In 1918, the Labour Party introduced Clause 4, which was essentially wholesale nationalisation, as the money was there to fund the modernisation of public services, most notably the railways.
In the current term of Labour government, if we were to renationalise the railways, inflation would have rose dramatically and the amount of public sector workers would have increased, meaning the defecit would likely be more than it is. The new Clause 4 is a continued step of progression and modernisation, as was the original, they just differ on the wholesale nationalisation ideology, allowing for social mobility and the like. The Labour Party; the progressive party of British politics.

Serious question - What is the latest economic view (Keynesian theories et al) on how high a deficit a G7 country can run up year on year and be sustainable?

I don't know if anybody has tried to pin a figure but I would guess they couldn't because the answer depends on who you are borrowing from, and the point at which they start to think you're going to default. Japan for instance has had very high debt levels for a long time but it's domestic debt rather than foreign debt, the analogy often used for that is it's like owing a few grand to your Dad, rather than to a credit card company...yes you really should pay it back, but your Dad's unlikely to call in the bailiffs and put a CCJ on you. Our debt is mainly foreign debt, financed through selling government bonds on the international markets. When the foreign investors we rely on to provide our money, start seeing us as a risk they won't buy our bonds so we'll have to offer them at a higher interest rate to get them bought, which is the point at which we start to go out of control. In the end when nobody will buy our bonds on the markets so we can't borrow from anyone else, we will go to the IMF, which will lend us the money but in return for us signing up to their regulations on public spending which I suppose at the end of the day will be the point at which we get sorted out. If our government (whoever wins) is too afraid of the political consequences of strict fiscal discipline (which includes tax rises as well as reining in expenditure) then the point where the IMF starts to impose its own limits on us is where the deficit will start to get sorted out. The bad news for whichever party is in government at the time is that it will be forever tarnished as the one who couldn't face up to the problem so had to get told what to do by the IMF. If that is the Tories, it could send them down to another decade in the wilderness. It's worse for a Tory government than Labour because any collapse of confidence in the markets robs the Tories of core support, whereas Labour's core support either doesn't understand the way the markets work or doesn't care much for them anyway!

The most obvious reality of the deficit is that we can't afford any wars. Wars are invariably financed through borrowing, so any country bedding down for a long term conflict has to be able to face up to a long period of heavy borrowing to get through it. Because of a massive recession and the bank bail out, we are maxed out on the government credit cards, so we can't borrow any more. That will be what ultimately ends our participation in Afghanistan. The Taleban can't defeat the British Army in combat but they can win by staying in the game until the British run out of money and have to pull out....pretty much how they beat the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

I would rather add 1p to income tax at the lower level and 2p on the higher levels rather than cut jobs.

As you say £1 in £100 (or £2 to wired71) is neither here or there in the greater scope of things.

Couple of points:

1) Knowing some GP's I would be willing to wager that teh vast majority of GP's including those in Culceth work in excess of 40 hours per week; and

2) Where would the capex investment come from to fund the new facilities that the combined facility would require? (don't mention the government's LIFT schme as Monmouth will go off on one).

I advocate an increase in income tax and corporation tax in these times. I'm not sure what the £2 comment was about.

Out of interest, what sort of state do you honestly believe this country would be in if the Tories had been in power for the last 13 years??

Here's are just a few ideas about what we would be encountering today.....

1. The Iraq/Afghanastan War.....Not one of Labour's finest moments, but undoubtedly things would have been exactly the same under Conservative rule, if not worse....If you think Blair was cosy with Bush, just remember back to how Thatcher was with Reagan, and Major with Bush snr.

2. Northern Ireland....We'd probably still be under attack from the IRA....Conservative links with the Unionists would have ensured that no satisfactory deal would be ever reached with Sinn Fein and the media over here would continue to feed the Pro-Unionist line that all the wrongdoing was simply down to those damn Catholics.

3. Education.... The millions spent updating the crumbling schools we had under Tory rule would never have been spent....Tories will say otherwise, but historically we all know the Tories are not interested in the educations of working class children, only those of the intellegent (usually rich) elite.

4. The Minimum Wage....There is absolutely no doubt that unscrupulous employers would still be paying a pittance to millions of folk...Similar to education, the Tories would simply turn a blind eye....These people are not their 'own', so they have little interest to the Conservatives.

Its easy to point out that Labour has spent vast amounts for seemingly little return, but don't be fooled, the Tories would do the same all in the name of Tax cuts...cuts which only truly help the rich of the land, who are the Tories natural followers of course.

Oh, and I forgot one other thing.....They'd still be gangs of educated hooligans, chasing innocent animals around the countryside, all in the name of sport...

On Radio 4's PM each evening there is a spot where the stats being bandied about by all the parties are put to the test. Needless to say most are easy to destroy totally. Tonight featured that famous 1p in the pound and guess what, it's rubbish.

I also liked today's IFS comment. All three parties are underestimating (admitting to) the cuts necessary to achieve their stated aims on the budget deficit. Labour and Lib Dems will impose the harshest cuts since the late 1970s. The Tories will impose the harshest cuts since ....... the Second World War!

Where do you stand on the super school [Golborne High, Lowton High, Westleigh High and i think Hesketh Fletcher] all in one ? My thought is one building one rent, one heating bill, one security bill etc etc.
Improve the transport links and all the buses going to one area. YET everyone seems to be against it and i can't see the logic ? As long as there are plenty of classrooms and all of reasonable size i don't see any problem other than nostalgia, or am i being naive ?

Yeah, it's nostalgia. Ideally one school for one community is great but the world has moved on.

It's the depressing reality isn't it? An age of austerity surely beckons. At least mouthbreather Brown, and the rest of the sorry lot (MPs) will be largely immune to feeling any pain, whilst zealously inflicting it on the general public.

I know those schools and they are largely poor. Infact Golborne is physically crumbling apart.

Anything that improves the quality of education for those children involved and reduces the cost to the taxpayer I would support.

1. I would imagine they do "other work" on the other days. Whilst this may be private practise or even volunteer or teaching work it will still equate to a working week of over 40 hours.

2. The investment will be from central government or raised through a LIFT scheme (similar to PFI). Expect the scheme to be shelved post election.

You would have 2 private practices within 25m - just think Harley Street.

I agree that those able to pay should pay for health care to subsidise those that aren't able to pay (although I would do this through income tax).

Maybe they'll be run by the parents if the Tories get in...