andyofborg Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Because he has hammerd the poor more than thatcher did. Council rents, bus fares, train fares, 0845 numbers, post office closures, community pubs closing down,gas electricity prices, mass immigration employment agencys , privatiseng schools,hospitals a and e,all this under a supposedly labour government . Its all been lies and spin for the last 20years and everyone is sick of it.. many of these things are outside of the control of the government since the thatcher woman put them in the private hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 because he is a slimey two faced arsole ,labour are all talk and no action the public want action not promises.ukip will be getting my cross. until i got to the ukip bit i though you were talking about nigel fararge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valleylad Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 until i got to the ukip bit i though you were talking about nigel fararge Who the xxuk is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Labour have pushed the idea that he is some sort of skilled economics manager, able to look after the country's economy. To an extent they have succeeded in fostering this image, which, IMO, couldn't be much further from the truth. His economics management has been consistently pretty poor, even before the current banking problems. After their previous period in charge (Wilson, Callaghan etc), where control of the economy had been abysmal, Labour had a terrible image problem. Even with the hatred of the Conservatives, it needed all the guile of NuLabor, Mandy etc for Labour to get back in in '97. Up until then they had been seen as an unelectable dinosaur. In order that they would not be kicked out again after 1 term, which had been pretty much the par for the course up until then, they needed to show economic prudence. Enter Gordon Brown. During the first term he set about cutting into the National Debt, and did a pretty good job. This enabled NuLabour to get re-elected. However, this prudence was not how he really wanted to run the economy, it was just a temporary ploy to get and stay in power. This is when the rot set in. The National debt was allowed to increase. (I have tried to attach a chart showing how the national debt has changed since NuLabour came into power, but have not been able to get it to work - its easy enough to Google though if anyone wishes to look). This was to pay for (for example) increased National Health Service costs. This is laudable. However, this increased debt is only OK if there is a system in place to manage the debt, it was just relying on the boom years instead of also investing in readiness for future downturns. There wasn't any such system. The debt was steadily increasing, even before the current financial crisis. (Notice how Gordon Brown, and everyone else on message, always refers to the current GLOBAL financial crisis. I never recall them talking about the GLOBAL boom which was happening in the years beforehand). During his reign over the economy he increased bureaucracy and further complicated the tax system - all this does is increase the need for more and more tax inspectors to fight against the ever increasing numbers of company tax advisors - lots more people not actually creating anything other than paperwork. A competent Chancellor of the Exchequer should be trying to simplify the tax system, not to actively further complicate it. His methodology was to try and micromanage the detail. His whole ethos was wrong. Also, he sold off a lot of our gold reserves when their price was lowish. A poor bit of judgement. The above points relate to his ability and competence. In many ways, a much bigger issue is his character. As mentioned by others, he was conspicuous by his absence during times when the goverment's past decisions were being questioned, despite having been a member of the cabinet at the time. That leaves a bit of a nasty taste. If this Country is to succeed, it needs the government to work as a team. If the PM isn't a team player, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back. I don't "hate" him. I just think he has been grossly over-rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232897/Manufacturing-decline-Labour-greater-Margaret-Thatcher.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233102/Poverty-rise-recession-began.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1270905/Hypocrite-Harman-familys-inheritance-tax-dodge.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270860/Broken-Britain-Boy-14-beaten-brink-death-iPod.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271039/Soldier-freed-jail-brutal-attack--rejoin-Afghanistan-regiment.html After reading some of these you just have to ask yourself is this the sort of country you want to live in? If so fair play to you...but not me so I'll be voting for change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Who the xxuk is he? The leader of the party you intend to vote for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Labour have pushed the idea that he is some sort of skilled economics manager, able to look after the country's economy. To an extent they have succeeded in fostering this image, which, IMO, couldn't be much further from the truth. His economics management has been consistently pretty poor, even before the current banking problems. In addition, in the years following 1997, the financial community was aghast at the level of his borrowing, moreover a sizable chunk of the income tax take was contributed by the banking and investment sector, bonuses etc (practices which were encouraged), the very sector which he now criticises. The evaporation of this revenue has had a significant effect on the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 The leader of the party you intend to vote for!*joins in the eye rolling* that's hilarious ... but he is currently the ex-leader, it's some posh old buffer in a blazer these days. Lord Pearson, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 *joins in the eye rolling* that's hilarious ... but he is currently the ex-leader, it's some posh old buffer in a blazer these days. Lord Pearson, is it? but nigel is on tv all the time where as the other one hasn't been seen for months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daven Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232897/Manufacturing-decline-Labour-greater-Margaret-Thatcher.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233102/Poverty-rise-recession-began.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1270905/Hypocrite-Harman-familys-inheritance-tax-dodge.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270860/Broken-Britain-Boy-14-beaten-brink-death-iPod.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271039/Soldier-freed-jail-brutal-attack--rejoin-Afghanistan-regiment.html After reading some of these you just have to ask yourself is this the sort of country you want to live in? If so fair play to you...but not me so I'll be voting for change! Has anyone else noticed that all the links are from the Daily Mail ............ ennuf said ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.