[damo_in_sale]

I think most on this forum have an idea of my opinions. Here are the views of the Guardian's online readership, as articulated to Mr. David Milliband.

New Labour used to be lionised by the 'left' (in the main), and despised by the 'right'. Now they appear to be simply hated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lcomments=true

Kind regards,

Damo

[la gran siete]

[QUOTE=damo_in_sale;7450838]I think most on this forum have an idea of my opinions. /QUOTE]
As unrelentingly tedious and wrong headed as they are . yes we do

[Steven]

Play nice please otherwise infractions will be issued

[krish]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Play nice please otherwise infractions will be issued

the OP might prefer infraction vouchers as it is the right of decent hardworking people to have a say in the matter and receive infractions from a supplier of their choice

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I think most on this forum have an idea of my opinions. Here are the views of the Guardian's online readership, as articulated to Mr. David Milliband.

New Labour used to be lionised by the 'left' (in the main), and despised by the 'right'. Now they appear to be simply hated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lcomments=true

Kind regards,

Damo

I think they are socialists disappointed that public spending has not risen much from the unsustainably low levels left by all those years of Tory infrastructure neglect. We do have a better health service but no more money for transport (except in London) and just a couple of shiny new roads the Tories built we can't afford to drive on.

But of course, if the Tories had been in power for the last 11 years we'd have had no Iraq War and petrol would be 50p/litre.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

I think they are socialists disappointed that public spending has not risen much from the unsustainably low levels left by all those years of Tory infrastructure neglect.

As most can now see, government expenditure has increased beyond the capacity of the taxpayer. If that were not the case, then the government would not have posted large deficits during fifteen years of economic growth in the UK. Or perhaps we need some more tax increases to actually pay for our current government expenditure?

In any case, I think you are incorrect in your assertion that most of the posters, on the CiF thread in question, and a myriad of others on CiF, think public spending has not...

Originally Posted by andykn

risen much from the unsustainably low levels left by all those years of Tory infrastructure neglect.

If you have read the above CiF thread, in total, then I find it difficult to understand how you arrived at your conclusion.

It strikes me that the public in general simply despises Labour, and for many differing reasons.

Originally Posted by andykn

But of course, if the Tories had been in power for the last 11 years we'd have had no Iraq War...

One example, of a multitude, of the Labour governments conduct regarding the Iraq war:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ar-428545.html
And for a bit of comedy, here is the Labour Governments reasons for war in Iraq, in their own words, and as presented to the UK public and to members of Parliament:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/p...co_iraqdossier
It would be a laugh a minute if it wasn't a serious matter.

Most MP's who voted for war in Iraq voted in good faith, based on the Labour governments 'evidence', as presented to the Commons and to the UK public.

Originally Posted by andykn

and petrol would be 50p/litre.

Well I don't think that would be the case, but I do think that workers would be allowed to keep more of their own money to spend as they please, whether that be on fuel for their mode of transport, food for their kids or whatever.


Regardless, and returning to my original point, the public appears to largely despise Labour, and the reasons appear to be numerous.

[Miyazaki]

Come back from the dark side Damo.

You have let the fear and hatred from emperor cameron pollute your soul.

[NewMan]

^^

"Darth" Andykn Skywalker: "I find your lack of faith disturbing"...


Tony Wan Kenobi: Brown was a pupil of mine, until he was seduced by the dark side.

Brown (using jedi mind trick on public): You don't need to see our expense claims. These aren't the data discs you're looking for. Vote Labour. Move along.

[SeanT]

Originally Posted by NewMan;7451879Brown ([I

using jedi mind trick on public[/I]): You don't need to see our expense claims. These aren't the data discs you're looking for.

The ones you are looking for are now in the public domain, as they were left on our excellent public transport system

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

As most can now see, government expenditure has increased beyond the capacity of the taxpayer.

When you say "most" you presumably are not referring to the other countries whose tax burden is higher than the UK, like France.

If that were not the case, then the government would not have posted large deficits during fifteen years of economic growth in the UK.

But the largest ever UK deficit, around 43bn pounds, was posted by the Tories around 1992. Admittedly this year may beat that, but possibly not when adjusted for inflation. New Labour had at least two years of surplus, not deficit.

Or perhaps we need some more tax increases to actually pay for our current government expenditure?

In any case, I think you are incorrect in your assertion that most of the posters, on the CiF thread in question, and a myriad of others on CiF, think public spending has not...

The last figures I saw posted on here showed that public spending as a proportion of GDP had only risen by about two percentage points over the whole of New Labour's tenure. If you were correct about borrowing going up, taxation would have risen even less. Of course, that record Tory deficit had to be paid for.

If you have read the above CiF thread, in total, then I find it difficult to understand how you arrived at your conclusion.

It strikes me that the public in general simply despises Labour, and for many differing reasons.




One example, of a multitude, of the Labour governments conduct regarding the Iraq war:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ar-428545.html
And for a bit of comedy, here is the Labour Governments reasons for war in Iraq, in their own words, and as presented to the UK public and to members of Parliament:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/p...co_iraqdossier
It would be a laugh a minute if it wasn't a serious matter.

Most MP's who voted for war in Iraq voted in good faith, based on the Labour governments 'evidence', as presented to the Commons and to the UK public.

So no Tory MPs read Private Eye? We all knew WMD was hogwash, as did the UN. It would have been no different under the Tories.

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by andykn

...the largest ever UK deficit, around 43bn pounds, was posted by the Tories around 1992. Admittedly this year may beat that, but possibly not when adjusted for inflation...

Would that be real inflation, or Labour inflation?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by NewMan

Would that be real inflation, or Labour inflation?

It would be the inflation that includes the things that the shops on your high street (not just supermarkets and petrol stations) are still selling last time I looked, unlike what the newspapers would have the very gullible believe.

Unless, of course, you pay school fees, then your personal inflation may be a bit higher.

[PJTX100]

Just my two penneth (or 50 billion Zimbabwe dollars...)

Gordon Brown does not fill me with confidence one iota.

His apparently successful tenure as chancellor owes as much to luck as design.

To be fair a lot of his current woes are as much due to bad luck than bad design, but it shows he can't influence things one way or the other.

He copped out when he should have gone to the electorate, at least that would have given him an air of credibility.

The sooner he goes the better.

And no I don't think it will be any better with whoever follows him.

But at least they hopefully won't have as cheesy a smile.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by PJTX100

Just my two penneth (or 50 billion Zimbabwe dollars...)

Gordon Brown does not fill me with confidence one iota.

His apparently successful tenure as chancellor owes as much to luck as design.

To be fair a lot of his current woes are as much due to bad luck than bad design, but it shows he can't influence things one way or the other.

He copped out when he should have gone to the electorate, at least that would have given him an air of credibility.

The sooner he goes the better.

And no I don't think it will be any better with whoever follows him.

But at least they hopefully won't have as cheesy a smile.

Oooh- you appear to have stolen my brain and the thoughts contained within. Labour is definately beaten with Brown at the helm but could yet stage a resurgance with someone else in charge. Someone who might be prepared to let talanted people into cabinet roles rather than feeling threatened by them and casting them into rebelious exile would be a good start.

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by andykn

It would be the inflation that includes the things that the shops on your high street (not just supermarkets and petrol stations) are still selling last time I looked, unlike what the newspapers would have the very gullible believe.

Anyone interested in a quick "straw poll", could you comment on whether you agree that the current inflation figure is accurate, or are you one of the "gullible" public?

I can see where this is headed, nobody will reply now, knowing my luck....

Anyway, despite everything, it would appear the Labour Party's raking it in... Not surprising, really.

Link

[andykn]

Originally Posted by PJTX100

Just my two penneth (or 50 billion Zimbabwe dollars...)

Gordon Brown does not fill me with confidence one iota.

His apparently successful tenure as chancellor owes as much to luck as design.

To be fair a lot of his current woes are as much due to bad luck than bad design, but it shows he can't influence things one way or the other.

He copped out when he should have gone to the electorate, at least that would have given him an air of credibility.

The sooner he goes the better.

And no I don't think it will be any better with whoever follows him.

But at least they hopefully won't have as cheesy a smile.

Unfortunately the press have said it would be unacceptable for there to be another "unelected" leader (even though there was a mandate for leader change at the last election) and, as they can hardly be expected to call an election now, you'll just have to put up with that smile and hope GB's luck in doing no worse than our closest counterparts keeps on.

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by andykn

So no Tory MPs read Private Eye? We all knew WMD was hogwash, as did the UN. It would have been no different under the Tories.

The trouble with that argument is that the WMD issue was completely and utterly a Nu Labour/Tony Blair invention. Blair presuaded Bush to play along with it because he knew he'd never get parliamentary approval for the war without it. Bush wasn't bothered about any WMD. The Iraqi violation of the '91 cease fire terms was all the excuse he needed.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by NewMan

Anyone interested in a quick "straw poll", could you comment on whether you agree that the current inflation figure is accurate, or are you one of the "gullible" public?

I can see where this is headed, nobody will reply now, knowing my luck....

Anyway, despite everything, it would appear the Labour Party's raking it in... Not surprising, really.

Link

Every time someone on here tries to put any evidence towards disputing the "official" inflation figure (rather than just the petulant "I don't believe it" reaction) they tend to agree with, rather than dispute the "official" figures.

Most of the opposition to the "official" figures seems to be based on the supposition that no-one at all is buying any more TVs or DVDs anywhere; in other words, all those people you see in Currys and Argos are fictional.

Whilst Jenn was quite right in saying that, as food and fuel rise and incomes don't, the proportion will change, it would only make a difference of a couple of tenths of a percent on the "official" figure.

Give me numbers, not (very) biased opinions.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

The trouble with that argument is that the WMD issue was completely and utterly a Nu Labour/Tony Blair invention. Blair presuaded Bush to play along with it because he knew he'd never get parliamentary approval for the war without it. Bush wasn't bothered about any WMD. The Iraqi violation of the '91 cease fire terms was all the excuse he needed.

I thought the WMD claim came from Chalabi, a US source; could be wrong.

[loz]

Originally Posted by NewMan

Anyone interested in a quick "straw poll", could you comment on whether you agree that the current inflation figure is accurate, or are you one of the "gullible" public?

I can't see how the inflation figures are any less or more accurate than they have ever been.

It is measured in the same consistent way month on month.

That isn't to say there might not be flaws in what is measured, or how it is measured - but it hasn't suddenly become inaccurate over night just because we have had some unpleasent price rises...

(for what it is worth, I had the job many many many years ago of providing the prices each month of my companies products (tyres) to the people who did the inflation numbers. I think it was a 165x13 radial that was part of the then shopping basket as that was the most common tyre at the time. Sad I know...)

[loz]

Originally Posted by andykn

Whilst Jenn was quite right in saying that, as food and fuel rise and incomes don't, the proportion will change, it would only make a difference of a couple of tenths of a percent on the "official" figure.

Agreed. Whilst the current food and fuel rises might make a much bigger dent than 3.8% on your personal situation, that isn't what inflation is measuring. It is a basket of goods, where some are rising in price and some are suprisingly falling.

That might mean one persons bills are 20% higher this month because food and fuel is a significant part of their expenditure.

Whereas for me, who is currently looking around for a new 50" plasma, I am more than happy they are 50% cheaper than they were a year ago.

so for me the entire years price increases in food and fuel are probably going to be totally offset by the price I will be paying for a new plasma (whereas I could have bought it a year ago and now be moaning that prices have fallen so much!)

One persons pain is balanced by my gain.

[SeanT]

Originally Posted by loz

food and fuel is a significant part of their expenditure

Excuse me for being dumb, and counting fuel as including domestic fuel as well as petrol/diesel - but who exactly doesn't have food and fuel as a significant part of their expenditure?? Anorexic people who live in an upstairs flat and are never actually at home???

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

When you say "most" you presumably are not referring to the other countries whose tax burden is higher than the UK, like France. But the largest ever UK deficit, around 43bn pounds, was posted by the Tories around 1992. Admittedly this year may beat that, but possibly not when adjusted for inflation. New Labour had at least two years of surplus, not deficit.
The last figures I saw posted on here showed that public spending as a proportion of GDP had only risen by about two percentage points over the whole of New Labour's tenure. If you were correct about borrowing going up, taxation would have risen even less. Of course, that record Tory deficit had to be paid for.

So no Tory MPs read Private Eye? We all knew WMD was hogwash, as did the UN. It would have been no different under the Tories.

Are you Hazel Blears? You sound just like her.


The above is, of course, nonsense, and you know it. But when I have addressed each of your points in the past you simply repeat the nonsense. It would appear though that no one is listening any more, either to you, or people with your views. So I no longer feel the need to respond to each of your points any more, and it takes up too much of my valuable time.

In any case, just for fun, witness further the pure hatred Guardian readers have for Labour here, in response to Dennis McShane's analysis of the MIlliband piece...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lcomments=true

It's a good read, and in parts highly entertaining.

Kind regards,

Damo

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by PJTX100

But at least they hopefully won't have as cheesy a smile.

How quickly you all forget! You were all so grateful to be saved from Cherie!

[loz]

Originally Posted by SeanT

Excuse me for being dumb, and counting fuel as including domestic fuel as well as petrol/diesel - but who exactly doesn't have food and fuel as a significant part of their expenditure

Hence why, though the official inflation figure may not be that high, a lot of people are hurting because of food and fuel increases

[la gran siete]

I see David Milliband is preparing himself should a takeover be necessary.Good lad!

[krish]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

It would appear though that no one is listening any more, either to you, or people with your views.

... and for almost 18 years and counting, neither have they been listening to Thatcherite dogma

[andykn]

Originally Posted by SeanT

Excuse me for being dumb, and counting fuel as including domestic fuel as well as petrol/diesel - but who exactly doesn't have food and fuel as a significant part of their expenditure?? Anorexic people who live in an upstairs flat and are never actually at home???

Just slinging a couple of figures together, according to the Telegraph, "many families spend 90/week on food":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...year'.html

The average fuel bill is 965/year:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ice-hikes.html

"The average family income is £32,779 before tax.":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7071611.stm

After tax figures are difficult to find, the best I could do was 17333 pa:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-gallon.html

which I suspect is for an individual. Even then Food and fuel and petrol for a family only make up about half of one earners income. The other half is subject to lower inflation. Giving an average of whatever the figure is today.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Are you Hazel Blears? You sound just like her.


The above is, of course, nonsense, and you know it.

Facts my friend, not opinion. I haven't read all of the Guardian comments because I try and focus on what the facts are, not what people think the facts are.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by krish

... and for almost 18 years and counting, neither have they been listening to Thatcherite dogma

I don't hear any serious clamour for a return to pre 80's socialism in this country, do you? I suggest you reflect on this.

Kind regards,

Damo