How would you balance the budget?

[Traditionalist]

Nowhere in those words does it give a 5 year time period. It is simply referring to the fact that the structural deficit needs to be eliminated.

He was speaking of what the government should do.
Governments only have a guaranteed 5 year term of office.

Voting has nothing to do with creating wealth. You need to be in business to have the chance to become wealthy, short of a lotto win or an inhertiance.

It has to do with who rules us, who of course then become wealthy.

[CB100]

He was speaking of what the government should do.
Governments only have a guaranteed 5 year term of office.

So why not provide a direct quote from him that refers to eliminating the whole of (not part of) the structural deficit in 5 years rather than your quote that makes no reference to the time to achieve it?

It has to do with who rules us, who of course then become wealthy.

Everything has rules. It's just a question of learning them and then applying them. People like Alan Sugar left school at 16, started doing business and became very wealthy.

If you have the ability you can do it too.

[Traditionalist]

So why not provide a direct quote from him that refers to eliminating the whole of (not part of) the structural deficit in 5 years rather than your quote that makes no reference to the time to achieve it?

I did but just again for the last time "eliminate the large structural fiscal deficit".

Everything has rules. It's just a question of learning them and then applying them. People like Alan Sugar left school at 16, started doing business and became very wealthy.

If you have the ability you can do it too.

All a question of starting capital.

[CB100]

I did but just again for the last time "eliminate the large structural fiscal deficit".

And still no time line. For all we know he could have been suggesting doing it over 10 years. Your quote only demonstrates that he felt the structural deficit needed to be eliminated but no time line for doing it. Only your word he meant 5 years.

All a question of starting capital.

It wasn't a problem for Alan Sugar when he started his first business at 16. You just seem to see problems when others just see opportunities. Could that be reason?

[Traditionalist]

And still no time line. For all we know he could have been suggesting doing it over 10 years. Your quote only demonstrates that he felt the structural deficit needed to be eliminated but no time line for doing it. Only your word he meant 5 years.

He was speaking on what the government should do which only has a guaranteed 5 year term as I said and you ignored.

It wasn't a problem for Alan Sugar when he started his first business at 16. You just seem to see problems when others just see opportunities. Could that be reason?

Sugar had to save up £100 just to buy the van for his business that's £1,300 in todays money.

[Geoffrey Collier]

Powell reigned from the Conservative party in 1974 as he did not wish to win Heath another election as he had in 1970.
As for your comments on social confidence it would say more about yours than his.
Many working class people hunt and many more are traditional conservatives.
Classics are a great source of historic knowledge as for rising in rank in the army what is wrong with that?

Powell has large support among people of every class in the 1960's and 70's.
Of course largest, most loyal and militant among the working class urban people through the obvious consequential effect of immigration on their lives.
The middle class liberals who ditched Powell as a friend showed themselves not to be his friends at all.

Even in 1974 had Powell rejoined the Conservatives and fought for a seat (he had over 20 offers from local conservative associations) in the October 1974 election he could have put a good challenge for the leadership together in early 1975.

His second best option could have been to take the Unionist party to the mainland and fight on an anti-immigration, anti-crime and anti-EEC platform.
He could have lead Britain's third biggest party then at the very least.

Traditionalist: There are certainly economic problems to-day, but they were more serious in post 1945. Few would doubt that. These days we are a consumer society saddled with an economic system fashioned for a producer society. In 1945 there was a general consensus among all the main-line political parties that Keynes had produced the answer. In 1945 the average industrial wage (which many did not get) was just £4.7. 0. per week. By about 1958 that had risen to £20.00. p.w. Full employment; an increasing standard of living, and ever increasing wages. As more producer nations were created, and forty-five years later saw the fall of communism, our problems increased ten-fold.

You, however, for reasons not explained, keep harping on about a 'balanced budget' and immigration. Cameron came in insisting that was his economic plan, but it was soon abandoned. Immigration was forgotten about almost from day-one, and he is now the leader of eleven other EU Conservative leaders who want a freer and more integrated work-force in the EU. Let us look at the 'balanced budget' part of his original ambitions. That was possible in the Depression of the 1930s' because the vast majority of working-class families HAD NO DEBTS. A family of four could be given 26/- a week to feed themselves, and that was the only State support which they were given. It was sad, desperately sad, but that allowed a balanced budget to be possible. How do you propose that heavily indebted families, across the entire social spectrum, could service their debts? If you don't like QE, you would need much more of it if a balanced budget was a serious economic objective. Cameron hopes that the budget will be more-or-less in balance 2016-17. Sheer phantasy; the national debt has broadly doubled in the last 4-5 years.

Powell may have had support from various social groups, but that is far from certain however; but public support, and that same support transforming itself into voting determinants are quite different things. In 1973 we had the Yom Kippur War. This caused a recession in the West by pushing oil prices to an historic high. The Middle-East was like a tinder box. With a multitude of industrial problems in the UK, we could have done without the demagogy of Mr Powell. The Establishment, I believe, were as justified in suppressing Powell in the 1970s', as they were in suppressing Mosley in the 1930s'. In times of crises, that is the time for quiet reason, and not raucous oratorical incitement.


Europe needs the rapid creation of fifty million jobs. They won't be created by manufacturing, despite claims to the contrary. Name an economic activity which will be profitable and requires a large labour force? That is the fundamental economic question of our time. We have an ever expanding workforce comprised of the over 65 year olds. One million unemployed between 16-24. In some EU countries it is even higher. What is your job creation plan? Building new social infrastructure is one obvious area; but what else? For a final joke, the Daily Telegraph reports to day that British businesses are sitting on a cash mountain reserve of £750. billion. With reserves like that they won't be paying shareholders too much. Banks argue that they lend to sound businesses; but as Alan Sugar says, some he wouldn't lend a penny. However, Mr Osborne has introduced Credit Easing (CE). If the high risk companies can't repay their loans; taxpayers will underwrite their borrowings. A labour-intensive means of production has been replaced by a capital-intensive one. However, under those circumstances, what do the multitude do to obtain their purchassing power?

[rjt]

Powell reigned from the Conservative party in 1974 as he did not wish to win Heath another election as he had in 1970.
As for your comments on social confidence it would say more about yours than his.
Many working class people hunt and many more are traditional conservatives.
Classics are a great source of historic knowledge as for rising in rank in the army what is wrong with that?

Powell has large support among people of every class in the 1960's and 70's.
Of course largest, most loyal and militant among the working class urban people through the obvious consequential effect of immigration on their lives.
The middle class liberals who ditched Powell as a friend showed themselves not to be his friends at all.

Even in 1974 had Powell rejoined the Conservatives and fought for a seat (he had over 20 offers from local conservative associations) in the October 1974 election he could have put a good challenge for the leadership together in early 1975.

His second best option could have been to take the Unionist party to the mainland and fight on an anti-immigration, anti-crime and anti-EEC platform.
He could have lead Britain's third biggest party then at the very least.

Powell was unsuitable as Prime Minister, the non-nuclear weapons views he held were rejected clearly in the 1980s despite his support for Mr Foot in 1983, the Cold War would never have ended when it did if Powell had been PM, he had many admirable qualitys, but he was no Prime Minister.

[youngian]

Powell was unsuitable as Prime Minister, the non-nuclear weapons views he held were rejected clearly in the 1980s despite his support for Mr Foot in 1983, the Cold War would never have ended when it did if Powell had been PM, he had many admirable qualitys, but he was no Prime Minister.

Although his brand of natioanlist identity politics were taken up under Slobodan Milosevic's leadership in the 90s. Didn't work out too well for the region though.

[Traditionalist]

Although his brand of natioanlist identity politics were taken up under Slobodan Milosevic's leadership in the 90s. Didn't work out too well for the region though.

Worked well for Croatia.

[Traditionalist]

Powell was unsuitable as Prime Minister, the non-nuclear weapons views he held were rejected clearly in the 1980s despite his support for Mr Foot in 1983, the Cold War would never have ended when it did if Powell had been PM, he had many admirable qualitys, but he was no Prime Minister.

Powell claimed that the debate was now more political than military; that Britain did not possess an independent deterrent and that through NATO Britain was tied to the nuclear deterrence theory of the United States.

"I have always regarded the possession of the nuclear capability as a protection against nuclear blackmail. It is a protection against being threatened with nuclear weapons. What it is not a protection against is war"