Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
I’m sorry. I know you have the right to be subjective on your blog, but this is just preposterous and makes you unworthy to read.
Why?
Is a little satire on a theme they themselves once used really that unacceptable?
If so – others this morning do not seem to agree
Adam
I’d be interested to understand your views on this. I thought it was clear that Cameron’s whole election strategy was based on keeping the “Tory beast” under wraps.Unfortunately for him, its long snout keeps poking out from under the “decent, liberal Niqab”.
He said the Tories would be green but Eric Pickles vows to make this a country fit for motorists, & only motorists.
He said the Tories would be clean until Brer Fox & his “little friend” started stirring.
He said the Tories would be decent until we found out how exactly their main donors made their wealth.
So, put simply, what bit of “The Nasty Party” do you think is inaccurate?
13 years of hell with a significant recession at the end is Nasty!!
Labour lived on other peoples money, credit cards, banks loans and mortgages propped up the UK during their time. Then they thought we were so stupid not to notice.
Labour repaid debt for years
Then it borrowed modestly to beat a recession and deliver growth
After which it was banking failure that crashed tax revenue
Those facts
Your claims are simple lies
Richard – further to your response to Jack above – it REALLY is astonishing how successful the Goebbelesque PR campaign has been, which the Con-Dems have waged since the 2010 General Election campaign, with help from their gormless Lib-Dem side-kicks (how different Clegg is from the principled David Steel, who supported Callaghan on a vote-by-vote basis, when he considerec it was in the national interest, but not otherwise).
Under this campaign black is white, night is day, success is failure – perhaps even “War is Peace”, to echo the Ministry of truth in 1984. It doesn’t matter how many times you (personally) repeat the facts, backed up by evidential references, there are STILL those who trot out the sort of black is white statements rebutted by you.
But Labour IS to blame – for not having waged THEIR campaign against this lie, and rebutted it as provable twaddle from the very morning on May 6th, and certainly from May 11th, after Gordon Brown resigned.
Instead they spent nearly 5 months electing a Leader (instead of having one in place by June, as they would have done under the old system and COULD have done by the middle of June even under the new system) leaving the Tories space to trot out their inane (but powerfully convincing) untruths, and so capture the narrative, colonizing it with a version of the facts that bears very little resemblance to reality.
A real plus foro the Con-Dems is that this co-incidentally, allowed them to exonerate the REAL villains of the piece, the shyster- card-sharping gamblers of the financial services and Banking sector, who gaily gambled with assets that were not theirs in return for Croesus-like remuneration – to echo an earlier Blog of Yours “A socially useless activity by socially useless people”
See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/09/04/a-socially-useless-activity-by-socially-useless-people/#sthash.Xr5ZdRJ5.dpuf
Thanks Andrew
Agreed with one addition. Labour then funneled untold billions/trillions(?) of taxpayer money into the very same big bank fat cat coffers.
Before it is asked, yes the banks that could not make it should have been let go to the wall.
Very politely, if you really thought it would have been responsible to let the entire money system and economy crash and with it the savings of most in the country you reveal a profound inability to appraise economic issues
“Before it is asked, yes the banks that could not make it should have been let go to the wall.”
No, but they should have been immediately taken into public ownership. As many of these banks were already insolvent, this could have been done far cheaper than many people believe.
Then the profits of loans would go into the public purse, rather than into banks shareholders pockets.
Neoliberal madness dictated that the banks had to be spoon fed and bailed out from their folly!
They shouldn’t have been! Profits have been privatised and the losses socialised. Without public money, the banking sector would have almost certainly fell apart. We propped them up, therefore, we should be at the helm!
I argued that in October 2008
Very strongly
I think Polly Toynbee suggested that Will Hutton, Larry Elliott and I run the nationalised banks at the time
Very politely, if you really thought it would have been responsible to let the entire money system and economy crash and with it the savings of most in the country you reveal a profound inability to appraise economic issue.
Yes Richard -but , to do this without following this up with root and branch reform is an absolute betrayal and then to let the easy money/bonus culture carry on via quantitative easing and BoE near zero interest to these fraudsters -NO! labour got this wrong and evinced thoroughly neo-liberal colours in doing so.
I accept the follow on
But I also have tried to do my bit on that