Gordon Brown and Ed Balls reportedly ignored warnings about their spending plans while in power and the damaging effects of their tax policies, according to documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph

from - news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Gordo...aily_Telegraph_Leaks

The newspaper says that a confidential report presented to the Labour Cabinet in 2006 ponders the question: "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?"

The document, drafted by civil servants, also urged improved efficiency of the public sector and a halt to "ineffective spending".

It further claims that Gordon Brown later ignored the advice and bumped up spending by £90 billion once he became prime minister.

Further proof that Margaret Thatcher was the initial architect of all this ghastly business where the accumulation of money became the God of modern society.

All these characters-Blair, Balls, Brown etc were the disciples of Thatcher ..she was their mentor. She changed Britain forever.

It's now basically run as an amoral corporation where endless growth (impossible) is the purpose of government. the books must be balanced (ridiculous idea). House prices must always go up etc etc..Britain run as the enterprise it never was - and the inevitable result..it can crash and burn as corporations can and the shareholders (the peasants ..taxpayers) burned.

Blair & Co just cemented this philosophy and Cameron etc are particularly alarming as they have not presented one policy that hasn't been tried and failed everywhere else. No imagination, no ideals or ideas. It takes the Archbishop of Canterbury to tell the truth and he's the one who is regarded as the oddball.

veritas (loony left) + 4
ITK ( rabid right) -2

Well Veritas, frequently though I agree with you, on Maggie I don't. I admired her (still do) as a human being and a woman - the first female Prime Minister? But I disagreed with most of her policies (especially the social ones) EXCEPT her economic ones.
I do think a tiny minority of gifted men and women are the engine for a capitalist society and they (we) should be encouraged - but they (we) must also take huge responsibility for the welfare of the masses - and not the State.

veritas wrote:

veritas (loony (and broke) left) + 4
ITK (rabid (financially secure) right) -2

absolutely...the talented, risk takers and gifted should be encouraged.(they were in the USSR..they are in China)

But she just shifted the burden of 'enterprise ' to the city where the wide boys were encouraged as wealth makers. (I reckon if she could have rid Britain of the royal family she would have)

Like Wall Street which produces nothing out of nothing and at the same time can destroy manufacturing.

These were policies which most of Europe avoided..so now what do you have?..The Germans producing the best cars in the world..English cars.

vive le revolution and all that !!

JK2006 wrote:
Well Veritas, frequently though I agree with you, on Maggie I don't. I admired her (still do) as a human being and a woman - the first female Prime Minister? But I disagreed with most of her policies (especially the social ones) EXCEPT her economic ones.
I do think a tiny minority of gifted men and women are the engine for a capitalist society and they (we) should be encouraged - but they (we) must also take huge responsibility for the welfare of the masses - and not the State.

As a spotty idealistic yoof growing up in Thatchers Britain, I despised the woman. Then of course, it was fashionable to do so & I would never have been allowed in the students bar with any other view. As I grew older & a little wiser, I realised what an amazing person she was.

The labour Government that she took over from nearly destroyed the country. Inflation was at nearly 27% in the mid 70s and by 1978, most of the country was on strike. The unions had Britain by the grapes & Maggie was the only person who had what it took to stand up to them. I didn't agree with many of her policies but I dread to think where Britain would have ended up without her.

she may have taken over form a party that 'nearly destroyed the country' but she put the final seal on it's fate.

Thatcher wanted to finish of the great reforms of previous Labour governments after WW2 and Reagan wished to destroy FDR's New Deal.

They have both been successful.

all following governments including Blair & Clinton were versions of them and have shifted all governments to the right. Cameron is just a rubber stamp of Blair.

These people still worship Freidman and the 'free market'.

If you thought the sub prime meltdown of 2007/2008 was something wait for what is to come. They will destroy capitalism at a time when China embraces it. Perhaps they are Trojan Horses.

In The Know wrote:
Gordon Brown and Ed Balls reportedly ignored warnings about their spending plans while in power and the damaging effects of their tax policies, according to documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph

from - news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Gordo...aily_Telegraph_Leaks

The newspaper says that a confidential report presented to the Labour Cabinet in 2006 ponders the question: "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?"

The document, drafted by civil servants, also urged improved efficiency of the public sector and a halt to "ineffective spending".

It further claims that Gordon Brown later ignored the advice and bumped up spending by £90 billion once he became prime minister.

For a woman u sure do speak a load of Balls urself

veritas wrote:
all following governments including Blair & Clinton were versions of them and have shifted all governments to the right. Cameron is just a rubber stamp of Blair.

No, veritas ... you are barking up the wrong tree (again).

All governments shifted to the right because people were better off generally - we are all (at least) middle-class now, you know !

The irrelevance of left-wing politics (and unions) became clearly apparent to the masses. They were only for the scroungers who would not work.

The REAL workers were buying council houses and turning into property developers LOL !

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
all following governments including Blair & Clinton were versions of them and have shifted all governments to the right. Cameron is just a rubber stamp of Blair.

No, veritas ... you are barking up the wrong tree (again).

All governments shifted to the right because people were better off generally - we are all (at least) middle-class now, you know !

The irrelevance of left-wing politics (and unions) became clearly apparent to the masses. They were only for the scroungers who would not work.

The REAL workers were buying council houses and turning into property developers LOL !

So when u getting a job Doris?

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
all following governments including Blair & Clinton were versions of them and have shifted all governments to the right. Cameron is just a rubber stamp of Blair.

No, veritas ... you are barking up the wrong tree (again).

All governments shifted to the right because people were better off generally - we are all (at least) middle-class now, you know !

The irrelevance of left-wing politics (and unions) became clearly apparent to the masses. They were only for the scroungers who would not work.

The REAL workers were buying council houses and turning into property developers LOL !

you contradict yourself but you are correct..all parties turned to the right but then you still claim that the fake Nu Labour are the 'loony left' when they were no such thing. They were further to the right that the old Tories.

Selling off council houses at reduced prices was not only a bizarre policy (who sells their assets for less than they are worth ?)but if it turned the owners into 'property developers' it turned them into fantasy merchants at the same time.

Constantly rising house prices is just an illusion of wealth.

GeminiUK wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Gordon Brown and Ed Balls reportedly ignored warnings about their spending plans while in power and the damaging effects of their tax policies, according to documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph

from - news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Gordo...aily_Telegraph_Leaks

The newspaper says that a confidential report presented to the Labour Cabinet in 2006 ponders the question: "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?"

The document, drafted by civil servants, also urged improved efficiency of the public sector and a halt to "ineffective spending".

It further claims that Gordon Brown later ignored the advice and bumped up spending by £90 billion once he became prime minister.

For a woman u sure do speak a load of Balls urself

Love it Gemini,u summed up our forum clown perfectly