The Tories in a world of economic spin…

A great comment on this article about Cameron’s party conference speech…


So many false promises, so many brazen lies. But the biggest lie of all?

“The total mess left by Labour. Labour always bankrupt the Exchequer. They spend more, borrow more and destroy our future by increasing our national debt. Only we Tories can be trusted with the economy.”

Oh really?? Lets put this load of bollocks to rest once and for all.

Between the years 2004 and 2008, Labour borrowed a total of £148.8 billion. In 2008/9, the year of the banking crash, Labour borrowed £97.5 billion. 

Since being elected in 2010, the Tories have borrowed a staggering £600 billion. George Osborne borrowed more in his first 3 years than Labour borrowed in their entire 13. 

This has seen the National debt rise from £0.62 trillion in 2009 to £1.26 trillion in 2014. Labour bankrupted our future? Hmmm.

Between 2004 and 2008, before the banking crisis, the average deficit under Labour was £43 billion. Since 2010, the average Tory deficit has been 3 times this, at £108 billion. And they tell you with a straight face they have slashed the deficit!

Between 2004 and 2009, average growth in GDP was 2.4%. Since 2010, the average growth has been 1.4%. Even if growth reaches 2.5% per year between now and 2018, GDP will be a miserable 11% higher than it was in 2007. To put this in context, between 1996 and 2007 GDP grew by 43%. 

But this doesn’t paint the whole picture of their incompetence.

In the last two years, 4.8 million different people have claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance. This fact tells you how secure peoples jobs are. If unemployment was counted in the same way as it was in 1970, there would be over 6 million people classed as unemployed. To keep these figures down, the number of sanctioned jobseekers with a reduced entitlement to JSA is now running at around 800,000 per annum. In addition, there are now 4.6 million people self employed , 15% of the total workforce. Self-employed people have on average experienced a 22% fall in real pay since 2008-09, with average earnings of £207 a week according to the ONS. 

20% of the population, 13 million people, are now classed as living in poverty, of which over 8 million come from families who are IN WORK. Close to eighty per cent of net job creation since June 2010 has taken place in industries where the average wage is less than £7.95 an hour. In 2004, the median wage was £462 a week. Today, it is £427. In addition, in 10 years, inflation has meant that the cost of living has risen by 34%, so that the average disposable income per household is now almost £1,200 a year lower than it was in 2004. Millions are now on zero hour contracts, working part time or on low pay. 913,138 people used food-banks in 2013/14, compared to 346,992 in 2012/13 and 26,000 in 2008/09. There has been a 74% increase in the number of malnutrition-related hospital admissions since 2009, with public health experts warning that the rise of malnutrition in the UK “has all the signs of a public health emergency.”

All this, in one of the richest countries on earth. 

Listening to the Tories this week has been like living in the twilight zone. And yet, we still have people who come on here and try to defend these bastards. You know, the ones telling us that the Tories had to fix Labour’s mess, Labour always destroy the economy, Labour always spend other peoples money. And that old favourite ‘There is no magic money tree.’ Well, guess what? By every one of these standards, the Tories have been an unmitigated disaster. 

And its about time people knew the truth.



Child Benefit change…

Q. When do the Tories put forward policy like Labour and Labour act like the Tories?

A. When the Tories propose a cut to Child Benefit for people earning more than £44K per year and Labour oppose it!

‘David Cameron has defended plans to cut higher rate taxpayers’ child benefit, saying it is fair to ask them to contribute to cutting the deficit.

He said he knew cutting the benefit for people on more than £44,000 would not make him popular – but it was the “right thing to do”.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper described it as an “unfair attack on child benefit”.

The BBC understands the government plans to introduce a tax break for married couples in this parliament.’ (BBC article)

So, two key policies here. The first is to cut Child Benefit. I have to say I completely agree with this as a policy. Why should you receive this if you earn this much money? The whole system is based on need and supporting those who cannot, or struggle, to make ends meet.

What I’m having real trouble understanding is why Labour are opposing this so strongly. Is it just to oppose the Coalition Government? Surely this is a more fair system, resulting in the support for those who are less able to pay?

The other policy, which the Tories have been trying to sneak in for years is the support for married couples. It’s their belief that a stable family will provide a better environment than a broken family. While I can understand this approach, it does seem rather dated. It just doesn’t fit in with modern life. It will also cost roughly half of the total savings brought in by the Child Benefit cuts. Will the tax break really make people stay married? I just don’t see this making any difference, other than giving money to people who are already married.



Wow. I’m actually excited about politics (today).

I just found out about Gordon resigning (at some point before the Labour Party Conference). This shifts the whole bartering process towards Labour, given Clegg wouldn’t have formed a coalition with Labour, with Gordon as leader.

Now the Lib Dems are going to talk ‘in detail’ to Labour (or their 4 negotiating peeps). I would say this is fair and the Lib Dems should get all the information before making a decision, or before they sell their soul to one of the ‘old parties’.

To be honest (yes, I hate that phrase too), Labour and the Lib Dems didn’t win the election. The Tories got more votes and more seats and it would be in the best interests of democracy (even in the weak state it is) for the Tories to form at least part of the new Government. Even with a Lib-Lab coalition, they would still be short of the magic majority number.

The situation right now seems to be…

If Lib Dems go with the Tories, they get a number of Cabinet seats and a referendum on the Preferential Voting (PV) system, but could annoy a large part of their members.

If they go with Labour, they get a guaranteed switch to PV and a referendum on Proportional Representation (PR) and a more natural (some would say) alliance.

But, Labour now have to go through a leadership contest and their leader would not have been elected as Prime Minister (again). This just isn’t feeling right for Labour. I hate to say it but, the Tories beat Labour by 47 Seats and over 2 Million votes (7% more than Labour).