Johnny Bognor

It was the right call to nationalise the banks, however I would have preferred him to do it out of the rainy day fund (oh yes, there wasn't one), rather than borrow / mortgage us to the hilt to do it. I would also like to add that it is the long suffering Northern Rock mortgage holders that paid for the bailout by paying extortionate rates in order for the govt to claw back some of their 'loan'

Just a point to consider, for those that think VAT on houses will not make any difference, is what was all the fuss about regarding stamp duty? If reducing stamp duty stimulates demand (which recently happened), how can VAT on property not adversely affect demand? VAT on property is akin to extra stamp duty on new builds.

So nothing to do with the structural Budget deficit then?

Are you seriously suggesting that you earn 20 euros per annum? Not ideal, but a step in the right direction and it gives them the moral ground when it comes to restricting public sector pay

OK, yes the jump in July was partially down to a hike in VAT, but had the economy been in the state handed to Brown by Clarke, would this have been necessary????

Agree with this. Considering the mess we're in, the tories should be walking it. The expenses scandals have certainly tainted the electorates views of politicians and the TV debates were definately a game changer. So compared to elections in the past, these are two major factors that have shaken things up a bit. One thing which will go down well, is that on day 1, tory ministers will take a 5% pay cut (compared to their Labour counterparts), which at least shows some leadership on restraining public sector pay.

Indeed, inflation jumped by 1% between May 1979 (when labour left office) and June 1979 (when the first MT budget was held) from 8.9% to 9.9%. By July it had hit 14.7%. So inflation went up 6% in the 8 weeks after Labour left office. Looks like legacy to me.

To be fair TG, away from the national arena, on a local level there are good constiuency MP's of all colours (and there are bad, of all colours). I live in Chichester and Andrew Tyrie is the local tory MP with 49% of the vote..... he also happens to be 563rd on the list of expenses, so it's nice to know he hasn't been taking the ****. He helped save the local hospital which was put up for closure and he led the way in laying into the bankers when he was on the treasury select committee. All in all, one of the better MPs. I believe he has twice been voted "backbencher of the year" by leading journalists. ...and for you lefties, he has opposed the iraq war (publishing many articles on his opposition) and founded the parliamentary group on extraorninary rendition. Even you would consider voting for him. He was descibed by the editor of the spectator as follows: “He’s got, perhaps, one of the best minds in the Party… Sometimes he is the conscience of his party (sometimes he is a thorn in its side) but when he stands up always he is a man worth listening to.” If the outcome of the election is a Lib-Lab pact and they push through with PR, I really hope we don't lose the constituency link.

But the general leftie accusation (which is why I brought this up in the first place) is that the last tory government destroyed manufacturing......they didn't. Or at least the facts show they didn't. Also, contrary to popular belief...... During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4% a year. (Source, 2005 IFS Public Spending Review, page 3 http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/05ebn2.pdf)

FAO: Ludwig As said before, there is no simple link available. I have compiled GDP figures to prove my point. UK manufacturing fell from 31% of GDP to 25% of GDP between 1970 and 1979. Between 1979 and 1989 (the Thatcher years) it fell from 25% to 23% of GDP. Between 1989 and 2000 it fell from 23% to 19%. Therefore, manufacturing as a share of GDP fell LESS during the Thatcher years than at any other time since 1970. We can also consider that this trend has even affected Germany (Europe's industrial powerhouse) where manufacturing has fallen from 36% of GDP to 24% of GDP since the early 1970's. Even in France (where the state owns significant parts of the manufacturing base) manufacturing has fallen by more than 13% of its share of GDP. So it is easier to peddle the leftie mantra that the tories decimated manufacturing, but the facts do not back this up. Industrial decline has been in full swing for the last 5 decades and this pattern has been repeated in every major western economy. We in the west have been de-industrialising and therefore it is no surprise that economies like China and India have had a surge in GDP as they move to make more and more of the worlds products.

Unfortunately there is no one link as the data required is spread over 40 years and there is no one source. The data is pretty much all over the place, but there is clear evidence to support my view. Since the early 1970s manufacturing’s share in all OECD economies has fallen whilst the service sector's share has risen - this is an undisputed fact. However, here are some other interesting facts..... (Sourced from a Management Today article in 1994). It doesn't relate to a share of GDP, but as a market share of exports. The UK's export performance has been through a number of marked changes in recent decades. In 1950 Britain's manufacturing sector accounted for 26% of the exports of the main manufacturing countries. By the beginning of the 1970s that share had fallen to 11% (EDIT: more than halved some 10 years before the tories came to power), and the decline continued through the 1970s and early 1980s. In the past 10 years (EDIT 1984-1994 as the article was written in 1994), the UK's decline may have been halted. The nation's share of world exports seemed to reach a floor in the middle of the last decade (1985), and has since remained relatively stable. Increased competitiveness in the early 1980s partially accounts for the improvement. Between 1981 and 1987 UK competitiveness improved sharply as the exchange rate fell. However this is only part of the story, says Schroder Economics. Between 1987 and 1992 competitiveness worsened slightly, but UK exporters actually managed to increase their market share. It seems likely that non-price factors also form part of the explanation. Improved industrial relations, a more flexible labour market and a strong investment performance mean that Britain is now better able to compete on the world stage. When I get more time, I'll source the GDP figures. Now I've shown you mine, will you show me yours?

When I get 10 minutes, I will dig out the info for you. I have made this point many a time on this forum, but will have to dig out the research. As it is now QT, followed by This Week, I will try to get it for you tomorrow.

Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell more before 1979 and fell more after 1997. Still, go on believing the hype.....

It is mildy funny, but it really doesn't compare to Calamity Clown. I disagree, Brown is funnier than Mr Bean.

Now there's an idea

Obviously I would ultimately prefer a tory majority, but if not, a Labour one would have to do. Anything else would be a disaster. Recently the Mother of Socialists on SWF (BTF) admitted that if Labour could not win the election outright, then a tory majority would be more preferable. There are tough decisions to be made and I think they can only be made with a mandate.

Being serious for a minute, my main fear for a hung parliament is that all will agree that cuts are to be made, but that is where the agreement ends. Each will try to stick to their election promises and as such we could have inaction or little action, both of which could be disastrous. I have said it before, I would rather a Labour majority than a hung parliament if given the choice.

...and you forget the other Labour candidate that was arrested under suspicion of drink driving having crashed her car yesterday. Thankfully, no one innocent was hurt.

I hate to break it to you Geneva, but the cuts that are due, irrespective of who gets in, will be greater and deeper than the cuts under Thatcher. That is why I almost don't mind a Lib-Lab pact - fail to make the cuts and the IMF have to bail us out making them look like a bunch of ****s or make the cuts which makes them look bigger ****s than Thatcher - a win-win situation IMO. Taken from the FT.... Analysis from the Financial Times also suggests the next government will have to "cut public sector pay, freeze benefits, slash jobs, abolish a range of welfare entitlements and take the axe to programmes such as school building and road maintenance." The FT has developed an online simulator, using government figures, which suggests that in order to save the £30bn-£40bn necessary to acheive their goal, the next government would have to: :: Cut public sector pay by 5%; :: Freeze benefits for a year; :: Means-test child benefit; :: Abolish winter fuel payments and free television licences; :: Cut prison numbers by a quarter; :: Axe the two planned aircraft carriers; :: Withdraw free bus passes for pensioners; :: Delay Crossrail for three years; :: Halve roads maintenance; :: Stop school building; :: Halve spending on teaching assistants and NHS dentistry; :: And cut funding to Scotland and Wales by 10%. We haven't even started to feel the pain of things yet.......

Indeed, his response was over a month before yesterday :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You've got to give it to the guy. To come up with a response 1 month before the event is pretty spectacular. Some people call him visionary whilst others prophetic.

I've managed to stop laughing after yesterdays comedy gold and was only talking about this issue with the missus this morning. I agree that with the worst prime minister in history, coupled with the worst economic crisis in history and the biggest mess for generations, the tories should be polling 45%+ and they are not (or 40%+ at the very least) Perhaps it is down to the calibre of the front bench team, perhaps it is down to the general publics dislike of the main parties / MP's expenses (with which Clegg has played a blinder). If Chris Patten was leading the party, with Ken Clarke as Chancellor, William Hague as Foreign Secretary and Portillo as Home Secretary, the tories would probably be polling 50%+ and so that says a lot about the current tory team. Yes, I don't think the current team are all that (Hague and Clarke excluded), but having said that, they are the only party that will support the entrepreneurs, small businesses and wealth creators of this once great nation and therefore give us the best hope for future economic prosperity for all and for that reason they have my support. Not an ideal situation, but you can only vote for what is put in front of you.

Who just happened by pure chance to be in the same place as DC

Serious question: Is expressing concern about immigration more or less bigotted than promising British jobs for British workers? Discuss.

The funniest bit was when the Lib Dem woman said that one thing we won't hear Gordon say in tommorow's leader debate is "yesterday, I met a woman from Rochdale...." :smt043:smt043:smt043 Meanwhile, tomorrow's Sun headline is: "She only went out for a loaf of bread and came back with BROWN TOAST" :smt043:smt043:smt043 I am struggling to remember a funnier day in politics!

To be fair, unlike Brown, at least he says it to your face