The bank lending was to keep them afloat, as many were unstable. It was not an option to let them collapse, given that so-called casino banking was intertwined with high street banking.

But why were investment arms so linked to clearing banks? In 1931 the Americans brought in the Glass Steagal act which seperated investment and clearing banks. By the 1980s conventional wisdom dictated it no longer necessary yet when Ed Miliband, Vince Cable and George Osborne speak of their progressive, modern plan to 'break up the banks' they are actually talking about an 82 year old law.

Basically what they did in 1997 when they inherited a very sound economy, but claimed it was bad.

True but only half the story. History prior to 1992 proved pegging currencies doesn't work and history since 1992 has proven single currencies don't work. Joining the ERM was a fools errand which cost the Conservatives their economic credibility. In 1992 the voters gave them the benefit of the doubt, rightly viewing the Labour opposition as no alternative but by 1997 much had changed. Blair didn't win because the economy was bad, they won because the Tories had long hit the button marked 'self destruct' and a country doesn't vote for a party which can't even hold itself together.

By 1997 the economy was in it's fourth consecutive year of growth, we had the fastest growing economy in Europe and crucially after two divisive, brutal decades the public finances were under control. Inflation was low, sterling was strong, unemployment was down and we were sharing in something of a western boom. Labour inherited the best situation of any incoming Government in the 20th century yet within just 13 years they'd thrown it all away and in many ways put us back to 1979. I still believe Gordon Brown should go to prison.

1997 was about politics, image and that sense of fresh start. A fifth consecutive win is unprecidented and the Tories were always going to lose anyway.

The irony is that UKIP may well give Ed Milliband a win at the next general election. And he leads the party that caused this mess.

Once upon a time I might've cared for that argument but I'm now of the view all three main parties are totally identical it doesn't matter anymore. UKIP struggled with the Tories in opposition because people would go 'we agree with UKIP, but we need to get Labour out.' Those people aren't saying that anymore. Most of the nation is controlled by the EU now anyway, it doesn't matter who we have in No 10.

gradually c110.I don't think they are identical. Nu Labor is about the big state. The Tories are against the big state, or rather they try to encourage private enterprise. That said, Nu Labor did introduce a lot of market reforms into health etc. I can't say I know what the Libs stand for. They don't have much luck with leaders though. Think back to Jeremy Thorpe, Paddy Pantsdown, and Charles Kennedy.

Thorpe was caught out by by a panic following archaic attitudes to his homo/bisexuality. Kennedy had a drink probem - pretty widespread in politics (George Brown and Reggie Maudling to name but two). Not sure what Paddy did wrong apart from the affair.

In between they had Jo Grimond and David Steel - the latter probably one of the most pricipled politicians of the second half of C20

Fair point. Deregulation went too far.

Yes and no. The reality is financial services has been drowned by regulation/directives in the last 20 years, mostly handed down by the European Union. Most of these directives are pithy, petty and useless to nobody except the bureaucrat who needs to justify his own salary. Gordon Brown went the whole hog and set up the FSA as an outpost of the European Union to implement all their rules, how nice of him.

That was not the cause of the crisis, just a side issue. I used to work for a French owned company, and because they were big, they had to follow HSE rules. So we had regular talks. One was how to deal with winds i.e. when walking outdoors. A few were useful e.g. how to lift heavy objects, making sure cables and other trip hazards are out of the way and so on. But most werer either silly or obvious. We even had directives such as "You must park by reversing into the space". Parking nose first was forbidden. The French love issuing rules. And they love ignoring rules too. Our problem is that we obey them. So French make EU rules, and ignore them, we follow them.

It wouldn't be so bad if regulators actually understood the industry, but most civil servants and bureaucrats are people who've failed at something they now try to control. What I'm getting at is we 'deregulated' in terms of getting rid of many sensible rules, yet we piled on regulation of rules we didn't need and didn't help.

That is a valid general comment on the EU. Too many good intentions, but too many silly rules.

Even that won't make the Euro 'work' in this case because we're dealing with vastly different economies and cultures. Greece makes it's money from it's geographical location (tourism) and Germany is a manufacturing nation.

It would work, just as the US works. But it requires strict controls i.e. not falsifying records. And it takes time, just as it took time to integrate Eastern Germany into the Greater Germany, but look at them now.

Now there's a strong chance a few northern European countries (maybe including ourselves) could've shared a currency, but none of the southern ones should've been near it.

Without economic union, it does not work.

The modern day Tories are for the big state - just less big than Labour. They're for high tax and high spend - just slightly less high tax and high spend than Labour. They're for increasing the national debt - just slightly slower than Labour are.

They're for the EU controlling our lives - just a little less than Labour were.

Only because if they were to cut even more, they would guarantee losing the next election. The reality of the economic crisis has not sunk in, thanks to people like Polly Toynbee who claim that the government's statements on the debt are lies. That women is a disgrace. No less nutty than Melanie Phillips or Christopher Hitchens though. We do have a tradition of nutty columnists misinforming the nation, perhaps because a journalist has to say something dramatic to get a job, reasoned thought does not sell copy.

Wake up and realise Camerons bible is the Blair handbook. He's a social democrat whose party doesn't even argue against the wisdom of Blairism anymore, they just argue they can do it better. I see nothing from the modern Tories about cutting the size of the state, I'm far more likely to hear them talk about gay marriage, wind farms and climate change.

The truth is that the Tories were living in past decades, and needed to wake up to the modern world. That is what Blair did. And it was Thatcher that started the climate change debate.

That said, Nu Labor did introduce a lot of market reforms into health etc

Yes I've always found it interesting Labour can get away with implementing Tory policy much easier than the Tories can. The 2001 NHS reforms were very similar to the Major Governments plans, binned by Blair in 1997.

It is not that surprising. The Tories are easily attacked on certain fronts as the crass mentality of this country has it that the Tories are nasty evil self centred capitalists, and the Labours are lovely cuddly caring people. So it is easier for Labours to get changes through under the guise of improvements and modernisation. If the Tories do it, it is dismantling the NHS etc. That said, many unions were against the Blair project.

And it takes time, just as it took time to integrate Eastern Germany into the Greater Germany, but look at them now.

Yes but Western German taxpayers were willing to pay for the re-integration because at the end of the day they're all German people. Germans aren't so willing to integrate Portugal into its own country and the key difference between the European project and America/Germany is Europe hasn't asked us first!

Indeed.

I'll have much more respect for our public servants if they just did the right thing rather than caring about short term popularity. History usually judges such people favourably anyway.

You could argue that they would achieve more by being re-elected, and continuing their course of action, rather than letting the Labours take over, once they have done the hard work.

The truth is that the Tories were living in past decades, and needed to wake up to the modern world. That is what Blair did.

I'd argue it was Labour who needed to wake up to the modern world after years of losing elections on a 1970s style protectionist platform. Labour lost the arguments of the 1980s on matters like nationalisation so Blair moved them away from that in recognition. When he was saying things like 'no more bosses vs workers' (a nod back to our Marx debate) he was talking to his own party.

As you say the Labours were in a mess in the 80s, and Neil Kinnock almost pulled them back onto the path of an election win, but not quite. Smith took over, then Blair, moving them back to the centre, killing off clause 4, making them electable.

Once in power Blair had virtually no opposition as the Tories turned into a slow motion train crash with their production line of supply-leaders. He was a formidable political force who the Tories had no answer to. The New Labour machine was slicker, smarter and faster than anything we'd seen before as 1997 was our first election of the American style spin doctor age.

Indeed. It is always easier when the opposition attacks itself. But Blair had grabbed the middle ground, taking over a very healthy economy.

The Tories eventually responded in 2005 by electing a man made in Tony Blairs own image who admits himself he's a big admirer of the Iraq invader.

The problem is we've been there and done it now. We were taken in by Blair who went from the most popular PM ever to one of the very least. The golden dawn proved to be false and the public isn't buying it a second time.

That said, many unions were against the Blair project.

Go to a Labour conference and ask one of their stereotypical teaching union campaigning types who their least favourite Labour leader is and they'll say Blair - despite being their most successful by the sort of distance that interests Mo Farah. They'll tell you he 'tried to make us nicer Tories than the Tories.'

Blair was very clever at selling himself, and the new policies. In many ways he was a Tory, and not a socialist.

I agree with much of what you write. I think Blair was a con man, supremely self confident, and believing his own spin. The war in Iraq was criminal, akin to mass murder. And he brought in the era of spin, with Alastair Campbell bullying and manipulating the press, the cabinet, and the civil service. And I agree that Cameron is too much in that mould.

.

I think Blair was a con man, supremely self confident, and believing his own spin. The war in Iraq was criminal, akin to mass murder.

I have a strong dislike of Gordon Brown yet I struggle to find much actual anger within me towards Tony Blair. He's a fascinating man who I view as a tragedy. He still makes a decent argument in favour of the Iraq invasion though he's given up trying to convince us it was the right thing to do, it's easy to call it mass murder but mass murder was happening in Iraq anyway so that's not my main criticism of it.

I remember reading a piece about how Cabinet Government was never Blairs thing. The concept of democratically elected people forming decisions together was lost on him, he saw himself as the elected man to make decisions and frankly the Cabinet were sales people. Their job was to go out there and sell Tonys decision to the public.

Yup. I've heard the same thing. There are more than a few stories about Nu Labor. According to Prescott, Blair loved the latest gimmicks, and would take in all the blarney from management consultants, about stakeholders, targets, and so on. He drank in the jargon and buzz words.

When Nu Labour were out of power, they were given free advice by management consultants, the big names. No doubt that advice was not impartial, and favoured the consultants. When NL got in, management consultants were rewarded with big contracts.

Blair was a shallow man, self deluded, self confident, but he was the face of Nu Labour, the front man, convincing, charming, seemingly straightforward, and a Mr Nice Guy. Campbell was the hard man, who bullied the media, and those around Blair who dissented. I've seen and heard Campbell in the media many times, and he is a nasty arrogant bully, rather unpleasant in my opinion, completely assured that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

Isn't it odd that Thatcher was seen as a dictator, but she encourage debate in cabinet, whereas Blair is seen as a nice guy but stifled cabinet debate, and dictated policy using 'government by sofa'.

Oh management speak was rife with New Labour. Key-performance-indicators and all the rest of it, but that doesn't bother me.

It isn't management speak, it's nonsense speak, and it should worry you sick. Good managers don't hide behind nonsense such as "stakeholder". I'm not convinced they knew what they were doing. Look at the IT screw ups, there have been many, costing massive amounts, probably billions in total. I've worked with very good managers, and they don't talk tripe, they use normal language. I know the targets in the NHS were fiddled. I think I've said it already, but my late mother waited 10 years for cataract operations. At the time Nu Labour ministers appeared on Question Time saying waiting lists were down to 1 year. Baloney. I'm sure the Tories were in some ways just as bad, especially in IT screw ups.

What bothers me is to fend off inner-party and grass roots mutiny, Blair had to keep Brown in such a high position of power where he was able to destroy the nations finances.

But at least Brown brought an end to boom and bust, and he saved the world.

Blair has openly said he didn't want it to be like Governments of days gone by when Cabinet meetings lasted four days and ended with a show of hands. In his book he speaks about how he saw himself as the elected leader who had to lead. Almost as though he thought he was the President.

What I find fascinating about Blair is how much of a part religion played in his decisions. Nobody really realised how religious he was during his time in office, but he was at church every Sunday irrespective of where in the world he was - MI5 guys really loved that - and he always did what he felt was the 'right thing to do.' The phrase 'right thing to do' was a very common theme with Blair and he felt if he didn't do these 'right things' then nobody else would, which is dangerously close to saying 'the lord was working through me.'

Thatcher may have encouraged debate but there were times when she slapped people into line as well. Some decisions she made in the 80s were totally against consensus but she didn't care what they thought because she knew she was right. You can see parallels with Blair there.

There are parallels indeed, both seemed supremely self confidant. But it is a fact that Thatcher allowed debate, and Blair preferred the presidential approach as you say.

One thing I admired about Blair is he had little respect for convention. He didn't really understand the culture of the civil service and was an enemy of the establishment. Prime Minister was Blairs only Government job, he never even had department research roles like David Cameron did in the Major Govt. Extraordinary when you think about it but partly explains how he just never 'got' how the Governmental machine worked.

Well, you could argue that he liked his establishment. He had a habit of appointing his friends to senior roles, rather than a competitive process to find the best candidate.

Many times he fulfilled the role of 'ideas man' who declared what reform he wanted and was left dumfounded when the machine of Government never made it happen, as your idea gets asset stripped by the civil service and less than 10% of it reaches the ground. Many close to him always believed his contempt for Parliament and disrespect for convention would bring him down.

It shows a crassness on his part. He was very shrewd, a very convincing speaker, charming and confident. However, there is a difference between creating an appealing fairy tale, and reality. The latter introduces unwelcome truths, and complexity. The Iraq war is one example of that. Blair convinced himself that he would rid the world of an evil dictator, and install a cuddly democracy, which would make everyone happy. He also convinced himself that Iraq was a threat to the world, and his associates bullied the security services into producing a 'dodgy dossier' containing claims that were not backed up by evidence. It was a gross abuse of government to bully civil servants into publishing what amounted to a lie. What Blair did not like was anyone who tried to impose reality on his pipe dreams. At the start of the Blair period, we were all incredibly optimistic, we had been sold these shiny dreams, how all would be well after the nasty corrupt Tories were kicked out. It took 15 years to see through him, but only in part because the Tories were so weak.

Was it so surprising that he mixed with Berlusconi? They were not so different i.e. huge egos, unwilling to listen to criticisms of their own ideas, although the latter was allegedly corrupt. I think Blair genuinely saw himself as an honest decent man, and was not corrupt.

Your remarks on the NHS have made me think because my mother has been let down by the health system and - in my view - left in a worse state with worse quality of life than she needed to be. I'm beginning to wonder if these people like Daniel Hannan have a point and we need to take a cold, hard look at the whole principle of socialised medicine in this country.

For me the NHS is important, but it can only get worse as the gap between what medicine can do, and what we can afford, grows.

Yet look back at it now. In 1997 there was no great demand for a Labour Government and there were no riots in the streets against the Tories, there was simply just a mood for change. I know of people who said at the time 'I'm voting Blair' not 'I'm voting Labour.'

I was 13/14 the previous time a Labour government was elected, in 1974. On that occasion there was no great demand. Ted Heath had called an election on the question 'who runs the country'. The country's verdict was 'not sure mate, but not you'.

In 97 there was a huge demand for change. The Conservatives were at each other's throats over Europe, a schism which emasculated the government after 94ish. The government had frankly run out of ideas and was tainted by cash for questions and less justifiably by assorted other personal/sexual revelations.

Labour was the only party in a position to deliver change and in many ways they did. A start at reforming the Lords, the Human Rights Act and the Constitutional Reform Act at least started to modernise the state's relationship with the public.

There was a huge demand for change in 1997 but not especially for Labour. After 18 years familiarity was breeding contempt and it was a case of 'anyone but you.' Tony Blair did a brilliant job reading the political waters and knowing where to be at the right time. He did make Labour electable by ditching much of their 1970s style platform. People weren't afraid of Labour anymore like they maybe were in 1992.

Labour gaining 2 million votes on the previous election sure was massive, but the Tories losing more than 4 million arguably had more of an impact as many Tory voters simply stayed at home and haven't voted for anybody for 21 years - judging by turnout figures. Interestingly according to some polls a few of those exiled voters are beginning to come out again now - for UKIP.

The media no doubt played a big part, they were suckered by the New Labour machine but you can't blame it all on them. After all the Tories internally referred to the BBC as b******s Broadcasting Communism in the 1980s but that didn't stop them winning elections. Tony Blair is fated as the savour of Northern Ireland despite being a johnny-come-lately in reality. Yes his charm and sense of a 'new dawn' may have helped but Major had been eating dirt politically to get the process that far for years.

I'm not saying New Labour were all bad. Brompt mentions a start to kicking out heriditary peers and I'd argue the minimum wage was a good thing. Tories opposed it at the time, claiming it'd result in 40 billion unemployed but they support it now. I do believe the NHS is better than in 1997 having spent twice as much on it but it's not twice as good.

The Human Rights Act however is a farce and not even really relevant as our EU membership takes that stuff out of our hands anyway.

The Human Rights Act has next to nothing to do with the EU.

It's based on the European Convention of Human rights. A treaty entered into by the UK after the second world war.

In that case it has plenty to do with the EU because signing up to the ECHR is a pre-requisite of EU membership. You can't be in the EU and not sign up to that treaty. I'd argue the treaty we signed is now void as the European Court of Human Rights is now acting so far outside it's original post-war remit it's getting stupid.

The ECHR and the ECJ were set up in the belief that major crimes such as genocide were too big for one nation to deal with by itself and that's perfectly valid. It was not set up to decide whether someone can wear a cross at work or to over-rule decisions made by domestic courts in democratic countries.

Is it right to send a father, capable of supporting his family, abroad leaving wife and kids on benefits?

No. The wife and kids should be sent back with him. Plenty of room on cargo flights.

It's a powerful and empowering piece of legislation. If it goes we'll regret it.

Rubbish. We lasted until 1998 without it so i'm sure we'd be just fine. It empowers criminals and scum, but as you point out it's modelled on laws we're already bound by anyway hence why I say it's an irrelevant piece of legislation. When Chris Grayling bangs on about scrapping the HRA if the Tories win a majority that's also smoke and mirrors, because - as you say - we're already bound by these laws from Strasbourg so unless a majority Tory Govt would leave the EU it'd make no difference.

The UK has had Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta for nearly a millennium since the EU was thought of. We've never felt the need to write a constitution so I'd argue we don't need 20th century bureaucrats telling us what to do.

I believe the ECHR was founded from good intentions and I also believe the European Union came from good intentions. I refuse to believe there was some evil mastermind behind it from day one, rather there was a desperation to stop German dominance after invading France three times in a century. Ironically it's led to the opposite of what they planned, proving the road to hell is often paved by good intentions but I don't believe they were bad people. The people running it now on the other hand....

You seem to attach a lot of importance to the UK being members of international clubs as though it matters. I believe in nations being independent, working together for sure but no country being bound by another.

Only because if they were to cut even more, they would guarantee losing the next election.

Sorry just coming back to this because I forgot to say one thing; they're going to lose anyway! You, me and David Cameron all know that a Labour Government will be formed in May 2015 and probably with a reasonable majority, so 'we can't do the right thing because we'd lose' is a moot point.

We all know Labour will pick up some of the collapsing Lib Dem vote across the country while the Conservatives - who haven't won an election since 1992 - will see their already inferior voting base split heavily by UKIP. Why are we even pretending there's any chance of Cameron winning in 2015?

There is, but it all depends on a) the economy and b) luck. If the economy looks healthy, and Wallace, sorry Miniband, does something stupid, he might just get back. If not, as you say, the Labours will get in, and claim the credit as the economy improves. It is all too depressing, even if Cameron gets in, as he is such a limp shallow marketing wonk. Much like MIllipede. And Clegg. You know I guess that a clegg is a large hairy fly that leaves a very nasty bite, also known as a horse fly. Beautiful iridescent eyes though. Look into my eyes, my eyes, look into my eyes ...

My problem is I don't really want any of them to win. The best thing I can say about Camerons 'modern Tories' is they're slightly less objectionable than Labour. I can't even say they're better, just less bad. I look at the three parties and see three slightly different brands of the same ideal all led by virtually the same man. They're all members of the professional political class who've never had a real job in their lives.

Mostly, yes. What do you want a government to do then?

The only defence I can make for Cameron is we don't know how he'd do leading a majority Government, but having loosely followed the mans career I still believe he's another limp social democrat planning to use HM Govt as a springboard to a cushy EU job with big pension.

I suspect that was not his aim, that he wanted to do well for the country, but something is not right. Perhaps he lacks vision. Or perhaps his vow to end spin is the problem. Without spin, you think they are useless. In which case we are our own worst enemies.

Sorry just coming back to this because I forgot to say one thing; they're going to lose anyway! You, me and David Cameron all know that a Labour Government will be formed in May 2015 and probably with a reasonable majority, so 'we can't do the right thing because we'd lose' is a moot point.

We all know Labour will pick up some of the collapsing Lib Dem vote across the country while the Conservatives - who haven't won an election since 1992 - will see their already inferior voting base split heavily by UKIP. Why are we even pretending there's any chance of Cameron winning in 2015?

If I posted that from my Labour supporting perspective I'd call myself complacent!!

I can't fathom how any sane, rational adult can possibly support Labour to win the general election but I accept it's going to happen.

You have to get inside the mindset of the Labour voter. They genuinely believe the rhetoric that comes from Labours. Maria Eagle was on R4 last night, and apparently Tories only care about the rich, and hate the poor. And of course they are led by toffs. Whereas Labours are about milk and honey, caring and compassionate, genuine, for the poor not the rich. You get the same line from other Labours. People believe it. No recognition that the debt is still increasing.

My view is that people are indoctrinated from childhood by left wing teachers and a left wing media, and they do not question it. (They should question both Tory and Labour doctrine of course.)

When it does happen I may have to seriously consider emigrating.

You have to get inside the mindset of the Labour voter. They genuinely believe the rhetoric that comes from Labours. Maria Eagle was on R4 last night, and apparently Tories only care about the rich, and hate the poor. And of course they are led by toffs. Whereas Labours are about milk and honey, caring and compassionate, genuine, for the poor not the rich. You get the same line from other Labours. People believe it. No recognition that the debt is still increasing.

My view is that people are indoctrinated from childhood by left wing teachers and a left wing media, and they do not question it. (They should question both Tory and Labour doctrine of course.)

Sorry Leif but that's b...........

There's a perfectly reasonable line of thought that believes in fairness, civil liberty, accountability of government and a role for the state.

I doubt you would find anyone who beleives in unfairness, lack of civil liberty, and unaccountability of government.

I'm old moderate Labour in the mold of Crosland, Healey and Hattersley. I've come to that conclusion on my own and without any influence from lefty teachers or whatever. There are plenty of people in the old industrial areas who saw Thatcher pull the ground from under local businesses with the monetarist experiment; high interest etc. And that's before you start on mining. Conservatism in action Part of the reason we're now short of social housing is the sales in the eighties and failure (to be fair under Labour too) to re-invest the proceeds in new builds.

Unfortunately most wealth in England is generated in the South East. The North depends significantly on the public sector. It is not healthy, and something has to be be done to increase the private sector outside the SE.

It sounds like you do not remember the 70's and 80's. The 70's were a mess, Britain almost went bankrupt. The Wnter of Discontent, the dead not being buried, rubbish not collected, and strikes. The unions were trying to destroy the country for their own selfish interests. (Just look at the outrageous salaries of train drivers to see the bad side of unions.) Scargill was using the unions to further his own political ends. I don't agree with all Thatcher's policies, but she was the only one who stood up to the unions, for example.

If the Tories don't want to punish the poor they're doing a pretty good act. The money suposedly saved by the so called 'bedroom tax' is almost exactly that given to the most well off by reduction of the 50p tax rate.

Strange then that during almost all of the Blair government the higher rate tax was 40%. And strange too that inequality increased under Blair/Brown. So much for equality.

I've said before that the Tory trick is to squeeze the middle while persuading them to blame the poor for their plight. Meanwhile the rich carry on picking everyone's pockets and get richer still.

It is ironic that you come out with such extreme left wing rhetoric. It is complete nonsense, but demonstrates that many Labours caricature the Tories in childishly black and white terms.

If you looked beyond your very extreme left wing politics, you'd see that Britain has to earn its living in the world. That means competing in the world markets. To do that we need people who take risks, and establish businesses, employ people, create tax revenue, and create wealth. If you remember the 70's, you remember that the rich paid massive taxes. The result was that wealth creators went elsewhere. The country was in a mess. Reducing higher rate tax to 40% increased tax revenue because it encouraged wealth creators to come to Britain.

There are many decent Laburs, but there are also many bigots. Frank Field and Michael Meacher are decent people. Some such as Peter Hain come across as extremist bigots. There were also quite a lot of bigots in the Tory party, and some policies such as supporting South Africa int he apartheid era were very wrong.

As for debt the cirisis is one of declining tax income, not out of control spending. The debt will go on growing until borowing is used to give a Keynsian fillip to the economy and stiulate some growth. Tax revenue will then sort out the borrowung problem.

No, it is due to overpending by the Blair/Brown lot, and the cost of borrowing to rescue the banks. Like it or not the banking crisis occurred under the Labours, and we are now paying the price. The Blair/Brown lot increased spending to high, that in bad times we were stuffed. Sadly it seems to be a Labour trait, spend spend spend while the sun is shining.

AS for childhood and media indoctrination don't make me laugh. Excepting the 'Liberal' Guardian there is NO left wing media in this country. The agenda in the press is largely set by the Mail and Telegraph who have a symbiotic relationship with Tory Central Office.

Almost all comedians are left wing. Just listen to Jeremy Hardy for one. The BBC always has been left of centre, though they claim otherwise. My English teachers were lefties. I recall a teacher call me a "f***ing middle class b*****d". Ironically I was raised by a single parent struggling to make ends meet by working as a nurse. But they thought I looked and sounded posh. Left wing bigots are commonplace. I despise the way some bigots attack Cameron for being a toff. Would they criticise him for being black, if that was the case? No, because that is rightly unacceptable. But attacking someone because of their birth is commonplace among left wing bigots. Attack the man for his actions, not an accident of birth.

I started out with very left wing views, but after 20 years in industry, reality has soaked in.

As for the Daily Wail, it is a rag with low standards of journalism, scare mongering, not a nice paper. No worse then bigots such as Polly Toynbee though. Both peddle simplistic world views. The Toryguff is a more serious paper, albeit clearly biased to the right. I happen to prefer a newspaper that does not impose its own political leanings on me, but that is just me.

There are plenty of people in the old industrial areas who saw Thatcher pull the ground from under local businesses with the monetarist experiment

The 'old industrial areas' had only stayed open for as long as they did because Britain took decades to accept its new post-war status and globalisation. Unions had scared gutless PM after gutless PM into throwing money we didn't have at unprofitable industry to keep it running but Thatcher eventually broke that cycle. Pits were closed down because they'd become unprofitable in the new world, not because Tories hate northern people.

Conservatism in action Part of the reason we're now short of social housing is the sales in the eighties and failure (to be fair under Labour too)

Giving council tenants the right to buy their council house was pioneered by Labour councils in the late 1960s. It was happening semi-regularly in the 1970s and Thatcher encouraged it in the 1980s. She didn't introduce it, she inherited it.

The money suposedly saved by the so called 'bedroom tax' is almost exactly that given to the most well off by reduction of the 50p tax rate.

Can I just correct the language here a little. The Government isn't giving money to the most well off by reducing tax, they're letting them keep a little more of their own money. I've made my views on disability benefit reform clear, the Government have screwed up and it was Labour who brought in Atos to start this back in 2007.

As for debt the cirisis is one of declining tax income, not out of control spending. The debt will go on growing until borowing is used to give a Keynsian fillip to the economy and stiulate some growth. Tax revenue will then sort out the borrowung problem.

I'm sorry but what total idiot told you borrowing to solve a borrowing crisis was a good idea? It's this morally, intelluctually - and literally - bankrupt thinking from Ed Balls which really makes my blood simmer. The crisis is most certainly due to out of control spending and whoever tells you otherwise is completely, totally and utterly wrong. Let me spell out some facts;

The Government are currently spending nearly 45% of our GDP. Records show tax revenues do not exceed 39% of GDP even in boom time so we're simply living beyond our means and no economic boom can provide the money needed to sustain our spending plans. You seem to think there's this magic wand called Keynes which means you can borrow-borrow-borrow-spend-spend-spend and it'll all fix itself. Maybe if Gordon hadn't emptied the Treasury, reserves and credit card before he left we might be able to do that.

The reality is we need to cut spending. Even with an economic boom we'd need to cut £100billion a year off public spending, so get your head out of the sand and start accepting things have to be cut. The debate we should have is what do we cut.

I don't agree with all Thatcher's policies, but she was the only one who stood up to the unions, for example.

Thatcher followed through on what Heath didn't have the stomach for. As recently as the 1970s the State was in charge of incomes and prices, Sterlings valuation and the the vast majority of industry. Heath started off free market but after unemployment hit 1 million in 1973 (for the first time) he reverted to Wilson-esque social democrat believing the State should micromanage the economy.

Heath called the 1974 election asking the country to decide who runs it - and he got the famous answer of 'not you mate.' The country wanted the quiet life promised by Harold Wilson who caved to unions, giving them staggering pay increases and begged them to turn the power back on during the 3-day-week. The country wasn't ready to battle the unions with Heath, we did it a decade later with Margaret Thatcher.

30 years of ignoring reality led to our Labour Chancellor begging the IMF for a bailout and so began savage cuts in public spending by the end of the 70s. Unions trampled Wilson and Heath for a decade and were setting about tearing down Jim Callaghan as rubbish piled 20 foot high, trains stopped, trucks stopped and lights turned off at 10pm. Tax rates of 83% sent entrepreneurs overseas and Britain was literally bankrupt, battered, broken and shattered. The images of sick children in GOSH being taken care of by their parents due to nursing strikes turned the nations stomach and the nation was finally ready to do something about it.

Heath didn't have the guts for the battle. Thatcher did.

Edited by jamie745 on 09/03/2013 at 17:17

The sad truth is that the young are unaware of the events preceding Thatcher. Years ago I discovered that a young colleague thought Thatcher was no more than the caricature portrayed by the left i.e. causing unemployment, favouring the rich and so on. She was completely unaware of the chaos created by out of control unions, who were trying to break the country in order to get high wages. She was unaware that the country had nearly gone bust, of the 3 day week, the Winter of Discontent, inflation above 25% and so on. Older colleagues were well aware, and I suspect that is part of our current problem, the left have successfully defined the popular view of history, though you cannot blame them. I am sure there is some saying along the lines of 'if you control the past you control the present'.

That's the narrative of Capital and the right wing press - Mail etc. My own memory is more nuanced.

Unions in both the public and private sectors were defending the rights of their members whose living standards were being erroded by the post war concensus issue of a prices and incomes policy. As now prices were being controlled less effectively than incomes and, four years in, the unions were, acting with the authority of their members, fighting for wage increases.

The narrative of 'holding the country to ransom' is entirely that of the right. It's simply the employees trying to get the best out of their symbiotic realtionship with Capital.

The inflation rates and debts of 75/6 owed most to actions of Heath in 70/74 overlaid with commodity price hikes. By 78/9 inflation was under 10% only to rise again under the Tories.

Thatcher, while cynically campaigning over a dole queue of 'Labour isn't working' models' actually regarded two or three million unemployed as a 'proce worth paying'. She did favour the rich as borne out by tax policy, privatisation and deregulation in a whole range of places.

The monetarist 'experiment' pushed up interest rates to absurd levels that denied funding for working anf investment capital to thousands of viable businesses.

But that didn't matter because our future was in financial services and not industry that gave real jobs to ordinary people.

That's the narrative of Capital and the right wing press - Mail etc. My own memory is more nuanced.

You can spin things however you like but certain things rise above narrative and your own rose tinted view of history. Some things are just undeniable, recorded, historical fact. You can't spin the fact the Labour Government of '77 had to ask for a bailout from the IMF. You can't spin the fact 20 years of caving into Unions didn't work because strikes, demands and disputes only got worse, culminating in the 1979 breaking point.

You can't spin the three-day-week, the 20-foot-high piles of rubbish, the 35% payrise demands, the constant strikes and sometimes violent, militant picketing. You can't spin the fact the country didn't have the money they were demanding and you can't deny the fact we were in a better shape when Thatcher left than when she entered.

Even Neil Kinnock acknowledged the 1970s was a really awful time to live in Britain.

Unions in both the public and private sectors were defending the rights of their members... post war concensus issue of a prices and incomes policy.

By the late 1970s there was little in the way of a private sector as top rate income tax hit 83% and businesspeople fled the country, but the State should've never been dictating prices and incomes.

the unions were, acting with the authority of their members, fighting for wage increases.

Much of the time they had no authority at all because in those days there wasn't even any law dictating a Union had to ballot its members. It seems incredible to think Post Office workers turned down a 25% pay increase in the early 70s and went on strike over it.

War in the gulf sent energy prices and inflation rampant in the early 70s so I don't blame the unions for wanting to help their members pay inflated prices, but they didn't realise their demands would only lead to further inflation and their methods would only lead to their own demise.

The narrative of 'holding the country to ransom' is entirely that of the right.

What else do you call leaving the dead unburied, shutting down the nations transport network and forcing parents to play the part of nurses for their sick children in hospitals? If using that as your bargaining chip to get more money isn't ransom then what the hell is?

Thatcher, while cynically campaigning over a dole queue of 'Labour isn't working' models' actually regarded two or three million unemployed as a 'proce worth paying'.

Dismantling the failing wartime relic of nationalised insutry and replacing it with the private sector - often driven by foreign investment - doesn't happen overnight and in the early 80s unemployment was rife. But it was worth it because it had more than halved by 1988. People like you forget that.

She did favour the rich as borne out by tax policy, privatisation and deregulation in a whole range of places.

What do you mean by 'favour' the rich? Presumably you favour taxes so high people leave the country and render our Treasury empty and people jobless? Privatisation is just acknowledging the State is a bad manager. It's no better at running banks than it was at building cars.

But that didn't matter because our future was in financial services and not industry that gave real jobs to ordinary people.

So the 2 million people working in the UK's financial services sector are disordinary people doing fake jobs? Much of your thinking does seem a little bigoted, that only a simpleton doing manual work is a worthy person yet someone who earns a lot of money in insurance is scum.

You say you're on the side of the poor, but you defend strikes which harmed the poorest the most. You seem to be perfectly fine for poor peoples loved ones to be left unburied because the staff want more pay. You're ok with poor people not being able to eat because the Unions have shut the transport networks down so the shelves are empty. You're in favour of heavy regulation despite all evidence proving it helps monopolists and harms the little guy.

Why should your English teacher call you a B.? Because you spoke posh as a child?

I don't know why but this teacher spent several minutes abusing me. Terms such as "F***ing middle class b*****d" make it clear it was class warfare nonsense, directed against a 15 year child.

There are also right wing bigots.

There are, but left wing bigotry is considered acceptable, whereas right wing isn't. People can appear on TV/radio and abuse someone for having wealthy parents, but not asian parents. Why the distinction? Both are instances of bigotry. The irony is that Labours abuse Cameron and Osborne for being toffs, and yet most Labours went to fee paying schools.

You've lost the plot Leif best to stay out of politics enjoy your life.>:)

All you can do is insult me without any form of argument, that is pathetic. :<

Jamie/Leif

I might add another leftist view tomorrow when i've got time.

But the line 'how many state school kids learn violin'? got me. Music in schools is still widespread thirty years after Miliband was at HAverstosk.

Both my kids (now 20 & 18) learned instruments at state school. Clarinet and Cornet/Trumpet respectively but both have friends who did strings.

Elder is at Uni and continues to play in Concert band. The Lad is doing A level music and is a self taught guitarist - something he'd not have acheived without school teaching him to sight read music etc.

Rural Norhants.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 09/03/2013 at 19:46

Admittedly I didn't attend school as often as I should've done but there was no music at all where I was.

I can only add my experience. I wanted to learn an instrument but the school would not let me as I failed the hearing test. A small number of children did learn an instrument at school, but I wonder how many of those passed the hearing test because they came from a musical family?

Dont remember a hearing test 'filter' being used in kid's school. Seems a bit crude at a young age and while relevant for brass or strings it shouldn't rule out wind, piano or percussion.

As to a musical family I suppose that's the luck of the draw. Same might be true of families with scientific or technical skills. My wife's family includes a couple of professional musicians and she's now resumed playing the oboe but only in the last three years.

I don't like David Cameron, I think he's a weak, irrelevant, spineless, two faced, dishonest, untrustworthy little man.

I suppose he is not perfect. Seriously, I think he is not that bad. He recognised that the Tories had a bad image, and they did worse before him. Still, I don't see him as a good leader.

But I won't criticise him for being posh. I will criticise him for seemingly pretending to not be posh sometimes, he does have a bit of a hang up about it and is conscious of his public image, where as I have more respect for people who are just themselves.

The fact Cameron went to Eton is nothing to do with him and all to do with his parents who sent him there. The same applies to Ed Miliband - he went to a Comprehensive, you know - whose mother decided what school he went to, yet he advertises it as though he chose his path in life. The fact Eds Comprehensive in question - Haverstock - is known as 'Labours Eton' seems to be by the by. He learned violin there. How many state school kids learn violin?

Labour trying to practice class warfare with their current front bench really is something. Ed Miliband - Corpus Christie & LSE. Ed Balls - Oxford & Harvard. Yvette Cooper - Oxford, Harvard & LSE. Virtually all of them went to fee-paying schools as well, including Ed Balls - who also learned violin - and Harriet Harman. In terms of background both front benches are near identical. Harold Wilson was a working class grammar school boy, Ed Miliband isn't.

And Thatcher was a grocer's daughter.

What concerns me more than where they all went to school is the fact hardly anybody on either front bench has experience of the real world. Iain Duncan Smith served in the Army so does deserve to be listened to, yet he's at Work & Pensions rather than Defence? Yet Defence Secretary Philip Hammond - who hasnt served - is one of very few with considerable business experience making him ideal for business secretary yet Vince Cable has that job.

I've said the same thing on this forum many times. One thing Thatcher did was get people with real world experience into the cabinet, including an airline pilot and numerous business people. They proved that they could do something other than spout rhetoric. The problem with both the Labours and the Tories is that they are career politicians (most of them), or lawyers (Blair), or media types (Cameron). Ed Balls was an academic then a government adviser, Blair was a lawyer. Ed Milliband was in the media then a government researcher. Osborne was a journalist for a while then a government researcher. Theresa May was a financial adviser and councillor. Nick Clegg seems to have worked in international aid. Jeremy Hunt made his fortune in business. Grant Shapps made his fortune running web sites where he pretended to be Michael Green, a millionaire business, and he charged people to learn his wealth making secrets. I have always thought of him as a small time con man and totally unsuitable for government. I could go on, but is it any wonder they are all so awful.

Mad.

My view is that teachers tend to be lefties, and English/Arts teachers are the worst. I know a few people who left teaching - a thankless job - who say they were all lefties, an exaggeration perhaps, but indicative.

My OH is a science teacher. She shares my political outlook, one of the things that drew us togethe, her general experience however is that her colleagues are a broad reflection of the rest of society;

And looking at the leaninigs of the wider public service my observations as a Civil Servant with 35yrs service is broadly similar to Erin's.

AS for childhood and media indoctrination don't make me laugh. Excepting the 'Liberal' Guardian there is NO left wing media in this country. The agenda in the press is largely set by the Mail and Telegraph who have a symbiotic relationship with Tory Central Office.

Take a look at the Sunday Times. This week's is full of anti-Tory propaganda. Ever since the government laid into Murdoch, the ST has been kicking the Tories, revenge I assume. It will have an affect, just as the Sun supporting the Labours had an affect. He also owns the Times and the Sun, and not being a reader of those esteemed publications I can but assume that they are also slanting the news against the Tories.

I'll believe we have a left wing press when the Times or Telegraph advocate redistributive taxation and a truly comprehensive education system.

The Telegraph is a right wing paper, read by a minority of the populace.

What's happening now reflects (a) the potential outcomes of Leveson on the profit model of the popular press

It's not that simple. It is also revenge for the humiliation and hurt suffered by News Corp.

and (b) a perception that Cameron is isufficiently right wing and a traitor to the Thachterite cause.

I doubt that. I suspect they consider him ineffectual, but I don't think you need to be a hard core Tory to share that view. I tend to suspect that the real problem is deeper. For example the Labours used focus groups to find out which policies would go down well. The Tories have announced numerous disastrous policies, such as selling off Forests, which would not have been tried had they used focus groups. Ironically Cameron probably eschews such tactics in order to avoid the spin of the Labours, which was so disliked once we saw through it.

The Tories have announced numerous disastrous policies, such as selling off Forests, which would not have been tried had they used focus groups.

In 1997 the Conservatives essentially became a party of the Shires and have had to build upon that to return to Government. The Telegraph caters to the countryside and generally view the Tory party as 'their' party, so some of Camerons development plans really strike a nerve with the Telegraph faithful.

I think you will find that the protests were not just from the Tory heartlands, but from all cross sections of society. I am sure the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts were against it, and they have rich and poor members.

There's still a split of Tory MPs between those who view 1990 - the end of Mrs Thatcher - as the final chapter of all human civilisation and there's others who still rejoice and view 1990 as a new dawn. It's the latter group who make up David Cameron's promotion list. He'd get rid of many backbenchers if they didn't have democratic right to be there.

Cameron's task was to preserve core Tory truths - individual freedom, free enterprise, respect for hard work, a welfare state that protects the deserving etc - whilst modernising the party, as it was in real danger of appealing only to the blue rinse brigade, the hang and flog 'em mob, and Major Smythe-Biscuit and his mates i.e. Daily Mail and Telegraph readers. The Labours of the 80's appealed only to their core electorate, with a focus on minority issues, giving Thatcher a clear run. Cameron has made real progress, bringing them within an inch of success at the last election, unlike Duncan Smith, Hague and Michael Howard. But the fact that they are having to do the dirty work of cleaning up pubic finances means they might pay a high price. I have heard Tory voters say they wished the Labours got in last time, so they would have to do the dirty work, and suffer the consequences. I now wish they had, at best they would have done as per the current lot, at worst the country would have suffered, and the Tories would come out smelling of roses. The Labours would have been given a chance to do their best, and we would see them for what they are, rather than allowing them 15 years starting with a sound economy. And do you remember when the Labours took over, Gordon Brown announced to the press that he had seen the books, and the economy was a mess. It wasn't, it was very sound, such is the lying deviousness of Labours (and probably Tories too, they are all the same).

The Tories have always been far more ruthless than Labour when it comes to the leader, so perhaps Cameron needs to watch his back.

I think you will find that the protests were not just from the Tory heartlands, but from all cross sections of society.

To be honest I'm not too bothered. The Cameron plans are not as radical as the Telegraph claims and if he and Clegg believe things aren't getting built because you need to send a letter to the council then they're mistaken. Just through my work I know of several development projects which have had planning permission for 5 years. The problem is they can't get the finance to build it.

I think you are confusing the proposed forest sale with removing the need for planning permission on a range of extensions. Both were ill thought through mess ups. (I bet the word for a male chicken is banned here, sigh.) Cameron and/or his colleagues have a habit of proposing good ideas that turn out to be dumb.

Cameron has made real progress, bringing them within an inch of success at the last election, unlike Duncan Smith, Hague and Michael Howard.

2005 on the other hand was an opportunity missed. The Iraq Invasion had severely damaged Blair so the fact he still won says alot. The problem for the Tories was the anti-war vote went to the Lib Dems as they actually did oppose from day one. IDS was lining up to support Blair's invasion and David Cameron voted for it as well, lest we forget.

Unfortunately people have lost a lot of respect for politicians thanks to Blair, not that we had a lot before, but I think we did believe him at the start.

Cameron's biggest strategic error though was agreeing to TV debates. They shone a massive light on Clegg who was Churchill for a fortnight and engineered the hung parliament. Cameron may have scraped a majority if he'd never agreed to them.

Brown showed himself as the pompous buffoon he is, Clegg perhaps taking Labour votes, which is why they have been so damaged by the coalition. Prince Charming got into bed with Beelzebub. I think the problem with the debates was that they were so short. The Americans have a long campaign lasting a year, where the candidates get to pronounce on issues as they occur, and it allows the Americans to see how they handle real life. Maybe we need a system where multiple candidates from a party via for top dog over a year, and the party can judge them and decide which will lead them, rather than a short campaign, after which we realise they selected a dork e.g. Iain Duncan Smith, nice chap, decent, honest, well meaning, but not a leader.