Coffee House

Cameron betrayed public trust – and sounded like Arthur Scargill – when he said ‘money is no object’

12 February 2014

4:25 PM

12 February 2014

4:25 PM

There are some things that as a politician you really mustn’t say – things that suggest your priorities are so wrong, and your understanding of public duty so defective, that you can never be entrusted with anything serious. When David Cameron announced yesterday that, in coping with floods, ‘money is no object’, he said one of those things.

For any responsible politician, money – tax payers’ money – is always an ‘object’. As Mrs Thatcher endlessly reminded her colleagues, the government, itself, has no money, only the money it takes from the people. She was right. To declare that there is no limit to what the government is prepared to take from taxpayers for a particular purpose is worse than populism. It is a fundamental and culpable betrayal of public trust. It is, in fact, not dissimilar to the view espoused by Arthur Scargill thirty years ago, when he was asked by the Commons Select Committee during the miners’ strike, how much a pit would have to lose before it became uneconomic and should be shut. He simply replied that there was ‘no limit’.

It is easy to understand why the Prime Minister said what he did. He was caught out in 2007, when he spent time in Africa rather than in his flooded constituency, and the criticism rankled. He will also, doubtless, have been warned by George Osborne, always so much more concerned with political strategy (and America) than with the boring problems of the public purse, that mishandling flooding – as George W. Bush mishandled the aftermath of hurricane Katrina – spells trouble. More immediately, Mr Cameron is panic-stricken by the campaign, spearheaded by the Daily Mail, aimed at having money taken from the Overseas Aid budget for flood aid back at home.

[Alt-Text]


But, still, ‘money no object’? No one has the faintest idea how much money it will take to address the results, let alone the causes (to the extent they can be determined), of the storms and floods. The Prime Minister sometimes, of course, thinks that green policies can be summed up with a four letter word. But more recently he has suggested that man-made climate change has made the dreadful weather. In that case, the sky is almost literally the limit. At a more prosaic level, Mr Cameron’s pledge will make Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary’s task a nightmare. How will Mr Paterson be able to resist demands from Lord Smith, or his successor, at the Environment Agency, or the demands of hundreds of drenched communities for public money? How will Mr Paterson be able to say ‘no’ when the insurance companies demand subsidies to cover submersible dwellings? How will people be persuaded to abandon settlements that are simply not sustainable, if there is no limit to what government will spend on their defence?

Writing, as I do, in Cornwall – how will Mr Cameron refuse me the option of not just a speedily restored rail link at Dawlish, but the construction of other alternative rail links, and airport links as well? (Somehow, I think he’ll manage that).

The folly of what he has said will, however, become truly apparent in the lead up to the next election. The best hope that the Conservatives have of beating off Labour, and seeing off UKIP, is by demonstrating the credibility of their economic management. That credibility is now in tatters. Almost all the cuts in public spending intended to bring the structural budget deficit into balance, let alone to allow for tax cuts, have been pencilled in for after the next election. They are paper promises.

But at least the optimists – those who would bet on Messrs Cameron’s and Osborne’s Conservative instincts – could hope that, freed from Lib-Dem obstruction, a Tory government would after 2015 meet its declared objectives. Can anyone now believe that? If open cheques are so easily offered in this emergency, how many more will follow? Far from hoping to see an end to ‘protected’ budgets (the NHS, Education, Aid) we may now see more such protection, and then the busting of any remaining limits whenever the decibels of protest mount.

Mr Cameron has made an unforced error. He knew what he was doing. It fits entirely into a way of looking at politics that his hero, Harold Macmillan, would have understood. That ‘money is no object’ is undoubtedly what people from certain wealthy backgrounds are brought up to believe. It is also why the Conservative Party, until recently, gave up picking its leaders from Eton.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • http://www.twitter.com/_Millsy Millsy

    Wow a whole column based on a complete misunderstanding of what the PM said

  • Tom Tom

    Helmut Schmidt built his reputation on dealing with floods in Hamburg in 1962 as a Hamburg Senator. He took action and made things happen ! Then again Cameron is effete and British as is Chris Smith and Eric Pickles and Nick Clegg and ……….

  • Kitty MLB

    Just a very quick comment.
    THE WEATHER IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT,
    I am not a supporter of Cameron, but how on earth is he to blame
    for nature.
    I am utterly sick of everyone jumping on the same bandwagon,
    and now this fool who produced this article mentioned Eton-
    what the devil has that got to do with anything, utterly pathetic.
    Also, was he personally responsible for the houses built on flood planes.
    Indeed, they need to get help to the areas as quickly as possible–
    and they are now, but really this attacking just for the sake of attacking
    needs to stop- the country needs together.
    This wet weather will be the norm for the next 40 year, get used to it.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      That’s right. The weather will be wet for 40 years.

      And QE will be around for 40 years.

      And unfettered immigration will be around for 40 years.

      And the EUSSR will be around for… for forever, apparently

      Windmills will be around for … well that would seem to be a forever as well.

      And the BBC millstone will be around the People’s neck, well that seems to be forever, too.

      Apparently, everything is going to be around forever. Everything is so marvelous and popular, it’d be a shame if any of it was got rid of in a measly 40 years. So get used to it, seems to be the message.

      LibLabCon have received the message apparently.

      • Kitty MLB

        Viceroy, those wind farms will not be around forever,
        at some point we will tie Lib Dums to them,
        set them free on a very windy day and send them off to Brussels. The EUSSR will not be around forever, the dying succubus is on her last
        legs, and even if that were not the case– we will be leaving.
        The Bias, Brainwashing Corruption’s days are also numbered .
        Also, not everything will stay the same Forever ! the winds of change is about to blow across England in 2015 ( cannot remember who said that,
        I think it was Macmillan)
        I was just trying to be fair, Viceroy, I am not a Cameroon, I do not support Cameron or the Notting Hill bunch. I might have
        a go at the chap for the way he handles the situation,
        but the actual weather is out of his and every humans control-
        Blame God !

  • Makroon

    Yes, it was a silly thing to say.
    But does it really justify a long, rambling and sanctimonious blog-post ?
    Of course not.

  • anyfool

    This article is nonsense, this is a once in 250 years emergency, anyone can see that promises made in these circumstances are needed and are a one off.

    Some people deliberately misconstrued McLoughlin’s remarks., other than that, after this crisis is over, most will recognise that all politicians at the moment are not of the required calibre, that Cameron stands head and shoulders above Miliband and Clegg, says more about the dire quality of them, than Cameron`s merits.

  • Mike Barnes

    A satellite photo of the south east should be taken right now. Future housing applications on any land that is currently under water should be automatically refused planning permission. If the taxpayer is picking up the tab we should at least try and keep the cost down.

    • Tom Tom

      A
      lovely case full of cash will sort out any objections……and planning
      rules will be relaxed as so many of our New Citizens are used to living
      on deltas and flood plains

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers

        Hello Daniel.

  • George_Arseborne

    Not a strange thing . We knew he wanted to be Prime Minister (Divine Right) with no conviction and vision. Now that he has achieved his dream, he will be off 2015. Let the visionary Ed gets into Number 10 and put back Great in Britain.

    • Rowdie111

      “Let the visionary Ed get into no 10 and put back Great in Britain”? He who said yesterday he will model himself on Baroness Thatcher.
      When Thatcher took power in 1979she was faced with a country in the grip of the union barons,inflation out of control, the economy on its death bed (the sick man of Europe), with a national feeling of despair, doom and despondency. When she left in 1990 our economy was the best in Europe, the City a world leader. The 1970s doom and gloom replaced by a boom,boom Britain.
      He said yesterday he was “a conviction politician”. His convictions that union leaders play too small a part in policy making; that entrepreneurs need to be shackled; that government doesn’t spend enough of other people’s money and that there should be no limit to the amount paid to welfare recipients.
      A “conviction politician” who thinks that the only people who should not be allowed a say on how we are governed are the people themselves. As prime minister he would deny us a referendum on the EU
      In other words, he doesn’t have the confidence to stand by his own convictions. He won’t risk putting his view that we must stay in the EU come what may to the test.
      That’s not the mark of a “visionary” let alone a “conviction politician”; that’s more the mark of a ‘wimp’. “To put the ‘Great’ back into ‘Britain’?….gives us all a break!

      • Makroon

        That about covers it Rowdie. Well said.

    • Fergus Pickering

      God save me from visionaries!

  • Smithersjones2013

    How will Mr Paterson be able to resist demands from Lord Smith, or his
    successor, at the Environment Agency, or the demands of hundreds of
    drenched communities for public money?

    Well that’s an easy one. Point out the ineffectiveness of the EA in such matters and devolve the responsibilities and close down the Quango

  • Lady Magdalene

    “More immediately, Mr Cameron is panic-stricken by the campaign, spearheaded by the Daily Mail, aimed at having money taken from the Overseas Aid budget for flood aid back at home.”
    THAT’s what triggered the pledge to borrow and spend as much as he needs. Fear that he might have to divert some money from his International Welfare Fund ….. which was called for several days ago by the Party Leader he hates the most – Nigel Farage.
    For once, the DM is supporting a UKIP campaign. Long may it last.

    • HookesLaw

      The govt have a contingency fund for overspending and for emergencies.

      • Lady Magdalene

        The Govt also has a bloated fund for International Welfare, which is being directed at countries with space programmes, aircraft carriers WITH airplanes, nuclear weapons as well as copies amounts of traditional armaments ….. and which fail to collect taxes from their own people (including their own elite).
        We are running a huge Budget Deficit. The Government doesn’t “have” a Contingency Fund. It’s prepared to borrow £xxxxx as a contingency fund.
        What it should be doing is cutting the International Welfare Budget and spend the money it saves in the UK on the taxpayers who are forced to fund it.

        • HookesLaw

          The govt is following a policy signed up to by Labour and agreed with by tories at the time. Its a UN target covering 0.07% of GDP.

          The govt has a budget and within that there is a contingency fund. the govt manages its finances within that envelope and part of that management involves the gradual reduction ikf that deficit and the rebuilding of the economy to sustain its revised spending.

          The govt is also entitled to a foreign policy not least because a successful foreign policy is to the wider benefit of us all in the long run. Part of that policy is aid and as far as I am concerned I would rather see money spent to sustain the world and help make it stable rather than have to expend blood in some future time.
          The govt can also unlike you behave in a simple humanitarian way.

          To put is simply you and your opinions are crass.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …spoken like the true socialist that you are. Now you understand why your boy Dave is going to have his head mounted on a spike in 15 months.

            Read your post over to yourself, and understand that socialist thinking like yours is going to have your hero Dave’s head mounted on a spike. That is all.

            • Rowdie111

              Cloud cuckoo land?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Well yes, there is a chance that the cuckoos will be nesting in Dave’s head, up on that spike.

      • Mynydd

        The government is overspending each and every month by about £90Bn so where is this contingency fund to clear this.Yesterday why didn’t Mr Cameron just say, money is no object, it will come from the emergency contingency fund. He didn’t because money no object is just spin and PR.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          He can’t be caught saying that. Only the internet trolls can say it, even as they get hooted down. Dave the profligate spending and borrowing poshboy dare not be caught jabbering about “contingency funds”, because unlike the Camerluvvie trolls, he minds being caught looking like a fool.

  • Radford_NG

    The latest from UKIP news room:Farage demands PM spell-out how much money he has found for flood relief,who will get it,and where it comes from.

    It was Farage who set the Foreign Aid for flood relief hare running to be taken up by the Mail.

    If they are seeking to take an example from George W. Bush:most of what we heard was socialist bigotry.The President of the USA doesn’t have authority to interfere in the affairs of the State of Louisiana;or the City of New Orleans.(Just as he had no power to ratify the Kyoto Agreement;only the US Senate could do that-and no Senator would sign up for it;including all the 49(?)Democrates.)

    • Radford_NG

      BBC News : Ex Mayor of New Orleans in office during Katrina convicted of 20 charges of corruption;of giving contracts worth $millions in exchange for money,free trips and gifts.

      He was also condemned for failing to implement the Cities evacuation plan at the time of Katrina.

  • Fergus Pickering

    well the last three leaders were a bloody disaster, weren’t they? Why are you so obesessed with Eton? Where did you go to school?

    • HookesLaw

      Harris has in the past favourably compared Gordon Brown with Thatcher.
      Harris has an axe to grind and its pathetic that The Spectator gives the oik the platform to vent his bile.
      The juxtaposition of Mr Harris’ shopping list with the quite reasonable reaction to help people in very extreme circumstances which look like going on for some consideranble time is crass, opportunistic and downright bigoted.

      As well as relying on nutjobs to fill their comments the Spectator is relying on nutjobs to write its articles

      • Fergus Pickering

        Right on, Hooky!

        • HookesLaw

          Thank you, but why do we have to put up with this useless editor?

  • OriginalChris

    He has yet again been challenged by Farage to say where the money is coming from and to clarify his and McLoughlin’s remarks. Farage asks yet again that Cameron diverts some foreign aid for a period.
    http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1156-farage-demands-that-cameron-spells-out-how-much-money-he-has-found-for-flood-relief-who-will-get-it-and-where-it-is-coming-from
    “..Mr Farage said: “David Cameron’s ‘money is no object’ press conference certainly grabbed plenty of headlines and no doubt will have reassured some of the communities worst hit. “But today there is remarkably little detail about who will be helped and how much money has been found. It is just not on for any prime minister to offer false hope to people in the midst of a crisis.

    “Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has even flatly contradicted his boss today by saying there are no blank cheques. Well, if there are no blank cheques then there cannot be unlimited funds. So which of them is right?”…

    The blunt truth is that it is fantasy for David Cameron to imply that the Government has some magic extra store of money that can be used for this purpose. The Treasury’s contingency fund is limited and is bound to face other calls on it too….

    “If, on the other hand he were to do what I have been calling for and divert the foreign aid budget, even for a single month, then he would have nearly £1billion to put into both short-term relief and long-term repairs and flood defences. That is the kind of money we need to combat a civil disaster on this scale”.

    • Makroon

      Farage is a squeaking and irrelevant idiot, jumping up and down and demanding to be noticed.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …we’ll see if your guy Dave is demanding to be noticed, when his head gets mounted on a spike, 15 months from now.

        • Kitty MLB

          I wonder who will replace him, for
          the prince of darkness is a gentleman.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Well, based upon this poshboy’s abilities and what he’s done, a stalk of celery would seem to suffice .

            • Kitty MLB

              Cameron does seem to be unwilling
              to leave his salad days.
              (In posh Hampshire type accent)
              I say old chap, what a scurrilous attack
              on a decent vegetable, atleast celery
              is refreshing unlike Cameron who
              might be placed on the compost soon 🙂

    • Andy Mcrae

      Challenged by Farage as to where the money is coming from? How rich is that? UKIP havent a coherent selection policy let alone a budget.

  • Alex

    One other issue; if money is no object in compensating those without insurance, why would anybody consider flooding risk when they build housing, and why would anyone buy flood insurance again? D.C. has just written a blank cheque to people who build or buy homes on land that regularly floods.

    • HookesLaw

      Given the extreme nature of the weather and the rainfall all on top of last winter’s weather, your notions are to put it politely misguided.

      • Alex

        I fear you misunderstand; maybe my fault.
        I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help financially; one of the essential roles of government is to pick up tail-end risk. And if this is, say, a 100 year event that’s at least partly tail-end risk. If it is climate change (which, personally I doubt) then it’s reasonable for the taxpayer to assist.
        But ‘money is no object’ implies the opposite extreme; that the government will compensate 100% for risky behaviour, now and next time, where flooding is concerned. I think that’s a problem, because it will lead to building thousands of new homes on land that floods. And that would be dumb.

        • Fergus Pickering

          I think anyone who uses the two words ‘climate change’ should define what he means. Do you mean climate change which is our fault for not building enough bloody windmills or do you mean a change in the climate?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …perhaps you should ask that question of your socialist envirowhacko buddy Dave.

        • HookesLaw

          I doubt it’s climate change although the BBC are doing theor best to bring the subject up. ‘money no object’ is a common enough phrase which is generally inderstood in a wider context, and possibly a necessary one when people are full of the knowledge that we are in the middle of a period of financial cuts.

          I sometimes wonder why politicians say anything at all in public given the way all sorts of people go out of their way to nit pick and misrepresent even simple and obvious phrases.

          • Makroon

            I don’t think there is any need to try to justify what Cameron said, it was sloppy and misleading, and he surely regrets it. That’s all.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …hey, your boy Dave has said plenty of sloppy and misleading things, why would he start regretting any of them now?

    • Fergus Pickering

      No he has not. He has said that money is no object in dealing with the present flooding.

      • teledaft

        Today he did yesterday he didn’t

      • Alex

        Fergus and HookesLaw; yes, fair points; I agree my initial comment was wrong.

        • HookesLaw

          OK

        • Fergus Pickering

          Thank you for saying that, Alex.

  • Pier66

    Nothing wrong with Dave at all….
    Is the perfect man in charge long long life our COOL SMART DAVE!

  • Rowdie111

    With the ‘left.’ ..he says there will be money to cover the floods…….he’s wrong. If he had said sorry but there is no money to cover the floods…he would have still been wrong! Just shows how pathetic their stance is. Sick as parrots that he might be seen n a good light by the voters……get spinning..spinning!

    • HookesLaw

      The govt has money in its contingency reserves. t
      the govt has money in iunderspending departments the govt has monet from higher than expensive revenues.
      Its a shame that it will have to spend some of that but we are facing a major challenge from extreme weather. Rainfall floods and storms. Its the duty of the govt to act and it is doing. But ignorant numpty nutjobs like you can only see an opportunity to moan. Closet racists like Farage can only see an opportunit to attack coloured people overseas, when in fact we are well able to respond from our own resources..

      • Rowdie111

        Hey you’ve read me wrong I’m 100% on your page….I was trying to make the point that whether he came with money to sort it out or whether he said sorry can’t do anything…the lefties would have been after him either way. They are just sick that he is coming up good with roses by providing the money. Now they are saying that he will only take the money from elsewhere! They just wish he had said …sorry but there is no money..get on with it! How sad are they?

        • HookesLaw

          Sorry if I have misread you. I do not want to see money spent willy nilly but I fail to see how people can complain, as this nutjob right wing zealot Harris does, when the govt promises money in response to an extreme and ongoing weather event.

          Its clear that over the last few days a difficult situation, which might have been excused by lack of dredging in some ditches somewhere, has clearly developed into a major weather event covering the whole country (storms are now lashing through the North of England). Following 2 years of heavy rains the ground is now clearly 101% soaked and water is bubbling up everywhere. Its not gouing to get any better anytime soon. And at this time crass numpties like Farage seek to throw bricks at poor people in Africa.

          • James Strong

            Please address Mrs Thatcher’s point: the government hasn’t got any money.

        • TomHark

          We are seeing misery among our fellow citizens on a pretty large scale and all you can come up with is a pathetic jab at your demon lefties. How sad are they? Not as bloody sad as you that’s for sure.

          Seriously, if you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion why not just shut the phurkk up?

      • James Strong

        Farage is not a racist, whether in the closet or out.
        It is not racist to question whether or not it is wise to send money abroad before things are OK at home.
        You have introduced racism into it by your mention of coloured people.
        The UK gives aid to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, and to India which has nuclear weapons and a space programme. Please explain why UK taxpayers’ money should go there when they are choosing to divert money away from essentials for their own people.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Yes, all you socialists are always quick to shriek “waaaaaaaycism”. That’s the surest way to identify you types.

  • Frank

    Given that almost no-one in Britain trusts him, I am not sure how he can betray public trust. He just comes across as a prat.

    • Rowdie111

      To many yes…to many others including me no! sorry!

    • Rowdie111

      Doesn’t say much for Miliband then….he lags well behind Cameron in all current OPs.

  • rtj1211

    They can meet their deficit requirements very easily, it’s just that to do so will require them to clamp down hard on corporations and rich individuals using every tax dodge in the book to avoid paying their dues to society.

    Debts of Government have increased precisely as cash hoarding by corporates increased.

    You don’t have to be Einstein to correlate the two and demand the obvious solution……..

    • Ron Todd

      The answer to every problem take a bit more money from the rich. There is not enough money in the world to pay for everything the liberals and socialist tell us they can finance by just taking a bit more money from the rich.

      • Rowdie111

        If it were left to them ….the rich would just about exist and the poor would be non-existent…..they would have all starved to death because there would be not taxes to be taken from the rich to feed and look after them. Talk about killing the ‘goose with the golden egg’!

    • HookesLaw

      The govt are indeed spending more money closing loopholes and pursuing tax evaders and avoiders.
      http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/autumn-statement-tax-evasion-clampdown-to-net-9-billion/a722909
      There is no correlation between ‘cash hoarding by corporates’ and the deficit and debt. Your remark is absurdly asinine.

    • AndrewS

      I suspect that you are alluding to the wealthy and not the many individuals who claim benefits and earn undeclared income on the side. Do you think perhaps that, in view of the fact that the wealthy pay the overwhelming proportion of tax and are mostly law abiding, might mean that they feel that they have met their “dues”?

      I further suspect that you also haven’t given much thought to the figures. Clamping down on tax evasion is never going to meet the deficit. Most of the naive claims to this effect conflate tax avoidance and uncollected taxes with tax evasion.

      Well I have news for you. HMRC is in a constant state of clamping down on tax avoidance and their whole raison d’être is to collect tax. How are you proposing that they become more effective?

      Driving the wealthy out of the country, a la Hollande, might help to reduce tax avoidance, unless of course you consider that foreigners also owe UK society some ‘dues’. Maybe we could just collect that uncollected tax? In fact, that already happens. The vast bulk of uncollected tax is collected later (at any given point in time there is always lots of tax due that is paid later just like there are electricity bills due that are paid later). The small proportion that is not collected is generally due to bankruptcy so what’s your suggestion there?

  • Mynydd

    The man cannot see beyond the next moment, and tomorrows headline. The government is falling apart before our very eyes. In 24 hours we have had from the government, money is no object, and there is no blank cheque. These ministers cannot be real.

    • Makroon

      25 slavering UKIPpers rush to support the Labour troll. Saddos.

      • Andy Mcrae

        Indeed, the media’s overwhelming need to ‘hold the government to account’ by blaming them for weather and geography is being latched onto by all and sundry.

      • realfish

        Well said Makroom.
        I’ve offered a fuller view as to why Cameron can give that assurance with some authority and why this story is nonsense, but have been modded. It might appear eventually, but probably not.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      Yes but look on the bright side, they have not presided over a £160 billon structural deficit and a 7.3% contraction of the economy. Labour troll, ignore.

      • Mynydd

        Mr Cameron/Osborne have already borrowed more in 4 years that Mr Blair/Brown borrowed in 13 years. Now he is saying I’ll spend, spend, spend, money is no object, and borrow, borrow, borrow after all it’s only the national debt that will go up. With respect to the deficit Mr Cameron/Osborne said they would clear it in 5 years now the plan is to clear it in 10 years. I would also add when Mr Cameron took office GDP growth was 1% now it’s down to 0.7%

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          This piece of utter dishonesty has been explained to you on countless occasions by numerous different contributors. Brown borrowed and spent a great deal of money in order to create the impression of growth prior to an election. If you inject borrowed money into an economy it will appear to grow but is unsustainable. If that were not the case the answer would be to keep borrowing forever and growth would continue forever. Obviously, that is a ridiculous and unsustainable scenario and so it proved with growth falling post the election although no double or triple dip recession has never occurred under the Coalition. Borrowing has inevitably risen in order to service debt costs and to take account of the 7.3% contraction of the economy suffered under Labour. The alternative would be to slash public expenditure in education, health, welfare etc etc far beyond the current levels . I can only the imagine the reaction of leftist idiots like yourself if that path had been chosen. Clearing the deficit is taking longer than hoped because firstly, itis far bigger than originally predicted and second there has been a global slowdown in growth of unprecedented levels. That said the UK now has the fastest growing economy in the developed west and the BOE has just recalibrated UK growth forecasts for 2014 upwards. I know that nonne of this will make any difference to you and you will keep on posting the same dishonest rubbish on behalf of Labour the party of lies, lying and liars but any objective reader might appreciate a contrary view to your propaganda.

          • Mynydd

            It is not utter dishonest to quote government figures, you might not like them, hard luck.

            “Brown borrowed and spent a great deal of money in order to create the impression of growth prior to an election” Just change Brown for Cameron/Osborne then it would apply to the present government policy. You first time buyers, don’t worry about a deposit, the government will spend and borrow and give you 20% of the cost of your £600,000 house.

            “no double or triple dip recession has never occurred under the Coalition” Nor did it under Blair/Brown however under this government there has been 4 quarters when the GDP growth was negative, that is the economy was going backwards.

            “The alternative would be to slash public expenditure in education, health, welfare etc” Mr Cameron/Osborne have being doing this, to give a 5% tax break to those earning over £150,000

            “global slowdown in growth of unprecedented level” So global activities only happen when the Conservative party is in power, no doubt you would say, Mr Brown caused global financial crisis.

            ” Clearing the deficit is taking longer than hoped” So now we have Mr Cameron/Osborne governing by a hope and a pray.

            ” BOE has just recalibrated UK growth forecasts for 2014
            upwards” I went along to the bank to borrow money to buy a car. the manager asked how I would pay back the loan. Easy I said the forecast is that my wages will double in 2014. On your bike he said forecast are two a penny and are always wrong.

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              I cannot be bothered to respond at length once again. The illogical idiotic meandering rubbish you have written speaks for itself, ypur low intelligence and fatuous adherence to the Labour Party. Troll off.

              • Mynydd

                “I cannot be bothered to respond at length once again” Or are you waiting for Mr Cameron’s office to send you an email on how to respond, after all they email questions to be asked at PMQ

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  You are a Labour party Troll for whom every Tory policy is evil. I notice taht you repeat the lie about a tax break for the rich when the marginal rate of tax is still higher than it was for 97% of the time Labour was in power. The fact that the top 1% of taxpayers contribute 30% of all income tax revenues, higher than it ever was under Labour, is also conveniently ignored by leftist idiots like yourself.

                • Rowdie111

                  Income tax under Thatcher 50p.
                  Under Labour 40p (apart from last 3 months when Brown put it up to 50p in the hope of winning more ‘leftie’ votes.
                  Under Coalition 50p for 3 years then 45p.

                  Then they go about “tax breaks for millionaires” do they realise that might only appeal to anyone who doesn’t know the truth as shown above?

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  Leftists have no interest in the truth and when confronted with it simply deny the facts. Indeed, leftists define the truth as: ‘whatever I happening to be saying at any particular moment in time’.

                • Rowdie111

                  I know the feeling well.

                • Mynydd

                  Please tell which of my facts are wrong. Better still, email the correct figures the ONS so that they can correct their data.

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  It is how data is interpreted you monumental idiot. Hence when you talk rubbish about growth in May 2010 you always fail to mention the ramping up of spending and borrowing to achieve that unsustainable piece of gerrymandering. Yes debt has risen but you fail to mention the 7.3% contraction of the economy. But you carry on. It was leftist idiots do.

                • Mynydd

                  How about basic tax rate under Mrs Thatcher 30% reduced to 20% under Mr Brown

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  The basic rate was considerably lower than 30% in May 1997 so more dissembling as usual from Labour’s Troll.

  • BarkingAtTreehuggers

    Cameron is not a Conservative.
    Blair is not a Socialist.
    FPTP is not a means of facilitating democratic representation.

    Repeat this mantra ad nauseam until the deeper meaning reveals itself.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      …it’s still the same old gibberish, under any nickname, lad

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here