John Major

[Mich the Tester]

For all you being critical of Cameron for not making cuts quickly enough you seem to ignore that they rely on a bunch of do gooding economically illiterate lefties to pass any policies.

There is a fundamental ideological difference between people who support the Tories and those who support labour. The policies may be very close to each other but one only has to look at outcomes of previous Tory and Labour administrations to see how these differences manifest themselves.

This is very closely related to what I'm trying to say. I look at the Telegraph and see Tories whining about Cameron, and yesterday tory MPs voted with Labour in parliament. They're doing to Cameron what the 'bastards' did to Major, and the only result can be a labour government; I think tories should be united behind Cameron to give the best chance of a Tory majority at the next election. He's got a bloody hard job to do, he's going to make mistakes, but he's a bloody hell of a lot better than the alternative, as was John Major.

[Waldorf]

You must be on drugs or are not old enough to remember the ERM debacle including Black Wednesday, over which he almost resigned, talk about Rabbit caught in the headlights. The country was also in recession during the early part of his era, although I guess you could partially blame that on Mrs T.

Labour & Kinnock supported the UK entering the ERM, although it was costly, it at least put paid to any idea of joining the next stage, the Euro, so a worthwhile exercise!

Even the huge cost of the ERM exit was nothing like the money Gordon Brown threw away selling our gold at a low price.

I liked John Major, certainly more honourable than the two who followed him, his main downfall was that he did not have a big enough majority to enable him to ignore the trouble makers.

[Waldorf]

In 1992, John Major gained more votes than Tony Blair in his "landslide" victory of 1997 - the way the constituencies are carved up tips the balance heavily in Labour's favour.

Even in 1997, Major gained more votes than Blair got in his 2005 victory.

With devolution in Scotland and Wales, the number of MP's need to be cut from these countries and certainly stopped from voting on English matters. Why the English are not more irate about this I have no idea.

[Robinho]

We should go full on federal. MPs go toward your constituency country's party, popular vote for the PM. Or something like that.

[DodgyAgent]

We should go full on federal. MPs go toward your constituency country's party, popular vote for the PM. Or something like that.

Then instead of very little getting done nothing would get done. we have the lib dems "tails" wagging the Tory "dog" and preventing them from implementing the policies that Britain needs.

And then there is the Civil Service to contend with:

Want to reform government? Start with the Civil Service - Telegraph

[ZARDOZ]

Labour & Kinnock supported the UK entering the ERM, although it was costly, it at least put paid to any idea of joining the next stage, the Euro, so a worthwhile exercise!
.

Tit for tat..the Labout party used to be anti EU, when the conservatives took us into it.

[Robinho]

Then instead of very little getting done nothing would get done. we have the lib dems "tails" wagging the Tory "dog" and preventing them from implementing the policies that Britain needs.

And then there is the Civil Service to contend with:

Want to reform government? Start with the Civil Service - Telegraph

The only reason we have the LDs in power is because Scotland overwhelmingly voted for labour (tools). If you take Scotland out it would have been a Tory majority. If we federalised it all up Wales and Scotland could vote for their Socialist utopia. Ireland could vote for the Church party or whatever they do, and England could get on with the proper wealth generation by voting for fiscal conservatism.

[BoredBloke]

You must be on drugs or are not old enough to remember the ERM debacle including Black Wednesday, over which he almost resigned, talk about Rabbit caught in the headlights. The country was also in recession during the early part of his era, although I guess you could partially blame that on Mrs T.

Both of the big parties suported being in the ERM and the rules were such that the government was forced to spend the money to prop up sterling. Ultimately it wasn't as expensive as the press would have you believe. At the time there were figures being banded about that it cost £27 billion, but in 2005 the Treasurey revealed that the actual cost of Black Wednesday was 3.3 billion - still a lot, but a fraction of what was being quoted at the time. All te governemnts in Europe around that time lost big sums of cash as each currency was picked off.

Labour made a lot out of Black Wednesday but their response would have been exactly the same.

[ZARDOZ]

I guess the point I am trying to make is that.... it makes no difference who is in power. Take for example the 'cuts' Labour and the Condems are currently arguing over. On the surface it sounds like a complete difference in policy. The implication is one wants to pay off the deficit while the other doesn't. However, there are infact no cuts in aggregate borrowing at all just a reduction in the rate of new borrowing. Not sure how one pays something off by borrowing more?

UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You cant help yourself can you? Like a true leftie you take a piece of information and spin it according to the image it conjures without putting it into any perspective. Whether he left a deficit or not does not matter the fact is that he left the economy in good health. And then labour (your lot) took over.. once again. The rest is history.

For all you being critical of Cameron for not making cuts quickly enough you seem to ignore that they rely on a bunch of do gooding economically illiterate lefties to pass any policies.

There is a fundamental ideological difference between people who support the Tories and those who support labour. The policies may be very close to each other but one only has to look at outcomes of previous Tory and Labour administrations to see how these differences manifest themselves.

Labour aren't "my lot". You are a thick Tory automaton which isn't any better than a thick Labour (or Lib Dem automaton). You have no cogent argument for anything, you're just a thick mudslinger, lounging around in the cosy glow of all your Tory boy chums on here repeating the same dogmatic tosh over and over in the hope you can make yourself and everyone else believe it.