Ah, here we go, the usual tripe.

Pre 2008? You and the usual apologists trying to erase the depression that Balls, Brown and Wallace presided over, tell that to the million who lost their jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich? I'm not rich and I've never been better off.

I'd rather die at home than at Midstaffs. Still, you want to privatise the NHS, you keep forgetting about this little fact, as you whine on and on and on. Just why did you vote to sell off the NHS to Tory "chums"? Try answering without, "i'm spineless".

And yet schools are being built all over, and were in the terrible 80's, I know, I went to one of them. You should have tried it.

Those could have been my very thoughts, regular readers may recall the phrase "football supporter politics", well its the funneling of thoughts into "left" and "right" that simply maintains the system where any party in government lines its members pockets for the future regardless of rhetoric or pretend political theories - there is no "left" or "right" in the current pair of parties who are the only ones likely to ever hold power and you have to go back forty years to understand what "left" and "right" really means.

My point about the crisis loans is this as you're clearly incapable of joining the dots, or unwilling.
Your bleating about the 1m+ foodbank use is, in your blinkered eyes, a catastrophe, yet you don't want to think about the almost same number in crisis under your beloved party.
No idea, about the other stuff, you're going to say it's very, very bad based on your own prejudices. You should come up with some figures, ideally from the Guardian or Morning Star to show how terrible the Tories are.

I remember Rachel Reeves saying the Labour party will be tougher on those on welfare than the Tories, so my conscience is clear, I made sure Labour didn't get in to screw the poorest in society. Did you?

It's debatable whether ideology was ever as important as we are led to believe. I tend to think people have their own needs and desires which are inflexible. Rather than conforming to the tenets of ideology they'd much rather prefer seeking out an ideology which is sync with their own requirements - or selecting those tenets of an ideology which they like whilst ignoring all others.

A prime example would be those politicians who for years have espoused the virtues of "Free Market" capitalism. What they really mean is free markets are GOOD when the economics suit them. But should some foreign competitor attempt to flood the market with cheap imports and they're screaming for the imposition of trade tariffs like a child who's filled his diapers.

This is the reason I have [isome [/isympathy for the likes of Milton Friedmann. Since I can remember he's been the object of a concerted hate campaign by the anti-globalist brigade. And they do have a point - of sorts. But if these idiots actually bothered to read or listen to Friedmann they'd know he was hopping mad about the mis-application of his economic methodology for DECADES.

No, not prejudices Bobby, but [iexperience [/i. No one better to be able to give an account of the truth than those who are experiencing what is happening. With what Cameron is going to do with the Disabled, I'd say they were [ialready [/i
screwing the poor in society.

My conscience is very clear because I'm not a turkey that voted for Christmas.

I agree, and economists like Hyman Minsky, Augusto Graziani, and Steve Keen have seen these flaws, and have been the voice of reason against the Chicago (or neo-classical) school of economic theory for decades, but obviously as their attempts to educate the political and financial powers that be fell on deaf ears. Which is what you would expect when the principles of that economic theory have made those same political and financial powers that be all the more wealthy, and all the more powerful.