Actually the economic situation when Labour took over was very good. Even Brown and Blair admitted this.



You are very selective. You forgot to mention that when labour lost the election in 1979 Thatcher had to spend years sorting out Labour's failures and economic wreck. When Blair came to power in 1997 the situation was a lot better and stronger.

You are very critical of the coalition but most of the economic experts say they would have found the same problems or things could have been a lot worse if Labour had won. The coalition is two years into government. Thatcher Government took years (more than 8 years) to solve Labour's mess. The coalition was left with a far worse debt than they inherited from the last Labour government. You would be better spending your time educating your party in why they went wrong and failed than just spouting propaganda bull****.

I accept that there are faults within this coalition. But I would rather have the coalition's faults than Labour's continuous incompetents.

Labour, in my view, sorted nothing out, they rode on a wave of personnel debt. The Tories didn't leave a mess, bear in mind Labour followed their spending plans for several years after gaining office. They then did NOTHING to stem the profligacy that is for sure.

Just like Britain thought it needed Thatcher because of the wimp Labour government (destructive unions ruled the party), we now have people who think we need an austere government because of Labour's imprudence.

Sorting out mess is judged by what the conditions are after you leave, not as you leave.

I accept that. But the economy only went down the toilet after the Government changed track on how to deal with the debt and deficit. Look at the data. GMR says that the experts sided with the Tories. These experts are now distancing themselves from the Coalition and admitting they got it wrong.

GMR - the data about the country and its finances between 97 and the crash does not lie. Labour reduced debt and deficit left by the Tories, introduced the minimum wage, rebuilt schools and hospitals,rebuilt roads and railways and everything else, yet still got the country in a better place than what they inherited.

Labour should have had a better grip on immigration, built more affordable houses and dealt with Iraq in a different way. But on the whole, life was good under Labour and the figures were healthy. The economic crisis meant we had to bail out the banks and spend even more trying to keep the economy growing. How the crisis was dealt with would have been similar under all parties. The difference is getting out of the mess. I believe we were heading out of the crisis in a strong way, and the data supports this. Austerity and trying to cut too far and too fast killed off the recovery and led to the turbulent period we are now in.

The country was doing well by about the half life of their office; however, Brown as prime minister, broke his own fiscal rules in the final year of so and started borrowing to finance debt. Labour's spending on the things you list as improvements were and are unsustainable. Labour fooled us into thinking we can have our cake and eat it.

It's the sustainable economy that neither Labour or Conservatives seem to get. Capitalism and it's 'free trade' model relies upon boom and bust - with the goal of staying on the boom whilst others bust. There is always a looser in this approach with conflict, hardship and exploitation following in it's wake.

If they were in any way visionary they would look at sustainable fair trading models and look to remove the casino economy.

No matter how hard Labour try; the ghost of Christmas past is ever present. Was up too early this morning and listening to the usually pro Labour BBC radio 4 presenter talk to a union official representing the striking tube drivers. I thought the new watch I'd been given for Christmas had a time travel feature and it was Christmas 1978! Apparently its still OK for the Union to walk away from a very recent and very generous settlement because 'fings 'ave changed'. The drivers want quality time with their families. Their pay might be generous, but thats what they've fought for and done a lot of bargaining. What of other much lower paid staff on the Underground and the many not well paid staff who had to get to work this morning? Well, that's nothing to do with the drivers, they need to look out for themselves! Makes you want to weep. So then, vote Tory / LibDem and they'll simply let a load of bankers shaft us, vote Labour one letter changes and same happens.

Was there a tube strike during Xmas in 1978? I know there was one last year (under the Tory coalition).

I have absolutely no idea. Just remember that for that whole period it seemed there was strike after strike. Always amazed me that the Unions selected the bloke with the biggest gob to present their side of the story - which even then was simply 'we want more than our fair share and **** to the rest of you'. Even then, I listened to 'Today' on the Radio; and it was almost a replay this morning. At the time I was working for one of the nationalised industries in London, even to very lowly clerk, it was pretty clear something drastic had to happen.

Yes and I bet that lowly clerk was grateful for every penny that that union bloke with big gob fought to get him.

Ah, the Government should have given into them then. The strikes were as a result of the Governments inflation policy at that time. How would you have fixed it so there were no strikes?



And I'll also bet that those who didn't join the strike also didn't hand any pay rises back when it was all over

Ironically he wasn't. It was a closed shop and along with my colleagues, we bitterly resented being made to join the union. If it was that good, we'd have gladly joined of our own accord. The managers were also members of the trades union; so guess who got the best pay settlements?

I was employed in a section called 'Establishments' a predecessor to the HR industry. We had a problem recruiting staff at my grade because the pay scales at that level didn't match what was on offer elsewhere - the reason I left. Strange, but a few of the senior managers wanted and end to national pay bargaining for that very reason.

So no, the bloke with the big gob was heavily subsided by young idiots who actually did the work. In fact the bloke who I was grateful for was an out and out capitalist; who paid the rate for the job.

(The union was just as good with its own money. Would hold massive meetings for the officials in central London on Saturday mornings. People would travel in from all over South East, 1st class as it was union business. Someone would then start the meeting and generally within half an hour a contentious issue would be raised. At that point someone would declare the meeting inquorate and they'd all go home!)

A massive meeting means a lot of people does it not? Inquorate means that there are not enough people to make a quorum. Funny meetings.

From lowly clerk to an expert on pretty much any subject you care to mention. How lucky we are to have him living in these parts

Quite so, all managed by slight of hand and bizarre rules. Most people just had their subs automatically deducted from their pay and simply let the activists get on with it. Democracy, but not as we know it. This was also regarded as one of the more moderate unions. Whatever the revisionists say about the Callaghan government we were going to **** in a handcart. Callaghan could see what was going to happen but it was too late. Poetic justice in a way, he was the lead 'anti' when Barbara Castle tried.

No, it's called laziness and apathy on the part of the members.

...and so how empires fall!

Yes it is, swap sub for vote.