Another spectacular week in Toryland!

Some good examples on the vox pop element of J Vine this morning. One not very coherent man declared that he would not vote Labour because they sent all the money on themselves and didn't think about the poor people. But the Tories didn't spend money on themselves and would think about the poor!

Before the 2010 election, Labour warned, over and over again, that the NHS and public services would suffer terribly if the Conservatives were voted into power.

And so it has come to pass - but to a much greater extent than ever could have been imagined:

NHS falling apart
Schools falling apart
The justice system - police, courts, prisons, probation service, etc - in chaos
Public transport - 50% of bus routes cut, train fares extortionate, ticket offices now facing closure, etc.
Housing in chaos
Water provision not only chaotic but also dangerous
Financial situation chaotic

Apart from the handful of people who have benefited hugely from all this corruption and mismanagement, why would anyone think it a good idea to vote Conservative?

As opposed to ignoring crimes they can't be bothered with such as burglary, shop lifting, for starters, going onto grooming gangs, rapists, knife crime etc.

That'll be another black mark against Starmer from the Left, then...

It's interesting that M. Macron is to break protocol to invite Starmer to the Elysee, an honour normally reserved for those in power and not in opposition. Shows which way Macron thinks the GE is going to go. All the more so as Macron is well to the right of Starmer. I think other high level invitations will follow.

I'm trying to get a bit more insight into the maths Maisie.

P.S I don't know how Phil's worked out his tax figures, either. Over that period there will have been considerable variation in personal allowances and all tax rates, which will have considerably influenced the figures for the total tax take.

'disentangling', not entantangling.

I'm not sure if it's a particularly helpful thread, mind you. Where the money has been spent takes a lot of entangling.

But as far as the Thatcher and Cameron eras are concerned I'd suggest that much higher unemployment must have led to high expenditure on benefits. But that would need some detailed checking.

I've also been thinking along the lines of less money circulating in the economy, so losing the multiplier effect, going more directly to 'savings' and speculation in the financial markets. This as a result of tax cuts for the wealthy. Both of which would remove money from the domestic economy.

Less spending on public services and more on tax cuts for those who don't spend more into the domestic economy might account for a substantial sum.

Sorry, a bit garbled but I'm out soon for most of the day.

Thanks Maisie. I need to look at that thread again.

It seems to me that, once a GE is declared, "Where has the Money Gone", is the very question Labour should be asking. I found it interesting that people like Phil are coming up with evidence, albeit after GN has discussed it

To do that, Labour must have the answer in a believable and provable statistical base. They need something like "More or Less" to say the figures work. Then there would be an opportunity to kill the Thatcher lie once and for all.

I've watched Phil's video.
He's really just asking the same question as the one we discussed not so long ago on this forum He's just coming from a different angle

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1326715-Where-has-the-money-gone?msgid=30206464

He said this in PMQs. It's in the analysis above MayBee.

To then double down, and try and blame Starmer again for not mentioning it in his Education speech is rediculous. Add to that the fact that Starmer did; it's on video. And the Labour Party have been asking questions about this since January.

Even if Labour and Starmer hadn't brought this to his attention - and there is plenty if proof that they did - what sort if argument is it for a Prime Minister to blame the Leader if the opposition for not telling him what he, and his government ought to know but hadn't divulged the facts and figures to the rest of us, or the opposition. Which, to go full circle, is exactly why questions were being asked!!!

The lowlight of PMQs, and there were many, was for me the fact that Sunak didn't welcome the three new MPs, one of them a Conservative! It's standard procedure and not exactly difficult.

Sunak looked and sounded defeated today at PMQ's. 'Captain Hindsight ' really? The best he could come up with is Johnson's already tired old tagline.
Maybee70, Lucy Powell made the corrections in the HOC and of course, it hasn't been widely reported

On ITV Tyneside tonight they showed Sunak saying that Labour hadn’t said anything in parliament about the concrete in schools but didn’t point out that what he said was incorrect. Is it any wonder that politicians lie about things when they get away with it all the time?

Another analysis, this time of PMQs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nIg4g3QYnM

I do think he’s on the ropes after watching him today, the fight just wasn’t there. The RAAC issue is one where there’s a lot of evidence of what’s happened to get to this point, so it’s impossible for him to defend with any credibility.

I thought Sunak was pathetic at PMQ'S. He really seems to believe that it is the labour party that has been in government these last 13 years.
His reference to Captain Hindsight (not the first time) makes him look even more childish than usual.

And Keir picked up on the education offices refurbishment. Sunak is surely going to have to apologise about accusing Labour of not mentioning the schools concrete problem?

Blimey PMQs! It was brutal. Sunak seemed to shrink as he squeaked over the despatch box.

I'm still not sure what you are asking about my "second paragraph"? Perhaps you haven't come across BBC Verify? It's part of BBC News and provides, in their words:

The User Generated Content (UGC) team
World Service Disinformation Team
Monitoring Disinformation Team
Reality Check
Data and Analysis, including analysis editor Ros Atkins and disinformation correspondent Marianna Spring.

On your problem remembering conditions under Thatcher, etc., I will look at the video again later but I am pretty sure Phil Moorhouse covers all this.

DAR my thinking is that it’s okay to present columns of information but the last few years in the Uk have been very unusual. To present statistics without any background social analysis is not very useful. I can’t remember what the social conditions were at the time of Thatcher, Blair etc but columns of figures are interesting but need context or so I think.

Could you say more. You've lost me (easily done )

DAR your second paragraph?

I said "unlucky" ronib. I think you may have misread.

It probably needs something of the size of BBC Verify to tell us exactly what the money was spent on.

DAR I missed out Brexit - so a number of events to think about.
I can’t believe that the Conservative Party has been lucky in fact quite the opposite. And it’s not the politicians who are lucky or unlucky it’s poor Joe Public who sit and suffer.