Wilf Rosenberg

Quote: tvoc "Contains some factual inaccuracies as far as I can see but I take the point that Labour lost the general election just disagree (under the parliamentary system we have) that the Conservatives won it, indeed under the constitution Labour still had first dibs at forming the next government but the numbers didn't allow it without forming the mythical rainbow coalition. Still Funny how the Lib-Dems plain lied to the Tories about what Labour had offered them though in order to get the referendum on the alternative vote.'"

What factual inaccuracies?

Quote: tvoc "One third of the voting population rejected all politicians. It's a UK parliament made up of 650 constituencies in four home nations. If there was an England parliament then the Tories would always be in power, thankfully there isn't and until such time as there is (which should be never under the Conservative and Unionist party) it's a moot point you appear to be making.'"

IMO we should reject 100% of the current politicians of all parties as they all seem to be in it for money now with no experience of a proper job.

But whats fair about a system that allows Scotland to have its own parliament funded (by England) with the Scots having a vote for both Parliaments, while the English (who produce most of the wealth) only having a say in Westminster affairs? I am sorry you think its a moot point but it would appear you will put up with this unfairness just so the Labour party can win an election. I wonder if you still go along with this if the Scottish nationalists were to win most of the labour seats in Scotland?

If Scotland and Wales want independance to decide their own affairs that is fine but in gaining this they should lose their vote for the Westminster Parliament. The system should have changed when they got their own Parliament as it is it distorts democracy in England.

Quote: tvoc "The country clearly couldn't and didn't vote for a coalition as it wasn't on the ballot paper. They voted in 650 local MP's, for who knows what reasons but the co-ordination required to ensure a balanced parliament is way beyond the electorate. Of course the Tories, as the biggest party, could have gone it alone as a minority government but that would have been a disaster for them with the tail wagging the dog.'"

Yes I already said a coalition wasn't on the ballot paper. But there was much discusion in the run up to the election about PR and its effects ie

The manifestos were decided upon long before the red book. Your "thanks to Labour's support of the economy" mantra is straight from the spin and lies of your friends Brown, Mandelson and Campbell. Certainly Labour went on a disgraceful spending spree earlier this year without having the budget or funds in the bank purely to win some votes at the election. The growth you talk about came mainly from those wicked bankers and Conservative businesses.

Quote: tvoc "I'm not blaming the Tories at all for Labour's actions in office (I think you are mis-representing me there) I am merely saying with regard to the regulation of the financial services that the Tories in opposition were calling for even less regulation not more. Therefore if you think Labour made a mistake it's also incredulous to think it would have been any different under the Tories much the same as when Blair took us into Iraq (against some notable Labour voices) it was with the unanimous front bench support of the official opposition. Afterall who was it that said

I repeat. It was not a lack of regulation that was the problem. It was that Labour changed the responsibility from one authority to be split between three authorities. The result was that no one was minding the store. Each authority blamed the other for not spotting the risks of financial problems that were to come. The signs were there and the rules were in place. It was Brown's system that failed.

Now I have not mentioned the war. You did and may "think you got away with it". But if you want to go there then please also record the way Parliament was misled by the "dodgy security document" edited by Bliar and Campbell. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that could wipe us out in less than an hour? We now all know that Bliar had already made an agreement with Bush and sought to mislead Parliament into backing him. Another sorry episode in the Labour legacy.

Quote: tvoc "Besides which (going back) isn't the argument, if you over regulate the city it up sticks and takes it's wealth creation elsewhere? '"

I agree we have to accept the way the world works. As I said there was enough regulation already it just wasn't applied correctly due to the stupid 3 pronged Labour regulators.

Quote: tvoc "I'm trying to look forward, not back. I'm concerned at the coalition's choice (not Labours) of how much to cut and how quickly and whether the recovery will falter (returning us to recession or like Japan experienced years of flatlining growth) and in addition which sections will bear the brunt of the cuts. I simply don't accept the UK economy is comparable to the ones you are highlighting'"
.

Here we agree with regard to the size and speed of the cuts. But the world economy is a fast changing place at present with currency wars likely to have a major effect and may even cause a late change in the timescales of some of the planned cuts.

I am not comparing the UK economy with the "PIGS". What I am saying is the UK national debt as a percentage of GDP is comparable with the "PIGS". This is where we are out of step with all the other leading world economies. Blair, Brown & Co never paid off any of our structural debt when times were good. They chose to win popular support (like yours) by throwing money at public services and growing the state all on further borrowed money which we simply could not afford or deserve.

Quote: tvoc "OK so finally you've found something we can agree on, as I've been trying to do all along. It is the timing and the degree of removing the structural deficit. Nobody is denying Labour would also be making cuts indeed Darling said something like 'even worse than those under Thatcher' (although it's a fallacy that Thatcher's governments actually made any cuts in the year on year total of public spending - but it's a comparison that appears to resonate with the general public.) '"

Yes we agree on this.

Quote: tvoc "Why should what the USA does effect what we do? I thought it was all Brown's fault earlier, funny how world events seem to matter more now since the election. .

• Labour failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining.

As the IFS said: “During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives”.

The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world’ (IFS, The Public Finances: 1997-2010, 19 April 2010, p. 2).

• Labour let the cost of the EU more than triple.

Under Labour’s spending plans, and as a result of Tony Blair giving away the rebate, the cost of our EU contributions will have more than tripled from £3.1 billion in 2008-09 to £10.3 billion in 2014-15 (OBR, Pre-Budget Forecast, June 2010, Table 4..

• Labour’s years of wasteful spending.

• Employing 4,567 ‘staff without posts’ in the civil service at a cost of £161 million

a year. (Series of Parliamentary Questions from June 2009 to February 2010 by

Francis Maude).

• £780 million on reorganising government departments and agencies (National Audit

Office, Reorganising Central Government, 18th March 2010).

• Spending £540 million on government advertising and PR a year (Central Office of

Information, Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09, July 2009).

• £48,000 on a kinetic light sculpture for display in the British Embassy in Madrid.

(Government Art collection, Annual report, 2008-09).