My "tiny" what?







You haven't answered the questions I asked.



To repeat: do you believe that either the global financial crisis was completely unconnected to that in the UK and a coincidence – or that Brown etc al caused that too?



Come on – it's not a difficult question to answer.







No. It. Was. Not.







Indeed, I doubt "careers" claim any expenses at all. Neither do carers – but that didn't stop that little fantasy of yours, did it? And I don't recall you acknowledging that you were incorrect on that score, in spite of being shown to be absolutely wrong.



But that's part of the point – you never do acknowledge being shown to be wrong.







The word is 'legislation'. And you claim to be a great intellect!



But since you're so much better than those of who don't live in "the real world" (©

sal paradise), perhaps you can stop the knee-jerk fantasy games and provide evidence for these assertions and claims.



IIRC – and I'll have to look for the charts and stats – the numbers claiming disability benefit fell during Labour's time in office (or certainly didn't rise). That's in the "real world", chucky boy – not in your rabid, tabloid fantasy world.



Health and safety is not just about workplaces. And accidents happen – see the relevant thread – that could have been avoided if health and safety regulations had been avoided.



Good grief – even a government minister admitted, a few weeks ago, that there is no problem with H&S legislation itself, but with the fear of litigation sending people to hide behind H&S. And then the knee-jerk brigade like you, who simply prefer to accept that it's somehow at the root of 'Broken Britain', without actually being able to explain what on Earth you even mean by that.







I haven't said he didn't – you're now into the realms of inventing red herrings in terms of this debate. However, I look forward to your condemnation of Thatcher and co for using the revenues from North Sea gas to deindustrialise.







You leapt in to a discussion accusing me of claiming that people should not buy bananas, when I had written absolutely nothing of the sort. And this from someone who flings around accusations against other posters that they can't read properly.







Thanks for another contribution that adds something intelligent to the debate. No, really.

Cameron now has a six point lead.



Take it!!

...in ???

And Labour retained a seat in a by-election with an 8% swing from Conservative to Labour after DC used the veto. A seat which had been won by the Tories in the late 80's general elections as well so not one that had been Labour for ever either.

You fail to point out that only 30% of potential voters voted and that a large porportion of that quantity were postal votes which had to be in before DC's Euro actions last week.



So claiming an overall swing of 8.5% from Tories to Labour is not a true reflection of the nation as a whole.



Not my words, but Radio 5 Live's Chief Political Commentator John Pienaar's.



You also fail to point out that despite the scaremongers on here, the majority of the UK public agree with Cameron.



I know it really really hurts you extreme left, Euro lovers on here. I know it hurts bad, but I'm sorry you are wrong.



It's time you moved on.

There are still Euros lovers on here? The Eurozone will break up shortly. The government is, according to the loony press (although they are usually correct on ths sort of thing), planning how to repatriate ca. 1 million brits (mainly retirees) from Spain and Portugal as they reckon Spanish banks will go bust.

Quote Dally="Dally"There are still Euros lovers on here? The Eurozone will break up shortly. The government is, according to the loony press (although they are usually correct on ths sort of thing), planning how to repatriate ca. 1 million brits (mainly retirees) from Spain and Portugal as they reckon Spanish banks will go bust.'" Sarko seems to be going the other way with this little gem : www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -london.do

Quote Dally="Dally"There are still Euros lovers on here? The Eurozone will break up shortly. The government is, according to the loony press (although they are usually correct on ths sort of thing), planning how to repatriate ca. 1 million brits (mainly retirees) from Spain and Portugal as they reckon Spanish banks will go bust.'" Sarko seems to be going the other way with this little gem : www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -london.do

I just find it hilarious reading the thoughts of all you little englanders. Somebody in the pub actually buys the Daily Star and reading the text messages they receive and print is similar to reading the guff from all you right-wing eeejits on here

You do realise that that is how statistics work don't you ?



You realise that the political press officers, the ones who decide which stories are to appear in the opinion sheets tomorrow, they are the ones who pick the statistics that suit their agendas and ignore the ones that don't ?



So losing a seat mid way through a term can easily be written off if only 30% of the electorate voted, and some of those were postal votes so theres another good excuse (what level does the percentage have to be before you can say with authority "Most of those were postal votes" ?), whilst all at the same time claiming a 6 point lead from another un-named source (you still haven't named it).



All of this bluster is of course to divert attention away from the grumblings of discontent at the no deal declared by Cameron and the fact that they lost a by election - you do understand how all this works don't you ?



Or do you just let Rupert Murdochs press formulate your opinions for you ?

We are winning.



You are losing.

I've voted in every election since 1979. As it's a secret ballot my choices remain so. No offence but you may be confusing a lack of political opinion with an opinion that I know all the answers, which I certainly do not. Unlike some other posters?

Indeed - and I agree the single market is vital. It's a shame we Europeans couldn't just stop there though.

Oh right, so Euro sceptics and people on the right of the political divide are all xenophobic, illiterate morons? Why didn't you say so earlier, all the time we've wasted NOT worshipping at your feet.



Silly us eh?

So you hold opinions without believing they're right? How odd.



But I've yet to see anyone on here who claims to "know all the answers" - perhaps you can point out who does and on what you base such a claim? That would mean showing evidence that they think that they "know ALL the answers", as you suggest.

So little, there is no capital E!



Anyway, why is someone opposed to Britain joining the Euro a 'little Englander?' Surely, they are rationale people? Why is it somehow superior to succumb to the undemocratic act of faith that is the Euro project?

Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up.



([url=http://lostalumni.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/looking-to-the-future/source[/url)



The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years.

There are reasons why it didn't stop there, and some of them are at least understandable even if not what you might call good ones. In fact there are some pretty strong reasons why a Europe integrated to [isome[/i degree above and beyond a simple free trade area is a good thing. Trouble is that the whole project has been botched, despite some good intentions by some parties. And I'm not sure what, if anything, can be rescued from the current sorry state of affairs.

Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy.



The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

This is true. The conservatives agreed with just about every Labour spending policy prior to the point where they were forced to show their hand (which I should say was far, far too late and the media simply let them get away with it).



Capitalism has always needed protecting from itself. Left unchecked in a resource-finite environment it must ultimately devour itself which is why the economic legislative system was constructed. Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that people still think they are living in a world where the key economic actors are states. It's comfortable to think "Britain" really can shape its own destiny but the reality is that in a world where half the GDP of the US is cycled through the financial markets daily, a corporation or coalitions of corporations can effectively bankrupt a country (via capital flight or such) which chooses to implement unfavourable policies, where unelected and unaccountable trans-national bodies such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank wield tremendous power (far greater than anything Cameron, Blair & Thatcher put together could ever muster) the latitude for economic decision-making is narrower than a pencil mark.



Of course, this is nothing new. Seventy years ago countries (such as Germany) were complaining bitterly about the likes of the Rotschchilds sabotaging economic reforms. But back then a prime minister or a president or a chancellor did have the ability to fundamentally re-shape his country's economic system. Today this just isn't possible - unless you are willing to brave the colossal penalties. I mean, if you want a good example look at what happened to Yugoslavia when it chose to take on the IMF & World Bank.



Cameron has plenty of faults. But he is simply a pawn in a much greater game.

Who on here has advocated us joining the Euro anytime soon?

It's taken some time but you're getting there

You missed out the "naa naa naa naa naa" from the end of that insightful post

I know. That's why we should have continued to run a surplus to put ourselves in a better position to cope when things did go wrong.







Yes they were sustainable, in the short term, for as long as the boom continued. Unfortunately we are now paying the price for that short-termism. In the medium term the boom was always going to end and Labour should have know that and they should have been preparing for it. Instead they choose to increase spending.







The boom was going to end one way or another. Labour should have (and could have) put us in a better situation to cope.

I thought Gordie promised an end to boom and bust?

He didn't promise anything. He actually claimed to have achieved it. Not his finest moment.