Remember the Bad Old Days of Tory rule

[Andalublue]

Lest we all forget what an authoritarian, morally bankrupt, ruthless and uncaring country Britain was back in the day...

Remember 1983? I warn you that a Cameron victory will be just as bad | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Let's see whether enough people remember the state of Thatcher's NHS to ensure the Tories aren't allowed to wreck it again.

 

[gunner]

Lest we all forget what an authoritarian, morally bankrupt, ruthless and uncaring country Britain was back in the day...

Remember 1983? I warn you that a Cameron victory will be just as bad | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Let's see whether enough people remember the state of Thatcher's NHS to ensure the Tories aren't allowed to wreck it again.

I work with a few 'old school' Conservatives and they,re already spouting the gloom, "of course, whoever [when we] get in power cuts will have to be drastic and severe the country is bankrupt! dont you know?"
I think we all acknowledge that fact, but its how and WHO are used to claw back that deficit.....that shows the true worth of a party.

Paul

 

[Andalublue]

I work with a few 'old school' Conservatives and they,re already spouting the gloom, "of course, whoever [when we] get in power cuts will have to be drastic and severe the country is bankrupt! dont you know?"
I think we all acknowledge that fact, but its how and WHO are used to claw back that deficit.....that shows the true worth of a party.

Paul

Absolutely. No one's saying cuts won't be necessary, but fewer will fall on the least well off with a Lab or Lib or Lib/Lab government. I know I'm old fashioned, but the Tories have always ruled on behalf of their class and always will.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

It's a crap article, based on fales Keynesian arguments and fear mongering, it completely ignores how Britain was ****ed under Labour during the seventies. But of course he won't remember that because he was either too young or at school during the time, thus issues relating to the economy only crystalized during the 80's.

Yeah Britain was authoritarian during the early 80's but that stemmed from Unions. Remember Scargill, got his Uinion to strike simply on his word, without following any of the union protocol.... Britain was at the mercy of the unions, something had to be done.

Secondly, I find it laughable that this journo is worried about Cameron getting rid of waiting time lists for the NHS. Labour has been fudging the figures because demand outweighs supply. Cameron is just being upfront about it, as opposed to blowing hot air up your backside.

As for inheritance tax, if kept low the government will still recoup it via VAT, when the rich buy stuff. The inheritance tax issues is another example of bashing rich simply because they have more stuff than you.

By the way, I really don't think that Labour represents the working man. Bail outs of British Banks = Corporatism, the MP allowance scandal = greed.

Finally Britain will not be ****ed by drastic government cuts. What this hack journalist did not comment on, is Japan's stuttering economy over the last 20 years that has not been helpt at all by government spending, nor did he look look at the problem of 70's stagflation, nor did he analyse the growth of unemployment under Roosevelt's Keynesian New deal.

 

[cpwill]

Indeed, sir. Britians' unions needed to be broken, and she was lucky to have Lady Thatcher to get it done. I'm watching our Governor Chris Christie now and hoping more of our leaders have those kinds of stones.


by the way. how has Labor done for the mother country?


1. On economic growth

Longest and deepest recession. Gordon Brown has given Britain the longest and deepest recession on record (ONS, Time Series ABMI). Britain has had the longest recession in the G20 with six consecutive quarters of negative growth – more than any other major economy (Principal Global Indicators).

Record decline in manufacturing. Between 1997 Q2 and 2009 Q3, manufacturing as a share of GDP declined by 9.3 percentage points, from 20.7 per cent of GDP to 11.4 per cent of GDP – the fastest decline under any government since records began in 1980 (ONS Time Series QTPI & QVYR).

2. On national debt

Largest budget deficit. In 2010, the UK is expected to have the largest budget deficit of any major economy at 11.4 per cent of GDP (IMF, World Economic Outlook Database).

National debt has doubled – and is set to double again. Gordon Brown has doubled the national debt. In fact, on Labour’s own figures, by 2014-15 Gordon Brown would have quadrupled the national debt compared to 1997 (HM Treasury, Public Finances Databank, Table A7).

3. On jobs

Record economic inactivity. 8.16 million working age people are classed as economically inactive – the highest number since records began in 1971 (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, April 2010).

Youth unemployment rising again. Under Labour, youth unemployment reached a record high, and now it is rising again. One in five young people is unable to find a job (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, April 2010)....

5. On the NHS

More deaths from hospital infections than road accidents. There have been almost 44,000 deaths from MRSA and Clostridium difficile under Labour (ONS, 19 August 2009; Hansard, 10 September 2008, Col.1882WA). Hospital-acquired infections now kill more than three times as many people as are killed on the roads every year (Department for Transport, Road Casualties in Great Britain 2008, 24 September 2009)....

...7. On crime

Violence against the person increased by 44 per cent. Recorded levels of violence against the person increased by 44 per cent between 1998-99 and 2008-09. These figures take account of changing recording practices over the period so the comparison is statistically valid (House of Commons Library Note, February 2010).

80,000 prisoners released early. Figures released last week show that between June 2007 and April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released early on Labour’s controversial ‘end of custody licence’ scheme (Ministry of Justice, End of Custody Licence releases and recalls, 30 April 2010)...

 

[donsutherland1]

The UK faces substantial fiscal challenges. A rigorous review should determine the appropriate policy mix of spending reductions and tax hikes, including the programs that should be prioritized for spending reductions. Until the review is completed, everything should be on the table.

With respect to the current fiscal situation under which the budget deficit is running at 11.5% of GDP (the more worrisome structural deficit is 7.6% of GDP according to IMF data), The New York Times reports:

The current budget of about $1.1 trillion includes more than $150 billion on the state-run National Health Service, triple the amount when Labour came to power.

One in every four pounds the government spends is borrowed, a pattern that economists say will require the next government to make cuts on a scale not experienced since the Great Depression, as well as painful tax increases.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Lest we all forget what an authoritarian, morally bankrupt, ruthless and uncaring country Britain was back in the day....

Yes, Britain did become an uncaring society but it could be argued that was necessary after the political failings of the 1970s. I was around to experience the social unrest of Thatcher's Britain but I am also old enough to remember the horrors of local govt union workers refusing to bury the dead or to pick up the rubbish off the streets.

Structural change was needed and it could be argued that of the politicians available at the time only Thatcher had the will and the balls to do what was necessary to turn the country around.

I have a feeling Cameron's conservatives will emerge as the largest party but he won't have Thatcher's absolute majority behind him. Any Thatcherite tendencies we may worry about may be tempered by his having to work as part of a coalition.

-- By the way, I really don't think that Labour represents the working man. Bail outs of British Banks = Corporatism, the MP allowance scandal = greed --

Nearly every major Western nation had to bail their banks out. Not sure if Australia was required to though - however the political "left" and "right" in most countries that had to bail out their banks show it wasn't a party political condition. Same with the MP scandals here - all sides were affected. It's now labour MPs who tried to claim public funding to protect themselves after they tried to claim immunity for their wrongdoings.

The UK faces substantial fiscal challenges. A rigorous review should determine the appropriate policy mix of spending reductions and tax hikes, including the programs that should be prioritized for spending reductions --

I read one analyst say that whoever won the election could be out of power for a generation for a decade once the cuts start to take effect - meaning that the unpopularity of the cuts would be associated with the "winner" of this election.

I keep wondering (myself) whether we actually should seek some form of emergency national cross party coalition - with all parties taking part to solve the problems.

 

[Andalublue]

It's a crap article, based on fales Keynesian arguments and fear mongering, it completely ignores how Britain was ****ed under Labour during the seventies. But of course he won't remember that because he was either too young or at school during the time, thus issues relating to the economy only crystalized during the 80's.

Yeah Britain was authoritarian during the early 80's but that stemmed from Unions. Remember Scargill, got his Uinion to strike simply on his word, without following any of the union protocol.... Britain was at the mercy of the unions, something had to be done.

You have a very selective memory. Can we assume you were in Britain during the 70s and 80s? I certainly was and remember the disputes and the state repression of the Thatcher years. Yes, I will concede that some union reforms were necessary, but the Miners' Strike was called entirely legally and crushed by using paramilitarized policing and the starving of the miners' families to force them back to work.

In fairly short order the claims of the miners' union, that the Government did everything to deride, proved true. They were indeed intent on destroying the mining industry and the manufacturing base that it supported. That came to pass and Britain's manufacturing base was decimated leading to the over-mighty influence of the financial sector, which brings us to today's economic meltdown. How much stronger economically would modern Britain be had the miners won?

Secondly, I find it laughable that this journo is worried about Cameron getting rid of waiting time lists for the NHS. Labour has been fudging the figures because demand outweighs supply. Cameron is just being upfront about it, as opposed to blowing hot air up your backside.

Anyone who has lived in the UK during the 90s and 00s and saw the parlous state of the Tory NHS and its recovery under Labour has every reason to doubt the commitment of the Tories to this crowning achievement of post-war socialism. Even the far right, who hate the very concept on which it was based (universal health care free at the point of delivery) , concede that it is a major factor in attracting migrants (both legal and illegal) to the country. It's something worth having, hence many want it. That is not something one could have said of it 15 years ago.

As for inheritance tax, if kept low the government will still recoup it via VAT, when the rich buy stuff. The inheritance tax issues is another example of bashing rich simply because they have more stuff than you.

No, it's a much more basic concept that wealth should be earned, not inherited. The same goes for privilege and political power, hence the driving need to create a wholly elected House of Lords. Would Australia or the US accept a second chamber based on nepotism or accident of birth? Taxing inheritance and eliminating hereditary privilege are two aspects of the same philosophical position.

By the way, I really don't think that Labour represents the working man. Bail outs of British Banks = Corporatism, the MP allowance scandal = greed.

Agreed. It used to be, but Blair and Brown, despite their great achievements with the NHS and partial success in Education, have done nothing to decrease social inequality, quite the opposite in fact. And they have done nothing to reverse the decline in manufacturing that Thatcher and Major began as a conscious policy. For that reason I hope that tomorrow sees no single party holding an absolute majority and that the LibDems and Labour together can produce economic stability and a return to supporting and developing a new economic model based on manufacturing, innovation and high-skill, sustainable production equally aimed at export and domestic consumption.

Finally Britain will not be ****ed by drastic government cuts. What this hack journalist did not comment on, is Japan's stuttering economy over the last 20 years that has not been helpt at all by government spending, nor did he look look at the problem of 70's stagflation, nor did he analyse the growth of unemployment under Roosevelt's Keynesian New deal.

We don't need to look at Japan. Many of us lived through a period of drastic public spending cuts throughout the 80s to be more than aware of what catastrophic consequences such cuts can have, not just in macro-economic terms, but in human terms, in misery, poverty and social discontent. Cuts have to be made, no argument, but what is important is where those cuts are made, for the benefit of whom, at the expense of whom and, therefore and fundamentally, by whom they are made.

 

[Andalublue]

This is a fairly typical conservative rewriting of history. There are pretty huge flaws in your arguments however.

5. On the NHS

More deaths from hospital infections than road accidents. There have been almost 44,000 deaths from MRSA and Clostridium difficile under Labour (ONS, 19 August 2009; Hansard, 10 September 2008, Col.1882WA). Hospital-acquired infections now kill more than three times as many people as are killed on the roads every year (Department for Transport, Road Casualties in Great Britain 2008, 24 September 2009)....

What you intentionally fail to recognise is that the MRSA crisis was caused by the privatization of hospital cleaning services under the Tories.

...7. On crime

Violence against the person increased by 44 per cent. Recorded levels of violence against the person increased by 44 per cent between 1998-99 and 2008-09. These figures take account of changing recording practices over the period so the comparison is statistically valid (House of Commons Library Note, February 2010).

80,000 prisoners released early. Figures released last week show that between June 2007 and April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released early on Labour’s controversial ‘end of custody licence’ scheme (Ministry of Justice, End of Custody Licence releases and recalls, 30 April 2010)...

Overall crime rates are significantly lower now than 15 years ago.
InstantAtlas? Report

I see what you're doing there. You are linking a rise in violent crime to the EOCL policy which, by the way, is only applicable to those convicted of non-violent crime.
www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/PC22%202007.pdf
To make that correlation work you need to back it with hard evidence which doesn't exist.

 

[Andalublue]

The UK faces substantial fiscal challenges. A rigorous review should determine the appropriate policy mix of spending reductions and tax hikes, including the programs that should be prioritized for spending reductions. Until the review is completed, everything should be on the table.

With respect to the current fiscal situation under which the budget deficit is running at 11.5% of GDP (the more worrisome structural deficit is 7.6% of GDP according to IMF data), The New York Times reports:

The current budget of about $1.1 trillion includes more than $150 billion on the state-run National Health Service, triple the amount when Labour came to power.

One in every four pounds the government spends is borrowed, a pattern that economists say will require the next government to make cuts on a scale not experienced since the Great Depression, as well as painful tax increases.

I see nothing there with which to disagree. NHS spending is indeed triple what it was 13 years ago. Almost all British voters agree that such spending is justified, indeed all three main parties have committed to maintaining that spending and cutting elsewhere.

 

[Andalublue]

Yes, Britain did become an uncaring society but it could be argued that was necessary after the political failings of the 1970s. I was around to experience the social unrest of Thatcher's Britain but I am also old enough to remember the horrors of local govt union workers refusing to bury the dead or to pick up the rubbish off the streets.

It's a fair point, reform was necessary but the methods used were draconian and more akin to Pinochet's Chile than to a modern 'democracy'. Reform at the end of a police truncheon damaged the very fabric of society.

Structural change was needed and it could be argued that of the politicians available at the time only Thatcher had the will and the balls to do what was necessary to turn the country around.

It turned the country around all right. It created the service/financial services-based economy whose pigeons have now come home to roost.

I have a feeling Cameron's conservatives will emerge as the largest party but he won't have Thatcher's absolute majority behind him. Any Thatcherite tendencies we may worry about may be tempered by his having to work as part of a coalition.

Thing is, I think that the Tory Party is politically and structurally unsuited for coalition government. Compromise is anathema to their rank and file and such compromises that would be required for them to create a workable coalition would turn their party loyalists into their government's worst opponents. William Hague would become the figurehead of a party within a party and subvert all policy not concordant with 'traditional Tory values'. I suspect New Labour would have no such qualms.

Same with the MP scandals here - all sides were affected. It's now labour MPs who tried to claim public funding to protect themselves after they tried to claim immunity for their wrongdoings.

This was a product of a policy begun by Thatcher and continued by Major, Blair and Brown of playing the political game of not raising MPs' salaries but turning a blind eye to the expenses system and its abuses. A UK MP has a salary of £64,000, a US Congressman £115,000, Italian deputies' salaries are £110,000. The political expedient of covering up the true earnings of MPs is the real cause of the scandal.

I read one analyst say that whoever won the election could be out of power for a generation for a decade once the cuts start to take effect - meaning that the unpopularity of the cuts would be associated with the "winner" of this election.

It wasn't an analyst, it was Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King who said it. I think he may be right.

I keep wondering (myself) whether we actually should seek some form of emergency national cross party coalition - with all parties taking part to solve the problems.

That would spread the blame around and see them all scratch one another's eyes out for the credit. I see the attraction but doubt the practicalities.

 

[mikhail]

I wish the parties could just be honest about tax rises rather than just saying cuts will be made.

What is gonna be cut all the biggest items seem to have been deemed untouchable such as pensions, the NHS and defence funding.

As for the tories how people are ok with them on inheritance tax which is only going to help the most wealthy and then almost certainly increasing VAT which will effect everyone is beyond me.

 

[donsutherland1]

I see nothing there with which to disagree. NHS spending is indeed triple what it was 13 years ago. Almost all British voters agree that such spending is justified, indeed all three main parties have committed to maintaining that spending and cutting elsewhere.

I'm not sure that is a campaign promise that can be kept. Moreover, given the enormous spending growth at NHS, which is indicative of a lack of fiscal control there, I'm not sure that it is a promise that should be kept in the larger context of austerity aimed at putting the UK on a sustainable fiscal path.

Of course, the UK is not alone in facing such unpopular choices. Large parts of Europe, the U.S., and Japan could well be headed for a period that might ultimately be termed the "age of austerity" given their current fiscal paths.

The question concerns whether those countries will do so while still able to carry it out on their own terms or be compelled to do so by market developments that strip them of their degree of choice.

 

[Andalublue]

I'm not sure that is a campaign promise that can be kept. Moreover, given the enormous spending growth at NHS, which is indicative of a lack of fiscal control there, I'm not sure that it is a promise that should be kept in the larger context of austerity aimed at putting the UK on a sustainable fiscal path.

I think you are correct in part. There is indeed a lack of fiscal control in the Department of Health. A large spend in recent years has been the NHS Database project. A £6 billion spend on something which still hasn't delivered results is a symptom of poor management. Fiscal mismanagement does not tell the whole story however. There has been a quantum imporvement in the range and quality of NHS care. There will always still be complaints about waiting lists and sytemic failures but they are fewer than ever before.

Of course, the UK is not alone in facing such unpopular choices. Large parts of Europe, the U.S., and Japan could well be headed for a period that might ultimately be termed the "age of austerity" given their current fiscal paths.

Quite right. Each economy has its own particular challenges to face, but austerity is certainly on the agenda whether or not governments decide on a Keynesian or fiscally more conservative approach.

The question concerns whether those countries will do so while still able to carry it out on their own terms or be compelled to do so by market developments that strip them of their degree of choice.

The $64 trillion question. Do they have the expertise and willpower to do it without the intervention of supra-national bodies. I certainly wouldn't like to make a guess; I suspect that neither would you.

 

[Andalublue]

I wish the parties could just be honest about tax rises rather than just saying cuts will be made.

What is gonna be cut all the biggest items seem to have been deemed untouchable such as pensions, the NHS and defence funding.

As for the tories how people are ok with them on inheritance tax which is only going to help the most wealthy and then almost certainly increasing VAT which will effect everyone is beyond me.

You're quite right. None of the parties have been honest about where and how the cuts will be made and how taxes will have to rise. The Tories deny that they will raise VAT, but they will. Labour has said it will raise NI but aren't clear on the sums and whether it will be sufficient.

The Tories cling to the abolition of Inheritance Tax as a statement of faith with their key supporters, the very wealthy. Fiscally speaking it's not big potatoes, it currently raises only £1.5 billion p.a. The big threat to the standard of living of low- and middle-income earners is the raising of VAT. This tax has always hit the poorest sectors of the community, and it will do again should Cameron take the reins tomorrow.

 

[alexa]

Lest we all forget what an authoritarian, morally bankrupt, ruthless and uncaring country Britain was back in the day...

Remember 1983? I warn you that a Cameron victory will be just as bad | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Let's see whether enough people remember the state of Thatcher's NHS to ensure the Tories aren't allowed to wreck it again.

Remember '79 never mind '83. Yes, I know there was rubbish on the street and all that sort of thing, it was just the sudden and enormous psychological change. We were no longer a society, studying things like archaeology was considered a luxury and complaining about something to do with a council house resulted in a sharp rebuke from Thatcher that they were lucky to have any house.

I was pretty disappointed when Labour did eventually get back in but I am in no doubt that if the Tories manage to get a non hung Parliament, the rich will be getting richer and the poor poorer - now the problem is that has also been happening under Labour. It will get worse, I know,

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

It's amusing to witness this leftist hand-wringing. For all the whining about savage Tory cuts, it'll only amount to a penny off every Pound spent according to the Sun.

And if Thatcherite financial policy was so bad then why did Labour dump the dinosaur socialist policies which kept Britain the sick and broken man of Europe? Under Heath the Tories tried to play the game Labour's way and failed, paving the way for Mrs. Thatcher to lead the party.

New Labour's responsibility, if anything, was to keep a steady course. Gordon Brown inherited a re-flourishing economy, yet still ruined it over the years. Instead, the process of exporting jobs and remaining industry whilst importing a flood of coolie labour helped de-emancipate the British job market. Clown also had such bad sums written out that he felt hurried into selling 2/3 of our gold reserves at pre-announced prices at auction - something he was told was wrong in every way. Another way the nation was cocked up was to 'create' thousands of state-paid non-jobs whilst increasing the policy of tax and spend.

Glad to see the back of them. And unless the Heir To Blair is too PC, we are indeed going to need to see economies made and the rubbish cut back on. With the antics of left winjg gits ruining the place, we certainly need some more level-headed Blue fixers!


_____________________________________________________

ESSENTIAL RED READING: http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2830

Even other Lefties can't stand Labour now! Oh well, worse things happen at sea! (Wish they were.)

 

[Andalublue]

Glad to see the back of them. And unless the Heir To Blair is too PC, we are indeed going to need to see economies made and the rubbish cut back on. With the antics of left winjg gits ruining the place, we certainly need some more level-headed Blue fixers!

You might be counting your chickens before they're hatched. Let's just wait another 12 hours and see whether we have seen the back of them.

 

[Djoop]

Where can I watch the election night? The BBC wont let me watch, they discriminate foreigners you know.

 

[PeteEU]

Where can I watch the election night? The BBC wont let me watch, they discriminate foreigners you know.

If you got sat tv, then you can watch it on any international news station I bet. CNN International is certainly sending.

As for online.. Al Jazerra most likely sending it, as is Euronews.. both send online.

Can also try skynews.com, dunno if they send online out side the UK.

 

[jujuman13]

Lest we all forget what an authoritarian, morally bankrupt, ruthless and uncaring country Britain was back in the day...

Remember 1983? I warn you that a Cameron victory will be just as bad | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Let's see whether enough people remember the state of Thatcher's NHS to ensure the Tories aren't allowed to wreck it again.

Are you insinuating that we should continue to let NU-Labour do just that?

 

[Andalublue]

Are you insinuating that we should continue to let NU-Labour do just that?

No. What I'm saying, not insinuating, is that the worst possible outcome for the NHS would be a Tory majority government. The best outcome would be a LibLab coalition.

 

[alexa]

No. What I'm saying, not insinuating, is that the worst possible outcome for the NHS would be a Tory majority government. The best outcome would be a LibLab coalition.

Unfortunately the exit polls do not suggest that is a likely possibility.

Cons 307

Labour 255

Liberal 59

Other 29

 

[Andalublue]

Unfortunately the exit polls do not suggest that is a likely possibility.

Cons 307

Labour 255

Liberal 59

Other 29

Well, even the BBC doesn't seem to be giving much credence to its own exit poll. They are notoriously inaccurate. Don't forget 1992, when the exit poll predicted an overall Labour majority.

 

[alexa]

Well, even the BBC doesn't seem to be giving much credence to its own exit poll. They are notoriously inaccurate. Don't forget 1992, when the exit poll predicted an overall Labour majority.

Yes, I have been remembering that the entire build up to this election. Labour have won their first safe seat a Sunderland one but with a dramatically reduced majority - down from around 17,000 to around 11,000

Other news - in several places large numbers of people have been sent home unable to cast their vote. This has never happened before. It is thought lots of people decided to vote around 9 and the doors were shut before they could get in.