggers - 14%
Water workers - 16%

and the list goes on as you know. So we had a growing economy but still had to go begging to the IMF for £2.3 billion?

And for the cherry on top, here's a quote you may remember.....
Britain’s economy played a highly significant role in bringing down the Callaghan Government in 1979, the man himself conceding “the economy is always there, like Banquo’s ghost, to haunt you”

Here ends the history lesson...I find the full story is usually better dont you?

This is why I believe Labour cannot get the country back on track, they're too weak and crumble under pressure....believing that spending money we dont have will solve any problem

Since 1997 the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown developed a programme of better regulation. This included a general programme for government departments to review, simplify or abolish their existing regulations, and a "one in, one out" approach to new regulations. In 1997, The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the deregulation of the banks and other financial institutions. They freed the Bank of England from direct government control and removed the power by the Bank of England (and therefore by the government) from controlling the financial activities of banks in the UK. In 2006, new primary legislation (the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006) was introduced to establish statutory principles and a code of practice and it permits ministers to make Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) to deal with older laws which they deem to be out of date, obscure or irrelevant. This act has often been criticised and called "The abolition of Parliament Act".

Please do your research Redflag and remove those red rose tinted glasses for once

Please make sure that any future quotations are followed by their source. Thank you. Ivan.

Phil Hornby wrote:"I have noticed, Blue and tlttf, that the evidence you both present often seems thin, partisan and unconvincing."

There is a very good reason for that, boatlady...

The reason for that PH is they are hanging on by their finger nails in the hope there Mealy Mouthed party will get back in in 2015, but since most of the right wingers seem to be Brain washed by their party, it takes a bit longer for the truth to seep through.

blueturando. First you accept that Labour doesn’t need to announce their future policies, then you expect me to comment on what the party might do in 2015! If Ed Miliband adopts policies similar to those of Attlee’s post-war government, there will be growth in the economy and demands on welfare will fall because more people will be working instead of being forced to claim benefits. Throwing 700,000 public sector workers out of their jobs is not the way to make the economy grow and reduce the bill for social security.

It’s well known that the Tories hate teachers in the state sector and always have done. Teachers might open the eyes of the ‘plebs’ to what’s really going on, as my old history teacher certainly did. Gove is hell-bent on fragmenting the state education system with his free schools, and his old boss Rupert Murdoch has shown an interest in muscling in on that chance to spread his poison. Gove told us that state school teachers must be better qualified, but has since announced that free school teachers don’t need any qualifications at all. The Tory lie machine will do everything it can to rubbish the state education system in order to justify its fragmentation, so it comes as no surprise that "a spokesman for the Department of Education" supports claims of “a gradual decline in standards”. If A Level results go up, the exams must be too easy; if A Level results go down, the schools are failing the children.

Every public service is ‘bad’ and everything is better in private hands according to Tory mythology, although the G4S security fiasco at the Olympics might make some people question that lie. What the Tories really mean is that anything still in the public sector offers rich pickings for their corporate paymasters. Eighteen years of Tory rule saw North Sea oil revenues squandered and all the utilities sold off, but still the Tories messed up the economy with two recessions, high inflation, chronic unemployment and the debacle of ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992.

In 1973, the Arab states quadrupled the price of oil. That wasn’t the fault of Edward Heath, but I’m sure if Labour had been in power, the Tory liars would have been true to form and portrayed it as “all Labour’s fault”. Heath called an unnecessary election in 1974 and ran away leaving 13.4% inflation and the country working only a three-day week, so that Labour had once again to sort out a Tory mess, just as it had had to do in 1964. Inflation continued to rise and trade unions did that for which they exist, they fought to protect the living standards of their members as best they could. Forgive me if I get fed up with repeating myself, I’ve written about much of this quite recently:-

Tory supporters usually omit to mention that a Tory government had to seek an IMF loan in 1956, preferring instead to remind of us how a Labour government, struggling with the effects of the quadrupling of the price of oil and the double-digit inflation left behind by the Tories in 1974, asked the IMF for a loan in 1976. At that time, the UK government debt was 47% of GDP and the budget deficit was 7%. By the end of 1977, partly as a result of North Sea oil revenues, there were improvements in the balance of trade, so the UK did not need to draw the full loan from the IMF. Nevertheless, officials with the IMF made recommendations when they handed out loans; for the UK, this meant a change in policy orientation away from full employment and social welfare towards the control of inflation and expenditure.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t739-has-the-international-monetary-fund-betrayed-its-founding-principles

In material terms, Britain was at its most equal ever in 1976. The USA is the richest country in the world, yet almost 50% of its people live in poverty. What’s the good of a country being wealthy, as China and India are fast becoming, if vast numbers of its citizens don’t share in the prosperity? Who are such countries looking after, just the rich and powerful it seems?

The UK was not in recession in 1979 as you have claimed. Industrial unrest does not constitute a recession. The economy was recovering well after the 1976 IMF crisis and would no doubt have continued to do so had not the novelty of the first female PM and the bribe of cheap council houses allowed Thatcher and her Friedmanite ideology into power.

I notice that Tories such as you like to talk about inflation rates in the 1970s but never mention that during the recent thirteen years of Labour, inflation averaged only half the rate of that under the previous eighteen Tory years. And while you’re claiming to present us with “the full story”, why not mention the initial deregulation of the financial markets under Thatcher?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

This country has been in debt for 250 of the last 300 years, so there have been plenty of governments “spending money we don’t have”. As Keynes said: “Look after unemployment and the budget will look after itself.” I suggest you consider ‘the paradox of thrift’, and while you’re talking about “history lessons”, have a look at Roosevelt’s New Deal:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right

I’ve said a number of times that in my opinion, the two biggest mistakes of the Blair government were the Iraq war and the failure to build enough new houses. I wrote this as part of a long article about housing on 12 January:-

The Labour governments of Blair and Brown did not have a good record on house building, but after the earlier Tory destruction of our social housing stock, they probably could see little point in replenishing it, just for a future Tory regime to use as bribes for votes yet again.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t750-has-the-right-to-buy-and-lack-of-rent-controls-caused-most-of-the-uks-housing-problems

blueturando wrote:Ivan....Im giving you some facts to chew on. I know you wont be used to them, but enjoy the read anyway

GCSE and A-level exams have become easier over the past decade, according to reports published by Ofqual – the exams regulator – yesterday.

The watchdog singles out geography A-level for particular criticism, as well as changes in the assessment of biology and chemistry A-levels between 2003 and 2008. "As a result, students did not have as many opportunities to show their higher order skills," says the report.

The regulator also criticises GCSE papers in biology and chemistry for reducing the content of the syllabus – although this was now being acted upon.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "Ofqual's reports show evidence of a gradual decline in standards."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exams-are-easier-now-report-finds-7704278.html

Is that the same "Ofqual" which changed an exam paper between the January and June sittings?

oftenwrong wrote:
Is that the same "Ofqual" which changed an exam paper between the January and June sittings?

Still the same Lies and Myths from the right wingers OW.

More boring facts!

Message deleted. You've been told NOT to post articles - only links - since you weren't man enough to apologise after re-posting a libel on this forum. You're certainly not going to post obscure blogs on this forum from anonymous people, probably Tory headbangers, because no doubt if the messages turn out to be libellous, you won't take responsibility for them. Ivan.

There is a response to tlttf's Four-year-old article, which can be read here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2008/08/26/luptongove.pdf

Such a shame to delete a contribution when a poster has taken so much trouble to provide a target of himself.

It denies some of us the chance to mention how Mr Gove's cunning plans to improve that dreadful Labour education legacy will enable the nation to have a burgeoning number of highly-qualified youngsters who can't find a job under a Tory government...

Are you perhaps referring to the Michael Gove who perceptively wrote the best-seller,

Michael Portillo - The Future of the Right ?

For those who don’t know, Michael Portillo is no longer a member of the Tory Party.

tlttf posted this on Stox’s thread about austerity on 13 December:-

perhaps this thread should be called the invisible men.

He was referring to real people quoted in bona fide sources. He is too ignorant to have heard of them, so he thinks that entitles him to rubbish them. Yet he tries to post on this forum an extract from an anonymous blog on an obscure site which has no members.

Under the terms and conditions of the site owners, Forumotion.com, the administrators are responsible for whatever is posted here. Shirina and I have no wish to end up in the dock defending libel allegations, and so anything of a dubious nature will be deleted – especially if the poster has ‘form’.

Ivan I think I'm correct in my thinking that in the Thatcher gov't there was a tory MP called Gummer, and today I think it was his son I saw in the house of commons.

Blue
Thanks for the link to Inside Housing, with it's interesting and I thought balanced view of the last Labour government's record on housing.
I think the writer is quite right, that Labour's initial attack on the problem of social housing post Thatcher was a bit timid, and that more could have been achieved with a more aggressive policy (although with hindsight it's always easy to make these judgements).
However, there was clearly an impressive amount of improvement, refurbishing, and diversification of social housing during Labour's tenure, and I would strongly endorse the author's conclusion:

'Labour has achieved what some thought was impossible, making social housing decent again through its focus on refurbishment and its efforts to end segregation. How that is kept up lies in the hands of the government voted into power yesterday. Let’s hope things can only get better'

I found the article to be a very welcome endorsement of Labour's housing policies during their years of tenure, although it is disappointing that more was not achieved.

It will be interesting, in another 13 years, to look back at this government's achievements in social housing (should they get the chance for another 13 years) and see if the comments are so positive.

I think I'm correct in my thinking that in the Thatcher gov't there was a tory MP called Gummer, and today I think it was his son I saw in the house of commons..

Redflag. Benedict Selwyn-Gummer became the MP for Ipswich in 2010, just at the time Daddy Gummer left the House of Commons and became Lord Deben – and he still has his Tory snout firmly in the trough:-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100177587/tory-sleaze-is-worse-than-ever-yeo-and-deben-must-go/

Phil Hornby wrote:Such a shame to delete a contribution when a poster has taken so much trouble to provide a target of himself.

It denies some of us the chance to mention how Mr Gove's cunning plans to improve that dreadful Labour education legacy will enable the nation to have a burgeoning number of highly-qualified youngsters who can't find a job under a Tory government...

Not unless they are prepared to work for button wages No paid holidays no workers rights, and a right winger for a boss and now you got to be grateful for that surely.