believe the propoganda if you want, you're an example of those that believes the world owes them something.

doesn't mean that it's wrong or not viable for ALL people to consider moving to improve themselves and improve the quality of life for their family ? In some cases it's clearly a no-no for many reasons but it worked out fine for me and thousands of others no doubt.

Thanks Norman Tebbitt for telling me to get on my bike

And how do you come by that idea?

Then you very clearly do not uderstand socialism at all

I fully understand socialism, and I agree with it's core values, not the extremes.

I would contend that forewarning of the very real perils of the tory slash & burn policy gives Ed Balls every right to say "I told you so"



What useful purpose was "our gold" serving? The money raised was used to pay down the horrendous deficit left by the previous tory administration.

His "raid" on the pensions was also a very good method to prevent private companies raiding their own pension schemes and working an almighty tax dodge. Most final salary schemes were still viable, they just were no longer the cash cows that some companies saw them as.



It will not get worse for a very select few, the same select few that this government are clearly serving.

It was also used to finally finish off paying the USA our war debts, something that governments of both hues shamefully neglected.

Lets get this straight, before the banking system imploded the state of the nations finances was as good as it has been since WW2.

Which brings us full circle, I think.

What was the cause of the "deficit" that we keep being reminded of?

If I could work out how to put it somewhere and then link to it, I have a Powerpoint presentation of data from Prof Colin Talbot of Manchester University (put together by himself and some colleagues) that examines a number of things, including the scale of Labour's spending, buy statistics from more than a century past.

One of the points it illustrates is that, while it suited Labour at the time not to contradict the claim, it is a myth that Labour's spending was at record levels. Far from it.

Another, as it happens, shows that spending as a percentage of GDP exceeded 100% for a vast chunk of the first half of the 19th century – was there public outrage/panic then? Did the country collapse then?

It is, says Talbot, a far more complex matter than simply looking at a stat that says we're spending X of GDP.

good question, I'd imagine if we go far enough back the "church" was at fault somewhere along the line.