Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

DB - what you say is, i fear, only partially true
there is strong evidence that there are now considerably more on uk-poverty line than there in say 2008 or even 2010
however, it is a very simplistic and even stupid accusation to place this at the door of this gov't or even at that of the last

imo, much stems from the insane fixation that goes back decades that all children should be encouraged to go to uni, even if any degree achieved at other than the top 20 (say) is pretty much useless and worthless in the real world

there was a very interesting interview on the radio (wireless!) a couple of days back with the head of Mascalls School in Maidstone
this is a comprehensive situated in a far from affluent area

it's worth reading the stuff on their site, as that school has exactly the sort of ethos and work programmes to which many should aspire

Casey Carson .....Chris dont forget because of the way the political system is set up here first past the post and boundaries you always have to add 1.7 points on to Labours poll figure, so today even though it shows neck and neck with the Tories labour are in fact in front.

Cynic of course poverty as gone up with this government, and it all points to one thing, an economic policy of austerity.

It doesnt need to be that way.

The Torys are only going down the austerity route because they dont have the people in the cabinet who could carry it out any other way.

Labour certainly have.........and will prove it when elected in 2015.

There are considerably more on the poverty line nowadays partly because it is too easy to run up credit card debts. Live now, pay later.

52663 is a exactly the sort of one-sided and simplistic tripe that floods this thread

52664 - it is terrifying how many adverts one sees that promote the idea of pay nothing now or 0% interest and pay over 5 years or whatever
nevertheless, by no means is it a primary cause of the increase in uk-poverty that we are now seeing, though it scarcely helps

Cyners, Economics is simple. Thankyou for the compliment.

It is easy to come up with economic theories. The trick is to find one that works. Labour's economic policies have never worked.

Labour will not be elected in 2015. The Conservatives will win the most seats again. Labour were strong favourites going into the last GE and Brown blew it. Miliband is already blowing it - he can't stand the heat and the temperature hasn't even been turned up yet.

no need to abuse you sticky as you're obviously very good at doing it yourself :-)

Where did this come from?

Where did this come from?

By Christopher Booker
10:00PM GMT 06 Dec 2014
It was on July 14 1998 that Gordon Brown announced that he planned to double public spending in 10 years, writes Christopher Booker.

Strangely missing from all of last week’s talk about the “government deficit” and Gordon Brown stepping down as an MP was any reference to the origins of what future generations will look back on as arguably the most catastrophic political blunder in our history.

The reason why Mr Brown for two years enjoyed a reputation as a “prudent” Chancellor was that he had been committed by his predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, to keep public spending under tight control under the “Maastricht criteria”. (It was not widely noted that Britain was bound by the Maastricht Treaty to comply with stages one and two of Economic and Monetary Union – it was only from stage three, the euro, that we had an opt-out.)

This had cut public spending to a mere 36 per cent of GDP, its lowest point for four decades. But on July 14 1998, carried away by the success of the economy he inherited from the Tories, Brown announced, with the aid of his economic adviser, Ed Balls, that he now planned to double public spending in 10 years. As the Economist memorably observed, he had “morphed from Scrooge into Father Christmas”.

The consequences of Brown’s hubris, as we now see, are that public spending has soared from £322 billion a year to £732 billion, still remorselessly rising every year. Despite the talk of “cuts” so beloved of the BBC, under this Government alone the national debt has more than doubled, having recently topped a mind-boggling £1.5 trillion.

George Osborne may talk airily of spending £2 billion on roads here, another £2 billion on flood defences there. But each of these sums represents only what he has this year had to borrow each week to plug the ever-widening hole in our finances. So dire is our plight that the £60 billion a year we now pay just in interest on our borrowings has risen to become the fifth-largest item in public spending, exceeded only by the ever-rising bills for welfare, education and the NHS.

Mr Osborne may now talk even more recklessly of how he hopes to cut the deficit to zero within five years. But so long as hundreds of council officials and NHS managers continue to pay themselves more than the £142,000 a year earned by the Prime Minister – let alone that £50 billion earmarked for HS2 – we know nothing is seriously being done to rein in a public-spending spree that continues to spray out our cash uncontrollably in all directions.

We can scarcely expect to be told about this by the BBC, whren 91 of its executives have also arranged to pay themselves more than Mr Cameron every year. We live in a country where too many people in the public sector have totally lost contact with reality.

But the start of it was that day back in 1998 when Messrs Brown and Balls unleashed a monster that now threatens to swallow us all.

Miliband and Balls are just Mr Brown's boys. They learned their trade at his side and plan on copying him.

Mr Brown's boys - very good Haystack !!

Brown was a brilliant chancellor , Balls would be considered to be a far better chancellor than Osbourne, your Tory Polling station Hays Sun/YouGuv have the statistics showing this.

So whats your point?????????????????

Balls-up was Broons right hand man.


What are you drinking gf?

Errrr read this then Max........

Brown 'was a better chancellor than Osborne'

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/26/brown-seen-better-chancellor-osborne/

dont forget yougov is the Tory partys mouth aswel.

Enough said point proved.

from the comments section gf, rather more accurate.


Why Gordon Brown gets so much air time is beyond comprehension. Whilst under his leadership we witnessed our Gold being sold off at rock bottom prices. We saw our domestic rates more than doubled. He raided private pension funds and used this money to bolster up public sector pension pots. The public sector increased by over 1.2 million extra non-essential employees increasing our public debt. The NHS suffered through lack of funding and poor management. Overall this man virtually took us to the edge of bankruptcy, and yet he is still viewed in some quarters as a good leader? People should take time out to truly analyse his disastrous and reckless leadership, and then compare him to Osbourne, who has the unenviable task of cleaning up Gordon Browns calamitous legacy from which we are all still feeling the effects.