Saturday, February 24, 2024

Labour candidates pour scorn on Osborne visit

THE PROSPECTIVE parliamentary candidates for both Thurrock and South Basildon and East Thurrock have poured scorn on a speech made by the chancellor of the exchequer at the Port of Tilbury this morning.

The chancellor’s speech focussed on important tax changes coming into force this week as well as tough new proposals regarding benefit claimants.

However, it did not sit well with the two prospective parliamentary candidates.

Polly Billington said: “George Osborne was in Tilbury today claiming that people are better off under the Tories but local people will know that just isn’t true. He says the economy is recovering but every worker in Thurrock is still £1,600 worse off in real terms than they were when he and David Cameron came to power. Prices have gone up by more than wages in 44 of the 45 months this government has been in charge, increasing the pressure on household budgets every single month.

“George Osborne also claimed that his tax and benefit changes were making people better off but research from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that every family in Thurrock is £900 worse off overall as a result of George Osborne’s tax and benefit changes. That’s £900 a year which can’t be spent on energy, childcare or food.

The Chancellor also trumpeted his “success” on jobs, but because of the decisions he made it has taken three years for unemployment to start coming down. He is still failing to do anything about the long-term unemployed with six times as many 18-24 year olds out of work for more than a year in Thurrock than there were in May 2014. The number of over-25s out of work for more than two years is also still going up meaning 495 long-term unemployed in Thurrock would have a job now under Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.

Finally, George Osborne hailed cuts to tax on business but these cuts are targeted at big business and do nothing to help the small businesses that are necessary to drive the recovery. Labour would cut business rates for small businesses, encouraging entrepreneurship rather than putting more money in the pockets of big business.

“George Osborne’s speech was high on rhetoric but had nothing new in it that will actually help people in Thurrock. He says there is a recovery but the people I speak to on the doorstep are not feeling it. It’s a recovery that is being felt by Osborne’s chums in the City but does not reach as far as Thurrock.

“The Chancellor talked about a goal of full employment but long-term unemployment is going up in Thurrock putting a real burden on welfare and on council services. 495 people would have a job now under Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, making a massive difference to their lives and lifting the burden on the taxpayer.

“Families in Thurrock are facing a cost-of-living crisis with wages £1,600 lower than they were in May 2010. When you also take into account the £900 a year that people have lost thanks to Osborne’s tax and benefit changes it’s no wonder people are struggling. For Osborne to come here and tell people how great life is for them just shows how out of touch he really is.”

Mr Le-Surf said: “Having spent the morning listening to residents of Thurrock who are dealing with increasing debt, increasing council tax bills and cuts to their benefits, I find George Osborne’s claim that Britain is “walking tall” rather hard to swallow.

“Labour supports a better deal for small and medium sized businesses which is why a Labour government will be freezing energy bills as soon as elected.

Citizens are feeling more vulnerable with zero-hours contracts and part-time work becoming the norm. I suggest the chancellor visits a few of Thurrock’s foodbanks while he’s here rather than giving himself a big pat on the back.”


  1. And still they suffer from the collective amnesia that has befuddled the Labour Party since the financial crash. They must have forgotten that they left office leaving the country broke (remember the Liam Byrne note?). Surely, anybody with a brain knew then that it was going to take years to put Labour’s mess right. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that it has indeed taken years!

    Now, I do think that the Chancellor is overdoing it a bit, there may be some signs that things are turning around but the feeling generally is that there is still a hell of a long way to go before the majority will feel they are back to pre bust levels.

    The only thing I know for sure (because they have proven it over and over again) is that Labour cannot run the economy so it would be madness for anybody to vote them into power ever again.

  2. gray64.
    We were mad also to vote the Tories back in. might as well give UKip a chance, they can’t do much worse!

  3. It is clear from listening to these two that the main thrust of Labour’s policies, if they are re-elected, will be benefits increases once again. This is aimed at ensuring part of their core vote.

    It’s also obvious to most that if you flood any area, whether that be a particular part of a country or a country as a whole, with cheap Labour without the jobs to back it up, then wages and working conditions will fall. They will only rise when supply of jobs outstrips the supply of Labour to fill those jobs, The City and Tech industries are an example of this where wages are beginning to rise because they are relatively high skilled jobs with less of a pool of Labour to choose from.

    Of course Labour’s view on this is to continue to flood the country with cheap Labour and do nothing to try and stop it. They are responsible for the ill’s they claim are the fault of the Tories. They have hurt their core voters more than the Tories have. Immigrants tend to vote for them so they don’t really care. They’ll get their votes anyway.

    They have created welfare dependence, low wages, the conditions in the Labour market where zero hours contracts will flourish and yet they deny it all. If anyone believes the Labour party are going to increase benefits if they get into power, they are barking at the moon. If anyone believes wages will miraculously increase under Labour, they are equally misguided. They do not have the taxpayer funds to do either, which afterall is what all their policies rely on, the taxpayer. They have no other policy but to spend ever more taxpayers money. Guess what Labour supporters, there still isn’t any taxpayers money to spend since the last time your party was in power.

  4. We are agreed that New Labour cannot run the country. I think we agree the Con Dem cannot run the country.
    The next Crash is around the corner when interest rates go up.
    So who do you say we vote for Novoice?

  5. While I agree with much of what the Labour candidates have pointed out until Labour actually has a proper set of proposals and policies that are actually more than just bluff and bluster themselves, I think that they are going to be no better than the Tories. Labour are not going to be any better on welfare because they have backed the cap which, although I agree with on principle, is a one-size-fits-all policy in a political area that does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach.

    gray64 seems to forget (much like the Tories) that the Major administration left a bigger deficit for the Blair administration to clear up than Brown’s left Cameron’s. He also seems to ignore the fact that the ConDems have borrowed more money in the past 4 years than Labour did in their 13 years in power.

    The trouble facing voters now is that you can’t trust the Tories because they lied through their back teeth to get power and then started enacting policies that were the opposite of what they said prior to the General Election. You can’t trust Labour either because they don’t seem to have any well-thought through policies at all. You can’t trust the Lib Dems because they are only too willing to betray their founding principles to get a sniff of power and have enabled the Tories to knacker the economy (by basing any recovery on unsustainable borrowing), harm the most vulnerable in society and back them in their constant lies. UKIP and the BNP are no real alternatives to the horrific administration we have now and the smaller parties (like the Green Party) are too small to ever get into power because they haven’t got the funds to field candidates in every constituency and, therefore, haven’t got the following they need even if they had the Holy Grail of solutions to the problems faced by the country.

    It’s no wonder there is so much voter apathy in the UK because what real choices are we presented with at election time?

  6. Myles, Blair inherited an economy in good health, hence the Labour Government sticking to Tory spending plans. Things only went wrong when they abandoned that policy and let Gordon Brown start his epic splurge of taxpayers money.
    I don’t ignore the fact that current Government spending is way too high, however, if they cut back spending more than they already have, you are just the type of person to be condemning them for cutting too much. I hope also that you do appreciate the difference between the deficit and debt? The deficit has been greatly reduced, the debt continues to spiral but , until the deficit is expunged, they can’t do much about it.
    I agree with you to a degree about the choices faced by voters. Labour are in a parlous state and, in any event, only know how to wreck the economy and the Tories are weak and ineffectual. The Greens are barking mad so thankfully won’t get a chance of power and the BNP are contemptible. Ukip are a bit of an unknown, they are not the party of a few years ago, they are modernising rapidly and are attracting some good people at the top. Are they worth a vote? We’ll find out in May about that.

  7. gray64 – Nothing detracts from the fact that Blair was left a larger deficit than Brown left the ConDems.

    You must be ignoring that fact because you are still blaming Labour (just like your lovely Tories). Actually, the Tories (and, let’s face it, it is just the Tories because the Lib Dems don’t exist as a political entity anymore) are driving up public spending and therefore the national debt with their own policies. The Bedroom Tax, rather than reducing the spend on Housing Benefit, is actually INCREASING the spend on Housing Benefit, the exact reverse of what it was meant to do. The Workfare scheme is pushing people out of jobs and onto the dole as companies cotton onto the fact that they can get slaves to work for nothing than pay people to do the job for minimum wage – INCREASING the money spent on the dole. What miniscule amount of jobs that are being created are low-paid, short-term positions or zero-hour contracts all of which mean that the spending on welfare doesn’t go down but goes UP because more people are claiming in-work benefits and income support. These are facts that the Tories don’t want you to think about and you obviously indulge them by ignoring the fact that it’s the Tories own policies that are increasing the debt. Oh and thank you for questioning my intelligence by assuming I didn’t know there was a difference between the national debt and the deficit. I think that’s calling me a moron by implication. Right back at ya!

    Labour are full of bluff, bluster and no policies. The economy was actually wrecked by the banks and it was global so change the record on “it’s all Labour’s fault” because that excuse doesn’t fly anymore. The Tories are not weak and ineffectual; they are dangerous, ultra right-wing, murdering (try reading a newspaper rather than a Tory propaganda sheet for the details), economy wreckers who are increasing the national debt with their own policies (see previous paragraph). The Green Party are not “barking mad” as you put it, they are too concerned with trying to be good to the planet and its inhabitants to be able to properly think things through; however, the planet could do with a few more environmentally conscious people. I agree (which is probably a shock that neither of us will ever be able live with) that the BNP are contemptible but then even a Tory supporter can see that so it’s not much of a revelation. UKIP are Tories for those who can’t decide between Cameron’s Conservatives (AKA dangerous, ultra right-wing, murdering, economy wreckers who are increasing the national debt with their own policies) and the BNP. Both choices (Cameronite Tory or BNP) are xenophobic hate-mongers but both are possible either too extreme or not extreme enough so those voters go for UKIP as a compromise.

    Are UKIP worth a vote? No. Are any of the parties worth a vote? No. Our only option (which we are getting thanks to the Tories anyway) is a UK Apocalypse where no one is trustworthy enough to vote for, no one goes out to vote because of the lack of choices and where the poor, sick and disabled are routinely dying early deaths or being forced to commit suicide because they have no other option. Of course, Cameron, his cronies and their rich buddies will escape unharmed from UK Apocalypse (something they have contributed to immensely) to set up in one of the Tiger Economies in the East, ready to suckle at their teats until they do the same there and then they’ll escape back here because we will have rebuilt (with any luck) and they can exploit the ordinary citizens of the UK once again. What a world we live in.

  8. Grays64 why are the greens barking mad? I would like to know why as I am a swinging voter.

  9. I do not like Osbourne at all. I find him unlikeable, slimy and too stuck up but I have to admit that economically his policies are all the UK has at the moment.

    There is little alternative, Labour will continue the same if they win next year. The Lib Dems have to play ball as they know there is little different they can do to restore UK plc.

    Personally I see nothing different about Camerons Tories, Cleggs Liberals and Millibands Labour. They all look the same, sound the same, are all unpatriotic, are all somewhere near the centre and come across as pretty much in politics for the power and what they can get out of it.

  10. Bernard87 – I don’t want to be rude but of course Osborne’s policies are all we have at the moment but that’s because his party is in power. There are probably loads of alternatives out there, it’s just no one has the power to enact them and the Tories won’t change direction despite the mess they’re making of things with their policies.

    Labour haven’t even begun to write any proper policy and the Lib Dems will never get near power again after their betrayal.

    I totally agree with your final paragraph though (I know neither of us will be able to live with that truth but there you have it).

  11. Factually incorrect. The deficit when Blair took power was about £4 billion or about 1.2% of government spending. When the wonderful Gordon and the Labour party left power, the deficit was about £146 billion or about 21.5% of government spending. A bit of a difference. Welfare spending increased by about 85%. Anyone that would advocate that again is clearly not living in the real world.

    I’m surprised the Tories policies on drowning kittens and puppies at birth and eating babies for breakfast haven’t been brought to the fore.

    The fact of the matter is Labour’s policies of mass immigration have created the poor and the working poor. Maybe Labour are going to subsidise food, energy and travel along with their policy on subsidisng low paid jobs. There’s plenty of money available obviously.

    Benefits have gone through the roof thanks to Labour so maybe we should be asking who should get those benefits. Perhaps a complete ban on all immigrants claiming benefits so the more needy can have a greater share.

    The Labour party are the party of gimmick policies and are little more than a lobby group obsessed with racism and gay marriage rights. If the people of this country vote for that then they deserve everything they get.

    Farage won the debate on Europe again last night with 68% agreeing with him. Says it all really when the Labour party say no referendum. They are against the majority of people in this country and have no belief in real democracy. They want to see this country reduced to a sub region of a superstate ruled by foreign bureaucrats. What a bunch english haters they really are.

  12. NoVoice – Firstly, and with no disrespect intended, have you thought of changing your screen name because you clearly aren’t voiceless. In fact, you usually shout louder than everyone else so your screen name doesn’t make any sense. I always meant to mention it because it has always bugged me.

    I concede the error. Re-reading the article I got the information from (which I haven’t read for a long time hence the faulty recall), it was a larger national debt and a non-balanced budget. The article was written by Ramesh Patel who “worked in finance from investments adviser with JMC Financial Assets, to commodities brokers in metal and currencies with Capital Assets. As well as a CEO for Proactive Internet Marketing and Brown Pound Publishing. Current working on a book on the UK deficit Myth and the real agenda of the right and left”. Patel also states that “As a Conservative I have no pleasure in exposing David Cameron’s deficit claims” but, being the honest man he is, he does expose the myth anyway. Well done him!

    Patel states that: “Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% – a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?”

    He further states that: “Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% – OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

    “Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% – a reduction of a near 50% – Impressive! Hence, it’s implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

    “Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It’s basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.”

    You can confirm these quotes to be accurate by reading Patel’s article “Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?” which can be found at

    Welfare spending went up partly because of the global financial crisis caused by the banking sector but also because, unlike the Tories, Labour tried to help the low-paid, sick, disabled and disadvantaged rather than persecute them. If successive administrations actually did something to help the ordinary person in the street by, I don’t know, possibly increasing the Minimum Wage or introducing a Living Wage then there wouldn’t be such a genuine need for welfare payments, would there?

    Oh, Cameron won’t be pleased now that you have stolen his thunder by ‘outing’ his future puppies, kittens and babies policies like that!

    …and straight back to the old ‘I’ word. Do you play any other tunes, NoVoice? Mass immigration from the EU member states is completely out of our control but I concede the point that Labour allowed the floodgates to open two years earlier than they needed too. Waiting, however, just would have delayed in influx of immigrants, not stopped it.

    Again, if a Government who really wanted to make the hard choices and decisions actually upped the Minimum Wage or instituted a Living Wage instead of subsidising employers allowing them to pay so little, there wouldn’t be a need for in-work benefits to top up the low pay, would there?

    Recently, Cameron pledged to spend whatever money was necessary on flood defences so obviously there must be plenty of money around, mustn’t there? Cameron says so.

    Although there is some truth to what you say, I don’t think you’ll find it’s as easy for an immigrant to claim benefits as you believe it is. However, you keep blaming Labour for increased welfare spending when there are many other factors that were outside of their control that influenced the need for that increased spending that you and the Tories conveniently ignore. Labour do have a case to answer but don’t lay the blame solely at their door because it doesn’t belong there.

    Labour certainly don’t seem to be coming up with any policies at the moment and shame on them for that. Do remind me, however, who proposed and supported same-sex marriages? That would be Cameron, a Tory! You can’t blame Labour for that, an issue it seems (as you have mentioned it in such a derogatory paragraph) that you have a problem with. And you missed out mentioning that the Tories are obsessed with being racist. Kind of turns that part of our debate into a zero-sum game, doesn’t it?

    I didn’t watch the debate because I knew without needing to watch it that it would not cover the issue of EU membership properly and would be nothing but sound bites to pander to either the Europhiles or the Euro sceptics without an in-depth discussion of the pro and cons of remaining an EU member state or leaving. Until such a proper debate is held and the public is given all the un-spun, non-ideologically based facts, the public cannot make an informed choice as to what is or is not best for the UK. As for the in/out referendum that has been promised by the Tories “if we get elected in 2015”, I wouldn’t place your bets on that happening even if the Tories win in a landslide because they aren’t above lying to get into power and then enacting the policies they said they wouldn’t before the election.

    The real English haters are the current Government who hate its citizens so much (unless they are rich, of course) that they cause misery and rising poverty of all kinds among who they believe to be inferior people.

  13. “Labour tried to help the low-paid, sick, disabled and disadvantaged rather than persecute them”

    I’m not too sure about this. Labour certainly started trying to help such people in 1997 but by the end of their term they were most certainly more closely connected with the City than the ordinary people who voted them into power three times. Labour trapped the poor in a web of welfare dependancy which was fine when the UK economy was growing. However the downside to this was that the welfare bill became so huge that it was, and still is, completely unsustainable.

    More than that, such ‘help’ has caused a massive social problem in the UK where we have thousands of people who do not believe they have to work as the State help fund their lifestyle. There is nothing fair and equal about that. I am all for helping people who are sick, disabled, fallen on hard times etc but I see no fairness in funding lazy peoples lifestyles whilst I struggle to fund my own.

    The sheer stupidity of Labours welfare policies are shown when it is better for someone to only work minimum hours and top up their wages with tax credits than it is for people to work more hours, or full time in low paid work.

    I have often thought the reason welfare went so wrong under Labour was due to the fact that like the Tories, they have little clue about the working class. They are all just as rich as each other, educated in the same places and all think they have a right to tell folk whats best. On top of that Labours welfare policies had a direct electoral effect as no one will bite the hand that feeds, clothes, pays for Sky, holidays etc.

    The working poor of pre 1997 days remained so under Labour. Nothing dramatically changed other than a new underclass forming with migrants replacing them in the jobs that they could do. The UK has always had a working poor and I suspect it always will no matter who is in government.

    Tony Blair walked into Downing Street to the songs ‘Things Can Only Get Better’….they did, for a while, before getting horribly worse.

    No matter what problems this government stumble to and from (and I know how much you do not like Cameron and his chums, I’m not that keen either) very few people will say that this country is all the better for having 13 years of a Labour government.

  14. Myles I don’t need to read somebody’s report, government spending figures are available through PESA to everyone. I may as well read the Morning Star or Socialist Worker as to read the Huffington Post.

    The largest increases in Welfare spending were between 2002 and 2008 so nothing to do with your reviled bankers.

    Labour ran a deficit between 2002 and 2008 every year before the evil bankers destroyed the world. It just got bigger after that. Shame they didn’t have the brains to see what they were doing and what was coming. It appears the world and his wife knew before they did. They did this at a time when dear old Gordie was telling everyone there was an end to boom and bust; We had virtually full employment, record tax receipts and record growth. So why were they running a deficit.

    Increases in health, welfare and education spending coincided exactly with their policy of mass immigration, as did the minimum wage legislation and the subsidising of low paid jobs. It wasn’t in their manifesto and the vast majority of people in this country don’t agree with it, except maybe you.

    A five year old can make the link between over supply of cheap labour and lower wages for the worst off, again except you apparently.

    The bedroom tax was introduced by Labour for private rented tenants but you don’t scream about it.

    You don’t scream about the money and lives spent and lost on Blair’s war mongering just so he can go down in history.

    You don’t scream about Blair having a network of LLP’s to siphon the huge amounts of money he makes off the back of his time destroying this country. Nor do you scream about the MP for Barking whose family business paid 0.001% tax on £1.2 billion of turnover. It’s all just the evil Tories isn’t it Myles.

    Blair opened the floodgates to Europe 7 years before virtually every other European country, not two.

    NoVoice came about because this site used to try to ban people for their views. Very New Labour. They love a bit of press control and suppression of freedom of speech. They’ll probably carry that through when they’re elected.

    You’re a socialist Myles and benefits and the welfare state is the answer to everything for you, along with state control of all prices and wages. It’s a system that’s worked wonderfully in Venezuala.

    The only thing you’ve left out Myles is to call me a racist. Guess what, It’s a meaningless label the left love to hurl around at everyone that does not agree with them.

    The Labour party have taken part in the largest gerrymandering exercise in this country’s history. They want to rule in perpetuity, by dictatorship if need be. They are anti democratic, anti white working class and anti English. Long may they be consigned to the dust bin of life.

    You’ve taken up more storage space on this site than any other person ever so I thought I’d have a go. See if you have the patience to get to the end of my rant.

  15. Bernard87 – The founding principles of Labour are Socialist and are, therefore, more concerned with helping the disadvantaged. This is how it started in 1997 and to some extent continued to do so with the welfare system. Unfortunately, the leadership of Labour under Blair became too besotted with personal gain and the need to be Thatcher’s heirs. I’m not saying that they went completely Thatcherite but went far enough to betray their ideological roots.

    Although it could be argued that the poor became trapped in welfare dependency by Labour, I think it would be fairer to say that welfare dependency has been brought about by the inability of any Government to push for a better Minimum Wage or a proper Living Wage. This has allowed companies to pay their staff a pittance leading to the creation of a whole raft of in-work benefits. It’s these in-work benefits that are subsidising companies to keep paying the lowest amounts possible and I have to agree that Labour is at fault in that respect. It was mentioned on Question Time one week that if the Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation it would be between £19 and £20 an hour whereas it remains at the low rate of £6-7 an hour. This doesn’t mean that I would push for a Minimum Wage of £19 an hour because that would be entirely unworkable in my opinion but it does show the reason why there is an enormous growth in in-work benefits – it’s because the cost of living outstrips the increase in wages by a huge amount.

    Although there are some who match the stereotype you describe but they are actually a very small minority compared to the truly deserving. Current ConDem propaganda would love people to believe that there are millions fleecing the system but there aren’t. It’s such a shame that people are taken in with such destructive propaganda but that’s human nature for you.

    I don’t have and never have had a problem with tackling fraud and the people who play the system but the current Government is attacking the wrong section of the welfare claimant community as most fraud and system players are found on Jobseeker’s Allowance, a benefit barely touched by the reforms. The largest part of the welfare spend is on pensions but that has been left untouched as pensioners have been exempted from all of the welfare ‘reforms’ in a cynical attempt to buy the ‘grey vote’; it is a strategy that will probably work but will come back to bite the pensioners on the backside when they get hit if the Tories get power in 2015.

    Labour’s policies weren’t stupid per se, they just ended up helping employers rather than the workers by allowing such low wages to exist or not putting in place some way of controlling the rise in the cost of living.

    You’re quite right about neither Labour or the Tories having much of a clue about the working class; in fact, I’d go further and say they have little clue about a life on benefits either. I’m not too keen on you saying about paying for Sky and holidays because I can assure you that it’s only those who play the system who can afford those luxuries. My benefit barely covered my food and topping up my soon-to-be ex-wife’s meagre earnings.

    I can’t deny that there is some truth in your assessment of the working poor but I disagree that it’s always going to be a problem. The trouble is to change the situation will require a Government willing to make real hard choices in order to make the cost of living go down so that low pay is not necessarily a problem anymore.

    I think the song was really meant to represent how ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ for the people in power. Things have certainly never been better for Blair who made out like a bandit.

    Actually, the UK is none the better for every Government since Thatcher (it could go back further but, as most of my formative years were under Thatcher’s Government, that’s as far back as I can go) because the system that has allowed such corruption in Parliament hasn’t had the reform it truly needs.

  16. NoVoice – Yes, you do. You actually need to read what I stated to as the writer of the piece is a Conservative and the Huffington Post is overseen by a Conservative too.

    No, it’s to do with the employers getting subsidised by Labour so that they paid their workers a pittance thus requiring an increase in in-work benefits. 2008 onwards – the bankers are to blame.

    As Labour was not left with a balanced budget in 1997 so they were hardly hitting the ground running. Actually, the crash in 2008 was quite a surprise to everyone or someone would have done something about the banks and their casino banking ways.

    “We had virtually full employment, record tax receipts and record growth.” And you say that Labour weren’t any good.

    “So why were they running a deficit.” Actually, you need a question mark at the end of that but to answer the question because in their zeal to help the working poor, they ended up subsidising low wages instead. This was a mistake on their part.

    If you read my last blog entitled “Goodbye and good luck…” (not my title) you will see that I’m not in favour of mass immigration but I realise that we’re stuck with it so I choose to not comment on something that cannot be changed. And I think you’ll find that there’s evidence that immigration actually benefits the economy of the country (if you can be bothered to look for it but I know you won’t and I won’t do it for you).

    Mass immigration from the EU member states is out of our control but I do concede that Labour opened the floodgates two years earlier than they needed to and that was a mistake but would hardly have stopped the problem you so avidly blame everything for, merely postponed it.

    “A five year old can make the link between over supply of cheap labour and lower wages for the worst off, again except you apparently.” I have never said that there isn’t such a link so that statement is pure nonsense and offensive. I just don’t blame it all on immigration like you do.

    Actually, I stood against Blair’s warmongering, I just didn’t have a blog back then so again you make a fatuous and offensive remark.

    Again, you’re wrong. I spoke out whenever I could about Blair’s corrupt ways but I didn’t have a blog back then and it’s no use bitching about it now. If you paid attention, which you obviously don’t, you will notice that I only really began to become a commentator on politics in 2010 in the lead up to the General Election so I can only comment on what is happening and can be changed now. I only use historical information prior to 2010 if it shows a trend that can be solved now.

    If you say it’s seven years, I’ll take your word for it but it was a commenter on one of my earlier blogs who stated two years so I have used that figure.

    Oh, then you shouldn’t change the name because the Tories are removing our freedom of speech as we discuss this matter. Funny how you blame Labour for press control and suppression of free speech but ignore the fact that the Tories are doing it now; it’s known generally as the Gagging Law and, although that is a pejorative term, it is an amazingly apt one. You are living in the past and not in touch with the present and it’s people like you who will doom us to no future. And blaming Labour for the decisions of Mr Casey seems rather a pathetic thing to do.

    No, a Socialist believes in common ownership and no private ownership. I can see the benefits of some things being State-run but I have no problem with private ownership. The welfare state is one of the things that other countries looked up to us for, the other is the NHS. There’s nothing wrong with either of those. I’m not really happy about the idea of State control of prices that I proposed in my blog introducing Valenomics to the world but if people can’t afford to feed their families then hard choices and decisions have to be made. You may not be in favour of State control of wages but you constantly bitch about the welfare spending which would be ended by, again, making the hard choice to dictate a proper wage for a day’s work. This part of your rant actually makes no sense as a result.

    I also have some very right-wing beliefs that don’t really get an airing because some people might become offended by them.

    Why should I call you a racist? You constantly bitch and moan about mass immigration but otherwise you’re harmless because you don’t actually incite hatred you just show it like a petulant child.

    All the political parties engage in gerrymandering and they all want to rule in perpetuity. The Tories are certainly gearing up for their dictatorship. The Tories are the ones taking away our freedom of speech (Gagging Law). The Tories are eroding our human rights (and doing so illegally, I might add) and use retroactive legislation to legalise the illegal acts they are perpetrating. I don’t remember Labour ever doing that. You don’t want to see what the Tories are doing because that would mean opening your eyes and paying attention, something someone with your limited attention span just can’t do.

    I’m actually surprised that you could maintain such a rage for so long given your limited attention span. I, on the other hand, have a very long attention span which comes from reading books rather than propaganda rags which I assume are your favourite reading matter because of all the lovely pictures. I am glad that you realise you’re ranting though. I don’t rant myself because ranting involves getting angry and that’s a waste of emotion.

  17. NoVoice – When will it penetrate your imbecilic brain of yours? I don’t support any political party because they’re all as corrupt as one another. If you can’t understand what I keep telling you, go find an intelligent adult to explain it to you.

  18. You back their policies. You espouse their ideals and more. You’re a socialist. You envy wealth and feel that people on benefits are victims of a capitalist plot.

    It’s called the world. It exists in all societies to varying degree’s. Get used to it. It ain’t going to change.

    Improve your chances and try to get on. More difficult for some agreed but it’s the only way out.

    Socialism and the wlefare state, even in the developed world has reached it’s panacea. It’s downhill from here.

    Go and have a beer Myles. I prefer a nice glass of Chablis myself.

  19. NoVoice – I don’t back their policies because they haven’t got any and I didn’t agree with a lot of them in the past when they did have some either. I don’t espouse their ideals; I espouse humanist ideals which say that no one deserves to suffer at the hands of another. I don’t envy wealth; I simply believe that with wealth comes a social responsibility that you could never hope to understand. People on benefits are victims of a corrupt system but I have never said that everyone on benefits is deserving, just that the deserving ones are being demonised by being tarred with the prejudiced brush of negative stereotypes pushed by the Tory controlled media.

    I know full equality will never happen, unlike you I’m not stupid, but that doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t close the gap so it isn’t as wide.

    I have done a lot to try to improve my employability – taken courses to up-skill and open up new avenues to look for work in, undertaken a range of voluntary work placements with the same aim in mind and done a lot for mental health awareness to make everyone with a mental health problem less discriminated against – everything you say I should do but, unfortunately for me, none of it has done any good. I may have helped other people cope with their problems and even made them that much nearer getting a job but it has come at the price of seemingly ever getting a job myself because I can’t shake off the stigma of mental ill health because I’ve been so open about it. I want a fecking job, you arrogant dick, but until someone shows me a little faith when I go for an interview, I’m not likely to get one. I know you wouldn’t read my personal blog because that’s the kind of person you are but my latest entry at shows just how much of a striver I am because I not only got glowing feedback on my assignments on the initial teacher training course I attended but I completed the course in only EIGHT of the ten week course. And now I have completed the course and that much closer to being well enough to take on at least a part-time job, I have my benefit taken away and I have no money to buy any food for myself. If I’m very lucky and get a miracle, I might be able to find someone to give me a job otherwise I’m going to end up as one of the victims of this murderous Government. How’s that for looking after those who strive to better themselves, you pathetic excuse for a human?

    You obviously don’t know what the word ‘panacea’ means because your sentence makes no sense.

    I don’t drink alcohol because it’s the crutch for a weak mind and kills off brain cells but that does explain why you are such a supremely stupid person.

  20. NoVoice – The problem with you is that you have your head so far up your big fat ass that you don’t think of anyone else or consider the circumstances that have brought them to where they are today. It’s ironic that my consultant psychiatrist says I lack empathy when there are such creatures as you walking around.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


More articles