NL saved.

[The Lone Gunman]

Dodgy, whilst I totally agree about the sad waste of an opportunity of this government, I don't think the Tories lost in 1997 because they were still "sorting out socialism".

They lost because they had had plenty of time to set things right, had claimed to be the party of low taxes and yet, in 1992-94 had imposed a load of new taxes. The blame for these cannot be laid at a previous Labour Government so far in, any more than this one has a right to blame the Tories for anything now.

Major also appeared is disarray because of the in-fighting over Europe, and hospitals and schools were in a mess (I know, I know, they still are). I think people had right to expect 18 years was long enough to get to grips with these issues and since the Tories hadn't, someone else could have a go.

Major had also had ill-judged pronouncements like back-to-basics which sounded fine, but unfortunately, Neil Hamilton, Lord Archole and Jonathan Aitken hadn't read the script - as it turned out we found out later that Major hadn't either.

The error was in falling for Blair when he promised to clean it all up. Now we're all a little older, wiser and even more cynical about politicians.

I think part of the irony is that the country was in as good a state as it had ever been when NL came to power in 1997. The Tories had finally managed to sort it out only to be scuppered by their own members and some very astute re-branding and spin from Tone and Co.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I think part of the irony is that the country was in as good a state as it had ever been when NL came to power in 1997. The Tories had finally managed to sort it out only to be scuppered by their own members and some very astute re-branding and spin from Tone and Co.

I agree they had sorted out a lot of things, but the state of (state) schools (one subject where I have some knowledge through family connections) was truly dire - the infrastructure was crumbling and materials were in short supply. I am not saying Labour has done well here (clearly they haven't) but at the time, John Major didn't seem to be offering any hope of improvements.

I do wonder what would have happened if we'd had another 5-10 years of Tory rule, but I think as the current lot proves, after a while the party in power tends to start to believe their own propaganda - I recall Major's ministers bemoaning the fact that they weren't "getting their message across" just as New Labour ones are now - in each case they miss the fact the we understand the message, we just don't like it any more.

[The Lone Gunman]

I agree they had sorted out a lot of things, but the state of (state) schools (one subject where I have some knowledge through family connections) was truly dire - the infrastructure was crumbling and materials were in short supply. I am not saying Labour has done well here (clearly they haven't) but at the time, John Major didn't seem to be offering any hope of improvements.

I do wonder what would have happened if we'd had another 5-10 years of Tory rule, but I think as the current lot proves, after a while the party in power tends to start to believe their own propaganda - I recall Major's ministers bemoaning the fact that they weren't "getting their message across" just as New Labour ones are now - in each case they miss the fact the we understand the message, we just don't like it any more.

Not sure the Tories would or could have done anything better with schools and the NHS, but Teflon Tones "education, education, education" rings a little hollow.
I am fairly sure the Tories would not have robbed us quite so badly as NL have done and I am fairly sure that even if we had higher taxes we would also have had higher earnings and more wealth in general. I do not think personal debt would have been funding the economy to such an extent either.
We will never know.

[stackpole]

It's not objective when you have a conclusion and then look for facts to support it... most people here seem to be simply jumping on the criticism bandwagon.

I believe my objective view is fully supported by facts.

Fact 1: Personal debt is historically the highest it has ever been, in real terms, by a long way.

Fact 2: No action was taken by the government to curtail personal lending.

Fact 3: National debt is also historically high.

Fact 4: The government borrowed heavily during the good times when it should have been running a surplus for a rainy day.

Fact 5: Gordon Brown was in charge of the economy while this situation developed.

Based on these facts alone Gordon Brown has been a terrible Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[tim123]

I am certainly not a Labour fan. I just think people are a bit too quick to blame GB for things which I believe were probably inevitable without the benefit of hindsight.

No, no hindsight needed at all.

All you have to do was repeat after me "there is no "it's different this time" and then stand back and ask, "is this booming economy overheated!"

It was flipping obvious to a two year old that it was.

But of course, it really was "different this time" wasn't it?

Nope, utter bollocks! Why have economists spend 100 years working out the rules if you are then going to assume that they don't apply when they feel like now is a good time for them not to apply?

tim

[Cyberman]

I believe my objective view is fully supported by facts.

Fact 1: Personal debt is historically the highest it has ever been, in real terms, by a long way.

Fact 2: No action was taken by the government to curtail personal lending.

Fact 3: National debt is also historically high.

Fact 4: The government borrowed heavily during the good times when it should have been running a surplus for a rainy day.

Fact 5: Gordon Brown was in charge of the economy while this situation developed.


Based on these facts alone Gordon Brown has been a terrible Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Hear Hear !!!!! cue Peoplesoftcrony.....

[Cyberman]

New Labour have had the perfect opportunity to take this country and make it better. Better by getting rid of poverty through spending money on education, removing the ghetto housing estates. There has not been any shortage of jobs for entry level upwards workers. They have had every opprtunity. The Tories had to sort out the mess of socialism and so doing made themselves an unpopular long term option.

No instead they screwed as much money as they could out of everyone in order to feather their own power base of public services. Because the public sector is made up of self serving socialists no effort has been made to reform them, leaving the poor trapped in a spiral of poverty, poor health, poor education and welfare.

And dont mention the war.

Well said !!

[Cyberman]

Tories lost because of sleeze. If they were going to thrown out because of economics it would have been 1992....

Agreed, but the Tories level of sleaze was nothing akin to the level of Mandelson, Vaz, Jowell, Harman, Balls, Young etc etc.

The Tories were not ejected because of taxes, but it is just one major reason why Labour will be. There are actually many other major reasons.

[Bob Dalek]

He cannot have it both ways. He claimed to be responsible for sound management and the steady growth of the UK economy. This is despite inheriting a strong economy from ythe Major government preceeded by the unshackling of the socialist grip by Maggie.

Few people are stupid enough to let him get away with this. secondly he has presided over the disposal of huge amounts of tax payers money for virtually no return, effectively making those who have benefited from his largesse to expect more, and those of us having paid it out finding ourselves living in a more overcrowded, violent and expensive society.

WHS.