Eastleigh by-election battle hots up

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Under a Labour government, it would put the working person first, yes they have borrowed vast amounts of money before, but l was watching Question Time last night and Mr Hamilton said that under the Tory party, there borrowing had trebled under the coalition, than ever did under Labour.

We need a government to run this country that is not going to there rich friends with tax breaks, and licking there lips whilst the poor suffer more and more. Since the coalition has been in power NOT one of there promises have been kept.

With UKIP, so far l have not found any truth in what they say, same as the Tories. They are a new party, so why should we believe them

Cameron said on Sky News, that the Eastleigh by election is a protest vote, l call it a kick in the teeth by finishing behind UKIP in THIRD place, yes Labour finished last, but Milliband said that they have NEVER won the seat.

Arthur, figures from the Guardian, which isn't the Coalition's best friend...

[Osem]

Mere details Hugh...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Arthur, figures from the Guardian, which isn't the Coalition's best friend...

Hugh

Arthur does not do facts

Originally Posted by Hugh

Arthur, figures from the Guardian, which isn't the Coalition's best friend...

but that damns the torries just as much as Labour does it not? the figures for the 90s are awfully high considering it was 20 years ago.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

them guys really should not smile when they pose with that case

[Gary L]

Dave really does hate the unemployed. he doesn't seem to realise that his policies and actions are maybe what's losing him support.
he doesn't know whether the majority who didn't vote are unemployed.

he's showing clear signs of a disillusioned mentally retarded man.

"But I am confident that at the general election we can win those people back by demonstrating that we are delivering for everyone who wants to work hard and wants to get on. That is what we will be focused on."

That says it all about the mans mental state.
he mentioned work only because that's what this war of his is all about.
working vs the non working.
the man's a complete prat.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

but that damns the torries just as much as Labour does it not? the figures for the 90s are awfully high considering it was 20 years ago.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

them guys really should not smile when they pose with that case

The figures for the 90s are the result of our disastrous experiment with the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, fore-runner of the Euro and, to this day, the reason why we're neither in the Euro nor planning ever to be in the Euro. Exiting the ERM and getting the economy back on track was necessary but painful, but you can see from the trajectory of the deficit from 1993 onwards that Kenneth Clarke's management of the economy turned things round quickly. The swing from deficit to surplus continued through 1997, when Labour came to power, and continued for as long as Labour maintained its election pledge to stick with Tory spending plans. Once Brown started doing something else, of course, we were on our way to hell in a handcart.

Keynsian economics, which our leftie friends supposedly espouse, demands that you run a budget surplus in the good times in order to fund stimulus spending in the bad times. In the bad times, you spend your savings and, if necessary, run up a deficit by commissioning capital projects - new roads and railways, for example - which helps to keep the economy moving and provides stimulus for recovery.

Unfortunately Gordon Brown chose to run us into a deficit in the middle of a boom, all the while excusing his rash illl-judgment by claiming to have "ended the cycle of boom and bust" - remember that rhetoric? - naturally expecting everyone to believe that if there was never going to be another bust, it was less important to run a surplus during the boom which would allow us to salt away funds to combat the next recession.

Even more unfortunately, Brown's "boom" was fuelled by an all but uncontrolled Credit bubble which could never have been sustained. And worse again, Brown wasn't even running up a deficit on investments in infrastructure that could make the country more resilient in the event of a future recession. No. Gordon Brown spent all that money on expanding the public sector wage bill and on a massive extension of the welfare state, dishing out benefits including the child trust fund, which was even given to the richest families in the land, and child tax credits, likewise given in some measure even to the comparatively well off.

Gordon Brown has created a society in which almost everybody has a sense of entitlement to state largesse and an economy that lacks the resilience to generate the cash to pay for it.

That's what that graph tells you.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

The coalition cannot continue this country as a pawn, we need investments to bring jobs, and the attitude that Cameron gave after this kick in the nuts stank as far as l am concerned.

He is running this country along with his pal Osborne as a bank for the rich, he has NOT brought our one policy that will hit the rich, who can put money into the taxman.

They are running scared when people mention Mansion Tax, there are companies that are refusing to pay Tax that donates millions into the Tory party.
Cameron said it himself ' this is a protest vote' Senior MPs will be thinking something different, and l strongly believe that deep down there will be a challenge to Cameron before the Summer.

Voters are leaving the Tories in there droves and voting UKIP instead. I bet all Conservative Clubs tonight will be saying ' l wonder when he decides to walk, instead of being pushed'

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

The figures for the 90s are the result of our disastrous experiment with the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, fore-runner of the Euro and, to this day, the reason why we're neither in the Euro nor planning ever to be in the Euro. Exiting the ERM and getting the economy back on track was necessary but painful, but you can see from the trajectory of the deficit from 1993 onwards that Kenneth Clarke's management of the economy turned things round quickly. The swing from deficit to surplus continued through 1997, when Labour came to power, and continued for as long as Labour maintained its election pledge to stick with Tory spending plans. Once Brown started doing something else, of course, we were on our way to hell in a handcart.

Keynsian economics, which our leftie friends supposedly espouse, demands that you run a budget surplus in the good times in order to fund stimulus spending in the bad times. In the bad times, you spend your savings and, if necessary, run up a deficit by commissioning capital projects - new roads and railways, for example - which helps to keep the economy moving and provides stimulus for recovery.

Unfortunately Gordon Brown chose to run us into a deficit in the middle of a boom, all the while excusing his rash illl-judgment by claiming to have "ended the cycle of boom and bust" - remember that rhetoric? - naturally expecting everyone to believe that if there was never going to be another bust, it was less important to run a surplus during the boom which would allow us to salt away funds to combat the next recession.

Even more unfortunately, Brown's "boom" was fuelled by an all but uncontrolled Credit bubble which could never have been sustained. And worse again, Brown wasn't even running up a deficit on investments in infrastructure that could make the country more resilient in the event of a future recession. No. Gordon Brown spent all that money on expanding the public sector wage bill and on a massive extension of the welfare state, dishing out benefits including the child trust fund, which was even given to the richest families in the land, and child tax credits, likewise given in some measure even to the comparatively well off.

Gordon Brown has created a society in which almost everybody has a sense of entitlement to state largesse and an economy that lacks the resilience to generate the cash to pay for it.

That's what that graph tells you.

To such an extent that, even now, with the stark writing clearly on the wall, they continue to delude themselves that you can carry on spending what you don't have ad inifinitum. It'd be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

Originally Posted by Osem

To such an extent that, even now, with the stark writing clearly on the wall, they continue to delude themselves that you can carry on spending what you don't have ad inifinitum. It'd be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

To the extent that Angela Eagle had the brass neck to try it again on QT last night, explaining that there is "bad spending" and "good spending" and insisting that we can still put things right if only we concentrate on the "good spending".

To coin one of Ed's own catchphrases, they just don't geddit ...

[danielf]

So what's HS2 exactly?

Originally Posted by danielf

So what's HS2 exactly?

A project that's going to cost about a billion a year over something like 30 years, and with very little spending at all this side of the 2015 election. In other words, a drop in the ocean.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Tell me what the rest of the parties offer

Tories - Crap
UKIP - rubbish
Lib Dem - pack of lies
Labour = just as bad.
I might try and start my own party.

You could call it the missing link party...

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

A project that's going to cost about a billion a year over something like 30 years, and with very little spending at all this side of the 2015 election. In other words, a drop in the ocean.

Yeah but you will be in Birmingham fifteen minutes earlier though

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

To the extent that Angela Eagle had the brass neck to try it again on QT last night, explaining that there is "bad spending" and "good spending" and insisting that we can still put things right if only we concentrate on the "good spending".

To coin one of Ed's own catchphrases, they just don't geddit ...

Sadly, they know there are enough people out there who're sufficiently blinkered, stupid, naive, deluded and/or desperate to buy their hollow rhetoric in spite of everything they've done and the massive mess they were instrumental in creating.

I'm still trying to work out why the good folk of Eastleigh are supposed to be so worried about immigration..It's not exactly ever been a place I think of being full of immigrants..Portsmouth and Southampton yes.Eastleigh? Nah!

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blo...gh-mud-wrestle

Overall, Eastleigh has been less changed by immigration than many other parts of the UK. The 2001 Census told us Eastleigh’s population was around 96,098 with only 4.7% (4,516) of the constituency foreign born. The 2011 census shows that the population grew to 103,763, with the migrant share of the vote having increased to 6.9% (7,233).

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You could call it the missing link party...