The Coaliton & The Cuts

[HST Power]

I spend a lot of my spare time working in Parliament, and I thought a good thread to create would be one on the Coalition and the spending cuts.

Seeing as the Conservatives couldn't rule as one party, they had to join with the Liberal Democrats.

In your opinion, would Labour do a better job of handling the defecit? Would you rather Miliband was our Prime Minister?

My answer is NO!

 

[Ferret]

I spend a lot of my spare time working in Parliament, and I thought a good thread to create would be one on the Coalition and the spending cuts.

Seeing as the Conservatives couldn't rule as one party, they had to join with the Liberal Democrats.

In your opinion, would Labour do a better job of handling the defecit? Would you rather Miliband was our Prime Minister?

My answer is NO!

Whoever was in power at the current time would be having to wield the axe. There's a piece in the Independent today that hits the nail on the head - although it's Balls' job to oppose as a member of HM Opposition, you can bet your life he'd be having to make unpopular decisions if it was he in the job and not Osborne.

 

[Old Timer]

I spend a lot of my spare time working in Parliament, and I thought a good thread to create would be one on the Coalition and the spending cuts.

With respect there are no "Cuts". That is Labour and Socialist propaganda which plays on the belief that "Cuts" means a reduction in money put into the services now.

I am disappointed that working in Parliament you have missed the opportunity to clarify this in your post.

By the end of this Parliament, public spending as a proportion will be higher than it is now, and only slightly lower than Labour's planned (but publicly denied at the time) genuine spending "cuts".

What IS being cut is the level of increase, but again only slightly more than Labour's original plans.

For people to claim these are "cuts" is disingenuous, but at least they get a cheap soundbite headline.

As for the Conservatives not being able to govern as one Party, neither could Labour, so I am not sure what your point here is ?

The Conservatives could have formed a Government as they had the largest number of voters, but managing a Parliament on the need to gain cross-party support never works as Labour discovered 1977 to 1979.

If you exclude the Parliamentary Boundary changes which Labour cynically introduced after the 1997 GE, the Conservatives had a greater percentage of the voters than Labour did in 1997. The Boundary changes were implemented so as to require the Conservatives to have to achieve an 8% swing just to achieve parity with the pre-1997 situation. The current Boundary system favours Labour who statistically need fewer votes than the Conservatives to win a seat. Again something I am sure you must be aware of ?

As the world situation emerges, it is becoming clear that the economic experts now agree that inflating the economy as Labour did pre the GE was actually the wrong thing to do, which is why the EU members are now making attempts at harsh (genuine) cuts in their social and welfare budgets. The continued unhappiness of Germany in having to bale out various Mediterranean Countries will come to the fore soon, as more and more cuts are made in the German economy, and pressure mounts for them to bale out of the Euro.

 

[BlythPower]

With respect there are no "Cuts". That is Labour and Socialist propaganda which plays on the belief that "Cuts" means a reduction in money put into the services now.

If it looks like a cut, smells like a cut and - most importantly - hurts like a cut, then it IS a cut. People believe there's a reduction in money put into services because there IS a reduction in money put into services. How could anyone in their right mind claim otherwise? Even the ConDems themselves don't claim there's no cuts!

 

[Oswyntail]

......
In your opinion, would Labour do a better job of handling the defecit? Would you rather Miliband was our Prime Minister?

My answer is NO!

I agree. Intellectually and emotionally, Labour are better suited to opposition, with their roots in standing up for the little people against those in power. Sometimes this can be well reasoned - as in the generation of Crossman and the like - or can be simply yahboo, as has been the case in recent years. Blair tried to change this, but there was very little intellectual quality available to him, which is why the "the other lot left us in this mess" was still being used in the 2010 election!
As for the current government, I think working in coalition is a bold experiment and I hope it works. Of course there are tensions involved, but there are those when only one party is in government.

 

[WatcherZero]

You forgot to factor in the 5.5% inflation that the Conservatives have now given us when saying we will be spending more in five years time, in real terms we will be spending less. You can already see that in the NHS which the party is claimed as 'protected' and that their acually putting in £1bn a year more than Labour they claim but Hospitals are cutting 50,000 jobs.

 

[Old Timer]

If it looks like a cut, smells like a cut and - most importantly - hurts like a cut, then it IS a cut. People believe there's a reduction in money put into services because there IS a reduction in money put into services. How could anyone in their right mind claim otherwise? Even the ConDems themselves don't claim there's no cuts!

Have you looked at the figures...or just listened to then usual Left Wing rhetoric as you always do ?

You forgot to factor in the 5.5% inflation that the Conservatives have now given us when saying we will be spending more in five years time, in real terms we will be spending less. You can already see that in the NHS which the party is claimed as 'protected' and that their acually putting in £1bn a year more than Labour they claim but Hospitals are cutting 50,000 jobs.

A little research will reveal why the inflation figure is at this level, try looking at Political unrest outside the UK for a start.

Hospitals are cutting jobs simply because they cannot afford the costs of the lease from all the PFI schemes that Brown set up. A good example of this is Hinchinbroke, but I am sure even you local hospital is having to make savings (cuts if you want) as a result of costs imposed through Labour's PFI actions. There are many hospitals who have wards that they cannot staff because they cannot afford to employ the staff - something that has existed since well before 2010.

And for the record these cuts were actually hurting the NHS long before the 2010 GE, a fact about which those who support and repeat the Labour rhetoric about "Tory cuts" remain very strangely silent, as indeed they did then, Obviously cuts under Labour are invisible and do no harm to those on that side of the spectrum.

A recent study into the NHS discovered that in actual fact the NHS has become more inefficient under Labour and even more money is wasted through inefficiencies and management overheads that ever before. There are numerous Medical websites where you can read of these inefficiencies and the toll they are taking as a result of management by fear and target. Or you could simply buy Private Eye and read about it in there.

 

[WatcherZero]

Is that why Germany has a 1% inflation rate? Switzerland 0.7? US and Italy 1.4%? France 1.6%?
Our inflation rate is up there with the African continent!

My local Hospital trust has never had a PFI scheme but they are cutting one of their three hospitals this year because theyve been asked to find savings by the government so that it can spend it on this stupid reform giving control of 90% of the NHS budget to GP's which allows GPs to actually make a profit on the operations they authorise (5% kickbacks to GPs are allowed).

 

[BlythPower]

Have you looked at the figures...or just listened to then usual Left Wing rhetoric as you always do ?

I've looked at the figures - they're all over the TV and papers for us all to see. In the overwhelming majority of cases public sector organisations are undergoing massive CUTS - be they councils, fire and rescue authorities (FRAs), police authorities, MOD, etc, etc. A tiny handful of FRAs and councils (funnily enough all in staunchly Conservative rural areas) are getting tiny increases, otherwise everyone else is undergoing CUTS.

It's no rhetoric - it's fact. The only rhetoric is your unbelievable attempt to persuade people that no cuts are taking place when everyone's experience is that, yes, cuts are occurring everywhere.

 

[Old Timer]

I agree. Intellectually and emotionally, Labour are better suited to opposition, with their roots in standing up for the little people against those in power. Sometimes this can be well reasoned - as in the generation of Crossman and the like - or can be simply yahboo, as has been the case in recent years.

In order to simply exist, Labour have to have an underclass that will support them.

The Conservative ethos is for people to develop and look after themselves rather than rely on the State providing. The great Political changes from 1979 to the present has seen many, many people who would be called "working class" lift themselves out of state dependency.

How many people now own their own home ? How many people have at least two cars on the drive ? How many people are now self employed ?

Paying people to sit around doing nothing is detrimental to the economy of any Country, and even the Soviets realised this, so they made jobs for people, even menial jobs. Labour however are quite happy to sustain this underclass because it forms a core voter group. All rather ironic bearing in mind that pretty much all of the Labour senior figures and MPs are either university graduates who have only ever spent their lives in Politics, or are from very rich and privileged backgrounds, but again have no experience of life or an understanding that the ordinary person is driven to improve their lot, and really do not want to be caste into a pit of dependency on the State.

If you talk to anyone who has been unemployed and is not a professional scrounger, they will tell you all they want is to be able to work to improve their lot, a house, a car or a better car, foreign holidays, etc, etc. Trouble is these are all opposite to what Labour stand for.

I've looked at the figures - they're all over the TV and papers for us all to see. In the overwhelming majority of cases public sector organisations are undergoing massive CUTS - be they councils, fire and rescue authorities (FRAs), police authorities, MOD, etc, etc. A tiny handful of FRAs and councils (funnily enough all in staunchly Conservative rural areas) are getting tiny increases, otherwise everyone else is undergoing CUTS.

It's no rhetoric - it's fact. The only rhetoric is your unbelievable attempt to persuade people that no cuts are taking place when everyone's experience is that, yes, cuts are occurring everywhere.

OK let us accept your blind argument. Are you saying that Labour would NOT have introduced ANY cuts whatsoever ?

Are you saying that Labour lied during the GE when they claimed to have no plans to cut yet later papers were proved that to be a lie, and in some cases the Cuts were bigger than the Conservatives assessed necessary ?

I suggest you read articles like http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/nhs_spending.pdf rather than some of the stuff you obviously read.

Is that why Germany has a 1% inflation rate? Switzerland 0.7? US and Italy 1.4%? France 1.6%?.

You are saying therefore that there is no economic difficulty facing any of these Countries ?

 

[BlythPower]

In order to simply exist, Labour have to have an underclass that will support them.

Are you about to propose a final solution for this underclass?

OK let us accept your blind argument. Are you saying that Labour would NOT have introduced ANY cuts whatsoever ?

My argument is nothing to do with whether or not Labour had plans to cut (they're on record as stating their intention as being to halve the deficit during this current parliament). My argument is against your ludicrous denial that CUTS are taking place. I note you are now changing the subject to avoid having to justify your strange claim which is in direct oppostion to everyone else's experience.

 

[Old Timer]

Are you about to propose a final solution for this underclass?.

No I would leave that to the Left, after all they have a long history of being very good at it.

My argument is against your ludicrous denial that CUTS are taking place. I note you are now changing the subject to avoid having to justify your strange claim which is in direct oppostion to everyone else's experience.

OK let me put it into simple English for you.

Public spending will still be higher as a percentage of GDP in 2014 than it is today. Please tell me therefore how you interpret this as a cut ?

 

[BlythPower]

Shrinking GDP for a start...

 

[mailman]

If it looks like a cut, smells like a cut and - most importantly - hurts like a cut, then it IS a cut. People believe there's a reduction in money put into services because there IS a reduction in money put into services. How could anyone in their right mind claim otherwise? Even the ConDems themselves don't claim there's no cuts!

What the government is cutting is the rate of increase in spending. In 5 years time they will be spending MORE then than they are today.

Mailman

 

[SS4]

In order to simply exist, Labour have to have an underclass that will support them.

Or Untermenschen in German, the connotations on this word are clear

The Conservative ethos is for people to develop and look after themselves rather than rely on the State providing.

For those that can. What about the sick? The disabled? The elderly? Carers? Conservative ethos is to go after the poor and demonise them purely for being poor and from a poor family - [link - The Guardian]The last three paragraphs are the interesting ones. Meritocracy I think not. Tuition fees raised to £6000 a year without any added protection for students from poorer backgrounds.
Another cornerstone of Conservative ethos is to treat those claiming benefit as the aforementioned Untermenschen. Housing benefit being reduced and social housing having to be a minimum of 80% market rent is a clear attack on the poor. Much more is lost in tax avoidance than in benefit fraud

Jobs are needed for people to develop themselves. The unemployment rate has stayed much the same (ONS) despite a very clear conservative pledge to increase the number of jobs in the private sector (oblivious to the fact that they cannot force private sector jobs?)

The great Political changes from 1979 to the present has seen many, many people who would be called "working class" lift themselves out of state dependency.

It's easy to be smug about a self-fulfilling prophecy:
A) "Working Class" to be lifted out of dependency
B) Thatcher destroyed the working class industries
C) Ergo no more working class people almost be definition
D) A) is fulfilled.

How many people now own their own home ? How many people have at least two cars on the drive ? How many people are now self employed ?

GDP has increased too and didn't the Conservative party allow people to buy their houses off the council at knock down prices? Perhaps you should be asking yourself why so many (young) people cannot get on the housing ladder today?

Paying people to sit around doing nothing is detrimental to the economy of any Country, and even the Soviets realised this, so they made jobs for people, even menial jobs

So why are the Conservatives cutting 500,000(!!) public sector jobs? Especially in Labour areas.

Labour however are quite happy to sustain this underclass because it forms a core voter group.

It certainly helps but if what you say is true and given the rise in unemployment due to the recession why did Labour not win outright.

All rather ironic bearing in mind that pretty much all of the Labour senior figures and MPs are either university graduates who have only ever spent their lives in Politics, or are from very rich and privileged backgrounds, but again have no experience of life or an understanding that the ordinary person is driven to improve their lot, and really do not want to be caste into a pit of dependency on the State.

I agree with you there. A politician today is a career rather than a vocation. The sort of person who studies at university and is only in it for themselves shown by all parties moving their important candidates to very safe seats (a very strong reason for a YES vote on AV)

If you talk to anyone who has been unemployed and is not a professional scrounger, they will tell you all they want is to be able to work to improve their lot, a house, a car or a better car, foreign holidays, etc, etc. Trouble is these are all opposite to what Labour stand for.

They will also tell you how hard it is to actually find a job, how they are being made to feel like a scrounger and part of an underclass and how they're stigmatised by society. I can't believe that Labour are against that though.
What do you think of the roughly 70% ESA failure yet a roughly 40% successful appeal rate?

OK let us accept your blind argument. Are you saying that Labour would NOT have introduced ANY cuts whatsoever ?

No. It would have been slower in much the same way you don't chop your arm off in order to stop a finger infection.

Are you saying that Labour lied during the GE when they claimed to have no plans to cut yet later papers were proved that to be a lie, and in some cases the Cuts were bigger than the Conservatives assessed necessary ?

Everyone lies in the election period


In all honesty I expected exactly this kind of behaviour from the Tories. It's the Lib Dems who I have special hatred for, selling their soul for power. David Cameron is very clever (and has good taste in football ) - he's managed to deflect public anger onto Nick Clegg.

 

[Old Timer]

SS4
I would be wary of using any information from the Guardian. It is hardly an unbiased source, with a reputation for cherry-picking facts and statistics to suit its own position, and facts and statistics which it sometimes misrepresents either through a lack of understanding or cynically. It is a newspaper whose reporters enjoyed privilege and patronage whilst at the same time denying the working classes from enjoying the same opportunities they themselves had.

I would also refer to the increasing scandal of the Guardian demonising Companies from making money from hedgefunds whilst it has at the same time made enormous profits itself from hedge fund investments. This is also a newspaper which operates some very complicated tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying UK tax, and one whose employment practices are to say the least questionable when it operates the same practices in private that it publicly denigrates others for using.

Still there we see true Socialism in its finest, undiluted hypocritical form.

I dont have the time to get into a detailed debate on the subject but I would make the following quick observations.

Thatcher did not destroy working class industries. This is pure Leftist propaganda and disingenuous rhetoric. The truth was that the UK was being undercut in manufacturing by subsidised production both within the EU as well as within Soviet Union Countries. For example the Soviets made it cheaper to send coal from Poland to the dockside in the UK cheaper than it could be gotten to the surface in the UK, thus undercutting coal. In addition the demand for coal was falling dramatically from the 1970s onwards.

Cars, were subsidised in the UK until we could not afford it, and continuing industrial unrest made car production hit and miss. Poor quality and workmanship together with higher prices made foreign imports which were cheaper, more reliable. and more technically advanced were bought by the very people who later blamed the Conservatives for the loss of the car industry. Even today people will go out and buy a BMW or a Mercedes simply because of what it is, and not all these people come from the Middle or Upper classes.

In the 1970s, the great British public made UK produced goods into the por quality that they were, and then destroyed their own jobs by buying foreign produced items. You wont remember the various but British campaigns in the 70s but I do..

Housing - Take a look at the average "landlord" today. They are not wealthy Upper Class Squires. Many of them are working people who have decided to make a killing of their own people. They have driven up the costs of homes buy buying to let and removing starter homes from the market.

Jobs. Labour introduced many non-jobs (see the pages of the Guardian for some good examples) which they located in Labour voting areas. They also reorganised and moved offices into those same areas. You are obviously not aware of the various job cuts that were being made under Labour during their period, even though Brown made no secret of this with his "efficiencies" statements.

The job losses (were does your figure come from ?) were in any case inevitable and would have happened under Labour.

My objection to the various posts on here is that pretty quickly they descend into the same old tired Leftist propaganda even though the subject is far more complex. To simply say that the "Tories hate the Working Class" and the "Tories Destroy Jobs" is both disingenuous and untrue as well as being offensive to the intelligence of those on here who understand that this is simply not the case. There is no black and white here, despite what some would want to preach.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, obviously you prefer the unbiased opinion of the Daily Telegraph and Sun. Every paper has an editorial slant, the Guardian is indeed liberal left though calling it socialist is a tad ludicrous. The Conservative party pledged to reduce these non jobs in government, the 'Special Advisors' but has actually increased them over Labour numbers. They gave David Camerons personal photographer a £130k a year public sector job until the public found out and he quietly resigned, jobs for the boys culture is already back in force and I fail to see the difference in practise.

You will also find that the loss of industries like the Coal mining industry was not about subsidy but a party policy to shift the economy from resource production and manufacturing which was considered third world industries to services and white collar jobs which were considered the aspirational jobs of the future. Now they are rolling back and trying to restart manufacturing and reduce the size of the City of London because they realised their mistake, that you cant base an entire economy on service jobs, you need to have millions employed in manufacturing and resource production to underpin the financial services industry.

 

[142094]

You will also find that the loss of industries like the Coal mining industry was not about subsidy but a party policy to shift the economy from resource production and manufacturing which was considered third world industries to services and white collar jobs which were considered the aspirational jobs of the future. Now they are rolling back and trying to restart manufacturing and reduce the size of the City of London because they realised their mistake, that you cant base an entire economy on service jobs, you need to have millions employed in manufacturing and resource production to underpin the financial services industry.

Well said. I envy places such as Japan and Germany which still have a lot of their manufacturing industries in place. Not like over here where everything was sold off and shipped abroad. Still, we give subsidies to companies such as Nissan and Hitachi to send things over here to assemble. The mind really does boggle.

 

[Railsigns]

Thanks heavens for the likes of "Tory Boy"/Old Timer, keeping up the image of Tories as arrogant "born to rule" pompous tossers; people like that are such a gift to the left. What amazes me though is how some people, having voted a vile arrogant party into power, seem surprised when that party arrogantly implements vile policies. Tories ruined the railways last time round and they'll have ruined the NHS before this parliament is over. The day when this smug bunch of Jeremy Hunts leaves government can't come soon enough.

 

[SS4]

What amazes me though is how some people, having voted a vile arrogant party into power, seem surprised when that party arrogantly implements vile policies. Tories ruined the railways last time round and they'll have ruined the NHS before this parliament is over. The day when this smug bunch of Jeremy Hunts leaves government can't come soon enough.

Interestingly just got C4 news on in the background and unhappiness is it's highest since 1992.

That does amaze me, perhaps it's a case of the iron fist behind the velvet glove? Much more galling must be for those who voted Lib Dem hoping for a government of the Left but instead ending up with them aiding the Right. I was lucky since Labour won Birmingham Erdington.

 

[HST Power]

Whoever was in power at the current time would be having to wield the axe. There's a piece in the Independent today that hits the nail on the head - although it's Balls' job to oppose as a member of HM Opposition, you can bet your life he'd be having to make unpopular decisions if it was he in the job and not Osborne.

You hit the nail on the head mate! There's a terrible mess to clear up (which was left by Labour, as Ed Miliband has admitted) and one way or the other, it has to be cleaned up. We cannot escape it. Before we shoot David Cameron and Osborne down, would any other party be doing any differently?

 

[Zoe]

It's the Lib Dems who I have special hatred for, selling their soul for power. David Cameron is very clever (and has good taste in football ) - he's managed to deflect public anger onto Nick Clegg.

The LibDems will be decimated at the next election. Remember how before 1997 they only had about 20 seats? Unfortunately I expect their vote will be split. None of the main parties are currently offering socialist policies so many socialists won't vote and so that may well leave us with a Tory majority. That said they way Clegg sold out it's effectively a Tory majority now.

 

[Railsigns]

There's a terrible mess to clear up (which was left by Labour, as Ed Miliband has admitted)

Some of us are intelligent enough to realise that "left by Labour" / "inherited from Labour" doesn't mean the same as "caused by Labour". Tories can't blame Labour for the "terrible mess", because it would be dishonest to do so. The most they can do is to use phrases like "this mess we inherited from Labour" and hope that less intelligent people will interpret that as "this mess that was caused by Labour". Obviously you've fallen for the Tory spin. Better luck next time.

 

[Zoe]

Housing - Take a look at the average "landlord" today. They are not wealthy Upper Class Squires. Many of them are working people who have decided to make a killing of their own people. They have driven up the costs of homes buy buying to let and removing starter homes from the market.

The lack of social housing has resulted to more homeless people. Some landlords are charging extortante rents and if you happen to be unemployed even through no fault of your own you can forget having anywhere to live, most landlords refuse to rent to anyone claiming benefits.

 

[Pumbaa]

News today of the caps/limits on foreign students entering the UK is appalling. Universities have already warned that it will deprive them of £millions, only strengthening the case for higher fees to make up for that loss.

Also, it will be practically impossible for non-EU students to do a PhD in the UK. You have to earn a minimum of £20k/year to remain once you've finished being taught... You won't get those earnings in the 4/5 years you spend doing it FFS.

Barring students who can't speak English from coming to England to learn how to speak English... You couldn't make this up.

Who else is in London on the 26th?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

SS4
I would be wary of using any information from the Guardian. It is hardly an unbiased source, with a reputation for cherry-picking facts and statistics to suit its own position, and facts and statistics which it sometimes misrepresents either through a lack of understanding or cynically. It is a newspaper whose reporters enjoyed privilege and patronage whilst at the same time denying the working classes from enjoying the same opportunities they themselves had..

Feel free to check against the Indy, you'll find broadly the same material. Others have pointed out how all media is biased to an extent.

Thatcher didn't just destroy working class industry in the UK, she annhiliated it. It was not the right thing to do. Yes, SOMEthing had to be done, but what happened was not the best course of action, just as what we are seeing today is not the best course of action. Restructuring, support and stimulated development in key industries would have been a better alternative, but it's not in the mindset of a Conservative. Other countries managed it, countries such as, oh lets say Germany, Sweden, New Zealand...

People are slowly waking up to the fact that this will hurt them, a lot. It can only get quicker, and hopefully stronger each day.

 

[Mojo]

Who else is in London on the 26th?

Yep, I'm taking up the chance of extra crowds to build up some extra hours at work

 

[Caped Crusader]

Who else is in London on the 26th?

I will be there supporting my fellow brothers and sisters with Uncle Bob's green and yellow army!

In all seriousness I am going along with family and friends, nurses, airline staff and railway workers. We will all be paying our own way.

I also vote Green because I am a tree hugging hippy.

 

[Old Timer]

You will also find that the loss of industries like the Coal mining industry was not about subsidy but a party policy to shift the economy from resource production and manufacturing which was considered third world industries to services and white collar jobs which were considered the aspirational jobs of the future. Now they are rolling back and trying to restart manufacturing and reduce the size of the City of London because they realised their mistake, that you cant base an entire economy on service jobs, you need to have millions employed in manufacturing and resource production to underpin the financial services industry.

Yes, fine if that is what you want to think carry on old chap. Really cannot be bothered to debate with someone who cannot even do some basic economic research of the times. Try reading a few political autobiographies of the time, those of the Labour Ministers for a start.....You might learn some uncomfortable truths.

Thanks heavens for the likes of "Tory Boy"/Old Timer, keeping up the image of Tories as arrogant "born to rule" pompous tossers; people like that are such a gift to the left. What amazes me though is how some people, having voted a vile arrogant party into power, seem surprised when that party arrogantly implements vile policies. Tories ruined the railways last time round and they'll have ruined the NHS before this parliament is over. The day when this smug bunch of Jeremy Hunts leaves government can't come soon enough.

Again yet another whose lack of knowledge demonstrates a blind ignorance to the true facts. There have been enough debates and facts posted about investment in BR during between the 60s and the 90s prove you inutterably wrong, but why bother with facts when abuse will prove your point ?

And if you even knew something about me, you would know my Politics are not Conservative but again it doesn't matter really does it because anyone who holds a contrary view to you and is aware of the damage that Labour have done already to the NHS and the basis of our public services is simply a "Tory Tosser". :roll:

Thatcher didn't just destroy working class industry in the UK, she annhiliated it. It was not the right thing to do. Yes, SOMEthing had to be done, but what happened was not the best course of action, just as what we are seeing today is not the best course of action. Restructuring, support and stimulated development in key industries would have been a better alternative, but it's not in the mindset of a Conservative. Other countries managed it, countries such as, oh lets say Germany, Sweden, New Zealand....

As one of the few on here who can see an opposing view, may I suggest when you get chance you read some of the Political autobiographies of the 70s and 80s ? I have read extensively to understand what took place during that period, having lived through it unlike most on here.

Former Labour Ministers admit that ultimately what Mrs Thatcher had to do in the 1980s was inevitable, given the fact that for a period economic policy was dictated by their dictums as a condition of the bail out loans of the late 70s. Even Brown and Bliar in their own recent biographies even acknowledge this and accept that what occurred would have occurred under a Labour Government.

To you I wish a good night.

Further debate with those who are blinkered is a waste of time, and costs too much from where I am. Buenos Noches

 

[Yew]

Britain can take on india and china for manufacturing costs, and it could have in the 70's. New computer aided manufacturing techniques could have taken the price point of british goods, and the quality up, to give favorable market conditions.

For isntance in the 19th century, Cotton was being taken from india, processed in british mills, and sold back to the indians for less than they could produce it. If you have the technology, you can undercut anyone.

 

[jon0844]

We'd have to also have people who have pride in doing a good job and with the right skills and intelligence to do a good job.

We've become so dumbed down in recent years that I really fear for our manufacturing industries. We clearly can't seem to do a good job in the service industry either.

Of course we CAN do it, but WILL we do it?

Of course, I keep forgetting that in the last ten years we've been putting out the smartest kids ever - all getting A grades and walking away with loads of degrees. So what if they can't fill in a job application form, speak English properly or add up?!

I even read to today about the problem with finding teachers who can actually do maths. What have we allowed to happen in this country for a generation? (Labour and Conservative both get the blame on this one).