The Politics Thread

[bedwetter2]

You may be right about keeping May out of the limelight. We shall see. The negotiations should be straightforward. Will they be? Possibly not, but that is down to us, not them, the ensure it is not dragged out.

What big numbers? At most the numbers I quoted related to trade were only 25% of that demanded by the EU to "settle" our accounts as in one off payment - not a punishment beating at all, no no. And even if it is, at least we have the kind offer of an easy payment option. Of course you will find that interest will be added to their figure and they will apparently expect us to continue paying fees until 2023.

So, you are a supporter of continued EU membership. You will no doubt be able to set out all the benefits which the UK enjoys from EU membership. I haven't heard much from anyone on this subject apart from open borders and I don't think there is much of a benefit there. Perhaps it's a secret that the plebs are not allowed to know.

You're far too binary about these things. It's not binary for me. As I've said previously, all I needed was to see the plan for exit - which I still haven't seen in any great detail. The vote on EU membership has happened, we're leaving, I'm fine with that. I've already done what I needed to do (as best I can without knowing the plan) to change how I work etc. and who I work for. It is right that we hold people to account for promises they made about what exit would look like. Especially those that made the promises and remain in Government after the election.

As for Labour v Conservative - neither has had my vote for 20 years. They're all shithead, self serving wasters. Conservative are probably better for me as an individual, but they're not getting my vote, they're full of lying wankers. Labour probably does a better job of public services but at a cost that Diane Abbott couldn't begin to explain, they're lying wankers too. The thought that one side is "good" and the other "bad" is incorrect in my view - they're both pretty pi$$ poor. I haven't voted for anyone else either - although I do post my spoilt ballot paper just so it gets "counted". The fact some folks continue to prop up a clearly corrupt and useless two party system is just laughable. Tallest dwarf competition.

Today, I will vote in the Local Elections. On one single issue across both ballots. Greenbelt protection. Anstee is a clueless fcukwit in relation to Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. Burnham has picked his words like the weasel he is. Brophy thinks ripping up the plan will work (it won't) so that doesn't leave much to go at. But hey at least we get to vote for a mayor that we democratically said we didn't want just 4 years ago. That's democracy from Labour and the Tories for you.

You should note that I have not said that I support the Conservatives, but for this coming general election it is the only sensible option;for me at least. Not really binary in that sense.
Of course there are shades of grey and sometimes in elections it is impossible to vote for any of the candidates because they do not or will not address the important issues. Greenbelt is very important and directly affects many residents in a variety of areas. It is also a big topic where I live 90 miles away from Bolton. The local authority is hell bent on approving housing developments on greenbelt land for over 3000 dwellings. The real reason? Additional council tax receipts to boost their income.

You don't need to say you support the Conservatives. Your words speak for themselves. You clearly aren't voting Labour any time soon.

In the People's Republic of Greater Manchester, they're gearing up for 67,000 homes on the Greenbelt over 20 years. In addition to the 172,000 homes they want to build on brownfield. The GMSF plan's biggest supporter is probably Sean Anstee - the tory pick for Mayor - he's the only one that's not promised at least a "re-draft". I have major doubts as to whether the other main contender - Andy Burnham - will do anything other than a superficial re-draft - he's picked his words very, very carefully "no net loss to the greenbelt" was I think, his phrase - so they'll swipe the prime sites and replace with lower quality "green space" - weasel arsed tw*t.

There are (aren't there always) two elements to it - yes councils are trying to boost receipts - not only on council tax, but government kick-back funds too for accelerated housing development schemes. The problem is the Developers appeal even when Council has said no, goes up to Sajid Javed's Department and they approve in many, many cases. It's another Tory/Labour political fcuk up.

You're correct in saying that I will not be voting for Labour any time soon but that is the quandry many people find themselves in. Labour have made themselves unelectable and as for the LibDems, don't get me started on those hypocritical knobs.

[bedwetter2]

Opinion is somewhat divided on the matter. You think you're right, we all think you're wrong.

And as for the socialists wrecking the economy. Hard proof please, in figures. Not a headline.

We've had, economically at least, right wing governments since 1979. Without exception. Every single government has supported financial de-regulation and free market self management.

Our economy is a result of centre-right economic policy.

1966 - 1970. Yer darlin' Arald and the first visit of the IMF. fcuked.
1974 - 1979. Sunny Jim Callaghan and the second visit of the IMF. Dennis Healey going cap in hand. Winter of Discontent. Economy fcuked again.
1997 - 2010. Blair/Brown double act. Brown throwing borrowed money around like a man with no arms. PFI contracts still today leaving a huge legacy of debt. Liam Byrne's leaving note - 'there is no money left'. And he meant it. Economy totally fcuked.

If you are too young to remember all this, read it up. I'm sure it will make fascinating reading.

Blair/Brown - pursued right of centre, Conservative economic policy. So much so that the Tories had to (at the time) take an even more aggressive stance on financial de-regulation and private-public sector partnerships to stand apart from that government.

It is a gross oversimiplification, one perpetuated by the national media. It should be noted that since 2010 our debt to GDP ratio has continually risen to 2016.

The rapid increase in borrowing in 2008 was as a result of a global banking crisis. One caused by Conservative financial de-regulation policy.

You are thinking of the early days of the Blair/Brown partnership where they stated they would follow the Conservative budgets and not increase spending. After the following election, the brakes came off and Brown started to chuck money around.
The view that the UK Government was purely a victim of the 2008 banking crash has it's roots in Labour blaming anyone but themselves for allowing a debt bubble to build in the economy. It didn't happen overnight and the alarm bells should have been going for a few years.
None of this was helped by the then government not only significantly increasing expenditure before 2008 but also keeping as much of their borrowings for capital expenditure as possible off balance sheet. Hence the huge ongoing debts for capital expenditure on fixed assets via PFI contracts - hospitals yes, but also roads, rail and even some defence centred on military housing upgrades but not limited to that.
You will never admit it of course, but the Labour party when in power has generally been profligate with other peoples money. That is going on today with people like Chuka U urging the government to give 100 billion euros to the EU without discussion. It's our money for fcuk's sake - how dare he and others think that course of action is in this country's interest.

[BWFC_Insane]

Opinion is somewhat divided on the matter. You think you're right, we all think you're wrong.

And as for the socialists wrecking the economy. Hard proof please, in figures. Not a headline.

We've had, economically at least, right wing governments since 1979. Without exception. Every single government has supported financial de-regulation and free market self management.

Our economy is a result of centre-right economic policy.

1966 - 1970. Yer darlin' Arald and the first visit of the IMF. fcuked.
1974 - 1979. Sunny Jim Callaghan and the second visit of the IMF. Dennis Healey going cap in hand. Winter of Discontent. Economy fcuked again.
1997 - 2010. Blair/Brown double act. Brown throwing borrowed money around like a man with no arms. PFI contracts still today leaving a huge legacy of debt. Liam Byrne's leaving note - 'there is no money left'. And he meant it. Economy totally fcuked.

If you are too young to remember all this, read it up. I'm sure it will make fascinating reading.

Blair/Brown - pursued right of centre, Conservative economic policy. So much so that the Tories had to (at the time) take an even more aggressive stance on financial de-regulation and private-public sector partnerships to stand apart from that government.

It is a gross oversimiplification, one perpetuated by the national media. It should be noted that since 2010 our debt to GDP ratio has continually risen to 2016.

The rapid increase in borrowing in 2008 was as a result of a global banking crisis. One caused by Conservative financial de-regulation policy.

You are thinking of the early days of the Blair/Brown partnership where they stated they would follow the Conservative budgets and not increase spending. After the following election, the brakes came off and Brown started to chuck money around.
The view that the UK Government was purely a victim of the 2008 banking crash has it's roots in Labour blaming anyone but themselves for allowing a debt bubble to build in the economy. It didn't happen overnight and the alarm bells should have been going for a few years.
None of this was helped by the then government not only significantly increasing expenditure before 2008 but also keeping as much of their borrowings for capital expenditure as possible off balance sheet. Hence the huge ongoing debts for capital expenditure on fixed assets via PFI contracts - hospitals yes, but also roads, rail and even some defence centred on military housing upgrades but not limited to that.
You will never admit it of course, but the Labour party when in power has generally been profligate with other peoples money. That is going on today with people like Chuka U urging the government to give 100 billion euros to the EU without discussion. It's our money for fcuk's sake - how dare he and others think that course of action is in this country's interest.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spend ... 011lcn_F0t

No. And no again. The idea that the increase in spending on the back of a successful economy in Labour's second term was anything out of the ordinary or "historically" different to government spending in similar periods is a nonsense. The investment during that time in Education and health improved services dramatically.

Currently our spending to GDP ratio continues to increase, whilst the quantity and quality of our public services decreases. In other words, there is absolutely nothing good about our current situation.

[BWFC_Insane]

If Corbyn cares even just 1% about the Labour party and about the country he would stand down now after these local election results.

Labour cannot win the GE whatever happens. But they must minimise the absolute trouncing coming their way thanks to Corbyn and his incompetent team. That is their only hope of avoiding electoral annihilation that once again would take nigh on two decades to recover from. The centre ground need to take control of the party otherwise the Labour party is headed for total and utter oblivion.

IF Corbyn cared, at all, he'd stand down immediately. Sadly the only thing he cares about is his own ego and punishing the Blairites.

CORBYNOUT

[Worthy4England]

You're correct in saying that I will not be voting for Labour any time soon but that is the quandry many people find themselves in. Labour have made themselves unelectable and as for the LibDems, don't get me started on those hypocritical knobs.

I don't get the "You will note that I have not said I support Conservatives, but for this general election..." bit. I'd be surprised if other than a one-off (maybe) you'd ever voted any other way for donkeys years. Which is fine - wouldn't hold it against you - your entitlement.

Looking at the current incoming Local Election results, it's going to be a long couple of months for Labour and UKIP...Maybe the Labour left will then wake up and realise Blair didn't get elected because everyone embraced "come the great day, Brother" socialism, Blair got elected because he moved the entire party to the right to the extent that more marginal Tories, pissed off with their own party could (quietly and on a still transfer back basis ) cast their vote a different way.

[BWFC_Insane]

You're correct in saying that I will not be voting for Labour any time soon but that is the quandry many people find themselves in. Labour have made themselves unelectable and as for the LibDems, don't get me started on those hypocritical knobs.

I don't get the "You will note that I have not said I support Conservatives, but for this general election..." bit. I'd be surprised if other than a one-off (maybe) you'd ever voted any other way for donkeys years. Which is fine - wouldn't hold it against you - your entitlement.

Looking at the current incoming Local Election results, it's going to be a long couple of months for Labour and UKIP...Maybe the Labour left will then wake up and realise Blair didn't get elected because everyone embraced "come the great day, Brother" socialism, Blair got elected because he moved the entire party to the right to the extent that more marginal Tories, pissed off with their own party could (quietly and on a still transfer back basis ) cast their vote a different way.

There is a bit more to it than that. Blair got elected because he knew that whilst the media are scum, you can't win an election without them. You can't win without a proper team who manufacture your every move. You need to spin. You need to understand the electorate. You need to be convincing. You need to not raise alarm bells of any sort in people's heads. You can't win by openly scaring or bashing business.

And you need a team around you who are a) experienced and b) highly competent.

Obviously politically Corbyn was never being elected with his platform, but even beyond that he's been abysmal. If he'd been a strong and consistent voice he might actually have got close to Ed Miliband vote levels. As it is, he won't even do that.

There was some analysis done recently that the majority of people in this country support more Labour than Tory policies. Without knowing it. But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible. I mean that is hardly a shock is it? We've known that for a long, long time. Politically majority of this country come out centre or slightly left of centre. They don't vote that way because a) they don't realise it, and b) the media traditionally works to discredit the centre and centre left parties.

Millions of people will vote Tory, not because they politically align to them in any way, but because they will feel that May (and I don't believe she is popular in the sense Thatcher was by a long shot) is the only bet they've got.

Frankly I don't think May is a better option than Corbyn. I don't think either are fit to run this country. But that is where we are.

[Worthy4England]

Pretty much agree with that. Spin and bullshit is the society we live in.

[Bruce Rioja]

But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible.

See, possibly/probably just me, but I consider Corbyn to be one of, if not the most credible party leaders of my lifetime. A completely honest and honourable fella with commendable integrity. The problem for me is that I think his policies belong in the early 70's.

[BWFC_Insane]

But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible.

See, possibly/probably just me, but I consider Corbyn to be one of, if not the most credible party leaders of my lifetime. A completely honest and honourable fella with commendable integrity. The problem for me is that I think his policies belong in the early 70's.

I think quite probably just you!

[Hoboh]

But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible.

See, possibly/probably just me, but I consider Corbyn to be one of, if not the most credible party leaders of my lifetime. A completely honest and honourable fella with commendable integrity. The problem for me is that I think his policies belong in the early 70's.

Disagree there mate, Corbyn's policies belong back in the old USSR with a portion belonging to peaceniks and frankly, the local inmates of the sanatorium.

[Hoboh]

But you will have grown up on the previous equivalent of it. Point remains that each generation has it's fads, shit food, gadgets and so on. The only thing that changes is the stuff gets more modern...

I'm not sure Tango, Dujon and I grew up with too many gadgets, and means of communication were limited to the Royal Mail or loud voices. Shit food I grant you but after the war there wasn't much else - black puddings were mostly bloody sawdust and UCP tripe inedible (I still shudder). I had a ration book for one candy a week. I didn't see a TV until I was 10 (the year Blackpool beat us in the Cup). So we contented ourselves with conkers, marbles and a variety of team games. On rainy days there was reading and board/card games.

You had a wireless didn't you? That was a gadget back then my point being, each generation had a little more technology and convenience than the previous. Admittedly the innovation and speed is somewhat greater these days

Most 'developments' had a purpose for the masses, hell even google is a very useful tool but Facebook? Fodder for the ........?

[BWFC_Insane]

But you will have grown up on the previous equivalent of it. Point remains that each generation has it's fads, shit food, gadgets and so on. The only thing that changes is the stuff gets more modern...

I'm not sure Tango, Dujon and I grew up with too many gadgets, and means of communication were limited to the Royal Mail or loud voices. Shit food I grant you but after the war there wasn't much else - black puddings were mostly bloody sawdust and UCP tripe inedible (I still shudder). I had a ration book for one candy a week. I didn't see a TV until I was 10 (the year Blackpool beat us in the Cup). So we contented ourselves with conkers, marbles and a variety of team games. On rainy days there was reading and board/card games.

You had a wireless didn't you? That was a gadget back then my point being, each generation had a little more technology and convenience than the previous. Admittedly the innovation and speed is somewhat greater these days

Most 'developments' had a purpose for the masses, hell even google is a very useful tool but Facebook? Fodder for the ........?

If it is of no use and you don't like it, why do you use it?

[Hoboh]

But you will have grown up on the previous equivalent of it. Point remains that each generation has it's fads, shit food, gadgets and so on. The only thing that changes is the stuff gets more modern...

I'm not sure Tango, Dujon and I grew up with too many gadgets, and means of communication were limited to the Royal Mail or loud voices. Shit food I grant you but after the war there wasn't much else - black puddings were mostly bloody sawdust and UCP tripe inedible (I still shudder). I had a ration book for one candy a week. I didn't see a TV until I was 10 (the year Blackpool beat us in the Cup). So we contented ourselves with conkers, marbles and a variety of team games. On rainy days there was reading and board/card games.

You had a wireless didn't you? That was a gadget back then my point being, each generation had a little more technology and convenience than the previous. Admittedly the innovation and speed is somewhat greater these days

Most 'developments' had a purpose for the masses, hell even google is a very useful tool but Facebook? Fodder for the ........?

If it is of no use and you don't like it, why do you use it?

I don't use nor ever have used Facebook, what I object to is people and the media taking Facebook as the opinion of the public, it isn't.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not sure Tango, Dujon and I grew up with too many gadgets, and means of communication were limited to the Royal Mail or loud voices. Shit food I grant you but after the war there wasn't much else - black puddings were mostly bloody sawdust and UCP tripe inedible (I still shudder). I had a ration book for one candy a week. I didn't see a TV until I was 10 (the year Blackpool beat us in the Cup). So we contented ourselves with conkers, marbles and a variety of team games. On rainy days there was reading and board/card games.

You had a wireless didn't you? That was a gadget back then my point being, each generation had a little more technology and convenience than the previous. Admittedly the innovation and speed is somewhat greater these days

Most 'developments' had a purpose for the masses, hell even google is a very useful tool but Facebook? Fodder for the ........?

If it is of no use and you don't like it, why do you use it?

I don't use nor ever have used Facebook, what I object to is people and the media taking Facebook as the opinion of the public, it isn't.

For someone who hasn't ever used Facebook you sure seem to have a strong opinion about it, and what it contains. Though a somewhat distorted view. I also don't think anyone ever suggests it represents the opinion of the public, beyond, and this is an important distinction, the people on facebook, are of course, the British public and therefore are representative of their own views.

[Bruce Rioja]

But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible.

See, possibly/probably just me, but I consider Corbyn to be one of, if not the most credible party leaders of my lifetime. A completely honest and honourable fella with commendable integrity. The problem for me is that I think his policies belong in the early 70's.

I think quite probably just you!

Serious question for you. More and more I notice John McDonnell acting as LP spokesperson. Is this at the request of party spin doctors, or, as I suspect, him pushing himself forward as potential next party leader? Maybe even both?

[bedwetter2]

You're correct in saying that I will not be voting for Labour any time soon but that is the quandry many people find themselves in. Labour have made themselves unelectable and as for the LibDems, don't get me started on those hypocritical knobs.

I don't get the "You will note that I have not said I support Conservatives, but for this general election..." bit. I'd be surprised if other than a one-off (maybe) you'd ever voted any other way for donkeys years. Which is fine - wouldn't hold it against you - your entitlement.

Looking at the current incoming Local Election results, it's going to be a long couple of months for Labour and UKIP...Maybe the Labour left will then wake up and realise Blair didn't get elected because everyone embraced "come the great day, Brother" socialism, Blair got elected because he moved the entire party to the right to the extent that more marginal Tories, pissed off with their own party could (quietly and on a still transfer back basis ) cast their vote a different way.

Well, be surprised then. I have voted Liberal and Liberal Democrat in the past when they did appear to support democracy. Once, to my shame, voted Labour during the first hyped-up Blair election. I will admit to voting for the Conservatives in 2010 and 2015 as an antidote to the Labour years. You see, any thinking person, in my opinion, should always exercise their right to vote even if the choices are fairly unedifying. Also, a thinking person will not always vote in a hidebound way - "my dad always voted for such and such so I do" rosette on a pig fashion. But that much is obvious.

Any idea what the percentage turnouts for the local elections? It's usually ridiculously low.
I don't see the Labour left having a sudden revelation. They don't really seem to want power. Only control over the Labour party.

[BWFC_Insane]

But ultimately people don't vote for policy. They vote for who they think is credible.

See, possibly/probably just me, but I consider Corbyn to be one of, if not the most credible party leaders of my lifetime. A completely honest and honourable fella with commendable integrity. The problem for me is that I think his policies belong in the early 70's.

I think quite probably just you!

Serious question for you. More and more I notice John McDonnell acting as LP spokesperson. Is this at the request of party spin doctors, or, as I suspect, him pushing himself forward as potential next party leader? Maybe even both?

I shudder to think. I really do.

Get Keir in.

[bedwetter2]

We've had, economically at least, right wing governments since 1979. Without exception. Every single government has supported financial de-regulation and free market self management.

Our economy is a result of centre-right economic policy.

1966 - 1970. Yer darlin' Arald and the first visit of the IMF. fcuked.
1974 - 1979. Sunny Jim Callaghan and the second visit of the IMF. Dennis Healey going cap in hand. Winter of Discontent. Economy fcuked again.
1997 - 2010. Blair/Brown double act. Brown throwing borrowed money around like a man with no arms. PFI contracts still today leaving a huge legacy of debt. Liam Byrne's leaving note - 'there is no money left'. And he meant it. Economy totally fcuked.

If you are too young to remember all this, read it up. I'm sure it will make fascinating reading.

Blair/Brown - pursued right of centre, Conservative economic policy. So much so that the Tories had to (at the time) take an even more aggressive stance on financial de-regulation and private-public sector partnerships to stand apart from that government.

It is a gross oversimiplification, one perpetuated by the national media. It should be noted that since 2010 our debt to GDP ratio has continually risen to 2016.

The rapid increase in borrowing in 2008 was as a result of a global banking crisis. One caused by Conservative financial de-regulation policy.

You are thinking of the early days of the Blair/Brown partnership where they stated they would follow the Conservative budgets and not increase spending. After the following election, the brakes came off and Brown started to chuck money around.
The view that the UK Government was purely a victim of the 2008 banking crash has it's roots in Labour blaming anyone but themselves for allowing a debt bubble to build in the economy. It didn't happen overnight and the alarm bells should have been going for a few years.
None of this was helped by the then government not only significantly increasing expenditure before 2008 but also keeping as much of their borrowings for capital expenditure as possible off balance sheet. Hence the huge ongoing debts for capital expenditure on fixed assets via PFI contracts - hospitals yes, but also roads, rail and even some defence centred on military housing upgrades but not limited to that.
You will never admit it of course, but the Labour party when in power has generally been profligate with other peoples money. That is going on today with people like Chuka U urging the government to give 100 billion euros to the EU without discussion. It's our money for fcuk's sake - how dare he and others think that course of action is in this country's interest.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spend ... 011lcn_F0t

No. And no again. The idea that the increase in spending on the back of a successful economy in Labour's second term was anything out of the ordinary or "historically" different to government spending in similar periods is a nonsense. The investment during that time in Education and health improved services dramatically.

Currently our spending to GDP ratio continues to increase, whilst the quantity and quality of our public services decreases. In other words, there is absolutely nothing good about our current situation.

I don't think you understood the point I made about Blair/Brown and off balance sheet finance. I didn't go into detail about what the spending chart shows. During the period 2002 to 2010 the Labour Government placed virtually all major capital expenditure into a non-expenditure category by the simple means of PFI contracts financed by private capital. The figures of expenditure which are shown during that period are mainly current expenditure, i.e. public sector overheads, etc.

What off balance sheet finance did was show expenditure to be lower than it actually was. All of those PFI commitments had to be paid for in the end by us, the taxpayer. The cost commitments are hitting us now and the Conservatives are, in this instance, to be congratulated on stopping further PFI contracts and working to pay down the costs earlier . The capital expenditure was merely deferred and we are all paying for it now because the finance fees on top of the building and services costs have been hugely profitable for the lenders. Most PFI contracts included the maintenance, catering, cleaning contracts which were cast-iron 25 or 30 year terms which could not be broken unless terminated at huge cost.

Apart from the two world war periods where expenditure rocketed, the high points are late 1960s, the latter part of the 1970s and 2004 onwards to 2010/2011, thus tying in with my earlier comments. Yes, the general trend for expenditure to GDP has been upwards for a very long time, although you will note that the percentage has been coming down over the last few years. Draw your own conclusions on that.

[BWFC_Insane]

1966 - 1970. Yer darlin' Arald and the first visit of the IMF. fcuked.
1974 - 1979. Sunny Jim Callaghan and the second visit of the IMF. Dennis Healey going cap in hand. Winter of Discontent. Economy fcuked again.
1997 - 2010. Blair/Brown double act. Brown throwing borrowed money around like a man with no arms. PFI contracts still today leaving a huge legacy of debt. Liam Byrne's leaving note - 'there is no money left'. And he meant it. Economy totally fcuked.

If you are too young to remember all this, read it up. I'm sure it will make fascinating reading.

Blair/Brown - pursued right of centre, Conservative economic policy. So much so that the Tories had to (at the time) take an even more aggressive stance on financial de-regulation and private-public sector partnerships to stand apart from that government.

It is a gross oversimiplification, one perpetuated by the national media. It should be noted that since 2010 our debt to GDP ratio has continually risen to 2016.

The rapid increase in borrowing in 2008 was as a result of a global banking crisis. One caused by Conservative financial de-regulation policy.

You are thinking of the early days of the Blair/Brown partnership where they stated they would follow the Conservative budgets and not increase spending. After the following election, the brakes came off and Brown started to chuck money around.
The view that the UK Government was purely a victim of the 2008 banking crash has it's roots in Labour blaming anyone but themselves for allowing a debt bubble to build in the economy. It didn't happen overnight and the alarm bells should have been going for a few years.
None of this was helped by the then government not only significantly increasing expenditure before 2008 but also keeping as much of their borrowings for capital expenditure as possible off balance sheet. Hence the huge ongoing debts for capital expenditure on fixed assets via PFI contracts - hospitals yes, but also roads, rail and even some defence centred on military housing upgrades but not limited to that.
You will never admit it of course, but the Labour party when in power has generally been profligate with other peoples money. That is going on today with people like Chuka U urging the government to give 100 billion euros to the EU without discussion. It's our money for fcuk's sake - how dare he and others think that course of action is in this country's interest.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spend ... 011lcn_F0t

No. And no again. The idea that the increase in spending on the back of a successful economy in Labour's second term was anything out of the ordinary or "historically" different to government spending in similar periods is a nonsense. The investment during that time in Education and health improved services dramatically.

Currently our spending to GDP ratio continues to increase, whilst the quantity and quality of our public services decreases. In other words, there is absolutely nothing good about our current situation.

I don't think you understood the point I made about Blair/Brown and off balance sheet finance. I didn't go into detail about what the spending chart shows. During the period 2002 to 2010 the Labour Government placed virtually all major capital expenditure into a non-expenditure category by the simple means of PFI contracts financed by private capital. The figures of expenditure which are shown during that period are mainly current expenditure, i.e. public sector overheads, etc.

What off balance sheet finance did was show expenditure to be lower than it actually was. All of those PFI commitments had to be paid for in the end by us, the taxpayer. The cost commitments are hitting us now and the Conservatives are, in this instance, to be congratulated on stopping further PFI contracts and working to pay down the costs earlier . The capital expenditure was merely deferred and we are all paying for it now because the finance fees on top of the building and services costs have been hugely profitable for the lenders. Most PFI contracts included the maintenance, catering, cleaning contracts which were cast-iron 25 or 30 year terms which could not be broken unless terminated at huge cost.

Apart from the two world war periods where expenditure rocketed, the high points are late 1960s, the latter part of the 1970s and 2004 onwards to 2010/2011, thus tying in with my earlier comments. Yes, the general trend for expenditure to GDP has been upwards for a very long time, although you will note that the percentage has been coming down over the last few years. Draw your own conclusions on that.

You'll receive no argument from me on PFI.

Important to note, PFI's were dreamt up and first implemented by a Conservative government. And were firmly Conservative economic policy. One that Blair and Brown pursued with vigour.

Hence my original point. We've had well over 30 years of Conservative economic policy. The failings of which, are very clear to all.

[Worthy4England]

You're correct in saying that I will not be voting for Labour any time soon but that is the quandry many people find themselves in. Labour have made themselves unelectable and as for the LibDems, don't get me started on those hypocritical knobs.

I don't get the "You will note that I have not said I support Conservatives, but for this general election..." bit. I'd be surprised if other than a one-off (maybe) you'd ever voted any other way for donkeys years. Which is fine - wouldn't hold it against you - your entitlement.

Looking at the current incoming Local Election results, it's going to be a long couple of months for Labour and UKIP...Maybe the Labour left will then wake up and realise Blair didn't get elected because everyone embraced "come the great day, Brother" socialism, Blair got elected because he moved the entire party to the right to the extent that more marginal Tories, pissed off with their own party could (quietly and on a still transfer back basis ) cast their vote a different way.

Well, be surprised then. I have voted Liberal and Liberal Democrat in the past when they did appear to support democracy. Once, to my shame, voted Labour during the first hyped-up Blair election. I will admit to voting for the Conservatives in 2010 and 2015 as an antidote to the Labour years. You see, any thinking person, in my opinion, should always exercise their right to vote even if the choices are fairly unedifying. Also, a thinking person will not always vote in a hidebound way - "my dad always voted for such and such so I do" rosette on a pig fashion. But that much is obvious.

Any idea what the percentage turnouts for the local elections? It's usually ridiculously low.
I don't see the Labour left having a sudden revelation. They don't really seem to want power. Only control over the Labour party.

That's donkeys years ago then

Not seen any turnout's yet, but then we were only voting for His Warship, the Mayor. I registered my protest for the Green Party candidate, just so I could tease Hobes. And because he does a cracking job of being Andy from Little Britain.