I'm reminded of an episode of South Park where the boys uncover a "conspiracy". Turns out that it's "W" creating a fake conspiracy to make it seem that his government is all powerful and controls everything - when really they haven't a f******g clue .

This is how I see this lot.

They don't even have the brains to follow a simple Tory ideology. Look at the latest clumsy outpourings, stop housing benefit for under 25's, bring back O Levels. Next they'll be blaming miners.

The great skill of the upper class is to look stupid, act stupid and talk stupid and yet still the plebs think they must actually be really clever. They hand each other prizes at their expensive schools and universities to show how clever they must be and we all buy it. Take away Cameron and Osbournes money and they wouldn't have been able to scrape a GCSE grade C between them.



Cunning plan my arrrssseee.

I seem to remember the Tories suggesting that private health treatment should have been subsidised by 50% by the NHS a few years ago when they were in opposition, I can't remember if it was the Quiet Man, the 14-pint-er, or the one who won't answer the question though.

Quote McLaren_Field="McLaren_Field"I'm constantly amazed that no Tory Government has ever suggested that anyone who spends their own money on education (via private schools) or on health (via private health providers) should have a corresponding discount on their NIS contributions. Its just so blindingly obvious to follow the political dogma to its natural conclusion that I don't understand why its never been suggested - or has it ?'" By the way, if any of you are feeling in any way sorry for Cameron's alma mater, you can help them out ... www.etoncollege.com/waysofgiving.aspx

Quote McLaren_Field="McLaren_Field"I'm constantly amazed that no Tory Government has ever suggested that anyone who spends their own money on education (via private schools) or on health (via private health providers) should have a corresponding discount on their NIS contributions. Its just so blindingly obvious to follow the political dogma to its natural conclusion that I don't understand why its never been suggested - or has it ?'" By the way, if any of you are feeling in any way sorry for Cameron's alma mater, you can help them out ... www.etoncollege.com/waysofgiving.aspx

There may be some short term benefit to construction sector, but special pleading for construction sector aside, for a long list of reasons I don't think it would deliver the sustained economic growth the country really needs. If Government is going to take risk and expand deficit spending to pursue economic growth it needs to be something more structural that only Government can do and there's no reason why that wouldn't be a boost to construction sector in short term too.







I don't think this will happen, it's just hot air, although I do wonder if it is a smokescreen for something else, that's how these things usually work.

Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"By the way, if any of you are feeling in any way sorry for Cameron's alma mater, you can help them out ... www.etoncollege.com/waysofgiving.aspx'" What a bunch of t0ssers. How that is allowed charitable status I'll never know. On a slightly related note, it made me laugh on the outside and cry a little on the inside when I was watching coverage of Trooping the Colour and they did interviews with some of the officers of the Coldstream Guards. Every single one was a Julian or a Rory and usually with a double barrelled surname (& not in the Jones-Buchanan sense of the double barrelled name!) and every single one had gone to very expensive private school. They also did a short bit at Sandhurst and again, every officer cadet interviewed was from private school. A friend of mine is in the Grenadiers, and he'd mentioned before the poshness of the officers but it was still very depressing to see that in reality sod all has changed in the Army.

Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"By the way, if any of you are feeling in any way sorry for Cameron's alma mater, you can help them out ... www.etoncollege.com/waysofgiving.aspx'" What a bunch of t0ssers. How that is allowed charitable status I'll never know. On a slightly related note, it made me laugh on the outside and cry a little on the inside when I was watching coverage of Trooping the Colour and they did interviews with some of the officers of the Coldstream Guards. Every single one was a Julian or a Rory and usually with a double barrelled surname (& not in the Jones-Buchanan sense of the double barrelled name!) and every single one had gone to very expensive private school. They also did a short bit at Sandhurst and again, every officer cadet interviewed was from private school. A friend of mine is in the Grenadiers, and he'd mentioned before the poshness of the officers but it was still very depressing to see that in reality sod all has changed in the Army.

Because they end up as the people who decide who gets charitable status. If it was you or me then things might be different, but it 'aint.

You are completely wrong here. The only reason the boom period ended was due to the banking crisis. Darling was already setting out plans to cut public spending while the economy was still going to be booming and so would have done what you wanted. There were no economic indicators the economy was going to contract in some sort of traditional cyclic manner either. The banking crisis came right out of left field. It is only with hindsight that you can level the charge you do and without the banking crises there would not have been a problem with the level of spending as was or what was planned.



Before the banking crisis the Tories were also saying they would match the level of spending Labour were predicting anyway where they to win the election which some people seem to conveniently forget.



The real problem is that there wasn't sufficient regulation of the banks to prevent the banking crises but it would be rank hypocrisy for anyone with a right wing bent to their politics to blame Labour for that as they would have been opposed to any such regulation in the first place. This is another charge that can only be levied with hindsight but given the Tories deregulated the banking industry in the first place and Cameron was even calling for LESS regulation literally a matter of weeks before the whole thing kicked off its just right wing propaganda to try and pin the blame elsewhere as if they had been forewarning everyone of impending doom. They weren't. They wanted even more of the same.

And it's a myth that Labour's public spending was at massive, record levels. It was, as Prof Colin Talbot of Manchester University points out, a convenient myth for Labour – and one they did nothing to contradict – but it was a myth.

That they couldn't see the bust coming is not an excuse for their overspending. Without the banking crisis the bust still would have happened. Maybe later, possibly sooner - people seem to ignore the contribution the banking sector made to sustaining the boom we all enjoyed. Of course part of what the banks were doing was just as unsustainable as part of what the government was doing.

Out of interest is anyone, other than you, propagating this myth? It just I've not heard it anywhere else.

Rubbish. Both spending and debt were easily sustainable prior to the banking crisis and would have remained sustainable without the banking crisis as evidenced by the HM Treasury statistics that show the public spending and public sector debt as a % of GDP were generally no higher under Labour than they were under the Tories.

Labour should have regulated the banks, so should every other nation, something which is conveniently forgotten by the "it's all Labours fault" brigade. If its all Labours fault, why has the same thing happened across the world?

As has already been said on here, before the crisis, the Tories were proposing to match Labour's spending. Cameron was saying that whilst the economy may be ok, "society was broken." Gus O'Donnell the head of the civil service under Major, Blair and Brown has said that the civil service didn't see the crisis coming.

I think some blame can be attached to a Labour government not regulating the banks, but the zeigeist was "the market is always right" As with many of this country's ills, the banking crisis can be traced back to Thatcher.

The British economy shrank 7% in 2008/9, the deficit was a product of that reduction. TBH I reckon Darling did well to pull the economy through that and nurture some growth. Osbourne killed that growth stone dead. He and Dave the Kipper should pay the price at the next election. I sincerely hope they do.

As an added vindictive bonus I'd like to see Clegg kicked out of Sheffield too. That'd larn 'im!