Reform- failed Tories who led the Brexit disaster

[baggy1]

Not enough to avoid fucking the country’s infrastructure that we’re paying for now.

[Pontificator]

And there we have it. "It was the GFC guv, nothing to do with me or my party guv. That GFC was caused by Gordon Brown you know, guv.
Come back guv, stop covering your ears up guv. I have something relevant to say"

The “Labour caused the crash by spending too much” was every day of course. It was the biggest single lie from a government in my long life. Clegg, Cable, Alexander et al gave it their full throated support (sanctimonious lying power hungry fuckwits) The MSM particularly the BBC failed to challenge it. It cut through. The opposition went missing just as the Torys have for the last 19 months. What's next?

---

The party has spent the last 6 years turning into the 1950s version of the Tory party but with more progressive social stances and they're focusing on local campaigns over national ones because the party do not have populist messages to cut through unlike Reform and the Greens and don't have the inertia of the Tories and Labour. That coupled with the most-Lib Dem friendly media outlets, the FT and Economist, being above party politics for the former and being pissed off the Lib Dems aren't perfect to them (even though I wager most of the editorial board voted them over Labour despite endorsing Labour at the last election, especially given how the articles about both parties have been since the last election).

Ultimately, do the British press want to talk about fundamental reforms to business rates and SDLT to transition them to a land value tax? I don't think they do, we've had the whole business rates fiasco and they never brought it up, just said that it was too high and would punish pubs. Do they want to talk about the social care crisis? Do they want to talk about the £100k tax trap? I don't think they do.

Blaming the LD failure to achieve any sort of cut through on the mainstream media when social media has far more reach seems a bit of a limp excuse. I'm sure the LD party isn't poor. A decent comms team could do a lot for them. Likewise, getting their more charismatic MPs out there. Just shrugging their shoulders and saying "Alas, we're too sensible to be popular" is really rather weak.

Populism is not the same as being popular and communicating on social media is about soundbites and responses to those soundbites and not deep policy proposals and their implications.

---

The point about them there Lib Dem whoppers, they were 100% behind Osborn and thats where it all started

The fiscal policy response implemented during the coalition was the same as was presented by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Are you a Corbynite now?

OK Darling started cutting the deficit, but the pace and scale mattered. The tory led government chose to accelerate austerity, through ideological cuts, rather than necessity. Talk of structural deficits and balancing the books was the cover for shrinking the state. Economists warned that austerity in a slump would prolong the downturn. They were right: growth was stifled, services hollowed out, productivity stalled and we’re still paying the price. And of course it led to Brexit. Corbyn was right about the cuts.

The cuts made during the coalition were in line with the March 2015 budget and 2010 Labour manifesto. It was not "accelerated" until the first budget after the May 2015 election

In fact, the scale of cuts was softer than what Labour proposed as it happened over 5 years Vs the 4 year programme from Labour.

The labour manifesto implied future spending 46 billion cuts over 4 years, Osborn doubled it and even took false credit by saying his failed long term plan (LOL) had prepared us for the financial cost of COVID. Darling intended a more gradual approach and Osborn accelerated them. Darling proposed a combination of an increase in taxes which was the decent alternative and cuts, anathema to any Tory intent on shrinking the state

[Protheroe]

Not enough to avoid fucking the country’s infrastructure that we’re paying for now.

You can blame total resistance to public sector reform for that. As Labour is finding out now.

[Borin' Baggie]

And there we have it. "It was the GFC guv, nothing to do with me or my party guv. That GFC was caused by Gordon Brown you know, guv.
Come back guv, stop covering your ears up guv. I have something relevant to say"

The “Labour caused the crash by spending too much” was every day of course. It was the biggest single lie from a government in my long life. Clegg, Cable, Alexander et al gave it their full throated support (sanctimonious lying power hungry fuckwits) The MSM particularly the BBC failed to challenge it. It cut through. The opposition went missing just as the Torys have for the last 19 months. What's next?

---

Blaming the LD failure to achieve any sort of cut through on the mainstream media when social media has far more reach seems a bit of a limp excuse. I'm sure the LD party isn't poor. A decent comms team could do a lot for them. Likewise, getting their more charismatic MPs out there. Just shrugging their shoulders and saying "Alas, we're too sensible to be popular" is really rather weak.

Populism is not the same as being popular and communicating on social media is about soundbites and responses to those soundbites and not deep policy proposals and their implications.

---

The point about them there Lib Dem whoppers, they were 100% behind Osborn and thats where it all started

The fiscal policy response implemented during the coalition was the same as was presented by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Are you a Corbynite now?

OK Darling started cutting the deficit, but the pace and scale mattered. The tory led government chose to accelerate austerity, through ideological cuts, rather than necessity. Talk of structural deficits and balancing the books was the cover for shrinking the state. Economists warned that austerity in a slump would prolong the downturn. They were right: growth was stifled, services hollowed out, productivity stalled and we’re still paying the price. And of course it led to Brexit. Corbyn was right about the cuts.

The cuts made during the coalition were in line with the March 2015 budget and 2010 Labour manifesto. It was not "accelerated" until the first budget after the May 2015 election

In fact, the scale of cuts was softer than what Labour proposed as it happened over 5 years Vs the 4 year programme from Labour.

The labour manifesto implied future spending 46 billion cuts over 4 years, Osborn doubled it and even took false credit by saying his failed long term plan (LOL) had prepared us for the financial cost of COVID. Darling intended a more gradual approach and Osborn accelerated them. Darling proposed a combination of an increase in taxes which was the decent alternative and cuts, anathema to any Tory intent on shrinking the state

Spending was cut by £40bn in real terms over 5 years between 2010 and 2015 compared to the planned £46bn over 4 years with no plan for year 5 by Labour. What the hell are you on about?

[man in the corner shop]

Some good news

Reform fuckers fucked out of it here

Horsley (Derbyshire) Council By-Election Result:

? GRN: 43.6% (+16.7)
➡️ RFM: 35.5% (+0.6)
? CON: 13.9% (-9.0)
? LAB: 3.8% (-6.5)
☑️ ADV: 1.9% (New)
? LDM: 1.4% (-2.0)

No Ind (-1.7) as previous.

Green GAIN from Reform.
Changes w/ 2025.

[Pontificator]

And there we have it. "It was the GFC guv, nothing to do with me or my party guv. That GFC was caused by Gordon Brown you know, guv.
Come back guv, stop covering your ears up guv. I have something relevant to say"

The “Labour caused the crash by spending too much” was every day of course. It was the biggest single lie from a government in my long life. Clegg, Cable, Alexander et al gave it their full throated support (sanctimonious lying power hungry fuckwits) The MSM particularly the BBC failed to challenge it. It cut through. The opposition went missing just as the Torys have for the last 19 months. What's next?

---

Populism is not the same as being popular and communicating on social media is about soundbites and responses to those soundbites and not deep policy proposals and their implications.

---

The fiscal policy response implemented during the coalition was the same as was presented by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Are you a Corbynite now?

OK Darling started cutting the deficit, but the pace and scale mattered. The tory led government chose to accelerate austerity, through ideological cuts, rather than necessity. Talk of structural deficits and balancing the books was the cover for shrinking the state. Economists warned that austerity in a slump would prolong the downturn. They were right: growth was stifled, services hollowed out, productivity stalled and we’re still paying the price. And of course it led to Brexit. Corbyn was right about the cuts.

The cuts made during the coalition were in line with the March 2015 budget and 2010 Labour manifesto. It was not "accelerated" until the first budget after the May 2015 election

In fact, the scale of cuts was softer than what Labour proposed as it happened over 5 years Vs the 4 year programme from Labour.

The labour manifesto implied future spending 46 billion cuts over 4 years, Osborn doubled it and even took false credit by saying his failed long term plan (LOL) had prepared us for the financial cost of COVID. Darling intended a more gradual approach and Osborn accelerated them. Darling proposed a combination of an increase in taxes which was the decent alternative and cuts, anathema to any Tory intent on shrinking the state

Spending was cut by £40bn in real terms over 5 years between 2010 and 2015 compared to the planned £46bn over 4 years with no plan for year 5 by Labour. What the hell are you on about?

I think it was fairly clear and of course the Tory led coaltion had another option, to borrow at historic low interest rates and spend on infrastructure, pay people, let them spend, train builders, plumbers, electricians etc. “Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.” etc. Obama spent 850 billion $ on his fiscal stimulus and Osborn did the exact opposite

[Borin' Baggie]

The “Labour caused the crash by spending too much” was every day of course. It was the biggest single lie from a government in my long life. Clegg, Cable, Alexander et al gave it their full throated support (sanctimonious lying power hungry fuckwits) The MSM particularly the BBC failed to challenge it. It cut through. The opposition went missing just as the Torys have for the last 19 months. What's next?

---

OK Darling started cutting the deficit, but the pace and scale mattered. The tory led government chose to accelerate austerity, through ideological cuts, rather than necessity. Talk of structural deficits and balancing the books was the cover for shrinking the state. Economists warned that austerity in a slump would prolong the downturn. They were right: growth was stifled, services hollowed out, productivity stalled and we’re still paying the price. And of course it led to Brexit. Corbyn was right about the cuts.

The cuts made during the coalition were in line with the March 2015 budget and 2010 Labour manifesto. It was not "accelerated" until the first budget after the May 2015 election

In fact, the scale of cuts was softer than what Labour proposed as it happened over 5 years Vs the 4 year programme from Labour.

The labour manifesto implied future spending 46 billion cuts over 4 years, Osborn doubled it and even took false credit by saying his failed long term plan (LOL) had prepared us for the financial cost of COVID. Darling intended a more gradual approach and Osborn accelerated them. Darling proposed a combination of an increase in taxes which was the decent alternative and cuts, anathema to any Tory intent on shrinking the state

Spending was cut by £40bn in real terms over 5 years between 2010 and 2015 compared to the planned £46bn over 4 years with no plan for year 5 by Labour. What the hell are you on about?

I think it was fairly clear and of course the Tory led coaltion had another option, to borrow at historic low interest rates and spend on infrastructure, pay people, let them spend, train builders, plumbers, electricians etc. “Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.” etc. Obama spent 850 billion $ on his fiscal stimulus and Osborn did the exact opposite

The US has completely different macroeconomic constraints to us, we were already running at above 2% inflation in 2010 and it didn't drop below 2% until 2014. The structural deficit was falling but still wasn't due to be eliminated until 2017/18. This is some MMT idiocy to want fiscal stimulus especially when we had a big monetary stimulus under Mervyn King's BoE via QE. What you're suggesting we should have done would have spiked inflation, forcing the country to push for negative interest rates just to manage debt repayments increasing.

And the fact is that you're complaining about spending cuts by the coalition when they ended up cutting in-line (in fact, slightly less) than what Labour planned for and you've contorted yourself into a position where you're attributing the 2016 budget on the Lib Dems somehow when they weren't anywhere near government at the time.

[Protheroe]

The US has completely different macroeconomic constraints to us, we were already running at above 2% inflation in 2010 and it didn't drop below 2% until 2014. The structural deficit was falling but still wasn't due to be eliminated until 2017/18. This is some MMT idiocy to want fiscal stimulus especially when we had a big monetary stimulus under Mervyn King's BoE via QE. What you're suggesting we should have done would have spiked inflation, forcing the country to push for negative interest rates just to manage debt repayments increasing.

And the fact is that you're complaining about spending cuts by the coalition when they ended up cutting in-line (in fact, slightly less) than what Labour planned for and you've contorted yourself into a position where you're attributing the 2016 budget on the Lib Dems somehow when they weren't anywhere near government at the time.

Indeed.

[WorcsWBA]

Farage, explaining how he came to break MPs' rules to the tune of £380k: "I don't do computers...I'm not, I'm afraid, computer literate". And this is someone that many people want to be the next Prime Minister?

[Protheroe]

Farage, explaining how he came to break MPs' rules to the tune of £380k: "I don't do computers...I'm not, I'm afraid, computer literate". And this is someone that many people want to be the next Prime Minister?

He's far from the only MP to either not report, under report or report income too late. It's hardly surprising the country is so fucked when those running it appear incapable of the admin most of us take for granted.