The economy is anything but strong. Scotland is teetering on the edge of double dipping and the rest of the UK isn't exactly in the safe zone.

 

Since Cameron took over the economy went from being static, teetering on the brink, to growing by I think it was 1.2%, far more than double what the experts predicted, Labour tried to claim credit for the revival but 2 out of 3 of those months were under the tory administration and the other month under a dissolved parliament so Cameron can rightly claim the credit, yes it might not last but the growth that last quarter was spectacular compared with what experts predicted.

If the Lib Dems had gone for a confidence and supply arrangement the Tories would have engineered a defeat on some populist measure such as repealing the Human Rights Act. They would then have called another election confident in the knowledge that most of the press (including supposedly respectable papers such as the Telegraph as well as the scummy tabloids) would have continued to mislead the public on the HRA.

 

Technically possible, but I really don't think it would've happened in practice. The Tories know they would've been slaughtered by the media for engineering their own downfall at a time of, in their terms, national crisis. They would've gone for a year atleast I think.

AV will be comprehensively rejected by the British public at the referrendum I confidently predict and with the economy transformed since Cameron took over I think it is going to be more than a honeymoon period for him so he has popularity, the economy is strong and the Lib Dems were suckered into a so called partnership which will put them in the political wilderness for a generation, smart work Dave.

LMAO. Is this the same confident prediction as the 100 seat majority the Conservatives were suposed to be having now? AV may or may not pass the British public, but it won't be a comprehensive rejection - the most likely scenario is that the pro-AV wins, but doesn't meet a threshold set by the Tories (probably of '40% of the electorate need to vote yes') and therefore doesn't go ahead.

 

The economy is strong? It grew by 1.1% with revisions yet to be tailored in during the second quarter, which was NONE of the Tories doing - the emergency budget was announced eight days before the end of the quarter, and there had been NO actions by the coalition that had yet taken effect on that growth. If anything, the latest projections show that the emergency budget will lead to the destruction of this unstable growth (i.e. as every economist who predicted the recession said it would :manson:) as the service sector's monthly review for July showed a huge drop in confidence and the lowest growth rates in thirteen months due to the cancellation of many public sector contracts - oh, and also because taking 25% of the government's contributions to the economy out of it will obviously lead to a fall in GDP, as a constituent factor. But that's alright isn't it, because the service sector's going to have a miracle because the public sector has finally been reined in as it's bloated state caused this cra-OH WAIT, it's plummeting BECAUSE of the coalition's actions. This is going to DEFINE honeymoon period - once the cuts hit (and they'll make Thatcher look like a pussycat - don't forget that public spending went up by 1% in real terms over her 11 years in power, so just imagine the joys Cameron will face once the 25% cuts hit!) Cameron's popularity will plummet at just about the same rate as the economy.

 

I agree that the coalition was smart work by David, but you're deluded if you don't think cuts of this nature are going to come back to bite him. He may pretend to be the doctor doling out the harsh medicine that the public needs, but they aren't going to believe that full-scale amputations are for the greater good especially when we go back into recession...

Since Cameron took over the economy went from being static, teetering on the brink, to growing by I think it was 1.2%, far more than double what the experts predicted, Labour tried to claim credit for the revival but 2 out of 3 of those months were under the tory administration and the other month under a dissolved parliament so Cameron can rightly claim the credit, yes it might not last but the growth that last quarter was spectacular compared with what experts predicted.

One and a half of those three months were under the coalition. The 1.1% growth wasn't Labour's achievement, that was mainly catch-up work from the private sector for contracts that they couldn't fulfill in the first quarter due to the poor weather etc.

 

No economic actions taken by the coalition had taken effect in the one and a half months they were in power for during that quarter. And you call yourself a businessman? :rolleyes:

The coalition was a smart move by Cameron, divide and rule.

 

By "partnering" with the Lib Dems and giving them a handful of token insignificant cabinet posts he has ensured that the Lib Dems are finished as a political force

 

AV will be comprehensively rejected by the British public at the referrendum I confidently predict and with the economy transformed since Cameron took over I think it is going to be more than a honeymoon period for him so he has popularity, the economy is strong and the Lib Dems were suckered into a so called partnership which will put them in the political wilderness for a generation, smart work Dave.

 

Oh joy. You're back. :mellow:

 

I agree it was a very shrewd move from Cameron from a short-term basis, in that Lib Dem support made the government's cuts more credible in the eyes of the public, but it may well prove to backfire in the long term, as pissed off left-wing Lib Dem supportters migrate en masse to Labour. Indeed, even in the government's "honeymoon period", and while Labour have no leader and consequently no coherent opposition to the government's cuts, the opinion polls show that the Tories STILL probably wouldn't get an overall majority if another election was held tomorrow, while Labour have climbed to their consistently highest ratings in 3 years.

 

 

The coalition was a smart move by Cameron, divide and rule.

 

By "partnering" with the Lib Dems and giving them a handful of token insignificant cabinet posts he has ensured that the Lib Dems are finished as a political force

 

AV will be comprehensively rejected by the British public at the referrendum I confidently predict and with the economy transformed since Cameron took over I think it is going to be more than a honeymoon period for him so he has popularity, the economy is strong and the Lib Dems were suckered into a so called partnership which will put them in the political wilderness for a generation, smart work Dave.

 

:lol: Oh ffs, even you can't seriously believe what you've written. Even Osborne and Cameron haven't dared take the credit for the strong second-quarter figures, because they know they'd be mocked for it -- in fact, the Tories have tried to bury the figures altogether, because they know they prove that Labour's approach to beating the recession was RIGHT. The second quarter figures still included Labour's substantial public spending, which is what is boosting the growth figures - I mean, the second quarter finished on 30th June, while the government's Budget was on 25th June - do you really think the government's wonderful spending cuts, even if they were to have a positive effect, would've had an impact in 5 DAYS?! :manson:

 

Far more relevant is short-term trending figures from the industrial and service sectors, both of which showed productivity slipped alarmingly in July - which looks likely to spell disaster for the third-quarter and particularly the fourth-quarter growth figures.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/au...n-fears-economy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/au...n-surprise-fall

One and a half of those three months were under the coalition. The 1.1% growth wasn't Labour's achievement, that was mainly catch-up work from the private sector for contracts that they couldn't fulfill in the first quarter due to the poor weather etc.

 

No economic actions taken by the coalition had taken effect in the one and a half months they were in power for during that quarter. And you call yourself a businessman? :rolleyes:

 

I never said it was due to any particular policies, more to do with a "feelgood factor" in the business community that Labour were out of power, there was great relief in the business community at the demise of Labour so business merely felt it could do business again.

There is no doubt that our economy is going to end up further down the $h!tter under Cameron that under Brown.

 

 

I never thought i would prefer Darling to someone, but Osbourne is a f***in idiot and doesn't have a single shred of common sense.

Oh joy. You're back. :mellow:

 

Regardless of any personal feelings of disappointment some possibly many might have that my suspension period has lapsed I think that even the most ardent critic would grudgingly accept that this section of the board has not been the same in the last 60 days and that serious cross party debate has been near as damn non existent, whatever I did wrong is done, no pont dwelling on it, I think my return benefits this part of the board. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but its true :)

I never said it was due to any particular policies, more to do with a "feelgood factor" in the business community that Labour were out of power, there was great relief in the business community at the demise of Labour so business merely felt it could do business again.

I don't think anyone would deny there was a feelgood factor in certain sections of the business community - there was, because the banks knew the Tories wouldn't make them pay up for their recklessness and driving the world economy to the brink, safe in the knowledge that the working-class would be picking up the tab in the form of spending/benefits/job cuts instead. Quite why this is something to celebrate, I don't know.

Edited August 7, 201014 yr by Danny

I don't think anyone would deny there was a feelgood factor in certain sections of the business community - there was, because the banks knew the Tories wouldn't make them pay up for their recklessness and driving the world economy to the brink, safe in the knowledge that the working-class would be picking up the tab in the form of spending/benefits/job cuts instead. Quite why this is something to celebrate, I don't know.

 

The government have been very firm with banks, penalties if they don't lend money to businesses, penalties if they give excessive bonuses, windfall tax on banks, banks have got off anything but scot free from Osborne.

 

And it is right that EVERYONE including the working class and poor should pick up the tab, no sector of society should get off scot free, we are all in this together, it was the working class and poor who voted in the ruinous Labour administration that near bankrupted this country so they should not be immune from picking up the tab.

 

Everyone pays the same price for a tin of beans or a pint of beer or whatever, the rich don't pay more so it is right that everyone pay something towards clearing up the mess Labour created.

The government have been very firm with banks, penalties if they don't lend money to businesses, penalties if they give excessive bonuses, windfall tax on banks, banks have got off anything but scot free from Osborne.

 

And it is right that EVERYONE including the working class and poor should pick up the tab, no sector of society should get off scot free, we are all in this together, it was the working class and poor who voted in the ruinous Labour administration that near bankrupted this country so they should not be immune from picking up the tab.

 

Everyone pays the same price for a tin of beans or a pint of beer or whatever, the rich don't pay more so it is right that everyone pay something towards clearing up the mess Labour created.

 

The reason that Labour had to spend so much was (a) they had to keep the economy afloat after banks had driven us to devastation due to the fact they had so little regulation (for which, Labour certainly has to take some of the blame - although I don't exactly remember the Tories ever championing regulation either), and (B) because Thatcher and Major had left hospitals and schools in such a horrendous state when they left office that they needed a hell of a lot of investment to get to a halfway-acceptable standard.

The government have been very firm with banks, penalties if they don't lend money to businesses, penalties if they give excessive bonuses, windfall tax on banks, banks have got off anything but scot free from Osborne.

 

And it is right that EVERYONE including the working class and poor should pick up the tab, no sector of society should get off scot free, we are all in this together, it was the working class and poor who voted in the ruinous Labour administration that near bankrupted this country so they should not be immune from picking up the tab.

 

Everyone pays the same price for a tin of beans or a pint of beer or whatever, the rich don't pay more so it is right that everyone pay something towards clearing up the mess Labour created.

LOL. This was a mess the rich investment bankers created via irresponsible practices - Labour was ruinous in deregulating the banking industry, I will give you that, but don't pretend for a second that the Tories wouldn't have done the same, as they backed them to the hilt here!

 

FIRM WITH BANKS? Corporation tax is being cut, the bank levy is a pittance, and top salaries and bonuses have already been restored to pre-crash levels.

 

Compare that to the £11bn welfare cuts, rise in VAT to 20%, and 25% reductions across government departments, which target the most vulnerable – disabled people, single parents, those on housing benefit, black and other ethnic minority communities, students, migrant workers, LGBT people and pensioners. The poorest will be hit six times harder than the richest. Internal Treasury documents estimate 1.3 million job losses in public and private sectors. This government of millionaires says "we're all in it together" and "there is no alternative". Really?! It seems ordinary people are being forced to pay for the bankers' profligacy...

LOL. This was a mess the rich investment bankers created via irresponsible practices - Labour was ruinous in deregulating the banking industry, I will give you that, but don't pretend for a second that the Tories wouldn't have done the same, as they backed them to the hilt here!

 

FIRM WITH BANKS? Corporation tax is being cut, the bank levy is a pittance, and top salaries and bonuses have already been restored to pre-crash levels.

 

Compare that to the £11bn welfare cuts, rise in VAT to 20%, and 25% reductions across government departments, which target the most vulnerable – disabled people, single parents, those on housing benefit, black and other ethnic minority communities, students, migrant workers, LGBT people and pensioners. The poorest will be hit six times harder than the richest. Internal Treasury documents estimate 1.3 million job losses in public and private sectors. This government of millionaires says "we're all in it together" and "there is no alternative". Really?! It seems ordinary people are being forced to pay for the bankers' profligacy...

 

The welfare cuts are in housing benefit where fraud and sponging is rife, the £400 a week cap is the best thing that has been bought in in years in welfare, it should be even lower, I would have lowered it to £250, you may want to see spongers like that Somalian bus driver living in plush mansions but the majority of tax payers rightly want that kind of thing stopped, the budget also targeted those that are milking the system in disability benefit, the majority of disability claimants are trying it on, it is good sense to get them off disability benefit and onto job seekers allowance, pure common sense.

 

JSA an pensions are not being cut, the rate of disability benefit is not being cut, the money you referred to is coming from stopping people defrauding the system by living in mansions and from moving people capable of work off to the lower paid job seekers allowance.

 

Both are excellent measures.

 

It is right that the poor should face the highest burden, the middle class and the rich are the people who keep the High St alive so the less burden they face the better as the economy and service industry is dependent on them spending, the poor not spending much is something I can live with, as long as they have running water and are not dying of starvation or dysentry then I see nothing wrong in them shouldering the biggest burden of the debt repayment.

 

Cut the money supply to the middle classes and the rich you risk strangling the service sector, not a good idea

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

as long as they have running water and are not dying of starvation or dysentry then I see nothing wrong in them shouldering the biggest burden of the debt repayment.

 

This is a shocking statement, although even more depressingly I'm not even surprised that you've said it.

It's been proven time and time again that "trickle-down" economics DOESN'T WORK.

This is a shocking statement, although even more depressingly I'm not even surprised that you've said it.

It's been proven time and time again that "trickle-down" economics DOESN'T WORK.

 

I of course exclude the elderly and physically handicapped and genuinely mentally handicapped from that, they are the people the welfare state should be providing for but welfare should not be a career option or a lifestyle choice for the able bodied and below retirement age.

 

I would bring in a 1 for 1 system in terms of welfare, for every year someone has paid NI contributions they get 1 months benefits, therefore those that have worked and contributed the most get state help, never paid into the system ? sat on your arse all your life ? come over from abroad for a bit of free money ? tough you get nothing, go visit a charity for help/assistance. Worked for 20 years and paid into the system ? great you get entitled to benefit for 20 months, that is how I would do it.

 

Welfare should not be a career option

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

I of course exclude the elderly and physically handicapped from that, they are the people the welfare state should be providing for but welfare should not be a career option or a lifestyle choice for the able bodied and below retirement age.

 

 

What about the mentally handicapped too? Sometimes you do talk bollocks Craig. :rolleyes:

 

" the majority of disability claimants are trying it on," you posted earlier. How do you know? Even the Government doesn't know how many should really be on JSA so can't see how you can say "the majority" :naughty: Many are being turned off IB only to win their appeals so the system is a shambles.

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by Common Sense

What about the mentally handicapped too? Sometimes you do talk bollocks Craig. :rolleyes:

edited original post :)

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Genuine cases of course ;)

 

Well you didn't say that, you said "elderly and physically handicapped" ;)

 

You have now though!

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Well you didn't say that, you said "eldely and physically handicapped" ;)

 

Brain fade, Early morning dear boy, not woken up fully yet after consuming a fair old amount of alcohol last night :teresa:

The coalition was a smart move by Cameron, divide and rule.

 

By "partnering" with the Lib Dems and giving them a handful of token insignificant cabinet posts he has ensured that the Lib Dems are finished as a political force

 

AV will be comprehensively rejected by the British public at the referrendum I confidently predict and with the economy transformed since Cameron took over I think it is going to be more than a honeymoon period for him so he has popularity, the economy is strong and the Lib Dems were suckered into a so called partnership which will put them in the political wilderness for a generation, smart work Dave.

 

... you talk as if he had a choice.... there was no choice, either coalition or another election..