That's certainly not how I recall it, and the figures seem to back me up. The UK entered recession in early 2008 for around 18 months - the deepest recession since the war. Recovery came around the end of 2009 although the economy was still in pretty dire straits due to the banks and lack of confidence. We slipped briefly back into a much smaller and shorter recession in early 2012, the effect of which was pretty insignificant and largely lost given the shockwaves of 2008/9, when the damage was largely done.

I don't particularly blame Labour for the big crash, nor do I blame the Tories for the smaller dip. 2008 was a global crash on a stunning scale. What I've been more interested in is how the recovery has been handled as it was clear to me from the start this would be long and painful road back, not without risks on the way. There was no easy answer and the key point for me is that I seriously doubt anyone could have done a significantly better job.


As I mentioned, I deal with people at every level of varying sizes of business, from blokes with their own little office to the boards of some of the largest multinationals you can think of. Almost without exception they all squeezed their belts as tight as they would go in 2008 and didn't relax for the next 3-4 years. They knew the recovery would take time. In the meantime unfortunately, jobs were lost, a lot of voluntary redundancy was paid out, any hint of risk was eliminated, and expensive investments and projects were postponed or scrapped.

Those same companies - again almost without exception - have increasingly been telling me since around 2012 that things are looking up, and I can see this reflected in their figures and activities. One large multinational I work closely with suspended a number of projects in South America and Japan in 2008, but started them up again 2 years ago. Another suspended all non-essential and business class travel in 2008, yet in 2012 instructed their staff to start travelling in bulk again to "do business with one another" - in business class. I could repeat similar stories for many others companies. Regardless of the numbers making the headlines, confidence has been slowly growing for the last 3-4 years. That simply would not happen if they felt the economy would not support them.


I didn't say I 'believe them'. I only believe a fraction of anything any politician says on face value. As others have said on this very thread, most of the promises can be thrown out the window the day after the results are in. Indeed, that's partly why the big parties aren't revealing TOO much just yet. They all know a hung parliament is on the cards, and they all know hard and unpopular decisions still need to be made.


TTIP is an EU-led initiative. Bearing in mind the Tories and UKIP are taking the toughest stance on the EU, whereas the rest want to further embrace Europe, perhaps you should have a radical re-think of your vote.




As some may recall on here, I have every good reason within my family not to vote for a party that will damage the NHS and/or cut disability benefits and I'm well aware of the ongoing changes and what's on the horizon.

I'd largely agree with that. Many Lefties feel they have nowhere to turn. Labour have morphed into some reactive directionless mongrel and the Lib Dems cynically abandoned their core values in 2010, something that many are finding hard to forgive. Many are finding the Greens are the only party somewhere close to their values. It's just a shame their policies read like the naive wish list of a hormonal teenager.

Anyone what the great "debate" tonight? For me Nichola Sturgeon came across best, followed by Ed M. Those two were way better than the others. Probably then Cameron, Green woman (who was much better than I expected), Farage, Clegg and then way behind that bunch the Welsh Nationalist.

You keep trotting out this crap, where from?

[url=http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2010/04/liberal-democrat-manifesto-end-pctThe Kings Fund appraisal of LimpDem 2010 manifesto on NHS[/url

Pretty much how I scored it too.

Farage came across like the shouty drunk down the pub, who keeps butting into other peoples' conversations with the same argument.

Which I suppose is what he actually is

Sturgeon was easily the best performer. The SNP, Green and Plaid leaders all had an advantage in that they were able to take pot shots at Cameron and Miliband without their own policies coming under any scrutiny. Sturgeon had the advantage over the other minor parties' leaders in that she's battle hardened by the independence campaign.

I can't gauge whether the debate will have done UKIP any good. I always think that Farage is a complete idiot, but he still seems to be popular.

Overall I think the debate will have little impact on the election result. But the group that I think will have least enjoyed it will have been Labour candidates in Scotland.

You didn't need to trawl the internet to find something that didn't say anything at all, you could have just read the manifesto! Here, let me help you

So, for the umpteenth time, just why did you vote to privatise the NHS?

I think that expectations of Miliband were so low due to ongoing press mockery that he has so far come out of the two staged TV events very well. If Labour can use him sparingly until the last week of the campaign and if he can get through gaffe free and they keep Balls off screen they may do well. Indeed if it weren't for the SNP they could win. But the SNP will do well as Sturgeon outperformed the other leaders and was the only person with a plausible sounding alternative approach to Cons and Lab.

Can I make things clear and concise?

If you are employed by someone else and you vote Tory you are out of your mind, you are illogical, you are being ripped off and conned, in fact lets make it even simpler YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Now go vote for whom you "think" will be better for YOU.

Sturgeon knows she's on to a winner, and could end up deciding the path of the UK for the next term. She can therefore be as suitable confident and cocky as she wants to.

I don't think there was a clear winner. Cameron took a slightly aloof 'statesmanlike' stance but gave a good performance, Miliband came across as a bit lightweight to me, Sturgeon simply annoys me and has for a long time, Farage did his job pretty well apart from the idiotic HIV comments, Clegg was ok but looked a bit like Oliver begging for more, Bennett is out of her depth and her fluffy begging was pathetic, that Welsh woman looked like she'd just come out of the pub.

Did it do UKIP any good? I've seen very little comment on my social media feeds apart from a few long-term Labourites posting a few bits, but a few people I've never seen comment on politics have commented they thought Farage was the only one telling the truth. That's the big issue for many people - the lies, spin, rhetoric and complete lack of straight answers from the other parties is just plain boring and doesn't tell anyone anything. People find Farage's direct approach refreshing.

It didn't help make my mind up. I like policies from a couple of manifestos, but I'm still not swayed by anyone in particular.


Not really, in reality he was one of the few who didn't keep interrupting. That gobby Welsh housewife and the frightened looking Australian tended to butt in the most.

But then no matter what he did or said you were always going to have a bitch, were't you?

Alternatively you could vote Labour and look really stupid - one thing everyone knows if you vote labour you will be worse off - at least with the Tories you have a chance of being better off.

The thought of the two Ed's and Yvette running the country should be sufficient to stop anyone voting Labour.

Setting aside those who vote for the colour of a flag irrespective of the merits of those who currently stand underneath that flag, then thats exactly what most will do, they will vote for those who they "think" will be better for them.

And if they are currently employed (as per your example) then they could feel that with a new tax code of 1060 against a tax code of 647 in 2010, they are better off and will be in future - because very often thats what it all boils down to, do I have more money now and if I vote for "xxx" will they raise revenue from tax codes ?

It can be as simple as that.

I don't know that and probably millions of others don't know that either, BUT in the interest of fairness, plus I'm always willing to learn, please do explain where you this "KNOWN" is from, its derivation and where we can all see and understand it.

Over to you.

You must live in a strange world if you think that:

[iGiving Local Health Boards the freedom to commission services for local people from a range of different types of provider[/i

Is a mandate for privatisation

Labour position is to borrow more to fund spending on welfare and public services. The levels of borrowing are significant, that debt has to be funded somehow - you do the maths it isn't difficult even for you.

The Tories have had to borrow to fund the deficit they inherited - and that has cost us all, increased VAT for a start. Do you seriously believe Labour will be able to borrow these billions without anybody being worse off?

I personally don't like Cameron but I dislike him less than Miliband and Brown's merry band of hatchet men/women. I can't see a situation whereby Cameron can stay in charge so Labour will have to do deal with the SNP and that is where the problems will start. Salmon will want some influence and a heap of money - you reap what you sew.

At no point have Labour even hinted at borrowing more to fund welfare and social services. They have said they are not averse to borrowing for capital expenditure, such as house-building etc



The tories have borrowed to fund the shortfall in tax-take and to pay for increased spend on welfare, in the form of housing benefit and tax credits



Alex Salmond's potential influence is being blown out of all proportion by the right-wing press. Typical scaremongering.

On the subject of national debt. This country has ALWAYS been in debt, often at considerably higher rates than than we have seen since 2008. We usually inflate our way out of debt but you can only do that with a growing economy. To grown the economy you require stimulus, a national programme of housebuilding would provide that stimulus, in the same way that it did post-WW2.

Jeremy Hardy gave one of the best analogies I've heard on the deficit: "Would you stop feeding your children, simply to pay your mortgage down quicker?"

What has happened with successive Labour governments including the one that the two Ed's and Yvette were major players in? The size of the state grows - the are already saying more money needs putting into the NHS and education etc. where is that going to come from if it isn't borrowing/taxation?

To grow the economy you need the private sector to keep growing something Labour seems at odds with - increasing corporation tax seems a strange way of encouraging firms to grow profitability. Increase taxes on the wealthy yes definitely needs doing actually collecting the proper taxes from companies again yes. Make sure government contracts are only awarded to companies who pay the correct amount of CT

I am not sure Keynesian economics is what is needed here - is building future slums in the form of cheap public housing the rent for which is predominantly going to funded out of welfare is the right way forward? If it is - bigger infrastructure projects - not just in London, better public transport, improved roads better school facilities etc.

I am not convinced we have a housing shortage - we have an inability of youngsters to get on the property ladder - I know you consider ownership to be a negative - but to most ownership is aspirational and should be encouraged IMO. There needs to be a solution to unlocking the deposit issue, the ISA is not the answer.

On Salmond - he will hold the balance of power, time will tell how he uses his influence. The issues around the referendum still fester and he looks to me a man who is looking for a pay back.

On the cuts the Tories have instigated in local government, whilst most don't see it as a positive most will accept that it has forced them to be more creative and more agile with the funds at their disposal. I pleasant change from the flabby, inefficient councils we all have suffered for generations.

You're not far off there. My last job was at a company where the MDs were lifelong Conservative voters. I was there 5 years and had a total of zero pay rises along with the rest of my colleagues. When we all asked about pay rises we were told there was no money and were often referred to look at the state of the nation's economy. A few fell for it and when the new machinery started arriving they were the ones who fell for the old 'speculate to accumulate' lines they were fed too. The only accumulating going on there was at the top. It wasn't until the new sports cars started rolling in that the blinkered few realised there was actually money, and plenty of it. Even so, they're the ones who are still there on the same money they were on 10 years ago, unhappy and moaning everyday, the rest of us have gone and left them to it.

Ah, so all these different types of provider are charities simply giving away healthcare. Bless. It's quite sad to see you scrabbling around trying to to come up with anything that'll try and make it seem you didn't vote to sell off the NHS to the Tories and their chums. Spineless and hypocritical, quite the combination.

Well, where to start?



The state grew during 1997-2008 simply because the previous tory administration had decimated the NHS and education to the point of near collapse. Patients on trollies in corridors, children educated in leaking "temporary" classrooms. Labour inherited that and something needed to be done to redress the problems.



Labour is not anti-business, it is however pro-business paying its share and making a fair contribution to the state costs of infrastructure. The US has a rate of corporation tax almost double ours and yet they still seem to allow companies to emerge and thrive.



"Building future slums"?

In 1953 my parents and I moved from a back bedroom in my grandmother's house, into a newly built, 2 bedroomed terrace house on a brand new estate, built on the outskirts of Hull. Built on land that had previoulsy been agricultural, so acquired for a song. The estate was a mix of 2,3 & 4 bedroomed houses, 2 pubs, 2 parades of shops with 1 & 2 bedroomed flats above. A fair amount of "pensioner bungalows", an "old folks home", a coupleof six-bedroomed homes for foster families and two doctors' surgeries (actually two 2 bedroom houses). The original tenants were spread across a wide range of careers: manual workers, office workers, managers, shop-owners - even the doctors originally lived in coucil houses on the estate. There was no shame in renting and nor should there be.



You must be the only person in the country who isn't



Salmond will hold less power than Clegg. The main bitterness following the referendum has ed around Cameron's cynical attempt to make the result work to the Tory party, rather than the UK's benefit.



Cuts in the local authority social funds have directly led to problems in the NHS, hence the bed-blocking we see currently

Utterly. Utterly. Priceless. Vodaphone/Starbucks are the proof that'll you'll believe utterly anything that you read in the Guardian or Morning Star. Mug.

Just what is that garbage supposed to relate to?

Care to expand?

The Morning Star and Guardian? They're left wing rags which are lapped up by the terminally stupid.

No, the Vodaphone/Starbucks reference, or do you believe that they do actually pay a fair and proportionate rate of tax?

The Tories are really pulling out all the stops now and the levels they will stoop to are simply jaw dropping.

The sight of Samantha Cameron giving an exclusive to the Mail on Sunday, about the death of her and her husband's disabled son, really shows the depths that they will sink to in order to try and garner some type of public sympathy for them and their vile, heartless party.