Re: Benefits keep going up.
>You can see spending accelerating under the last government and dropping back to 1988 levels in 2012 (we have a way to go until the pre boom levels of 1997).<
You seem to have fallen for the traditional right-wing trap of thinking that all government spending is wrong. Many people including myself think that a high level of spending (on the 'right' things) is much to be preferred.
>Disability benefits have risen from £26 Billion in 2007 to 32 Billion in 2012 which seems a little quick. if you think Britain has got 20% sicker in 5 years then fine, if not then checking if people are swinging the lead or suppliers aren't ripping us seems a sensible move. Its probably being done badly , most government initiatives are.<
I don't remember the date that it changed, but when the previous government put a 6 month limit on basic unemployment benefit it forced a lot of people who couldn't find work that paid a living wage into claiming that they were disabled. The policy did what it was cynically intended to do (lower official unemployment figures) but did nothing to solve the underlying problem.
>Note tax credits nearly doubled over a similar period.<
Probably because most of the 'new, private sector' jobs that the current government is relying on to bring us out of recession are part-time ones that no-one can survive on - and which don't bring in the tax/NI that the government needs to pay for things. It's a vicious circle created by morons who think that an entire country can be run on the same basis as a small business.
>and all those vicious NHS cuts have resulted in a 20% rise in NHS costs,<
Cuts usually do result in higher costs elsewhere, but it's OK because that money goes to outside ' business consultants' rather than being spent on those depressing unwell plebs....
>Look at the other figures for expenditure, note everything peaked in 2010 despite the fact we knew the bubble was bursting.<
And yet borrowing has increased enormously under the Tories - how do you reconcile that?
>Call Me Dave is not a great world leader but compared to the alternatives he is probably the only choice for the squeezed middle.<
Sounds like you're suffering from Stokholm Syndrome to me.
>Can you imagine the two Ed's in charge?<
Yes, I can. And I think their sympathies for the less wealthy would have resulted in a much less unpleasant situation right now.
> Why not get Nick Leeson to run the economy, oh sorry their party did deregulate so he could break the bank.<
Hmmm... I'd be very surprised if he wasn't a Tory supporter, wouldn't you? And the Tories had consistently argued that there was still too much red tape, and that deregulation didn't go far enough.