There are only so many ways that you can say that the media has lost it, and only so many times that you can say it before you begin to bore even yourself. But that does not make it any different. The media has lost it.

Alongside the euro, what should be front page news in the comic section (the bit round the business news) is this.

According to the Office for National Statistics, public sector borrowing topped £14 billion in June, higher that £13.6 billion borrowed in the same month last year. Therefore, despite Osborne's promise to cut the deficit (but not the national debt), we are looking at a year-on-year increase.

View full article here

I feel your frustration Dr. North and when I think of the waste and timewasters in all manner of secure sinecures living high on the hog...then.......Dave sending millions to Somali Islamic terrrorists....I may explode soon... .

The BBC has pulled a fast one, cajoling the nation into believing that this Tory administration is [will make?] making 'cuts' - just who are the biggest idiots here?

Objective??..............More like - the BBC areobjectionable twats.

Oh actually talking of effin delusional t*****s, here's what Mr. Huhne thinks.......Dear mother of Mercy.

What is Huhne drinking?

Speaking of mothers and mercy, please take a minute to help Vicky Haigh. Faebook, twitter, email, blog whatever. She is fighting the sinister Family Court this week in The Strand. If you can turn out in support, do so.

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2011/07/don ... -news.html

I have no confidence that the structural deficit will be got rid of in the next 4 years, unless they redefine what the structural part is and the way that number is fudged I wouldn't put it past them. The plan is going to be squeezed from both ends, lower growth than the optimistic forecasts and Cameron doesn't have the intelligence or fortitude, nor I daresay the desire, to be able to outwit the civil service or the ministers that go native (virtually all of them in this cabinet) and will opt for the easy life rather than have to do anything constructive.

Throw higher interest rates for our borrowing into the mix as the markets lose confidence and the Euro crisis eats ever more of our money and the outlook is bleak for Blighty.

I hate to say it, but I find myself agreeing with those who say we need "another Thatcher". Somebody who is prepared to slash public spending, then cut taxes, and suffer the stiff opposition that will come with it.

The trouble is that, having been through this already, the media and opposition will be ready, and will label him/her as the "new Thatcher" from the start. But if the country has been through a crisis the public might be ready for it.

The other alternative is a media savvy Trojan horse, somebody who quietly makes the necessary changes, whilst distracting the media by making loud noises in the opposite direction. Maybe Cameron could do it, although I doubt it. It would require the cunning and survival skills of a working class lad/lass, who has spent their lives finding ways around everything, and finding the weakness in everything, so they have the necessary stamina and mental skills.

Considering the response to the "non-cuts", I would hate to see the response to any real cuts.

I had to double check whether that was a geniune front page or not - I wasn't sure, which may say something about the state of our media.

It is about as real as anything else you will read today!

I stand to be corrected but Thatcher didn't actually slash public spending. She may have got rid of some money sinks, she may have kept public spending level or reduced it slightly, but slash is the wrong word. It was much to her regret that she hadn't managed to roll back the frontiers of the state or reduce the tax burden, at least to any serious extent.

At present, there's an awful lot of debt to service, leave alone pay off, and an awful lot in the way of public sector pensions liabilities. Present politicians seem mesmerised by the enormity of the problem created by addiction to the debt drug. It's far easier to scrounge another fix than face withdrawal.

The evidence is that it was not Murdoch but the BBC who "hired" Cameron as, if not PM, at least Tory leader.

Basically Newsnight hired an American pollster well known, even by the undemanding standards of such, for bending results the way the employer wants. He duly produced an on air "focus group" (not set out like real focus groups are) whio duly said that of all the candidates for Tory leader only Cameron looked likely to attract voters.

With the Tories gagging for power that and a few other things transformed Cameron from the "who he" candidate to the winner.

Here is the Guardian on Sunday explaining it. Of course they say they "are not suggesting a conspiracy" which yopu may take either way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... servatives

Best quote Ive heard so far was from Murdoch himself who said his one and only attempt to influence a British PM was to stop Tony Blair joining the euro.If thats ALL he ever attempted at least he made a stand on probably the one most important issue in the land

In that small quote he demonstrates that at least he can see through the rest of the waffle and hits the nail on the head as to the true threat to this nation....despite being an Aussie

Yes, you are correct, it is a myth that she cut public spending in real terms. I understand that the truth is that public spending still increased under her leadership, but that that the private sector grew faster.

So we would need somebody even more hardline than Thatcher .

I don't think, in any case, that it is a good strategy to try and gain power by directly taking on the state and its clients because that just signals to your opponents that you're coming long before you actually get there. It would be better to try and undermine your opponents indirectly. Don't ask me how just yet, I'm still working on that...

Thatcher didn't spring out of nowhere, suggesting that the unions, which everyone was perfectly happy with, be cut down to size etc. She came out of the muddle and mess of the 70s, which basically everyone could see was the road to ruin. Circumstances had to be sufficiently painful.

I look on it this way, the country was dropping off to sleep and Thatcher came and opened the doors and windows and livened everyone up. Everyone had been dropping off to sleep and it was invigorating to be woken up and set to work, uncomfortable, but it had to be done. Thatcher went and the agreeable idea came about that we could do just as much without a howling gale and Major and especially Nu Labour, closed all the doors and windows and the country dropped off to a comfy doze again.

Thatcher was right wing, but not a Tory, as was put to me a long time ago by a socialist. "The Tories were keen on looking after their own, but had a social conscience. Thatcher had no social conscience".

"Social conscience" in that context, I take to mean wishing to maintain a dependent underclass and making sure they stay that way, so making damned sure they never have to accept responsibility for the state they are in and can't get out. The point didn't go down well.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about Thatcher that is easily challenged by a bit of research and a more objective viewpoint. For example, the IMF insisted on public spending cuts as a condition of its 1976 loan, so Labour would have had to have cut public spending as well if they had won in 1979. In fact, I think they did try between 1976 - 1979 which is what enraged the unions.

Plenty of people saw the problems coming a long way off. Heath tried to bring in free market reforms in the early 1970s, but abandoned them.

Thatcher wouldn't use tax money to support failing businesses. That annoys the socialists. The Tories always intended that failing industries would be replaced with new, more successful ones. However, they felt that such decisions are better made by free market entrpreneurs rather than civil servants. Why it didn't happen is complicated.

I'm not an expert on it, but I have learned to question the narrative fed to me by socialists, the BBC etc.

Heath tried to bring in market reforms - but he didn't do it. He could see what needed to be done as an abstract but didn't manage to make it concrete. He saw what needed to be done over the three day week, but called an election, and lost. I'd say his loss of nerve and loss of faith in the UK lead us to the EEC. There's more to it than that, the Tory Brass had been wanting it for a long time.

The Labour party tried to cut public spending 1976 to 1979 - but didn't manage it. The IMF would have forced them to post 1979 - but they might have found a fudge.

Thatcher at least made some progress. In the right circumstances but undeniably against difficulties. Thatcher definitely made big mistakes, but was IMHO the best PM we've had since WWII by a long chalk.

Anyway, you were the one calling for someone even more hardline than Thatcher.

Cameron, I don't know which Tory PM he compares with best. He makes Heath look like a heavyweight. Alec Douglas-Home is the closest I'd say. Douglas-Home chaired Bilderberg meetings, for those interested in such things.