keep on keeping on coddy, we can see Milliband and his pals for the tossbags they are. (Cameron and Clegg are no better, mind)

do you REALLY think Balls is up to running an economy, I wouldn't trust him to run a bath.

You've made it plainly obvious over the years that you wouldn't trust ANY Labour politician with anything. Quite apart from constantly making reference to Gordon Brown's physical disability and heritage, you have also blamed him for the world's financial mess. One thing that can be said for Ed Balls & Labour, Balls predicted we'd be entering a double-dip recession two years ago and despite what Gideon and Camoron may say about Labour's plans to spend their way out of recession, they have still had to borrow £158bn more than Labour predicted, simply because of reduced tax-take, through throwing so many people on the dole.

Take a good look at some of today's papers and read what business people now have to say about this government's failure to invest in anything worthwhile.

Having seen your persistent posts in defence of let-it-rip capitalistism, I would have thought you'd be in favour of an affluent cabinet and shadow cabinet.
If you can't see the difference, the problem is yours.

The government's perpetual mantra since coming to power is the dreadful mess Labour left - and it was a huge deficit, but then they had a huge problem - the UK economy shrank not 0.3 % but a full 7% between 2008 and 2009. The deficit was partly the consequence. And it's true that Cameron has shrunk it from 11% to 8.5%, but he's done it by cutting capital spending - not general expenditure. The very spending that should be maintained to avoid turning a recession into a depression. As someone said last year, managing the UK economy from the opposition benches is much easier than from the government benches. The double dip is entirely of Cameron and Osborne's making. Presumably they'll find some weasel words now to justify calling off a lot of what they've already done to try and restore their position before there's another election. Or perhaps they'd rather leave the mess to someone else to sort out and then Boris can come in 2020 as the great Tory white sha - sorry hope.

Being an accomplished liar, I doubt Blair will do any squirming. He is very comfortable in his thick skin.

The right questions can make him squirm – see Paxman on whether or not he prayed with Dubya. Blair did not like that.

I don't believe in socialism to the extreme that Labour USED TO, I now find all sides morally bankrupt and corrupt to the core, Balls is great at being clever after the event, not exactly a talent to stand aside and say "I told you so" is it?

And the only things I have blamed Brown for were selling our gold at a RECORD LOW and raiding the pensions, but thy both get conveniently forgotten by some.

One thing is certain, it is going to get worse before it gets better, I just hope we all survive it as best we can.

I could talk about the duplicitous Blair crossing the ocean to fallate dictators, but he's teflon to some people.

So did Labour simply go from being "extreme" to "morally bankrupt and corrupt to the core" or was there some point in between at which you actually thought they were okay?

On being "extreme", I think it's on the 'is socialism a dirty word now' thread that McLaren posted a quite lengthy explanation (from experience) of what socialism used to mean, in practice, to communities. If that is what you mean by "extreme", what do you consider wrong about it?

it's a very complex conversation (as you know, we've attempted to reconcile our thoughts in the past), there is an element of socialism that believes the world owes everyone something, regardless of their effort, input and output there is equally an element of capitalism that believes that "greed is good", what I believe to be the "right" thing is somewhere in between, just rewards for effort, support when it's needed and a general understanding that we all have value and purpose. I do not believe it is anyone's "right" to have a child when they can't look after their own well being, the "right" to live but not pay a single penny towards their living costs, the "right" to a pension subsidised by the private sector, to the detrement of the very people propping it up. I don't understand why new Hospitals need to look like Hilton hotels, I don't understand why we need armies of civil servants who do very little for most of their working day (and you know, full well, that I live and breathe that every day at work), I do not understand why the NHS pays for vanity operations, I don't understand why premiership footballes, F1 drivers, tennis players and "captains of industry" can avoid tax when every penny people earn above £8k (ish) is taxed. I don't understad why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and sit idly by watching Syria murder their own people (actually, not true, I know perfectly why, but you get my point).

What I wholeheartedly do not understand is why any sane individual thinks that Milliband and Balls would be any better than Cameron and Osborne, we'd still be skint, we'd just be spending even more money we don't have, paying more for it and ing it away on public sector pay.

A very good question but just remember who you have asked for the answer.

This is the guy who can't see a problem with folks moving hundreds of miles from home for work when it isn't financially viable and someone who states that anyone that won't is a waster.

That question has already been answered the current governments aim of 'slash and burn' has actually been more expensive than the Labour plan to slowly reduce the deficit.
I also see you mention the well off paying less tax.
Who was it again that decided that the filthy rich should get a tax cut whilst the rest of us are being battered?
I'll give you a clue it wasn't Labour.


All in it together eh!!

believe the propoganda if you want, you're an example of those that believes the world owes them something.

doesn't mean that it's wrong or not viable for ALL people to consider moving to improve themselves and improve the quality of life for their family ? In some cases it's clearly a no-no for many reasons but it worked out fine for me and thousands of others no doubt.

Thanks Norman Tebbitt for telling me to get on my bike

And how do you come by that idea?

Then you very clearly do not uderstand socialism at all

I fully understand socialism, and I agree with it's core values, not the extremes.

I would contend that forewarning of the very real perils of the tory slash & burn policy gives Ed Balls every right to say "I told you so"



What useful purpose was "our gold" serving? The money raised was used to pay down the horrendous deficit left by the previous tory administration.

His "raid" on the pensions was also a very good method to prevent private companies raiding their own pension schemes and working an almighty tax dodge. Most final salary schemes were still viable, they just were no longer the cash cows that some companies saw them as.



It will not get worse for a very select few, the same select few that this government are clearly serving.

It was also used to finally finish off paying the USA our war debts, something that governments of both hues shamefully neglected.

Lets get this straight, before the banking system imploded the state of the nations finances was as good as it has been since WW2.

Which brings us full circle, I think.

What was the cause of the "deficit" that we keep being reminded of?

If I could work out how to put it somewhere and then link to it, I have a Powerpoint presentation of data from Prof Colin Talbot of Manchester University (put together by himself and some colleagues) that examines a number of things, including the scale of Labour's spending, buy statistics from more than a century past.

One of the points it illustrates is that, while it suited Labour at the time not to contradict the claim, it is a myth that Labour's spending was at record levels. Far from it.

Another, as it happens, shows that spending as a percentage of GDP exceeded 100% for a vast chunk of the first half of the 19th century – was there public outrage/panic then? Did the country collapse then?

It is, says Talbot, a far more complex matter than simply looking at a stat that says we're spending X of GDP.

good question, I'd imagine if we go far enough back the "church" was at fault somewhere along the line.

35 quarters of consecutive economic growth - a record.

I'm getting mighty tired of the Tory front bench moaning about how bad things are here when we are quite obviously in far, far better shape than most of Europe bar the Germans. And the Germans will be just a fooooked as anyone else when the Eurozone goes into serial collapse and their nice little earner blows up in their face like a cheap inflatable love toy from a Hamburg sex shop.

that's said with a certain amount of feeling. Tell us more ...

The Germans used to be well known for the quality of their robust and hard wearing Hamburg latex, now they are overrun by Russian gangsters and their inferior imported materials are giving the industruy a bad name. And you try taking that stuff back and complaining to an ex-spetsnaz shopkeeper! I'll tell you, the embarassment is never ending as you find yourself flying onto a street full of tourists with a half deflated rubber woman sticking out of your ars.....

I think that that may be the best post I've ever read here. ~Massive applause~ that man!