Letter: Will Miliband ever accept blame for his failures?
Cameron got it right. Miliband is a hypocrite admitting Labour got its immigration policy wrong.
Cameron got it right. Miliband is a hypocrite admitting Labour got its immigration policy wrong.
He blames Brown for other Labour failures, but hasn’t yet admitted its failed economy or education policies.
He’s forgotten he was one of Brown’s advisors and wanted Britain to join Europe. That financial mess is affecting the world economy.
Initiated by over lending American banks but encouraged by Brown to satisfy his overspending policy and with his removal of Bank of England control over the Banks and ignoring a 12-month warning from Cable, all proved fatal policies for Britain.
Labour governments? Never again please. Britain can’t afford them.
Mike Cockett,
Leominster
Comments for: "Letter: Will Miliband ever accept blame for his failures? "
The graduate
What a load of twaddle.
The conservatives have been blaming Labour for the whole current problems and continue to do so and assume the stupid, gullible British public believe them.
What is very clear is, the way this oaf Cameron and he is an out of touch oaf at that who i admit i voted for, is happy to demonize different sectors , such as private sector against public sector, benefit claimants,private and social housing renters ,NHS etc etc .
He has and is failing to deal with UK issues but simply looks at people to blame.
The conservatives clearly from yesterdays twaddle are already setting out 2015 manifesto ?? how arrogant is that .
The conservative party we have now is on par of that of Heaths and will go the same way .
The labour party need to remove milliband and replace him with his brother .
The conservative party or shamble party need not bother planning to win the next election because they are going to ruin the lives of many over the coming 36 months.
As for me , give me a proper and true conservative party who deal with problems in a decent way , not act like a bunch of uncaring , out of touch oiks.I can happily say even under the current shambles my life is reasonably ok and i am happy with my lot but unlike many daily mail readers i have not got a desire to see the majority of minority groups suffer at the whim of an oaf who is clearly out of his depth uk and globally.
Roger
My political inclination is opposite to yours but I don't think we are far apart neither being extreme. However I agree with every word you say. Politics have moved away from principles into personalities as the politicians have changed. This lot, both sides, are professional politicians with little or no experience of the world of work or communities and have no idea about the impact of their narrow minded theoretical policies.
James
'...wanted Britain to join Europe.'
If, as a generous reader might infer (though you don't make yourself clear by actually saying so), you're talking about the UK joing the EC, I might point out that Ed Milliband was 5 years old at the time. The PM at the time was one Edward Heath - a Conservative.
If you're talking about the Euro, well, the UK didn't join it in 11 years of a Labour government, so the point is pretty much irrelevant.
Might be best if you made yourself clear, rather than indulging in a stream-of-consciousness rant.
Ken Adams
James, I think he meant join the Euro.
ph7
Tony Blair wanted the Euro. Gordon Brown opposed it. At the time Milliband wasn't in the treasury, Ed Balls was.
So twaddle is correct.
Roger
I think he means what he said. This is not a debate about the EU it's about how politicians think and act. It's about basic honesty. When a politician gets it wrong or has a difficult descision to make it all becomes, blame someone else, politics for politics sake and loses the point. Is it the right thing to do, did we make an honest mistake. We would respect them all more if they admited they were human and make mistakes. Then we can put things right.
Grey
Ahh because Leominster in Herefordshire, the most empty of English counties is obviously stretched to breaking point with the numbers of them there immigrants.
shaun
The whole Labour party is crumbling but this time there may be no way back, The NHS in Wales under labour control is being used politically to exploit vulnerable patients and not protect its front line services as NHS trusts in Labour held London constituencies act similarly, the general public can see this for what it it is and its playing badly for the labour party!The BMA the DR's union only with 8% support of its membership striking was a joke!
In Scotland they've had enough and realise the Labour party isn't acting for Scotland the SNP is winning its argument holding government against an electoral system designed by Labour.
When Scotland goes the English Labour Party collapses.
This is all before anyone starts to criticise the cost of socialist governance and that Milliband & Balls cannot be trusted on Law and order, immigration, housing, defence, and the economy. The simple fact for the British electorate is that the conservatives aren't an alternative but the only choice, the Labour party is far too confused, liberal, left wing and feckless.
Nistagmus
Imagine there was no opposition, would you still honestly agree with everything the party you support does? Or do you follow your party because they are *not* the other lot?
Party politics is partisan (natch); leave it behind, it leads to failure. And yes, there are better systems of government.
dave
Enough said Shaun, you put it like that they've had it. No wonder they're in such a mess.
zztopfan
So I, as a social democrat and a liberal, should be voting Conservative at the next election?
Presumably you would have no objection to living in a single-party dictatorship, or just doing away with elections entirely?
If the Labour Party is crumbling, why are they ahead in the opinion polls?
helen
'Will Miliband ever accept blame for his failures?'
This is such an old, tired argument. Will the ConDems ever accept that they are in government and have been for some time now? Surely it's their job to take steps to sort out the economy instead of making things worse whilst blaming whoever they can point the finger at for the mess we're in? If it's not Labour it's young people or public sector workers or the EU or people on benefits- anyone, in fact, other than those who have the power to rectify the economy but would rather continue to benefit from the current climate no matter what the cost to the rest of us.
Gareth
Well Helen I'd like to see you pay off an overdraft of £1tn in 2 years. Do you think Cameron was just going to wave a magic wand and everything would be ok?.
Labour have always left the country in a worse financial state when they leave office.
It's about time we started living within our means.
helen
Gareth-
'Do you think Cameron was just going to wave a magic wand and everything would be ok?'
No, I thought he'd do exactly what he has done- fail to create economic growth and cut essential services for those need it most (the young, the elderly, the disabled...) while simultaneously rewarding the super-rich with tax breaks and the like. The impressive thing is that he has managed to hoodwink so many people into cheering him on while he does so much damage.
Roger
Labour has consistently reduced national borrowing since the war, just the same as the Tories.
Anyone who believes they can change anything as quickly as Cameron wants to, have to accept that radical changes have radical results and they are not all the ones you are expecting. So debt is rising and will continue to do so under a policy of austerity alone. Cameron has failed completely and millions have suffered for his incompetence.
Too arrogant to admit that his Macro policy is wrong they are "U turning on micro issues everyday. Cameron has brought down the conservative party to the point of being unelectable.
In 2015, if there is enough left to work with, someone else will have to unravel the stupidity and hopefully start putting it right.
Ken Adams
Can we afford a Conservative/Liberal government, with the latest news that Public sector net borrowing, excluding financial interventions such as bank bailouts, is expected to be between £16 - 16.5 billion, compared with £15 billion in May last year. Where is the money going?
Huw Peach
According to a Daily Telegraph article today, a huge amount of taxpayers' money seems to be going on paying back Public Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes, Ken.
'Across the public sector, taxpayers are committed to paying £229bn for hospitals, schools, roads and other projects with a capital value of £56bn.'
(Source: DT 'Explained: how PFI left NHS trusts at risk' 26 June 2012)
PFI was introduced by the Conservatives under John Major and continued by Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
As you know, the idea behind PFI is that private firms pay to build hospitals, schools and other infrastructure (eg Veolia's unpopular incinerator project in Shrewsbury) and then charge government 'mortgage' fees for decades afterwards.
The public definitely want investment in schools and hospitals etc (and are definitely NOT keen on incinerators), but the more we find out about the terms of PFI contracts, the more outrageous the deals seem.
eg According to the National Audit office, PFI contractors got a return of 70%+ for a deal on a hospital in Bromley.
Despite the huge payments from the public to the contractors, the contracts for the deals are NOT open to Freedom of Information requests, so no chance of democratic accountability there.
Instead of us and our kids paying £229bn for projects worth £56bn, wouldn't it better if Labour and the Conservatives admitted they had got it wrong with PFI and bought back the debt?
Ken Adams
I believe it worse than you say Hugh, because these hospitals are under financial pressure to meet the payments they are having to cut back on front line staff thus reducing the service.
So it looks like these PFI agreements are not only costing us between 4 and 5 times their worth but they are not delivering the service for which they were contracted.
As to the government buying back the debts I would far rather that than supporting private bankers who did not do their jobs properly.
I completely agree about the loss of accountability, what is the point of electing anyone if they are completely tied up with agreements made by a previous administration.
Roger
I have often wondered how Hospitals pay for buildings costs. Prior to PFI did the hospital have to finance the pubic spending investment involved in capital building costs. If not then the burden of paying for capital cost is not being fairly distributed.
The terms and conditions of PFI are clearly up for challenge. It would appear that the PFI investors are profiteering from the deals. That is their right and it is the Governments duty to stop it. The fault is undoubtedly the purchasing department who agreed the terms. It may be cheaper to buy the companies rather than the debt. We need to decide if it is moral to deprive the investors of their gross profits with or with out compensation.
That the issue not politics.
Ken Adams
It was politicians who agreed to allow PFI arrangements they did not care about the moral of using public money to pay 4/5 times the cost of these hospitals, all they cared about keeping the cost off the balance sheets.
Freddie
Before PFI the government borrowed the money and paid what the actual construction cost. Around the mid 1990s there was a lot of guff abut Labour not being able to manage the economy and (for some reason) borrowing was decided on as a key indicator. Unfortunately the public being how it is generally believe everything they read in the papers and so were soon believing that borrowing = bad. PFI = good as it doesn't show up as borrowing.
The next big issue to deal with is the fact that due to the economic downturn there is a lot of capital sloshing around the system that investors need to invest but will get poor returns if they place in existing financial products. The only remaining areas to make relatively high returns are in privatised public sectors where, for ideological reasons, the government pays more for private sector organisations to operate them than it does for the public services to run themselves (the railways being a good example but it's happening now in the NHS). This gives the private financiers a good return on their money and somewhere safe to stick their money. So we aren't going to be seeing a let up in this situation any time soon...
adam
@Shaun
<i>When Scotland goes the English Labour Party collapses.</i>
When Labour win, they almost always win in England. The idea that they are lost without Scotland simply isn't true - 1945, 1950, 1951, 1966, 1974, 1997, 2001 Labour win in England. And it is far, far from clear that Scotland will vote for independence in any event.
You think the Labour party are crumbling? At the moment, if you use the <a href="http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk" rel="nofollow">UK Polling Report</a> election seat calculator, using the settings for the proposed new boundaries which will apparently also wipe out the Labour party, and using the 'Poll of Polls' average, Labour come out with a majority of 104 seats. A landslide win.
Crumbling?
I know it's three years to the election and I know it's just a simulator using polling but if I was a Conservative supporter I know where I'd like to be in the polls.
shaun
Spoken like a true socialist someone who cannot count!
Nistagmus
Dear Mr Cockett, you can only be called a hypocrite if you stand for something. David Cameron is absolutely safe on that score.
stu
The trouble is that an acknowledgement by politicians thet they 'got it wrong' does not undo the damage.
The issue of immigration has been catastrophically mishandled by all political parties since it began in modern times during the 1950's.
I do not believe that large scale immigration has ever been necessary, desirable, sustainable or viable for this country.
twisting my melon
I like the way they keep bamging on about U-turns. Whats wrong with a U-turn, surely if its good for the country then its better than Tony ( its my trainset ) Blairs stubbourn attitude from the last government.
adam
The problem with U-Turns is that there are only so many times you can...
1. Announce a new policy
2. Introduce the detail of the policy
3. Explain the necessity of the policy
4. Argue with people who oppose the policy and then
5. Drop the policy
... before you look like you don't know what you're doing.
Leaders should have foresight - they should be acting deliberately and carefully on policies they have thoroughly thought through. The point comes, with U-Turn after U-Turn, when the opposition are entitled to greet every new policy announcement with "Now, are you <strong>sure</strong> about this?"
Ken Adams
The U-Turn on fuel prices was done on the same day (yesterday) the minster for transport was arguing in the Telegraph that they had to be introduced. I don’t think any of them actually know what they are doing.
twisting my melon
So being swayed by public opinion is a bad thing then.
Can you explain Democracy now please..
adam
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
It's not about whether you are listening or not, it's about a government appearing to be making it up as it goes along. This is, I think,the fifth or even sixth specific policy from Osborne's budget that has been changed - from The Budget, the once in a year very carefully planned 'This is how we are going to manage things for the next twelve months' major policy statement, and they are running wild from their own plans.
It's not about listening to public opinion, it's about simply not being in control or in charge. The transport minister was out in the media explaining in detail why the policy had to stay the day before the Chancellor announced that it was going to go. They're a mess.
Time's Up
In a democracy, the public opinion bit should go before decisions are made. The theory is that the electorate chooses representatives to make thoughtful decisions on our behalf. That's what manifestos, elections, consultations, debate etc are for. It's not good democracy to make disastrous decisions to benefit your mates that even your own advisers warn won't work and then, when people get angry, flail around tinkering and backtracking on the hoof over a few populist bits to try to ingratiate yourself with the electorate. This government is not democratic, it is an elitist shambles.
James
And the same transport minister was then sent to explain the change to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, while Osborne attended a party.
They are indeed a mess - and they're hanging each other out to dry.
john
This one of 2 letters on the go criticising Milliband .Let's have some balance please.
shaun
five apples = three oranges?
catherine jones
He is a socialist. end of
we can never allow him any power or he will take our money and give it away to the poor.
sorry but I worked hard for mine, not sharing it, not voting labour never, never, never!
The Sheriff of Nottingham
Well said. Good to see someone on the same wavelength as me. Now, do you know anything of the whereabouts of a certain Robin of Locksley?
The graduate
It is your opinion that you worked hard for your money others may not share that view .
Under this current shower unless you are in the league of the wealthy and talking multiple property ownership, a few million in cash, and another few million in stocks and shares, you to them going to be just the oik they stuff, and you will be there ooooooh yes please .
Carolyn
Well I admire Mr Cameron for attempting to sort out the baggage that successive governments have left alone because the problems were too hard to tackle. If he fails we will all pay the price but at least he has the guts to try rather than just complain and then do nothing.
adam
That's the logic of...
* we must do something
* this is something
* we must do this
Austerity has never worked to move a country out of recession - it is guaranteed to make things worse. This government inherited a growing economy from Labour which was slowly recovering from the international crisis (which do so much to wreck things here just as it did around the world - before the global crisis hit Labour's deficit was entirely on a par with the historic record of conservative governments.
Cameron isn't addressing the problem, he's causing the problem. Nobody suggests complaining and doing nothing. The economy was growing again under Labour before the 2010 election and has collapsed since then thanks to the Government's policies.
Roger
Baggage?? Sort out????
The problems were created by Thatcher thirty years ago and are embedded in our culture.
Cameron is following the Thatcher ethic which was wrong then and is more wrong now. He has borrowed more without any return on the borrowing. Caused more unemployment. Caused misery for his victims and rewarded the wealthy for their donations. He is totally morally corrupt. Everything he touches turns to dust and he has a chancellor who can not make a decision. They are hopeless, elitist, Thatcherites who don't have an original idea between them. Can anyone tell us what anything they have made better? We can all say what is worse and there is no end or improvement to any of the national issues of concern.
My cat could do a better job than these posh boys because she would do no damage.
Ken Adams
Roger are you not in danger of contradicting yourself, your first comment on this thread you say;
“Politics have moved away from principles into personalities as the politicians have changed.”
Now you say “Cameron is following the Thatcher ethic which was wrong then and is more wrong now”
I do not know what the “Thatcher ethic” is that has polluted everything political for the last 30 years; perhaps you could explain.
Well before the last election I was saying Cameron did not have any ideas of what he would do once he got power as he seemed to want power for its own sake, if he has any political ideology or grand plan he is keeping it very close to his vest as his government is being blown along in the breeze coming from focus groups and polling reports.
Sorry but I don’t accept the Thatcher shorthand that every thing bad can be laid at her door without question. I would agree with you on the main points here about this administration, but question linking this to Thatcher because she did know want she stood for and what she wanted to achieve, many might not have agreed with her but many others did.
Roger
Maggie was the first of the new Genre of Politicians. Her policies were based fundamentally on a one shot belief that the market place is the answer to everything and if allowed to run free of regulation or control would solve all of the problems. Government was just interference with the market. The consequences of her policy took no account of any impact on society or people. She created the first "lost generation" and switched the economy to its dependence on pure "monetarism".
She had no moral principle insomuch that she was not prepared to consider the social aspects. She was the "iron lady", "the lady not for turning" who "hand bagged" her opponents and sacked any minister who disagreed with her until no one disagreed with her. It took an old world conservative to plot her down fall when she went beyond even their limits of the rule of personality rather than principles. Her government was the first to totally neglect defence on the grounds of money directly bringing about a war from which she gloried. It was all about Maggie not politics, principles or society.
Today we see were her policies have taken us. Foreign ownership of the utilities with financial rip off prices, the now proved, corrupt, self serving City which has driven us to the edge of bankruptcy. The downward slide of education and training leaving us with low standards and a skills shortage, the third lost generation etc, etc,
With the exception of John Major who was lumbered with the resulting mess and blamed for much of it every "leader" since has invested more in their personality then the policies to put things right. None of them have addressed the basic principle that they are elected to look after their electorate. I have to admit that reversing the Thatcher legacy is a massive undertaking the will take generations but none of them have taken a significant step in that direction. The system has needed to fail in a major way before we have been prepared to say enough is enough and the public demand that these things are addressed. Energy prices, immigration, bank failure, interest rate fixing, conning the public through complex derivative products, poverty, and austerity for the poor whilst the rich thrive, press corruption, police corruption etc, etc. All of these have their roots in the Thatcher government period when money was placed ahead of morality on the grand scale. But it was all about Maggie. You love her or hate her but she was the personality, she was in charge and she dominated British government for over a decade and stood no opposition.
Ken Adams
So who believes Thatcher was a political giant who had the power to imposed her design on the political landscape 30 years after she had left power.
Demoniesing one person rather misrepresents history, lets Labour off the hook and hides the real problems. In the period before Thatcher came to power there was considerable industrial unrest as the the previous administrations were faced with getting to grips with the economic recession which started in the 1970s, Britain was then know as the sick man of Europe.
The winter of discontent which preceded the Conservatives under Thatcher winning power in 1979 was perhaps the culmination of a union led labour revolt against a Labour government which was pursuing policies that became know as Thatcherite in order to rescue the economy. Unemployment doubled between 1975 and 1976, it was a Labour government who argued that there would have to be reductions in public expenditure in favour of ‘prudent housekeeping’. It was Callaghan who accused strikers of engaging in ‘free collective vandalism’ and unions of ‘abusing their great strength, they had after all brought down the Heath government.
“Thatcherism” began well before Thatcher came to power, and continued well after she resigned. To argue that she alone has infected the British political body with her views is to ague that the Labour party had no answer and offered no alternative, which might be true but somehow I doubt it.
So why has no government since 1990 even begun to address these issues but have instead continued on the path set out in the 1970s.
Roger
Ken
I was answering your question Ken as directly as I could. Maggie was the first of the current generation of Leaders who dominated their parties and Governments. The whole Blair/Brown term was blighted by their personality differences and Cameron dominates his party. I dread to think what Cameron would have done if not for his coalition partners. Was everything that Maggie did wrong - No Someone had to stand up to the unions and she did. Shutting down the entire coal, steel and car producing industries might have been taking it too far but that is debatable. Selling off the utilities was definitely a mistake because the utilities failed to meet their obligations. Most got inflation plus rises in tariffs so that could invest in the infrastructure but failed to do so. They simply operated what they were given and maximised their profits, But give Maggie her due even she said Rail was “a privatisation too far” but that did not stop Major starting it or Blair finishing it. I suspect that Blair’s approach to the economy was that like his attitude to News International, there was not an immediate problem, at the time, and there were other issues on his agenda like the minimum wage, industrial relations law etc that he did want to address.
But we all know now the problems of an economy based on personal greed were brewing below the surface. A small Scottish bank taking over the largest British bank should have caused concern and then growing beyond its ability to finance the growth should have caused more concern but the free market seemed to be working.
The point I am making is that from Thatcher forward Politics has been more about Personality and Money and less about the People and Morality. I can see no one on the current horizon that has the right values. This government is Thatcherite but this time the people are beginning are say "No" and the politicians are beginning to hear. Multiple "U turns" and the banks are not going to be allowed to "get away with it" are examples. But more significantly the public realise that austerity for the poor and enrichment of the rich is not only "morally bad" but it is not working either. Cameron is finished and it's just a matter of time.
Ken Adams
Not disputing in the main, but I think this is not because of anything done by Thatcher. It was Heath who started water privatisation, Heath, Wilson and Callahan all attempted to control the unions the Conservatives privatised the steel industry in the 1950s Wilson and Callahan used a policy of wage restraint ect. so these things were on the agenda before her time.
Thus to blame Thatcher for the state we are in now is missing the the point that the polices of party politics has grown closer as they all fight over the so called centre ground - which of course they define - this has nothing to do with Thatcher.
National utilities introduced to serve the public good should not be de-nationalised and sold off into private ownership, the argument for privatisation falls flat on its face if there is no choice available to force competition. So the ongoing privatisation of utilities and the invention of make-believe markets must have another rationality, otherwise we would have had some political party standing out against the process.
Thatcher is gone, in the normal course of events so would have her polices, unless the movement is bigger and wider than one British Prime minister, unless something else was still driving those polices.
During this period from the 1970s to date something else happened and that was we joined the European Protect. Perhaps this has more to do with the eventual triangulation of party politics and the lack of political ideas that we see today. After all every administration since Heath has been forced to accept his agreements and each new agreement by successive British governments have had the same effect, because they are written into the EU Aquis, otherwise know as the ratchet. Each new government is faced with a whole raft of polices introduced by their predecessors over which they find they have no control. No wonder British party politics has become typified by personality rather than policy, the policies are not agreed at party headquarters or at party meetings they are already agreed at an EU level.
Mike Cockett
The whole series of replies has wandered off the subject I posed. My whole point was that Milliband [and Balls for that matter] was an advisor to Gordon Brown. One supposes Brown listened to him, now Milliband is trying to distance himself from the last shambles of a Labour goverment. That's hypocracy in my eyes. I agree the present lot are shaky, - wouldn't you be with a crisis in Eurpoe which is at least 40% of our markets. The Germans are trying to run everyone else into debt. Taking over Europe without a war, they're succeeding. The present disgrace over the Banks is because Brown took away the control of the High Street Banks by the Bank of England alone, and divided it between the BoE, the F.S.A and the Treasury. Had control been left to the Bank of England, the blame could have been levelled at them, had the same thing arose. Who was in charge of the treasury? - chancellor Gordon Brown. All organisations need firm controls. Look at the Human Rights mess which has led to the lack of respect for teachers, and serious discipline in schools. That with the comprehensive system has led to many not able to read or write at age 11 - They got rid of capital punishment [There's no deterent any more only a protected life inside] All disasterous left-wing socialist policies. Neil Kinnock's department in Europe haven't had their accounts verified for 14 years. How do they get away with it? You can pin-point Britain's present poor economic performance to one man, bacause Blair didn't even know what was in Brown's 'Prudent' Labour budgets. Brown performed like some Communist leader eager for absolute control. What happened to Communism I wonder? It went capitalist and made a fortune. Labour hates profits which are needed to support the genuine needy. Of course there are far too many who abuse their privaledges, but strong laws and strict controls should keep these own. Labour doesn't believe in enforcing strong sensible laws as confirmed by Human Rights. What a farce they are. Foreigners are entitled to more rights [and benefits] than the indigenous populus. An 'armless' trouble-maker who arrived on a false passport comes readily to mind. He's even got 24 hour protection. The unemployed know how to get more from benefits than they can earn. (1) Get a girl in trouble. (2) She'll get a home from the council because they have to house them, (3) get her in trouble again, (4) move in with her and then say I can't find the job that suits me. A job in Leominster can't compete with the benefits paid out. Then import foreigners who will work. Unemployment, the National Debt, Inflation and Fuel prices are all falling. It's not all doom and gloom I think. But it's a bit unsteady at present. You have a few more years of this then Labour will be back in power and that'll be the end of my country. My family has been here since the year 1276, and I now have less rights [and money] than illegal imigrants. It's got to be wrong.
Mike Cockett
James
The original letter may have been incoherent but at least it was short. This on the other hand...
adam
@ Mike Cockett
<I>My whole point was that Milliband [and Balls for that matter] was an advisor to Gordon Brown - now Milliband is trying to distance himself from the last shambles of a Labour govenrment.
</I>
Cameron was adviser to Norman Lamont before, during and after economic disaster in the early 90s - our own economic disaster, not the worldwide crash that his us along with everyone else in 2008. Now Cameron distances himself from that shambles of a Conservative government.
<i>My family has been here since the year 1276, and I now have less rights [and money] than illegal imigrants.</i>
Illegal immigrants get nothing at all that they can't find sub minimum wage unprotected dangerous cash in hand work for. You must be bone idle if you have less rights and money than them. Or, alternatively, a lot of what you say here is ignorant nonsense.
Roger
I agree this is well off Ed Millibrand. Your last entry hardly mentions him. It does seem that you are bashing labour for everything since the war and praising conservatives as gods. Everything in the world is now fine and we have nothing to worry about if we support Cameron.
Sorry I do not accept that view. I think we are at our lowest ebb since the war and nothing is rosy. The government is borrowing more than any government since the seventies, inflation is not falling as predicted even though their tax rises are now out of the equation, and fuel price adjustment by no means reflect the open market falls which justified the increases. It was Thatcher not Blair/Brown who relaxed the markets and left them to self regulate and Labours relaxation was viewed by the Tories as not enough. It is the Tory immoral philosophy of money over everything that has driven our society down for forty years. Labour has sinned by not reversing that but they certainly did not cause it.
But to get back to the subject, Ed Millibrand was a very small fish then and to be honest we do not actually know what his manifesto is now.
carolyn
Well rather all this posturing and negativity I prefer a positive, forward looking attitude. Labour had their chance and, like it or not, left the country with the biggest debt ever after inheriting a balanced budget when they came to power in 1997. The redoutable Ruth Lea described the debt as 'staggering' at the time the banks were bailed out. And who sold the gold? None of the parties could have foreseen the financial problems in the rest of the world and how they would affect us. Equally, whatever one government does can be undone by the succeeding government, if they so chose. Now it is the turn of a different lot to rule and hopefilly coalition should temper the excesses of both parties involved.
Michael Wilkinson
Ive just read this thread and can see a lot of passion and knowledge along of course with some twaddle.
I believe there are many,many voters, with more gumption that the MPs they elect,more knowledge more dignity and more honesty.
There are some MPs who also have these traits but are usually not in cabinet for that's the club for misfits who are bound to the EU for life.