Diddums

How can there possibly be any rise in student fees?

Nick Clegg has pledged otherwise....

Yes I agree. I have vivid memories of some of the memorable tries he scored for Leeds helped by that under rated centre Derek Hallas.

Ha Ha another funny joke... I suppose? You'll never be another Les Dawson

I have two part time jobs and I don't even have opposable thumbs.

A good TV debate by Clegg reduced the Tory vote? Really?

Given the circumstances at the time of the election the public were clearly not in love with the Tories either and the Lib Dems also lost seats in what was a very disappointing result for all three major parties. A plague on all your houses. The look on Clegg's face at his declaration said it all ...... game over.

As the parties were aligned prior to the election I doubt many Liberal voters were contemplating providing a fig leaf to the inevitable and ideologically driven slash and burn Tory policies to come. The politically left of centre electorate (the actual majority at the general election) are not represented by this coalition.



The Lib Dems have done Cameron a massive favour in controlling his own right wing who would have been all over him like a rash had they chosen to run as a minority government.

I didn't vote for a coalition (I doubt many of the electorate did) and neither did Cameron who even had a party election broadcast describing how it would be a disaster for the country. Mind you he also described Clegg as his favourite political joke.



What are the conservative compromises so far? It appears like business as usual with ideologically driven cuts, targetting the weak and tax changes that are regressive.




Depends if they were at war over personalities or over policy. Every party has and needs a divergence of opinion within it.

But that can be difficult to reconcile within a coalition from the left and right. The Tories want a free market University system with probably minimal or no public funding/support outside of the core subjects. The Lib Dems don't only believe in tuition fees being capped at the present levels and not increased as they pledged but they went much further than that in their manifesto which IIRC stated that fees should be removed altogether within 6 years.



Like who? There's a large deficit which is hardly surprising after a lengthy world recession - brought about by the failure of regulation and while you'll happily lay the blame at the then government's door you're happy to ignore the then opposition's calls for an even lighter regulatory touch. Only Vince Cable warned of the property and debt bubble.

The question is how to deal with it (and the accumulated debt) and over what length of time. If that is the major issue of the day, both the Lib Dems and Labour went to the electorate on a platform of no cuts until the recovery was established and funnily enough that is what the majority of the electorate voted for. However it's not the policy of the coalition - democracy in action?

Damo is sticking pins into an effigy of you as I type this......

tvoc you like using stats so...
The swing from Labour to Conservative was 5% and greater than the 4% swing to Mrs Thatcher and there have been only 2 other swings greater since 1950.
The overall swing to the Conservatives was 3.6% the largest swing since the 1918 election while Labour have a swing aginst them of 6.2%
The Conservatives gained 100 seats and lost 3. Labour gained 3 seats and lost 91.
The Conservative popular vote was 10.7 million (306 seats) with Labour on 8.6 million (258 seats) and poor old LibDems on 6.8 million (with only 51 seats)
Of the 532 seats in England the Conservatives had an absolute majority of 61 more seats than all the other parties combined with an average swing of 5.6% from Labour. This last stat is important because Scotland has its own Parliament and is not fair many that they can vote for the English and Welsh Parliament when we cannot vote for theirs!

Which ever way you look at it the country dramatically rejected Labour. If you take note of the way England voted then the Tory's had an absolute majority. So unless you change the rules you have to accept the result as a good democrat.






Although a coalition was not one of the choices available on the ballot paper, in reality the country did vote for a coalition as under the present rules they did not give any party an overall majority. So the alterrnative was a minority government (which was not an option given the circumstances) or a coalition. This was made clear to all when polling was close before the election.



What are the conservative compromises so far? It appears like business as usual with ideologically driven cuts, targetting the weak and tax changes that are regressive.






Of course is will be difficult for two parties to work together but at least they are having a good go. The LibDems policies and manifesto were made without ever thinking they would be in power. Now they have a share of power and have seen "the books" they now realise the mess they have inherited from Labour which means they have to change policies to solve the problems.





If you blamed the last opposition for everthing before May 2010 then why are you not blaming the current opposition for the soon to be announced cuts? For that is what you are saying. The last Labour Government has to accept the responibility for leaving office with so much debt. It has nothing to do with the opposition parties as they do not have site of "the books" or the power to make decisions. You can sumise all you like about what the Torys would have done had they been in power but that is not the point and is just a smoke screen to avoid admitting responsibility.

You have stated what you think the Torys would have done yet still have not admmitted just for once the errors that Labour made. The problem you are not addressing is that when the bank crisis came followed by the world recession we had no money in the kitty. We had already a large national debt because Labour had borrowed the huge sums that it spent on public services over 14 years. Much of this money was wasted and many of these services and jobs we simply couldn't afford. Most of the other leading nations were hit just as badly in their banking systems but did not have this large national debt hanging around their necks. So this is why we are next on the sick list after Greece, Ireland, Portugul and Spain.



I think you will find that Brown committed Labour to half the debt in 4 years (estimated by the Institute if Fiscal Studies to be 44.40Bn in cuts) While the LibDems committed to 34.4Bn. Se there would have been severe cuts anyway. The Tories are proposing some 62Bn so it is this difference and the timing that is the real discusion.

The USA is heading for a second round of quantititive easing (QE2) which may well harm any UK recovery so my guess is that the Tory's will have to react to this with hold back on some of the cuts.

Anyway having said all this I should declare I am not a Tory Boy and I do have some real misgivings regarding the fairness aspect of the proposed cuts and as they unfold I will be there to voice some opposition. What I object to is a one sided argument

Contains some factual inaccuracies as far as I can see but I take the point that Labour lost the general election just disagree (under the parliamentary system we have) that the Conservatives won it, indeed under the constitution Labour still had first dibs at forming the next government but the numbers didn't allow it without forming the mythical rainbow coalition. Still Funny how the Lib-Dems plain lied to the Tories about what Labour had offered them though in order to get the referendum on the alternative vote.



One third of the voting population rejected all politicians. It's a UK parliament made up of 650 constituencies in four home nations. If there was an England parliament then the Tories would always be in power, thankfully there isn't and until such time as there is (which should be never under the Conservative and Unionist party) it's a moot point you appear to be making.



The country clearly couldn't and didn't vote for a coalition as it wasn't on the ballot paper. They voted in 650 local MP's, for who knows what reasons but the co-ordination required to ensure a balanced parliament is way beyond the electorate. Of course the Tories, as the biggest party, could have gone it alone as a minority government but that would have been a disaster for them with the tail wagging the dog.



The Lib Dems need to be careful that they don't forget what they stand for and what their supporters voted for. It's an incredibly weak argument they make that they didn't know the state of the public finances prior to taking office, it's all laid out in black and white in the red book at the time of the budget, which was about 6 weeks before the election. The only thing that has changed since then is growth has been stronger (thanks to Labour's support of the economy), unemployment has been lower (thanks to Labour's support of the economy) and the borrowing requirement has been less than forecast (thanks to Labour's support of the economy.)



I'm not blaming the Tories at all for Labour's actions in office (I think you are mis-representing me there) I am merely saying with regard to the regulation of the financial services that the Tories in opposition were calling for even less regulation not more. Therefore if you think Labour made a mistake it's also incredulous to think it would have been any different under the Tories much the same as when Blair took us into Iraq (against some notable Labour voices) it was with the unanimous front bench support of the official opposition. Afterall who was it that said: "I voted to go to war ... I still think it was right... I would have done the same." On a vote stating there was no moral case for war against Iraq, only 15 Tory backbenchers adding their cross to the 139 from Labour and all 53 Lib Dems. So with hindsight perhaps there was something to blame the Tory's for while in opposition.

Besides which (going back) isn't the argument, if you over regulate the city it up sticks and takes it's wealth creation elsewhere?



I'm trying to look forward, not back. I'm concerned at the coalition's choice (not Labours) of how much to cut and how quickly and whether the recovery will falter (returning us to recession or like Japan experienced years of flatlining growth) and in addition which sections will bear the brunt of the cuts. I simply don't accept the UK economy is comparable to the ones you are highlighting.



OK so finally you've found something we can agree on, as I've been trying to do all along. It is the timing and the degree of removing the structural deficit. Nobody is denying Labour would also be making cuts indeed Darling said something like 'even worse than those under Thatcher' (although it's a fallacy that Thatcher's governments actually made any cuts in the year on year total of public spending - but it's a comparison that appears to resonate with the general public.)



Why should what the USA does effect what we do? I thought it was all Brown's fault earlier, funny how world events seem to matter more now since the election.





So far it appears to be women that have been targeted by the cuts roughly by a ratio of 3 to 1. So much for the fairness agenda to accompany the measures.

Yesterday there was the campfire of the Quangos yet no government spokesman appeared to be able to say what the savings would be (although they were confident there would be some - based on what?) or how many jobs would be lost. As the rhetoric has changed from saving money to one of accountability would it be fair to assume the savings are not in any way that significant afterall and are idealogical driven? Indeed didn't the Tory manifesto contain another twenty to be set up? All incoming governments talk about cutting waste and all pretty soon after realise it's difficult to do without impacting on services.

Today Clegg announced a £7 billion programmes for children from under-privileged backgrounds yet no mention if this is additional money and if it isn't which existing programmes will it replace. It smacks of a sop to the Lib Dem leader designed to shore up Clegg's backbench and grass root support after the disasterous (for them) U turn over the direction of travel on tuition fees. With the cuts to come, anything given with one hand will likely as not be whisked away (and probably more) by the other and these same children's parents are also the ones likely to be directly in the firing line for welfare cuts ..... it just makes no sense to think that won't have a major adverse impact on the families (including the kids) they are claiming to help with this new(?) measure.

Still it's mostly mood music for now (and obviously it will become clearer on Wednesday), then hopefully we can get this phoney war out of the way and get down to some proper debate. What's the betting the cuts will not be anywhere near as draconian as have been trailed and everyone will breathe a huge sigh of relief? Politicians eh.

What factual inaccuracies?



IMO we should reject 100% of the current politicians of all parties as they all seem to be in it for money now with no experience of a proper job.

But whats fair about a system that allows Scotland to have its own parliament funded (by England) with the Scots having a vote for both Parliaments, while the English (who produce most of the wealth) only having a say in Westminster affairs? I am sorry you think its a moot point but it would appear you will put up with this unfairness just so the Labour party can win an election. I wonder if you still go along with this if the Scottish nationalists were to win most of the labour seats in Scotland?

If Scotland and Wales want independance to decide their own affairs that is fine but in gaining this they should lose their vote for the Westminster Parliament. The system should have changed when they got their own Parliament as it is it distorts democracy in England.



Yes I already said a coalition wasn't on the ballot paper. But there was much discusion in the run up to the election about PR and its effects ie: that it normally brings a coalition government as in most of Europe. So as the Polls were predicting a too close to call result it was clearly reported that this would more than likley bring a coalition.

The result was a clear rejection of Labour and would have given the Conservatives an absolute majority (which it did in England) had it not been for the absurd Scots vote. Labour won 41 seats in Scotland with just 1.034 mil votes while the Conservatives won only one seat with almost half the number of voters (413K) just slightly less than the support for the LibDems with 11 seats and the The SNP with 6 seats.



The manifestos were decided upon long before the red book. Your "thanks to Labour's support of the economy" mantra is straight from the spin and lies of your friends Brown, Mandelson and Campbell. Certainly Labour went on a disgraceful spending spree earlier this year without having the budget or funds in the bank purely to win some votes at the election. The growth you talk about came mainly from those wicked bankers and Conservative businesses.



I repeat. It was not a lack of regulation that was the problem. It was that Labour changed the responsibility from one authority to be split between three authorities. The result was that no one was minding the store. Each authority blamed the other for not spotting the risks of financial problems that were to come. The signs were there and the rules were in place. It was Brown's system that failed.

Now I have not mentioned the war. You did and may "think you got away with it". But if you want to go there then please also record the way Parliament was misled by the "dodgy security document" edited by Bliar and Campbell. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that could wipe us out in less than an hour? We now all know that Bliar had already made an agreement with Bush and sought to mislead Parliament into backing him. Another sorry episode in the Labour legacy.



I agree we have to accept the way the world works. As I said there was enough regulation already it just wasn't applied correctly due to the stupid 3 pronged Labour regulators.

.

Here we agree with regard to the size and speed of the cuts. But the world economy is a fast changing place at present with currency wars likely to have a major effect and may even cause a late change in the timescales of some of the planned cuts.

I am not comparing the UK economy with the "PIGS". What I am saying is the UK national debt as a percentage of GDP is comparable with the "PIGS". This is where we are out of step with all the other leading world economies. Blair, Brown & Co never paid off any of our structural debt when times were good. They chose to win popular support (like yours) by throwing money at public services and growing the state all on further borrowed money which we simply could not afford or deserve.



Yes we agree on this.



You are confusing two different points here. Firstly the US economy is so big it effects everyone. Obama has also committed too much to the state and public services and now faces printing more money. The fear of this has caused a flow of funds into the Euro to the detriment of Sterling.

Secondly I have never said the banking crisis and world recession were Brown's fault. What I am saying is for a leading and rich economy we were ill prepared for potential problems. Like Leeds this year we had no Plan B. Brown left us all but bankrupt. Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIGS) have all had their International credit ratings down graded which means they now pay more interest on their loans. We are the next in line and the ratings agencies have said that unless we reduce our deficit quickly and deeply we too will be downgraded, so we all have to accept that serious cuts have to be made which will effect all of our lives for a while. I like you want these cuts to be fair.

As the junior Labour Minister at the Treasury aptly put in his note on leaving office "the cupboard is bare there is no more money"



All of this is speculation. We have to wait and see - but I agree with your last sentance. I am sure we can solve all the the worlds problems right here.... its easy isnt it?

The facts you provided that are inaccurate. It's not important as I agree that Labour lost the election although no-one won the election.



Some issues are still decided in Westminster by the UK parliament that effect the whole of the UK. Some issues are devolved and why not? Scotland, it seems to me, have several policies in place befitting a civilised country.

The Tories position is/will be interesting in all this being the Unionist party and wishing to devolve power away from Westminster or does that only apply in England now? Labour tried it with it's regional assemblies but didn't get very far.

The West Lothian question has been put out to commission (kicked into the long grass) by the coalition, let's see what they come up with if and when they report back. The dissolution of the United Kingdom is not something I would welcome personally, not least because of the tensions recently seen in Northern Ireland.



Perhaps so but where is the evidence that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish people want independence and see the break up of the UK?



So that's going to change the way people vote? I don't think it did. People voted and the result was a balanced parliament and this despite the warnings from the Tories (and the markets) that such a result would lead to paralysis and weak government.... has it? As I said earlier the electorate are not that sophisticated and the election in the UK is basically decided by a few hundred thousands voters in a relatively small number of the 650 constituencies in the first past the post system. I sometimes wonder what percentage of voters can even tell the difference between politicians these days and were probably confused when none of the nice men on the telly appeared to be on their ballot papers.



If the Tories are unpopular outside the rural shires of England perhaps they should come up with policies to address that.



Just the Tory ones ..... really?

And now the banks are reluctant to lend to the businesses, (yes even the Tory ones) and individuals (yes even the Tory ones) and even each other. How quaint but it's understandable if they're all Tories as looking after number one is what they do best. Interesting that the so called pre-election Labour tax on business was dropped yet the rise for employees National Insurance remained. And you say some businesses support the Tories, who'd have thunk it.

The direction of travel for the budget deficits were clear to see and have been ever since the World recession which was caused by the global banking crisis in 2008. The Tories and Lib Dems knew full well the state of the economy before their manifestos were put together. Labour's actions prevented the higher rises in unemployment and home repossessions that characterised the recessions of the early 80's and 90's. The much lower than expected unemployment and tentative growth bringing us out of recession came about by the government's support of the economy just as the coalition will impact on it's future direction.





And I repeat, Lehman Brothers sneezed and the world's financial system caught the flu. You will later claim the USA's economy effects the rest of the world, so did the sub-prime mortgage market rolled up and sold on to unsuspecting banks who apparently had no clue that they were buying toxic assets. Would the regulatory system in the UK have prevented that?



Why would I think I got away with it?

I'm tempted not to respond other than to re-state the words of a Mr David Cameron: "I voted to go to war ... I still think it was right... I would have done the same." You betcha he would and so would the vast majority of his party and his grass root supporters in the country at large. Blair didn't get everything right and cosying up to Bush was not his smartest move but Blair wasn't the parliamentary Labour party where 139 Labour MP's voted against there being a moral argument to invade Iraq. The Lib Dems are the only ones who got that call 100% right and good on the 1,000,000 lefties (who you appear to politically disagree with) in this country who marched in protests, not forgetting the 15 Tories.

Blair though also oversaw the Northern Ireland peace agreement and despite the setback of Omagh managed to keep the political elements talking to try and find a lasting peace following on the process started under John Major. No longer would a NI secretary feel the need to collude (as the lesser of two evils) with a IRA mass murderer, masquerading as a Roman Catholic priest, being moved just across the border to avoid prosecution, from where he reportedly continued his terrorist activities with impunity. I hope the coalition don't take their eye off the ball after a troubled few months across the Irish sea.



The PIGS are all in the EURO and unlike the UK don't have a floating exchange rate so can't let the currency take the strain during a financial crisis. The UK is also helped by the long maturity of its existing debt, which removes some of the short-term pressures on government bonds.

Like yours? I was a Labour voter long before they were in a position to tempt me with a pre-election bribe and the best bribes I recall always came in the form of Tory chancellors manipulation of interest rates, before Blair/Brown de-politicised the setting of interest rates entrusting the Bank Of England (a move naturally opposed by the Tories at the time.)

As the UK entered the world recession of 2008 debt to GDP was 2.7%, a whole 0.1% higher than at the outset of the Lawson's recession in 1993 and yet Labour's borrowing as a % of GDP was half that of the Tories in '93. If Labour were profligate as recession hit what did that make the Tories during their last recession? Not forgetting Labour's borrowing was a record of necessary investment in the run down public services they inherited rather than the Tories costs of failure. The National debt also reduced under Labour in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 so it's simply plain wrong to state they didn't repay some of the debt when the sun was shining. As it goes the National debt has risen in 46 of the 65 years since the end of the second world war and in 14 of the 18 years of the last Tory administration so it's hardly only a Labour phenomenon in this country and neither is the level of debt in itself critical. As the GDP grows then so can the debt while still being serviced. The current deficit needs to be reduced (as all parties were committed to) but the jury is out on how best to do that without inflicting further damage.



That's OK for the USA with it's low inflation figures but I imagine the Bank Of England is pretty fearful of UK inflation, which has already remained above target for 10 months, rising even further if they need to make another round of monetary stimulus to boost the faltering recovery. What a dilemma.



The markets want stability and they want a credible deficit reduction plan. At the time of the election both major parties were committed to post election cuts, two of the three main parties were agreed (basically) on the scale and the timing of the cuts. Those two parties combined won the majority of the public's votes at the election but only one found their way into government to support the economic plans of the party whose economic plan they had opposed at the election. Bizarre. And again Clegg's account of his conversion (just as with Labour's alledged offer on PR had been) was exposed when the Governor Of the Bank Of England stated he'd said nothing new to the leader of the Lib Dems that caused hm to change his mind.



Typical Tory (David Laws....Oops Lib Dem) no sense of humour and that was before his humiliating resignation 17 days later although I really don't see the problem in claiming tax payers money and giving it to your boyfriend, I really don't.

I'm not sure the 'chief secretary to the treasury' is all that junior a position in reality. Indeed the current one along with the prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the chancellor has just signed off on the comprehensive spending review, the details of which we will get to learn on Wednesday ...... can't wait.



Apparently not.

What's already clear from the announcements made are that women will be the losers here and I hope that gets it's reward at the ballot box.

Letter I sent to the employer whose just rejected me..

Before we get started I have also forwarded this to my local MP. He’s more than welcome to use this email as proof that it’ll be good riddance to the future job fund as its absolutely useless and absused by employers.

I feel that the way you have handled me is an absolute disgrace because you tell me I haven’t been successful in getting the trainee Youth Worker post due to lack of experience. This was after dragging me out for an interview, when beforehand you saw what was on my application form when it comes to experiance, so they was no need to drag me out for an interview if they was a problem with my experience. I also though the whole point of trainee was to be trained up and get experience. Not an excuse to pay an highly experienced youth worker on low wages just because you can.

Finally if I came across strong on the interview then why not base it on that?

At the end of the day I came to the interview to create experience rather than live off it.

Good luck in getting someone but I think you’re wrong.

That'll learn em.

So you are looking at the Scots and women to get you back into power are you? I suppose you are stating this Labour scare story based on more women working in the public sector and more women receiving benefits?

Closer scrutiny would offer another view. The Office of National Staitistics shows that the employment rate for women has risen from 56% in 1971 to 69% today. While the figures for men have fallen over the same period from 92% to 75% today suggesting that women are more likely to hold on to their jobs during a recession than men.




Labour’s Legacy

Labour made some notable achievements during their 3 term period of Government. However these have been overshadowed by their mistakes and mismanagement. Not counting their terrible record in Foreign policy the following points need recording.


• Labour left one in five young people unemployed.

19.6 per cent of those aged 16-24are unemployed according to the latest figures (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, June2010, Table 14).



• Labour took up to £150 billion from pension funds.

In 1997 Gordon Brown abolished the Dividend Tax Credit paid to pension funds and companies. This meant that pension funds were no longer able to claim a tax credit on the payment receipt of dividends.



Independent experts have estimated that this cost pension funds up to £150 billion:

‘What happened in 1997 represented an enormous and ongoing raid on the assets of UK company pension schemes. My research shows it would be very hard to justify an impact of less than £100 billion — and even £150 billion may still be a conservative estimate.’

(Terry Arthur, fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, Daily Telegraph, 15 October 2006)

Another expert called it ‘the biggest attack on pension provision since the war’ (Peter

Murray, Chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, The Independent,

3 July 1997).



• Labour sold off Britain’s gold at a 20-year low in the market.

On 7 May 1999, Gordon Brown announced that he was planning to sell off 400 tonnes of gold at a 20-year low in the market - now nicknamed the “Brown Bottom” by gold traders. Gordon Brown sold off Britain’s gold for between $256 and $296 an ounce, raising $3.496 billion (£2.343 billion at the then exchange rate). Since then the gold price has more than quadrupled to $1,227 an ounce (Bloomberg, accessed 15 June 2010).



• Labour left every man, woman and child in Britain owing £22,400.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that in 2014-15 Net Debt will reach £1,376 billion. This works out at £22,400 per person, based on a UK population of 61.4 million (ONS, Mid-Year Population Estimates)



• Labour wasted £3 billion on benefit overpayments and £10 million on tax credits for the dead.

£3 billion or 2.2 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid in 2008/09

due to fraud and error (DWP, Fraud and error in the Benefit system: April 2008 to March 2009, 2009). Since 2003, approximately £10 million have been paid to the dead in tax credits (Public Accounts Committee, Tax Credits and Income Tax, 24 March 2009, para.6 and Hansard, 8 Oct 2007, Col. 244W, 10 July 2008, Col. 1786W, 29 June 2009,Col. 24W). Labour’s Legacy



• Labour left us with one of the worst budget deficits in Europe.

According to forecasts by the European Commission and new UK forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK has the second largest deficit of all 27 member states in 2010, as well as a larger deficit than the US and Japan. On the OBR's forecast, the UK deficit will be 10.5 per cent of GDP in 2010-11. This is higher than the EU's forecasts for France (8%), Germany (5%), Japan (6.7%), Greece (9.3%), Italy (5.3%) or Portugal (8.5%).

(Office for Budget Responsibility, Pre-Budget Forecast, June 2010, Table 4.3; European Commission, European Economic Forecast - Spring 2010, 5 May 2010).



• Labour left 2.47 million out of work.

At the end of Labour’s term, unemployment was 2.47 million (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, June 2010).



• Labour left debt interest soaring to £70 billion.

According to forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, on Labour’s spending plans, the cost of debt interest would have more than doubled to £67.2 billion by 2014-15 (OBR, Pre-Budget Forecast, June 2010, Table 4.

.



• Labour failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining.

As the IFS said: “During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives”.

The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world’ (IFS, The Public Finances: 1997-2010, 19 April 2010, p. 2).



• Labour let the cost of the EU more than triple.

Under Labour’s spending plans, and as a result of Tony Blair giving away the rebate, the cost of our EU contributions will have more than tripled from £3.1 billion in 2008-09 to £10.3 billion in 2014-15 (OBR, Pre-Budget Forecast, June 2010, Table 4.

.



• Labour’s years of wasteful spending.

• Employing 4,567 ‘staff without posts’ in the civil service at a cost of £161 million

a year. (Series of Parliamentary Questions from June 2009 to February 2010 by

Francis Maude).

• £780 million on reorganising government departments and agencies (National Audit

Office, Reorganising Central Government, 18th March 2010).

• Spending £540 million on government advertising and PR a year (Central Office of

Information, Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09, July 2009).

• £48,000 on a kinetic light sculpture for display in the British Embassy in Madrid.

(Government Art collection, Annual report, 2008-09).

Oh.

tvoc I think we are both beginning to repeat ourselves which will be getting tedious for those who are expecting to read some rugby memories of Wilf Rosenberg so maybe we should spa some more when the occasion arises.

No keep going, you nearly attained the record for the first person ever on RLFans to create a single post that filled up a whole page.

Well done you.

Just a small point though - use a spell checker and a grammar checker next time.

Quote ="McLaren_Field"Just a small point though - use a spell checker and a grammar checker next time.'" They probably won’t get the message anyways as I’ve sent it in a bottle on www.oceangram.com/ I bet there’s some confused Dutch person looking at it right now..

Quote ="McLaren_Field"Just a small point though - use a spell checker and a grammar checker next time.'" They probably won’t get the message anyways as I’ve sent it in a bottle on www.oceangram.com/ I bet there’s some confused Dutch person looking at it right now..

The Dutch person probably has more chance of understanding it actually.

Quote ="Juan Cornetto"So you are looking at the Scots and women to get you back into power are you? I suppose you are stating this Labour scare story based on more women working in the public sector and more women receiving benefits?'" Are the Scottish and women voters worth any less than anyone else in the UK in your opinion and if so why? How about the Welsh, the Irish, ethnic minorities, Kevin Sinfield, trade unionists? I imagine the next government will be elected in the same way as in the last few unless the AV referendum gets through. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdest.html Last time I checked Theresa May wasn't a noted Labour supporter and the Mail not renowned for it's left leaning tendencies. The emergency budget that followed her comments delivered £8 billion in cost savings/tax rises, £5.8 billion of which fell on the female portion of the population. Go ahead do the maths. One person's scare story is another person's truth. You have to set it in context of the coalition's much boasted about fairness test. They demand to be held accountable and I think they will get their wish. You asked earlier if I'd spoken to a Scot who even liked us, well as it happens I do so every couple of weeks as my mother was born and raised in Inverness before meeting my dad (Leeds lad) while both were on National Service at RAF Swinderby. I've never lived up there but have not encountered any problems while on many a holiday visiting relatives and it's a stunningly beautiful country. If anyone has an issue on this thread it appears to be the person who struggles to accept the current constitution and seeks to declare validity of the election based on only a proportion of the results. What next, only counting the home counties and cutting off the rest of England who lets face it are a drain on the wealth creators in the South East. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"tvoc I think we are both beginning to repeat ourselves which will be getting tedious for those who are expecting to read some rugby memories of Wilf Rosenberg so maybe we should spa some more when the occasion arises.'" Unfortunately as you screwed up your reply I cannot seriously be expected to mount a response, close season or not I still have other responsibilities to tend to. Not least of which will be the ceremonial disbandment of the Harrier force (dependant on the definition of 'with immediate effect') and likely as not RAF Cottesmore with it. I think the word Strategic in the SDR should be dropped and replaced by Treasury.

Quote ="Juan Cornetto"So you are looking at the Scots and women to get you back into power are you? I suppose you are stating this Labour scare story based on more women working in the public sector and more women receiving benefits?'" Are the Scottish and women voters worth any less than anyone else in the UK in your opinion and if so why? How about the Welsh, the Irish, ethnic minorities, Kevin Sinfield, trade unionists? I imagine the next government will be elected in the same way as in the last few unless the AV referendum gets through. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdest.html Last time I checked Theresa May wasn't a noted Labour supporter and the Mail not renowned for it's left leaning tendencies. The emergency budget that followed her comments delivered £8 billion in cost savings/tax rises, £5.8 billion of which fell on the female portion of the population. Go ahead do the maths. One person's scare story is another person's truth. You have to set it in context of the coalition's much boasted about fairness test. They demand to be held accountable and I think they will get their wish. You asked earlier if I'd spoken to a Scot who even liked us, well as it happens I do so every couple of weeks as my mother was born and raised in Inverness before meeting my dad (Leeds lad) while both were on National Service at RAF Swinderby. I've never lived up there but have not encountered any problems while on many a holiday visiting relatives and it's a stunningly beautiful country. If anyone has an issue on this thread it appears to be the person who struggles to accept the current constitution and seeks to declare validity of the election based on only a proportion of the results. What next, only counting the home counties and cutting off the rest of England who lets face it are a drain on the wealth creators in the South East. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"tvoc I think we are both beginning to repeat ourselves which will be getting tedious for those who are expecting to read some rugby memories of Wilf Rosenberg so maybe we should spa some more when the occasion arises.'" Unfortunately as you screwed up your reply I cannot seriously be expected to mount a response, close season or not I still have other responsibilities to tend to. Not least of which will be the ceremonial disbandment of the Harrier force (dependant on the definition of 'with immediate effect') and likely as not RAF Cottesmore with it. I think the word Strategic in the SDR should be dropped and replaced by Treasury.

I am sad that the Harriers days are over but it no longer has as an important a role in the forseeable theatre situations and has therefore been a regrettable first casualty. Had Labour not wasted so much on some terrible procurement policies perhaps the Harrier & Cottesmore might have survived a little longer.

Re: your incorrect facts.
My source material (BBC) suggests you made some factual errors in the opening section of one of your contributions. It's not that important to me but if it is to you I suggest you check the point I referenced and see for yourself. You'll no doubt say big deal but as I've already conceded it's no big deal and tried to move on that won't be news to me.

Re: messing up your reply
Click 'quote' at the foot of your last two posts and you'll see what you have given me to work with. I'm afraid I have neither the time nor inclination to pick out your individual points to present them for replies.



I think you'll find that MOD procurement has been a major issue for several governments and not just Labour ones. Not like you to be partisan over an issue of great importance to national security.

The Eurofighter was first committed to when Michael Heseltine was still around in Thatcher's cabinet in the mid eighties, before his resignation over Westlands... did that project come in on time and on budget?

As we will not now be able to fly any fast jets from any UK carrier until around 2020 (at the earliest) what is the rationale behind planning to do so then but not also being able to do so in the intervening period? Seems we have a present capability that we are going to decomission 10 years before the replacement is ready to enter service. I thought this was a strategic defence review. Which threat are they preparing for post 2020 and why is it not a threat until then I wonder.

Even if the JSF - F35 is delivered on schedule it won't come with fully trained Royal Navy/RAF pilots. As the last time a NAS aircraft catipulted off or arrester-wire landed on a British carrier was in 1978 it will be a 42 year gap (minimum) before one is likely to do so again. I imagine it'll take more than a two month type conversion course to bring them up to spec now that they've removed the VSTOL requirement. Indeed by removing the VSTOL component (as they announced today) wouldn't it have made more sense to produce a maritme version of the Eurofighter and boosted that programme instead?

Nice to see that Juan can contribute on other subjects other than Bailey bashing.

Wilf Rosenberg was a member of the first leeds rlfc team to win the championship in 1961.
that is a major milestone in the clubs history