C4 Conservative leader debate

[martin_p]

But you chose to forget the number of resignations there have been because they found it impossible to shift May’s set position on all kind of matters. That cabinet ministers chose to resign or battle on is a matter for them. May was trying to be Thatcher. And was nearly as crazed by the end.

Given your reluctance to provide any evidence can I assume you’ve dropped your ridiculous claim that austerity was down to an accounting error?

[Greenmile]

But you chose to forget the number of resignations there have been because they found it impossible to shift May’s set position on all kind of matters. That cabinet ministers chose to resign or battle on is a matter for them. May was trying to be Thatcher. And was nearly as crazed by the end.

Perhaps you could remind me of all the cabinet ministers who resigned in protest at the Tories’ austerity (not Brexit) policies, as it seems I have chosen to forget them (or maybe I just forgot them without any conscious effort to do so)

[Paul Waine]

Nor can the global financial crisis be placed on the previous Labour govt’s shoulders.

And nor was austerity the only answer to that problem - see your northern powerhouse comment above - it was and is just an easy way of making the poor pay the price for the crash without impacting on the traditional Tory voters.

Come on, Paul. You’re better than this.

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

You know that fabled “no money left”note was a joke, don’t you Paul? It’s just a shame right-wingers have no sense of humour. Has a joke ever led to more lost votes for a single party in history?

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand QE, but the way you describe it suggests it helped traditional Tory voters whilst placing the burden on the poor (via cuts to essential services) which is pretty much what I said. Still, as long as your properties maintained their value, who cares about (eg) cuts to disability benefits, eh?

Besides, today I learned that we had loads of money in the pipeline anyway and that the whole austerity thing was always unnecessary. Elwa saw it on a BBC politics programme (or maybe a documentary) so it’s definitely true.

[dsr]

I’m sure he didn’t. He’s not the type to notice all the poor people around him, is he?

He would only be matching you from 2010. Poverty wasn't invented in 2011, you know. Even if you didn't see the poverty in 2010, it was there.

[Devils_Advocate]

This thread has been absolute top billing tonight with the Four Horsemen themselves that is DSR, Paul Waine, Elwa & Crosspools all involved. Right wing nonsense gold dust all the way

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

You know that the Mayor of London doesn't have a cabinet post? The position has certain influence, but not, as a rule, in respect of national economic policy.

He wasn't an MP from 2008 to 2015.

He has held a cabinet post under this government that has implemented cuts as has Hunt. At no point that I can recall has either come out and said austerity was unnecessary. Maybe they would hage if they’d spoke to that number cruncher!

[Greenmile]

He would only be matching you from 2010. Poverty wasn't invented in 2011, you know. Even if you didn't see the poverty in 2010, it was there.

I’m not sure I get your point. You seem to be saying that, as long as something isn’t deteriorating, it doesn’t need fixing, no matter how bad it’s got previously.

I must have misunderstood you though - you’re not that dim, surely.

[Paul Waine]

You know that fabled “no money left”note was a joke, don’t you Paul? It’s just a shame right-wingers have no sense of humour. Has a joke ever led to more lost votes for a single party in history?

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand QE, but the way you describe it suggests it helped traditional Tory voters whilst placing the burden on the poor (via cuts to essential services) which is pretty much what I said. Still, as long as your properties maintained their value, who cares about (eg) cuts to disability benefits, eh?

Besides, today I learned that we had loads of money in the pipeline anyway and that the whole austerity thing was always unnecessary. Elwa saw it on a BBC politics programme (or maybe a documentary) so it’s definitely true.

Good morning, Greenmile. Interesting to hear you say that the note was the joke - and not the way that Labour "trashed" the economy. I'm sure some will want to believe you.

QE. So, first ressponse to "re-float" the economy was to drop interest rates to "almost zero" (and some places there have been negative interest rates). This wasn't getting things going, so more money was created by buying assets from the banks and giving them more cash to nake more loans.

"Traditional Tory voters" we often think of as being people in the older age groups, many would be pensioners, many will be living on their savings. So, ask yourself how much "extra" are they making when interest rates are cut to near zero?

Then think of the people who are in the earlier stage in their adult life. Maybe they've got a mortgage - lots of people were buying property with mortgages in the 2000s, all the way up to 2008 - what happens to the cost of their mortgage when interest rates are reduced. Maybe you are in that group?

Yes, of course, once confidence returns asset valuations rise when the cost of debt to acquire those assets falls - and is seen to be low for an extended period. So, house prices rise. And, I agree, if you don't have a house you will find that tough.

And, if you are the "traditional Tory" who may have already paid off their mortgage, you will see your house value rise - but you will also see the value of all alternative houses rise, while your savings income has fallen, so maybe not the ones who have been helped.

[Imploding Turtle]

Good morning, Greenmile. Interesting to hear you say that the note was the joke - and not the way that Labour "trashed" the economy. I'm sure some will want to believe you.

...

I see we're still blaming the Labour party in the UK for the global financial meltdown that trashed the global economy.

[claretonthecoast1882]

With Labour being so good, the country doing so well when they are in power, everyone eating and working as well as having loads of cash
how did they lose to the tories and then lose again to the worst government ever in history.

Thought it was horses fitted with blinkers to assist

[Imploding Turtle]

With Labour being so good, the country doing so well when they are in power, everyone eating and working as well as having loads of cash
how did they lose to the tories and then lose again to the worst government ever in history.

Thought it was horses fitted with blinkers to assist

wtf you wittering on about?

[claretonthecoast1882]

wtf you wittering on about?

be quiet

[Steve1956]

Have they decided yet,is it Boris?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Pigs will fly before the Tories invest heavily in the North.

I agree, but this is their last chance. Northern voters have never been so enticing, Corbyn moving away from them. If the Tories don’t invest in the next 2-3 years, it will be never. That’s why we have to find out.

So you are advocating boom and bust, as that what his promises amount to?

I am not. I am advocating that we agree that spreadsheet Phil is naive, he is running the books for a country not a company. That whilst balancing the books remains important there are some priorities which supersede them if we are to have a country in which every citizen has a certain standard of living befitting of our status as a leading world nation.

Fast, affordable, modern public transport. Fibre broadband for all (facilitating home working, smart home technology, TV streaming and many other things). Social care in old age. Those three things outweigh any argument that they cannot be afforded. The first two are critical to modern life or it forces people to live in the slow lane, which in turn makes us a country within a country.

Or do you disagree?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Regarding my above point, in reference to Greenmile fishing last night, I would say that hospitals, schools, police etc are not as important to warrant crashing the finances.

The reason being we have all three of those in place now, free at the point of need. We could argue more could be spent but the other three things I mentioned above (transport, broadband and social care) are way behind other developed nations and can only be accessed if you live in the right place or are wealthy. That is the difference. They have to be funded because we in the north (and not just the north) deserve it.

In other words a bit of Corbynomics and a bit of Toryomics. You could call it Crosspoolomics if you like.

[dsr]

I’m not sure I get your point. You seem to be saying that, as long as something isn’t deteriorating, it doesn’t need fixing, no matter how bad it’s got previously.

I must have misunderstood you though - you’re not that dim, surely.

You have certainly misunderstood. And I don't think that what I said was that complicated, but I can see how you misunderstood.

You mentioned that austerity was the cause of crushing poverty. I took that to mean that you believed there wasn't crushing poverty before and austerity caused it to happen - austerity created poverty where poverty hadn't been.

Obviously if by "caused" you meant that there was already poverty and austerity failed to solve it, then you wouldn't understand my response.

[Erasmus]

I see your point to some extent, Crosspool. The problem is that people right are suffering and dying because of the underfunding of the NHS and social care. We have to do something about this. Education may be currently in place but it is deteriorating due to underfunding; my son's school is down to a 4.5 day week text term and classroom assistants have been laid off. Surely, the answer is that we have to raise taxes for richer people to go part of the way towards reducing the deficit, not just cutting vital services. And I would include myself as one of the richer people who ought to pay more tax. I can afford it and can so can many others I know.

And to Paul Waine. Paul, I have a lot of respect for most of what you post, but your suggestion that the aftereffects of the 2008 crash were down to Labour 'trashing the economy' is just silly. Governments have only a marginal influence over global economic trends. Your comments there have more than a whiff of tribalism about them.

[dsr]

And to Paul Waine. Paul, I have a lot of respect for most of what you post, but your suggestion that the aftereffects of the 2008 crash were down to Labour 'trashing the economy' is just silly. Governments have only a marginal influence over global economic trends. Your comments there have more than a whiff of tribalism about them.

The government wasn't responsible for the global crash, but it was responsible for the state of the UK economy at the time of the crash. And the UK economy was in a very poor state to meet it.

It's like two individuals who lose their jobs. They both have zero influence over the economy and the employer who has gone bust, so it is absolutely not their fault that they are unemployed. But the one whose credit cards are maxed out and has two or three HP agreements and personal loans to pay off, is a lot worse off than the one who has spent less and doesn't have the loans. Brown's government was the feckless one with maxed out cards.

[martin_p]

The government wasn't responsible for the global crash, but it was responsible for the state of the UK economy at the time of the crash. And the UK economy was in a very poor state to meet it.

It's like two individuals who lose their jobs. They both have zero influence over the economy and the employer who has gone bust, so it is absolutely not their fault that they are unemployed. But the one whose credit cards are maxed out and has two or three HP agreements and personal loans to pay off, is a lot worse off than the one who has spent less and doesn't have the loans. Brown's government was the feckless one with maxed out cards.

By what measure are you claiming the U.K. economy was in a very poor state? It was certainly unbalanced, but that had been the case since the recession in the 80s with the economy more and more dependant on spiralling house prices and the service sector.

[martin_p]

You have certainly misunderstood. And I don't think that what I said was that complicated, but I can see how you misunderstood.

You mentioned that austerity was the cause of crushing poverty. I took that to mean that you believed there wasn't crushing poverty before and austerity caused it to happen - austerity created poverty where poverty hadn't been.

Obviously if by "caused" you meant that there was already poverty and austerity failed to solve it, then you wouldn't understand my response.

It’s clear that he’s talking about the increase in poverty caused by austerity. Yes poverty existed before austerity, but more people became ‘poverty stricken’ as a result of austerity.

[RingoMcCartney]

It seems that the reality deniers on here are airbrushing out Labours cosying up to the City of London and it's financial institutions.

Labour boasted of its "prawn cocktail offensive" as it went against all its socialist principles and gleefully jumped into bed with the bankers.

Peter Madelson - " We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

And the glaringly misguided brag of Gordon Brown- " We have abolished boom and bust !!!!!! "
[/size]

Here is a sample of Brown’s saucer-eyed adoration for financial whizzkids from his Mansion House speech in 2007. “I congratulate you on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London ... I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created." 

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach".Completely suckered by the arrogance and pushiness of the City elite, Brown was determined as Chancellor to let them have their head. He seemed to harbor the insane delusion that an island of 60 million souls could all make a living in the world on the backs of the mysterious activities of a few tens of thousands of people in the City and Canary Wharf.

https://www.socialist.net/brown-light-t ... lation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown's infamous policy of "light touch regulation" was a direct cause of the 2008 crash, people taking money out of Northenden Rock, tanking the economy and bailing out the banks and burdening generations yet unborn with the debt he personally put upon them.





Gordon Brown a so called "socialist," was responsible for the redistribution of DEBT.

[elwaclaret]

Given your reluctance to provide any evidence can I assume you’ve dropped your ridiculous claim that austerity was down to an accounting error?

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for me... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

[elwaclaret]

Unlike most on here I’m not into rosette party politics. A look at the partisan crap on here only reaffirms my position.

[martin_p]

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for you... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

You’ve stated some documentary that you can’t link to and no one else heard. I’ve googled it and the last war debt payment we made was in 2015 (in respect of WWI) and was peanuts compared to the size of the national debt and the amount of cuts made due to austerity. The debt from WWII was paid off in 2006.

Somehow this big debt that means austerity was unnecessary doesn’t seem to have made it to the Internet.

Edit - and I’m not trying to make myself look superior, I’m trying to get you to back up your claim. What’s wrong with that?

[martin_p]

It seems that the reality deniers on here are airbrushing out Labours cosying up to the City of London and it's financial institutions.

Labour boasted of its "prawn cocktail offensive" as it went against all its socialist principles and gleefully jumped into bed with the bankers.

Peter Madelson - " We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

And the glaringly misguided brag of Gordon Brown- " We have abolished boom and bust !!!!!! "
[/size]

Here is a sample of Brown’s saucer-eyed adoration for financial whizzkids from his Mansion House speech in 2007. “I congratulate you on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London ... I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created." 

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach".Completely suckered by the arrogance and pushiness of the City elite, Brown was determined as Chancellor to let them have their head. He seemed to harbor the insane delusion that an island of 60 million souls could all make a living in the world on the backs of the mysterious activities of a few tens of thousands of people in the City and Canary Wharf.

https://www.socialist.net/brown-light-t ... lation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown's infamous policy of "light touch regulation" was a direct cause of the 2008 crash, people taking money out of Northenden Rock, tanking the economy and bailing out the banks and burdening generations yet unborn with the debt he personally put upon them.





Gordon Brown a so called "socialist," was responsible for the redistribution of DEBT.

So you’re a Marxist now?

[If it be your will]

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for me... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

That's no good! You can't do that!

I, too, have spent valuable time checking this claim, thinking maybe it has merit. I, too, can find nothing of any material importance. So there's at least 2 of us. You can't make a bombshell claim and expect everyone else to research it, then become hostile when they genuinely can't find it!

[dsr]

By what measure are you claiming the U.K. economy was in a very poor state? It was certainly unbalanced, but that had been the case since the recession in the 80s with the economy more and more dependant on spiralling house prices and the service sector.

National debt way too high. (It still is.)

Brown thought he had abolished "boom and bust" so he borrowed to the hilt in "boom" years and didn't have an answer when "bust" happened.

The national debt is vastly understated by use of off-balance sheet finance, ie. public-private initiative. It tied the government into vastly expensive contracts that aren't mentioned in the national debt figures, and aren't (so far as I know) publicly quantified; even though, if it was a plc that was incurring these debts, they would have to be shown on the balance sheet as money owed. The government doesn't use normal financial rules.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

Byrne's note was following in the tradition of Reggie Maudling, who left a similar note to Callaghan when he took over the Exchequer in '64.

Britain was exposed to the financial crash due to lack of regulation around financial services, and for that we blame Thatcher (for deregulating), and the Major, Blair, and Brown governments for not reversing the more dangerous elements of this deregulation. During their time in opposition, the Tories called for more deregulation, and until the financial crisis hit, Osborne promised to match Labour's spending.

While in government, Labour could and should have taken a more interventionalist approach. At a time when all the certainties about economics were under question, Labour could have used QE to invest in the economy in a more proactive way, by funding infrastructure, and greening the economy. They could have turned the nationalised banks into investment engines for British business. And they could have overhauled banking regulations, taxation, and repatriated some British money from abroad.

The the Tories took power their reason for austerity was to bring the deficit down to zero by 2015. Not only did they fail to do this, and in doing so pretty much treble our national debt, but their policies have tipped a lot of people into miserable lives, and effectively transferred a lot of wealth from the poorest in the country to the richest.

[RingoMcCartney]

So you’re a Marxist now?

Realist.

[martin_p]

Realist.

You’re quoting (and agreeing with) Marxist websites from articles that say Capitalism is the problem so I assumed you were a Marxist now. Jeremy Corbyn only needs to be in the same postcode as a known Marxist to be tarred with the same brush.

[RingoMcCartney]

You’re quoting (and agreeing with) Marxist websites from articles that say Capitalism is the problem so I assumed you were a Marxist now. Jeremy Corbyn only needs to be in the same postcode as a known Marxist to be tarred with the same brush.

Whatever .

I just think the rewriting of history is wrong. Where I get my sources from to point it out is pretty irrelevant.

"We have abolished boom and bust"

Gordon Brown

[aggi]

I've got to say that I'm surprised by how much Crosspool has jumped onto the Boris bandwagon.

Believing that Johnson will keep his word and invest heavily in the North seems very naive given his track record of delivering on promises he's made in the past. Given that he was more than willing to break his word to his own constituents you can't put much faith in the Tory Party suddenly investing in the north when he's in charge just because he said it at some hustings.

[AndrewJB]

Regarding my above point, in reference to Greenmile fishing last night, I would say that hospitals, schools, police etc are not as important to warrant crashing the finances.

The reason being we have all three of those in place now, free at the point of need. We could argue more could be spent but the other three things I mentioned above (transport, broadband and social care) are way behind other developed nations and can only be accessed if you live in the right place or are wealthy. That is the difference. They have to be funded because we in the north (and not just the north) deserve it.

In other words a bit of Corbynomics and a bit of Toryomics. You could call it Crosspoolomics if you like.

The Northern Powerhouse has been around for four years now. What has it actually achieved?

https://www.ippr.org/blog/the-northern- ... 5-years-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

National debt way too high. (It still is.)

Brown thought he had abolished "boom and bust" so he borrowed to the hilt in "boom" years and didn't have an answer when "bust" happened.

The national debt is vastly understated by use of off-balance sheet finance, ie. public-private initiative. It tied the government into vastly expensive contracts that aren't mentioned in the national debt figures, and aren't (so far as I know) publicly quantified; even though, if it was a plc that was incurring these debts, they would have to be shown on the balance sheet as money owed. The government doesn't use normal financial rules.

You say Brown "borrowed to the hilt" - but as we know government debt has nearly trebled since 2010. I'm not defending Brown here, but pointing to the appalling financial record of the Tories. They've sold off big chunks of the public sphere since 2010 too, in addition to their huge cutbacks in spending (that have wreaked havoc on the lives of many of the less fortunate). And all the while - our deficit, which they promised to finish by 2015 - is still there.

Where has the money gone? This is a genuine question, so if anyone can tell me, I'll be much obliged.

[AndrewJB]

It seems that the reality deniers on here are airbrushing out Labours cosying up to the City of London and it's financial institutions.

Labour boasted of its "prawn cocktail offensive" as it went against all its socialist principles and gleefully jumped into bed with the bankers.

Peter Madelson - " We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

And the glaringly misguided brag of Gordon Brown- " We have abolished boom and bust !!!!!! "
[/size]

Here is a sample of Brown’s saucer-eyed adoration for financial whizzkids from his Mansion House speech in 2007. “I congratulate you on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London ... I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created." 

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach".Completely suckered by the arrogance and pushiness of the City elite, Brown was determined as Chancellor to let them have their head. He seemed to harbor the insane delusion that an island of 60 million souls could all make a living in the world on the backs of the mysterious activities of a few tens of thousands of people in the City and Canary Wharf.

https://www.socialist.net/brown-light-t ... lation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown's infamous policy of "light touch regulation" was a direct cause of the 2008 crash, people taking money out of Northenden Rock, tanking the economy and bailing out the banks and burdening generations yet unborn with the debt he personally put upon them.





Gordon Brown a so called "socialist," was responsible for the redistribution of DEBT.

According to a lot of people, Blair won three elections, and so therefore Labour should return to his appeasement of the rich approach rather than charting a path that history (or evidence, if you like) shows us would have avoided the financial catastrophe of 2008.

[RingoMcCartney]

According to a lot of people, Blair won three elections, and so therefore Labour should return to his appeasement of the rich approach rather than charting a path that history (or evidence, if you like) shows us would have avoided the financial catastrophe of 2008.

Labour would do well to learn not to appease globalists and EU nationalists, who act on behalf of financiers, the arms industry and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants. It tends to lead to illegal wars and the slaughter of millions.

[aggi]

Labour would do well to learn not to appease globalists and EU nationalists, who act on behalf of financiers, the arms industry and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants. It tends to lead to illegal wars and the slaughter of millions.

So they should have someone like Corbyn in charge? He seems against a lot of that kind of stuff.

[AndrewJB]

Labour would do well to learn not to appease globalists and EU nationalists, who act on behalf of financiers, the arms industry and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants. It tends to lead to illegal wars and the slaughter of millions.

I can't help but notice how you've framed your words. Surely not just 'globalists and EU nationalists who act...' but Any person or group who act on behalf of financiers, the arms industry, and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants? Is it globalists and EU nationalists who are bad, and their intersection with those industries makes things worse (which would therefore suggest that financiers, the arms industry, and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants aren't bad when their interests are looked after by other groups?

Moving beyond that distinction, what are we talking about when we use the term, 'globalist'? Is it someone who espouses globalisation? If so, I'm sure we can agree that project has had successes as well as failures. Most people - those with common sense, perhaps - would say 'let's build on the success, and do what we can to mitigate the negatives. Only the most narrow minded people would say it's all perfect, or all bad.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source= ... MCuQ5r6M98" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

So they should have someone like Corbyn in charge? He seems against a lot of that kind of stuff.

Thats right. And as I predicted the Establishment will do what ever is within its grasp to discredit him and, ultimately remove him.

The civil service making claims of him having a stroke a being frail, physically and mentally is just the start.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You say Brown "borrowed to the hilt" - but as we know government debt has nearly trebled since 2010. I'm not defending Brown here, but pointing to the appalling financial record of the Tories. They've sold off big chunks of the public sphere since 2010 too, in addition to their huge cutbacks in spending (that have wreaked havoc on the lives of many of the less fortunate). And all the while - our deficit, which they promised to finish by 2015 - is still there.

Where has the money gone? This is a genuine question, so if anyone can tell me, I'll be much obliged.

He raised the issue of the contracts Labour tied future governments into that are vastly expensive.

These will be contributing to the increase of national debt, at a guess, because money will be diverted to pay these contracts and not going towards other things like the national debt.

Although I don't know if we can mention what Labour did, something to do with whataboutary.

[RingoMcCartney]

I can't help but notice how you've framed your words. Surely not just 'globalists and EU nationalists who act...' but Any person or group who act on behalf of financiers, the arms industry, and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants? Is it globalists and EU nationalists who are bad, and their intersection with those industries makes things worse (which would therefore suggest that financiers, the arms industry, and monopolistic pharmaceutical giants aren't bad when their interests are looked after by other groups?

Moving beyond that distinction, what are we talking about when we use the term, 'globalist'? Is it someone who espouses globalisation? If so, I'm sure we can agree that project has had successes as well as failures. Most people - those with common sense, perhaps - would say 'let's build on the success, and do what we can to mitigate the negatives. Only the most narrow minded people would say it's all perfect, or all bad.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source= ... MCuQ5r6M98" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, and yes.

[AndrewJB]

He raised the issue of the contracts Labour tied future governments into that are vastly expensive.

These will be contributing to the increase of national debt, at a guess, because money will be diverted to pay these contracts and not going towards other things like the national debt.

Although I don't know if we can mention what Labour did, something to do with whataboutary.

You won't find me defending Labour's record on those con tricks, neither here nor a decade or more ago on the other board. As bad as PFI has been, the trebling of the national debt during nearly a decade of austerity, and privatisations is still a Tory calamity.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You won't find me defending Labour's record on those con tricks, neither here nor a decade or more ago on the other board. As bad as PFI has been, the trebling of the national debt during nearly a decade of austerity, and privatisations is still a Tory calamity.

Yeah it's a shambles by the Tories, but if they've got one hand tied due to contracts signed by Labour ....

We don't know what else they've had to take over/on courtesy of a labour government.

[AndrewJB]

Yeah it's a shambles by the Tories, but if they've got one hand tied due to contracts signed by Labour ....

We don't know what else they've had to take over/on courtesy of a labour government.

Perhaps they're still paying off projects initiated by Major's government? Their hands couldn't have been tied that much, because PFI was still being used by Cameron's government, and I think it was only recently that this government committed to not using the method any more.

A crap contract can and should be changed by act of parliament. That's what IDS did in order to avoid paying out to benefits claiments,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -poundland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Perhaps they're still paying off projects initiated by Major's government? Their hands couldn't have been tied that much, because PFI was still being used by Cameron's government, and I think it was only recently that this government committed to not using the method any more.

A crap contract can and should be changed by act of parliament. That's what IDS did in order to avoid paying out to benefits claiments,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -poundland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know the full ins and outs of the PFI contracts, but I think I read somewhere that the country will be paying for them for a few decades yet.

If a contract could be changed by an act of parliament then I think the government's would struggle to get anyone to do work on their behalf etc.

[aggi]

Thats right. And as I predicted the Establishment will do what ever is within its grasp to discredit him and, ultimately remove him.

The civil service making claims of him having a stroke a being frail, physically and mentally is just the start.

That does seem to be the case. You do get gullible people describing him as a terrorist-loving marxist and such like.

[AndrewJB]

I don't know the full ins and outs of the PFI contracts, but I think I read somewhere that the country will be paying for them for a few decades yet.

If a contract could be changed by an act of parliament then I think the government's would struggle to get anyone to do work on their behalf etc.

Both parties opposed PFI when they were in opposition, and then succumbed when in power. As you see from this link, it's not just the Exchequer who pays for these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skye_Brid ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Business contracts can be and are renegotiated with changes of circumstances. As people on here like to point out quite often, why would anyone (the government) walk into a negotiation (with a company profiteering excessively from a PFI contract - costing the country a lot of money) without their strongest negotiating position (be amenable to a change in contract, or we'll change the law and reduce your profits lower than what we're offering)? As for the government struggling to get companies to bid for future contracts, I think it's more a case of where there's money to be made, there are companies vying to make that money.

[elwaclaret]

That's no good! You can't do that!

I, too, have spent valuable time checking this claim, thinking maybe it has merit. I, too, can find nothing of any material importance. So there's at least 2 of us. You can't make a bombshell claim and expect everyone else to research it, then become hostile when they genuinely can't find it!

It is not me that became hostile, as someone who researches for a living I’m not interested in coming on a social media message board to take a busman holiday shock.

My statements were made in good faith, from knowledge gained on other things (I study history) so I’m aware of sources and legitimately of them, I don’t do Facebook etc. To filter the information, and this is the only social media I frequent regularly. If the reparations payments are not an open source yet, then that is a different issue. To suggest I was thinking of WWI understandable if you do not know my background, though designed to insult if you do. It may be that certain tasks I regularly engage in may rely on information that is not in the public Domain .... yet I make or made no claim about that on this thread, as I believed it to be fairly common knowledge as I genuinely believe that the information, given its subject matter is more likely have come from open source i.e. The BBC or documentaries, rather than any research directly into the falklands... though I accept this may be a case of study overlapping politics.

As I say it is not my direct field and so if the information is known to me it is not central to my study and so is not pre- referenced. If I am indeed in error, I apologise unreservedly if my musings on the subject were indeed in error, the only defence I offer is I STILL do not believe it to be so.... though my research will be more focused on modern history next semester.

[AndrewJB]

It is not me that became hostile, as someone who researches for a living I’m not interested in coming on a social media message board to take a busman holiday shock.

My statements were made in good faith, from knowledge gained on other things (I study history) so I’m aware of sources and legitimately of them, I don’t do Facebook etc. To filter the information, and this is the only social media I frequent regularly. If the reparations payments are not an open source yet, then that is a different issue. To suggest I was thinking of WWI understandable if you do not know my background, though designed to insult if you do. It may be that certain tasks I regularly engage in may rely on information that is not in the public Domain .... yet I make or made no claim about that on this thread, as I believed it to be fairly common knowledge as I genuinely believe that the information, given its subject matter is more likely have come from open source i.e. The BBC or documentaries, rather than any research directly into the falklands... though I accept this may be a case of study overlapping politics.

As I say it is not my direct field and so if the information is known to me it is not central to my study and so is not pre- referenced. If I am indeed in error, I apologise unreservedly if my musings on the subject were indeed in error, the only defence I offer is I STILL do not believe it to be so.... though my research will be more focused on modern history next semester.

This is how the BBC explain the "brexit warchest". It's not money saved, but room made to borrow an additional £26 Billion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48824320" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;