David Cameron : the luckiest politician ever ?

[Jonny5]

Rubbish. This country has been in decline for years. (Only 100 years ago it was in the number one position,) and both parties are responsible. With no grand plan, short termism, and manifestoes not worth the paper they're written on, it has become simply a game to promise anything and get into power at any price.

 

The quality of the politicians has become increasingly poor, and has now reached a very low ebb with a lack of integrity and downright corruption that would have been unheard of in the not too distant past. Systems have been carefully put in place to water down any real chance of democracy and it exists now in name only.

 

We have had the most appalling governments for years, which is why we are now in such a precarious position. Compared to Germany, we look like a basket case.

Pretty much everything you've said here is at best grossly exaggerated but generally just plain wrong.

 

Even here on Sheff Forum your ability to see even a half empty glass as shattered into a thousand pieces stands out as not being normal. I'm serious I do think you need to see a doctor or at the very least talk these things over with someone in the real world (maybe someone outside your circle of friends if they have the same outlook as yourself). What you think are seeing does not correlate to what I'm seeing or I'd wager many others on this forum.

[sgtkate]

Me and Anna B share a view on most things political I'd wager, but I don't agree with her summary either based on the economy. I'd say our economy is looking healthy compared to the rest of Europe. However, an economy does not make a country. The Tories have always made bigger GDP growth than Labour, however not drastically more than under a Labour government. But again, most people don't really care about GDP, they care about their wages and what that will buy them. Under the Tories inflation is nearly always higher than under Labour (of course there are exceptions), but wages rises between the 2 governments is almost identical. With higher inflation, you'd actually be better off under a Labour government in terms of money in your pocket.

 

On the job front, it is said that no Labour government has left office with higher employment than it started with, now while this is untrue, it's not too fair off the mark sadly with the Tories doing decidedly better in job creation than Labour. However, in recent times a large proportion of those jobs have been zero hour contracts (discussed to death on here many times) but I'd still say the Tories win out on this one.

 

So purely on economy, I'd say things between the 2 parties is far closer than people would think. It's not a total myth that the Tories are better with the economy than Labour, but equally it's not as bigger truth as some on here would like to pretend.

 

However, large amounts of our economy under both Labour and Tories is based on the financial sector, so much so that if we lost just 10% of revenue from this one precarious sector we'd lose 1.3% of total GDP or £30bn...neither party seems to have a plan to look at diversifying our offering, we are letting certain sectors such as coal and mining die out when even if it does need state support, we'd at least protect ourselves fractionally more from needing to import all raw materials from outside of our boundary. With the world looking v messy at the moment I'd say that trying to keep some raw material production within the UK would be right decision both short and long term.

 

Sources:

http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/feature/2405617/do-markets-and-currencies-fare-better-under-labour-or-the-conservatives

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/uk-wages-over-the-past-four-decades/2014/rep---uk-wages-over-the-past-four-decades.html

[Justin Smith]

And all because a Labour government introduced tuition fees, and Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling spent all the money leaving behind a £180 billion bedget deficit.

 

To blame all the budget deficit, and indeed the state of the economy, on the Labour government is technically inaccurate. The state of the economy in a western democracy at any one time is partly down to the government but more down to the world economic situation. Have you ever wondered why all the western democracies, certainly the northern ones (where it isn`t too hot ? ! ? ) all have roughly the same standard of living and have done so for decades ? Despite various different parties of the left and right being in power in each of them ? I conclude from that the party in power (provide they`re not too extreme and democracy generally prevents that) only really makes a difference on the margin.

That doesn`t, of course, stop parties in power when things are going well claiming the credit (and opposition parties crediting the world economy), and vice verse in times of economic stagnation. It`s always been like that and it always will be.

 

---------- Post added 18-12-2015 at 09:38 ----------

 

Me and Anna B share a view on most things political I'd wager, but I don't agree with her summary either based on the economy. I'd say our economy is looking healthy compared to the rest of Europe. However, an economy does not make a country. The Tories have always made bigger GDP growth than Labour, however not drastically more than under a Labour government. But again, most people don't really care about GDP, they care about their wages and what that will buy them. Under the Tories inflation is nearly always higher than under Labour (of course there are exceptions), but wages rises between the 2 governments is almost identical. With higher inflation, you'd actually be better off under a Labour government in terms of money in your pocket.

 

On the job front, it is said that no Labour government has left office with higher employment than it started with, now while this is untrue, it's not too fair off the mark sadly with the Tories doing decidedly better in job creation than Labour. However, in recent times a large proportion of those jobs have been zero hour contracts (discussed to death on here many times) but I'd still say the Tories win out on this one.

 

So purely on economy, I'd say things between the 2 parties is far closer than people would think. It's not a total myth that the Tories are better with the economy than Labour, but equally it's not as bigger truth as some on here would like to pretend.

 

However, large amounts of our economy under both Labour and Tories is based on the financial sector, so much so that if we lost just 10% of revenue from this one precarious sector we'd lose 1.3% of total GDP or £30bn...neither party seems to have a plan to look at diversifying our offering, we are letting certain sectors such as coal and mining die out when even if it does need state support, we'd at least protect ourselves fractionally more from needing to import all raw materials from outside of our boundary. With the world looking v messy at the moment I'd say that trying to keep some raw material production within the UK would be right decision both short and long term.

 

Sources:

http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/feature/2405617/do-markets-and-currencies-fare-better-under-labour-or-the-conservatives

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/uk-wages-over-the-past-four-decades/2014/rep---uk-wages-over-the-past-four-decades.html

 

I think I`ve just said something similar (above) before I read your post.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Justin Smith

[Alan Ladd]

I disagree that most people are that bothered about any party being divided over Europe. Quite apart from anything else Europe comes way down the list of most people`s priorities. The people most bothered about whether the Tories are divided on Europe are the political commentators, the Tory party, or the Labour party trying (and generally failing because most people aren`t that interested) to make political capital. In my opinion the things which lost the Tories the elections were the fact the economy was doing fine, Blair was a good (moderate) PM and the Tories still hadn`t been forgiven for some of the stuff that happened under their watch.

I personally thought Blair was a good PM and would have been quite happy to vote for him again.

 

I will expand on why feel the Tories were unelectable under Major, the Tories had been in power from the late nineties. Like any government they had had a number of changes of ministers at all levels and were running out of talent, with about 300 people to pick from this should be no surprise and Major made some significant gaffs with high level sackings and virtually not a week going by without some top Tory being caught in either corruption or his trousers down.

 

Alongside this the party were actually involved in an internal civil war, those who felt Thatcher should never have been forced out and those who hated her. There was another divide, more serious in the long run and which has never really healed, Europe.

 

With this backdrop, the untimely demise of John Smith brought forward the charismatic Tony Blair to lead Labour, under the direction of Peter Mandelson

Blair abandoned old Labour policies, stole Liberal and Tory ones and moved Labour to the middle ground where it appealed to a wider electorate.

 

Major had no chance. The Tories appeared split, incompetent and corrupt. Most importantly tired. Blair seemed a breath of fresh air.

 

In my opinion Blair never lived up to his promise, his promised reform of public services was peripheral, his government, blessed by the sound economy left by Major, thought all issues could be solved by throwing money at it.

 

His continuation of the Irish peace progress originated by Major was successful although he relied very much on Clinton and was more a facilitator than a player in the process. His treatment of Mo Mowlem was disgusting.

 

He then sought to solidify his reputation by allying with the most right wing government in recent US history and in concert with Bush attacked a sovereign country with no UN mandate and is, by definition, a war criminal.

[Justin Smith]

I will expand on why feel the Tories were unelectable under Major, the Tories had been in power from the late nineties. Like any government they had had a number of changes of ministers at all levels and were running out of talent, with about 300 people to pick from this should be no surprise and Major made some significant gaffs with high level sackings and virtually not a week going by without some top Tory being caught in either corruption or his trousers down.

 

Alongside this the party were actually involved in an internal civil war, those who felt Thatcher should never have been forced out and those who hated her. There was another divide, more serious in the long run and which has never really healed, Europe.

 

With this backdrop, the untimely demise of John Smith brought forward the charismatic Tony Blair to lead Labour, under the direction of Peter Mandelson

Blair abandoned old Labour policies, stole Liberal and Tory ones and moved Labour to the middle ground where it appealed to a wider electorate.

 

Major had no chance. The Tories appeared split, incompetent and corrupt. Most importantly tired. Blair seemed a breath of fresh air.

 

In my opinion Blair never lived up to his promise, his promised reform of public services was peripheral, his government, blessed by the sound economy left by Major, thought all issues could be solved by throwing money at it.

 

His continuation of the Irish peace progress originated by Major was successful although he relied very much on Clinton and was more a facilitator than a player in the process. His treatment of Mo Mowlem was disgusting.

 

He then sought to solidify his reputation by allying with the most right wing government in recent US history and in concert with Bush attacked a sovereign country with no UN mandate and is, by definition, a war criminal.

 

I would agree with much of what you said about why the Tories lost in 1997.

I did like Blair, I thought him a good PM.

On the economy, don`t you think there`s something to be said for what I put earlier :

 

To blame all the budget deficit, and indeed the state of the economy, on the Labour government is technically inaccurate. The state of the economy in a western democracy at any one time is partly down to the government but more down to the world economic situation. Have you ever wondered why all the western democracies, certainly the northern ones (where it isn`t too hot ? ! ? ) all have roughly the same standard of living and have done so for decades ? Despite various different parties of the left and right being in power in each of them ? I conclude from that the party in power (provide they`re not too extreme and democracy generally prevents that) only really makes a difference on the margin.

That doesn`t, of course, stop parties in power when things are going well claiming the credit (and opposition parties crediting the world economy), and vice verse in times of economic stagnation. It`s always been like that and it always will be.

 

The long period of Tory rule encompassed at least one and possibly two economic downturns, was that because of the world economy or the Tories economic management ? The Tories, and, in fact, Labour or any other party, can`t have it both ways can they ? ! ? Though all parties will always try to, and they wonder why the population regards politicians as hypocrites......

Edited December 18, 2015 by Justin Smith

[foxy lady]

I would agree with much of what you said about why the Tories lost in 1997.

I did like Blair, I thought him a good PM.

On the economy, don`t you think there`s something to be said for what I put earlier :

 

 

 

The long period of Tory rule encompassed at least one and possibly two economic downturns, was that because of the world economy or the Tories economic management ? The Tories, and, in fact, Labour or any other party, can`t have it both ways can they ? ! ? Though all parties will always try to, and they wonder why the population regards politicians as hypocrites......

 

I would agree that the Labour Government alone didn't cause the economic collapse. They certainly had help. But why the public don't trust them to run the economy is their disregard for making provision during the boom years for the downturn ecconomists had been forecasting for a number of years.

On the contrary, they increased the spending commitments by increasing the public sector workforce on borrowed money. That is why we are still running a deficit despite the cuts, despite the growth and despite having record levels of employment.

Edited December 18, 2015 by foxy lady

[Justin Smith]

I would agree that the Labour Government alone didn't cause the economic collapse. They certainly had help. But why the public don't trust them to run the economy is their disregard for making provision during the boom years for the downturn ecconomists had been forecasting for a number of years.

On the contrary, they increased the spending commitments by increasing the public sector workforce on borrowed money. That is why we are still running a deficit despite the cuts, despite the growth and despite having record levels of employment.

 

Are you saying the Tories made provision for economic downturns when they were in power ? I have to say it didn`t feel like it in the early 1990s recession !

There are many different ways of managing the economy, my Dad used to lecture in economics, one of his favourite sayings was if you put 10 economists is a room you`d get 11 theories.... Who is to say that if the public sector`s relatively high employment during the early part of the recession hadn`t been there the resulting fall in demand would have made the recession even worse ? As I`ve said before I think all government economic policy (both Labour and Tory) is just tinkering at the edges, and my point about most western democracies being about as wealthy as each other would tend to bear that out.

[foxy lady]

Are you saying the Tories made provision for economic downturns when they were in power ? I have to say it didn`t feel like it in the early 1990s recession !

There are many different ways of managing the economy, my Dad used to lecture in economics, one of his favourite sayings was if you put 10 economists is a room you`d get 11 theories.... Who is to say that if the public sector`s relatively high employment during the early part of the recession hadn`t been there the resulting fall in demand would have made the recession even worse ? As I`ve said before I think all government economic policy (both Labour and Tory) is just tinkering at the edges, and my point about most western democracies being about as wealthy as each other would tend to bear that out.

 

That's up to you. The UK currently has record levels of employment and growth outperforming the Eurozone. All the opinion polls I've seen show the Tories are trusted far more to pull us out of the Brown hole than Labour. With Corbyn in charge of the Labour Party it is going to be a very long time before anyone needs to worry about trusting them again.

[Justin Smith]

That's up to you. The UK currently has record levels of employment and growth outperforming the Eurozone. All the opinion polls I've seen show the Tories are trusted far more to pull us out of the Brown hole than Labour. With Corbyn in charge of the Labour Party it is going to be a very long time before anyone needs to worry about trusting them again.

 

I don`t agree with you that it was the "Brown black hole", or at least no more than I agree that the 1990s recession was the "Nigel Lawson black hole". That`s my whole point. At least I`m being consistent !

I do agree with you on the fact Labour will not be elected whilst Corbyn is the leader, which is something I`m worried about in the interim. The Tories will not feel they have to be careful what they do (or they`ll risk losing the election) because they`ll almost certainly win it anyway. Even as a Tory supporter you should agree that it`s not good for the country to have such one sided power / such a weak opposition.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Justin Smith

[foxy lady]

I don`t agree with you that it was the "Brown black hole", or at least no more than I agree that the 1990s recession was the "Nigel Lawson black hole". That`s my whole point. At least I`m being consistent !

I do agree with you on the fact Labour will not be elected whilst Corbyn is the leader, which is something I`m worried about in the interim. The Tories will not feel they have to be careful what they do (or they`ll risk losing the election) because they`ll almost certainly win it anyway. Even as a Tory supporter you should agree that it`s not good for the country to have such one sided power / such a weak opposition.

 

Who said I was a tory supporter?