Rob the poor and give to the rich

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/18/school-plan-takes-money-from-poor


A lot of people who post on here aren't really old enough to remember the last Tory government, or their wanton savagery in the early to mid-80s and their mindset of utter hatred for those who struggle to get by.

Looks like nothing has changed.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7827761/This-Budget-is-George-Osbornes-moment-to-be-radical.html

An insight from Fraser Nelson into the thinking of the New Right. The new 'Office of Budgetary Responsibility''s report makes it clear there is no need to cut hard. The economy is faring better than expected. But the Tories will do it anyway, because its what they like doing.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The T.U.C.'s long overdue but very useful anti-cuts programme (PDF). (http://www.tuc.org.uk/publicsector/tuc-18087-f0.pdf)

[matty_f]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/18/school-plan-takes-money-from-poor


A lot of people who post on here aren't really old enough to remember the last Tory government, or their wanton savagery in the early to mid-80s and their mindset of utter hatred for those who struggle to get by.

Looks like nothing has changed.

One of the main reasons why I'll never, ever see them as anything other than a shower of total c**ts.

Same old, same old from the Tories, and shame on the Lid Dems for hopping into bed with them.

[Leicester Fan]

Reading this forum it seems that Labour have done a wonderful job running the country/economy. It makes you wonder why they were voted out.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Reading this forum it seems that Labour have done a wonderful job running the country/economy. It makes you wonder why they were voted out.

I don't think you'll find many people on this forum who voted Tory. I think in the coming months you'll see why.

Labour were idiots in many ways, but they made sure schools were built and our health service came back into line with that which other countries have.

The Tory philosophy is "every man for themselves".

[Vexhim Hibee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/18/school-plan-takes-money-from-poor


A lot of people who post on here aren't really old enough to remember the last Tory government, or their wanton savagery in the early to mid-80s and their mindset of utter hatred for those who struggle to get by.

Looks like nothing has changed.

no surprises there then

[Betty Boop]

I don't think you'll find many people on this forum who voted Tory. I think in the coming months you'll see why.

Labour were idiots in many ways, but they made sure schools were built and our health service came back into line with that which other countries have.

The Tory philosophy is "every man for themselves".

You can say that again! Have you heard the budget, cuts, cuts and more cuts! :bitchy:

[hibsbollah]

You can say that again! Have you heard the budget, cuts, cuts and more cuts! :bitchy:

There was a lot of talk that they were going to scrap the 'essential' label on non-VAT goods like food and childrens clothing, which would have hit
the poor the hardest and been IMO deeply immoral, so in that sense i'm relieved.

It was disgusting seeing the Liberals cheering the wider VAT rise though. Vince Cable this was what you were campaigning against in opposition:bitchy:

[heretoday]

I liked when Harman rounded on Vince Cable, calling him a former National Treasure turned Treasury Poodle!

I can't believe the Lib Dems can keep up the silent partner role for long.

[WarringtonHibee]

Don't mind the VAT rise, maybe people should stop buying so many luxury goods they simply don't need on credit...

[RyeSloan]

Amazing...the country needs to borrow £155bn in ONE year and yet somehow according to some on here and of course the TUC cuts are not needed!!

Lets face it Governement spending under Labour has ballooned out of control and needs to be brought back to manageable levels...it is quite simple and quite straight forward and nothing to do with 'same old Tories'...the coutry cannot afford to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow.

Having seen the details of the budget I actually think it is reasonably balanced...I like the fact that they are raising the personal limit as removing taxation on the lowest paid is the most efficient and most effective way of supporting the poorest yet working people. I like the fact that give aways to families earning over 40k are being ended, I like that VAT is being raised as this will help to prevent a consumer bubble from re-inflating with cheap loans, I like the fact that banks will have to pay an extra but not overly onerous tax. I like the fact that public sector pay is to be frozen for two years....considering the over inflated rises in the last few years and the significant bill to pay for all of these public servants then this is a sensible and dare I say it prudent move and one that reflects what the vast majority of the private sector has had to face for at least the last two years.

Of course no budget, especially one designed to pull the country out of a Labour inspired mire can be painless but on first reading it looks to me that the pain has been reasonably well spread.

[IWasThere2016]

The T.U.C.'s long overdue but very useful anti-cuts programme (PDF). (http://www.tuc.org.uk/publicsector/tuc-18087-f0.pdf)

I gave up after the Canadian example cited on page 6 as the report was very one dimensional eg no cognisance that Canada was last in and first out of this recession - because of actions taken in the 90s. The Canadian public also re-elected their Government (at least once) after the cuts were introduced - so I am not sure the TUC view is balanced, nor correct.


Amazing...the country needs to borrow £155bn in ONE year and yet somehow according to some on here and of course the TUC cuts are not needed!!

Lets face it Governement spending under Labour has ballooned out of control and needs to be brought back to manageable levels...it is quite simple and quite straight forward and nothing to do with 'same old Tories'...the coutry cannot afford to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow.

Having seen the details of the budget I actually think it is reasonably balanced...I like the fact that they are raising the personal limit as removing taxation on the lowest paid is the most efficient and most effective way of supporting the poorest yet working people. I like the fact that give aways to families earning over 40k are being ended, I like that VAT is being raised as this will help to prevent a consumer bubble from re-inflating with cheap loans, I like the fact that banks will have to pay an extra but not overly onerous tax. I like the fact that public sector pay is to be frozen for two years....considering the over inflated rises in the last few years and the significant bill to pay for all of these public servants then this is a sensible and dare I say it prudent move and one that reflects what the vast majority of the private sector has had to face for at least the last two years.

Of course no budget, especially one designed to pull the country out of a Labour inspired mire can be painless but on first reading it looks to me that the pain has been reasonably well spread.

I concur but the much of the real position will be revealed in the Spending Review.

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't think you'll find many people on this forum who voted Tory. I think in the coming months you'll see why.

Labour were idiots in many ways, but they made sure schools were built and our health service came back into line with that which other countries have.

The Tory philosophy is "every man for themselves".

So what? They have also saddled us with the debt of paying for it. It's not just Labour's fault though, it's very tempting to try and live beyond your means...as our personal debt record shows. I'm just glad they're gone and maybe now we can sober up. We might even be able to pay for all those poorly constructed public projects - at least the ones round about here are - before they too become obsolete/derelict like the ones from the 60s and 70s.

[sKipper]

A very un Torylike budget I thought.

Very fair in most areas. Much better than I expected.

[Pretty Boy]

Don't mind the VAT rise, maybe people should stop buying so many luxury goods they simply don't need on credit...

What about the people who live on a very tight budget buying everyday goods not on credit who will also be hit?

[Phil D. Rolls]

So what? They have also saddled us with the debt of paying for it. It's not just Labour's fault though, it's very tempting to try and live beyond your means...as our personal debt record shows. I'm just glad they're gone and maybe now we can sober up. We might even be able to pay for all those poorly constructed public projects - at least the ones round about here are - before they too become obsolete/derelict like the ones from the 60s and 70s.

I guess the schools and hospitals had to be built. I can't say I am too impressed by the way they were financed myself - Labour should have pursued a more socialist approach than using a Tory policy.

What galls me in all this, is that we are in a financial mess because those at the bedrock of our economy did not behave in a moral manner. I am talking about the banks - yet they seem to roll on unscathed.

The Tory cuts in the budget are a lot more subtle than people appreciate iMO. Take this idea that no one gets Disability without a medical assessment. Are we about to magic up a load of new doctors to do this? I don't think so, instead people will wait a long time for their assessment, meantime what do they live on?

Don't get me wrong, there is a whole load of people who screw disability, but they are the ones who will probaly do OK. If they don't get the money from the system, they will steal it from others.

At the end of the day, it's going to be rough for us all. I think there must have been a cleverer approach to it than just making swingeing cuts though.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Amazing...the country needs to borrow £155bn in ONE year and yet somehow according to some on here and of course the TUC cuts are not needed!!

Lets face it Governement spending under Labour has ballooned out of control and needs to be brought back to manageable levels...it is quite simple and quite straight forward and nothing to do with 'same old Tories'...the coutry cannot afford to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow.

Having seen the details of the budget I actually think it is reasonably balanced...I like the fact that they are raising the personal limit as removing taxation on the lowest paid is the most efficient and most effective way of supporting the poorest yet working people. I like the fact that give aways to families earning over 40k are being ended, I like that VAT is being raised as this will help to prevent a consumer bubble from re-inflating with cheap loans, I like the fact that banks will have to pay an extra but not overly onerous tax. I like the fact that public sector pay is to be frozen for two years....considering the over inflated rises in the last few years and the significant bill to pay for all of these public servants then this is a sensible and dare I say it prudent move and one that reflects what the vast majority of the private sector has had to face for at least the last two years.

Of course no budget, especially one designed to pull the country out of a Labour inspired mire can be painless but on first reading it looks to me that the pain has been reasonably well spread.

The recovery at the minute is very fragile. The economy is growing, but only just. Yes the defecit does need dealt with but to come in with this level of cuts while the recovery is still weak is completely reckless. Put simply this budget makes average people worse off, and is going to be responsible for a rise in unemployment--->less people paying tax, more on the dole is not good for the economy.

I'm not sticking up for Labour here, btw, they should have been more prudent during the 11 good years between 1997-2008 but this mess was caused by irresponsible, greedy bankers. And of course, average Joe is having to pay for it again through VAT rises and public sector pay cuts.

We get out of this mess by growing the economy, not by cuts. Of course we would be in a better position to get out of this mess quicker if Thatcher and the Tories hadn't decimated industry and manufacturing in the UK in the 1980s. The Tories cuts agenda didn't work then, and it won't work now.

[Hainan Hibs]

I'm slightly confused as to why we are "all in this together", as Osbourne kept saying..

I only wish that was the case when ludicrous bonuses were being paid.

Fantastic how a few people got the massive rewards, but now it's all went tits up we're all suddenly together.

I hope the measures taken do not stop the growth the economy has started to experience. Obviously the debt and deficit had to be tackled but more growth leads to more employment therefore more tax and more spending boosting the economy further. Cuts hopefully won't hamper the growth, will just have to wait and see.

[lyonhibs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10374475.stm

Have you guys read this??

Some truly scary stuff - dare to have a second child, lose the Sure Start Maternity Grant.

If you're a civil servant serving the government but earning the - apparently - princely sum of £21,001, you're rubber ducked. Not to worry though, if you earn less than that, you can expect the astonishing sum of £250 extra per annum as reward for your hard work.

"The "entrepreneurs relief" rate of 10% on the first £2m of gains will be extended to the first £5m" - this surprises me muchos, a Tory government giving a lower rate of capital gains tax to a much greater number of super rich ****ers :rolleyes:

But not to worry, the cider tax increase is being scrapped so we can - and I quote our new Economic Brainbox Mr Osborne here - "either celebrate England's progress to the quarter finals, or drown our sorrows"

Well, that's all right then :agree: :agree:

Roll on the Spending Review!!!!!

[Hainan Hibs]

I forgot to say I'm disappointed that the tax relief for the game industry was scrapped. Scotland has huge potential in that market and encouragement for growth would have been good.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wonder if there will ever come a time when we measure the success of our country in terms of things like mortality rates, children in poverty, crime rates and overall sense of wellbeing; rather than the number of Mexican holidays taken and the number of wide screen TVs sold.

The ball is at the people's feet, and they should be paying more attention to what is going on. Or do they enjoy being like the lost boys on Pinnochio's Pleasure Island, numbed by trinkets and toys whilst all the time being turned into donkeys for sale to the highest bidder.

Capitalism is not the only way.

[Borders Hibby]

What about the people who live on a very tight budget buying everyday goods not on credit who will also be hit?

Exactly, the poorer suffer more from this. Should have put up income tax by 3p with bigger initial allowances to protect lower earners, scrapped child benefit and given extra in tax credits. These however are vote losers in the middle clases! Child benefit costs £11 billion and David Beckham gets the same amount as you and me. No really a fair budget.

[steakbake]

Should have could have would have... everyone's a critic.

No matter what Osbourne put together (or any Chancellor who had to give a budget yesterday - yes, even a Labour one), someone somewhere would be getting hammered. An interesting chart in the morning paper today showed that everyone up to 40k per year will be paying less in tax and NI contributions. VAT up to 20% - not nice, but perhaps people have to start living within their means? I'll have to learn how to do that myself.

From what I've read and understood of it, the alternative to paying down the enormous debt the country is in is an even bigger financial crisis. Unfortunately though, seems like there is a very loud majority who think the way out of a financial crisis is to max out the national credit card. That's what got us here in the first place.

[IWasThere2016]

Should have could have would have... everyone's a critic.

No matter what Osbourne put together (or any Chancellor who had to give a budget yesterday - yes, even a Labour one), someone somewhere would be getting hammered. An interesting chart in the morning paper today showed that everyone up to 40k per year will be paying less in tax and NI contributions. VAT up to 20% - not nice, but perhaps people have to start living within their means? I'll have to learn how to do that myself.

From what I've read and understood of it, the alternative to paying down the enormous debt the country is in is an even bigger financial crisis. Unfortunately though, seems like there is a very loud majority who think the way out of a financial crisis is to max out the national credit card. That's what got us here in the first place.

:agree:

The real crunch will come with the Spending Review and the pain will then be felt in the Public Services. It follows therefore that the concessions to SMEs, Industry re Corporation Tax was needed to help shift the balance of employment from Public to Private Sectors.

Are we cutting too fast - perhaps - time will tell. It crossed my mind that Osborne is cutting so fast so to afford tax give aways on the cusp of the next election ..

I work in the Public Sector and have done for 16+ years now and I think PS pensions need attention. These are unaffordable today, tomorrow and thereafter .. I hope we see a phasing out of these in certain areas in time; with only the very key front line services staff getting pensions eg Police, Doctors, Nursing, Allied Health Professionals, HS, Army, Navy, Airforce - and not Local Authority, HMRC, HE, FE, Civil Servants etc.

We have to encourage employment not benefits, saving not spend spend spend - and there should be IMHO incentives, motivation and rewards for those who work, save and create wealth.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Amazing...the country needs to borrow £155bn in ONE year and yet somehow according to some on here and of course the TUC cuts are not needed!!

Lets face it Governement spending under Labour has ballooned out of control and needs to be brought back to manageable levels...it is quite simple and quite straight forward and nothing to do with 'same old Tories'...the coutry cannot afford to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow.

Having seen the details of the budget I actually think it is reasonably balanced...I like the fact that they are raising the personal limit as removing taxation on the lowest paid is the most efficient and most effective way of supporting the poorest yet working people. I like the fact that give aways to families earning over 40k are being ended, I like that VAT is being raised as this will help to prevent a consumer bubble from re-inflating with cheap loans, I like the fact that banks will have to pay an extra but not overly onerous tax. I like the fact that public sector pay is to be frozen for two years....considering the over inflated rises in the last few years and the significant bill to pay for all of these public servants then this is a sensible and dare I say it prudent move and one that reflects what the vast majority of the private sector has had to face for at least the last two years.

Of course no budget, especially one designed to pull the country out of a Labour inspired mire can be painless but on first reading it looks to me that the pain has been reasonably well spread.

Of course, it's fairly easy for you to snort derisively at the suggestions of the T.U.C. and think it's amazing that people can object to this, but what about the likes of David Blanchflower (http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2010/05/banks-government-growth-cuts), Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html), Martin Wolf (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fc8d1dd4-78b6-11df-a312-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffc8d1dd4-78b6-11df-a312-00144feabdc0%2Cs01%3D1.html%3Fcatid%3D6%26SID%3Dgo ogle&SID=google&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fliberalconspiracy.org%2F20 10%2F06%2F17%2Fwhy-were-making-the-case-against-government-cuts%2F&catid=6), Joseph Stiglitz (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/deficit-fetishism-government-spending) and even Thatcher's old economic adviser and monetarist-in-chief Samuel Brittan (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/90537426-7a71-11df-9cd7-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F90537426-7a71-11df-9cd7-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fleninology.blogspot.com%2F )?

The Brittan article is particularly good, especially this bit;

The trick of the British establishment is to turn discussion from 'whether to' into 'how to' questions. The media debate is on which government services to cut or on the balance between spending cuts and tax increases. Once this discussion has been channelled into these trenches the establishment has won. The real argument, however, should be on whether we need unparalleled fiscal austerity or not.

Quite. Every single debate I've heard on the issue has been couched in language such as, "Now, we all know that spending cuts are needed for the national interest, no-one is denying that." Yet no-one ever cuts in and says, firstly we don't all agree and, secondly, there's no such thing as a 'national interest' and there never has been. There's nothing like appeals to nebulous values to get people on side.

This is, simply put, a class project. And if you can't see it, you're not paying attention.


I gave up after the Canadian example cited on page 6 as the report was very one dimensional eg no cognisance that Canada was last in and first out of this recession - because of actions taken in the 90s. The Canadian public also re-elected their Government (at least once) after the cuts were introduced - so I am not sure the TUC view is balanced, nor correct.

Eh? The Canada example was about the damage done to public services during the restructuring of the Canadian economy in the mid-90s and that the swingeing cuts had less impact on bringing down their deficit than economic growth.

It's not exactly a brilliantly detailed 'case study', but it's not meant to be. The pamphlet is presumably aimed at giving people basic arguments and examples against the austerity programme. As such it's pretty lacking (and there's quite a bit I disagree with), but that's not really the point. Although they should probably have explained in a little bit greater depth that the U.S. economy was booming at the time of the crisis in Canada and that Canadian capital was able to take advantage of this and, in turn, generate growth in Canada - something that won't and can't happen for us now due to the austerity packages being instituted across Europe.

[ballengeich]

Unfortunately though, seems like there is a very loud majority who think the way out of a financial crisis is to max out the national credit card. That's what got us here in the first place.

Quite. Note that Osborne's projections still show an increase in government current expenditure from £637 billion this year to £711 in 2015-16. That doesn't look like a cut to me.

Government borrowing over the period will still be around £450 billion in the next four years. The interest on this will in rough terms cost each taxpayer around £10 per week in addition to what's already going to service government debt. Under Labour's plans this amount would have been even more. Is that what people want their tax used for?

I haven't seen any alternative coherent plan. The TUC's document which has been referred to in this thread is long on vague assertions and short on specific plans. I support their idea of putting more resources into tax collection, though I suspect that the figures they quote for additional revenue collectable may be a little optimistic. The Labour party simply isn't facing up to its failure to pay for the services it set up.

[IWasThere2016]

Eh? The Canada example was about the damage done to public services during the restructuring of the Canadian economy in the mid-90s and that the swingeing cuts had less impact on bringing down their deficit than economic growth.

It's not exactly a brilliantly detailed 'case study', but it's not meant to be. The pamphlet is presumably aimed at giving people basic arguments and examples against the austerity programme. As such it's pretty lacking (and there's quite a bit I disagree with), but that's not really the point. Although they should probably have explained in a little bit greater depth that the U.S. economy was booming at the time of the crisis in Canada and that Canadian capital was able to take advantage of this and, in turn, generate growth in Canada - something that won't and can't happen for us now due to the austerity packages being instituted across Europe.

As someone who works in, uses and pays for Public Services I do not necessarily think all cuts will all be bad.

As I said before - and I think you're agreeing - the use of Canada in this context is one dimensional.

[IWasThere2016]

Quite. Note that Osborne's projections still show an increase in government current expenditure from £637 billion this year to £711 in 2015-16. That doesn't look like a cut to me.

Government borrowing over the period will still be around £450 billion in the next four years. The interest on this will in rough terms cost each taxpayer around £10 per week in addition to what's already going to service government debt. Under Labour's plans this amount would have been even more. Is that what people want their tax used for?

I haven't seen any alternative coherent plan. The TUC's document which has been referred to in this thread is long on vague assertions and short on specific plans. I support their idea of putting more resources into tax collection, though I suspect that the figures they quote for additional revenue collectable may be a little optimistic. The Labour party simply isn't facing up to its failure to pay for the services it set up.

:agree: Now is the time for action - and the action is clear .. more of the same will not sort things.

[RyeSloan]

Of course, it's fairly easy for you to snort derisively at the suggestions of the T.U.C. and think it's amazing that people can object to this, but what about the likes of David Blanchflower (http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2010/05/banks-government-growth-cuts), Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html), Martin Wolf (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fc8d1dd4-78b6-11df-a312-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffc8d1dd4-78b6-11df-a312-00144feabdc0%2Cs01%3D1.html%3Fcatid%3D6%26SID%3Dgo ogle&SID=google&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fliberalconspiracy.org%2F20 10%2F06%2F17%2Fwhy-were-making-the-case-against-government-cuts%2F&catid=6), Joseph Stiglitz (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/deficit-fetishism-government-spending) and even Thatcher's old economic adviser and monetarist-in-chief Samuel Brittan (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/90537426-7a71-11df-9cd7-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F90537426-7a71-11df-9cd7-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fleninology.blogspot.com%2F )?

The Brittan article is particularly good, especially this bit;

The trick of the British establishment is to turn discussion from 'whether to' into 'how to' questions. The media debate is on which government services to cut or on the balance between spending cuts and tax increases. Once this discussion has been channelled into these trenches the establishment has won. The real argument, however, should be on whether we need unparalleled fiscal austerity or not.

Quite. Every single debate I've heard on the issue has been couched in language such as, "Now, we all know that spending cuts are needed for the national interest, no-one is denying that." Yet no-one ever cuts in and says, firstly we don't all agree and, secondly, there's no such thing as a 'national interest' and there never has been. There's nothing like appeals to nebulous values to get people on side.

This is, simply put, a class project. And if you can't see it, you're not paying attention.


Oh shock...it's a class war !!!! :yawn:

I would actually take your inital arguement further and say we should be asking why our governemnt has so much involvement in our lives and seriously question if they should continue to do so. The REMOVAL of central planning and spending should give a leaner, meaner government and allow all Britons to see that their tax payments are actually being used in a useful and effective manner.

For the record I was not snorting in any derisory manner but no matter who you want to quote you won't shake my belief that governments should maintain fiscal responsibility and that bloated deficit's can only harm a nation and it's ability to have effective and responsible government over the medium to long term.

[hibsbollah]

The Labour party simply isn't facing up to its failure to pay for the services it set up.

Its about time this narrative was challenged. The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit.
ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)
Trying to blame the deficit solely on an alleged spendthrift Labour government is ludicrous, but seems to be easily swallowed by those who dont want to face up to the realities of what happened in 2008.

[RyeSloan]

I wonder if there will ever come a time when we measure the success of our country in terms of things like mortality rates, children in poverty, crime rates and overall sense of wellbeing; rather than the number of Mexican holidays taken and the number of wide screen TVs sold.

The ball is at the people's feet, and they should be paying more attention to what is going on. Or do they enjoy being like the lost boys on Pinnochio's Pleasure Island, numbed by trinkets and toys whilst all the time being turned into donkeys for sale to the highest bidder.

Capitalism is not the only way.

Good idea!!

Moratility Rates:
The life expectancy of new born children in 1999 is 75 years for boys and 80 years for girls. In 1901 baby boys were expected to live for 45 years and girls 49 years.

Poverty:
Ahh the old classic...how do you define it and how do you measure it? By some measurements poverty rates have hardly changed since the victorian days but only a fool would say that the living standards of those in poverty today are anywhere near as harsh as those in poverty in 1900. Considering the absolutely MASSIVE amounts of money spent each year on providing benefits, tax credits and universal free at point of use healthcare I think it could be argued quite strongly that Britain has a very solid record of providing for the less well off citizens....all paid for of course by taxes, i.e a huge and enduring re-distribution of wealth.


Crime Rates:
I believe overall crime rates are no higher now than they were in 1980 or so...there are historically high number of police and the prisons are full of criminals. Again I think there has been a clear progression on policing and the standards expected from them over the decades and while they are clearly not perfect the British Police and Justice system stands tall compared to a substantial majority of the worlds forces.

Overall sense of wellbeing:
Difficult to measure such a concept but if we are talking standard of living then again we have seen a huge increase over time...go back to the 1950's and oustide toilets were not uncommon. Homes and the comforts they contain are vastly superior now than at any point on our history...heating, insulation, appliances and convenience have all grown vastly over the period.

So according to your desire to record things differently (although most of the above is of course already recorded and monitored in a vast amount of ways) Capitalism hasn't been such a shabby mistress for the UK after all.

I don't suppose you would be brave enough to actually articulate the alternative that you hint at that would have allowed faster more effective progress or one that will ensure more rapid development in the future?

[PiemanP]

'Rob the poor to give to the rich'

:yawn: take off the anti tory blinkers eh! I think this is a very fair budget, which certainly doesnt rob the poor.

I still think a lot more needs to be done in terms of scrapping benefits for those who wont work, and i was disappointed the tax threshold will not increase to 10K sooner. I think its right that no disability benefits will be paid without a medical assesment - i dont care if this takes longer (surely it will be backdated anyways) there are simply too many people taking advantage of this benefit and it needs to be addressed!






http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10374475.stm

Have you guys read this??

If you're a civil servant serving the government but earning the - apparently - princely sum of £21,001, you're rubber ducked. Not to worry though, if you earn less than that, you can expect the astonishing sum of £250 extra per annum as reward for your hard work.



I have no real sympathy for these people, many in the private sector have not had pay rises this year, why should the public sector have a devine right to increases?

[Beefster]

Its about time this narrative was challenged. The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit.
ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)
Trying to blame the deficit solely on an alleged spendthrift Labour government is ludicrous, but seems to be easily swallowed by those who dont want to face up to the realities of what happened in 2008.

How does the bank bailout in 2008 translate to a £160bn annual deficit now?

[hibsbollah]

How does the bank bailout in 2008 translate to a £160bn annual deficit now?


In much the same way as x-y=z. Its not all that complicated.

[RyeSloan]

Its about time this narrative was challenged. The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit.
ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)
Trying to blame the deficit solely on an alleged spendthrift Labour government is ludicrous, but seems to be easily swallowed by those who dont want to face up to the realities of what happened in 2008.

The headline figure is nonsense...you present this like it was money that went out the door. It didn't. The vast majority of that figure is in the the form of guarantees, indemnities and insurance issued to banks.

Face it the vast majority of the UK debt is from the governments own overspending. The banking crisis simply highlighted just how overstreteched it had came and how much the government itself was relying on the Banks and the Housing bubble to prop up it's tax intake.

Sure the banks messed up and should never have got themsleves in the position they did but in the end of the day Banks were bailed out and public money spent...and so it should have been considering the importance of the industry to the UK and the world as a whole.

Interesting to note that The Bank of England actually maderecord profits of almost £1 billion in the year to February as its fee-earning activities burgeoned amid the global financial and economic turmoil!!

You cannot blame the nations debt on the banks when it was the government that overspent for years and years and years during the 'boom' time, exactly the time it should have been putting aside surpluses to tide the nation over when the time was needed...it didn't and now we are all paying for it.

[Leicester Fan]

Class war? What a load of crap. Why would any party in a democracy want to alienate the majority of the population?

Labour voters just have to understand that we've tried pissing money up the wall and hoping that the bills will somehow pay themselves, it failed miserably that's why we're in the mess we're in now (please don't quote me some middle class leftie writing in the Guardian saying everything was wonderful, we all know that's rubbish).

You've got to take your head out of your ******** and realise that there is no alternative. There is a levy on the banks, the rich will pay a larger share than the poor, but if you try and put punitive taxes on the successful they will just move themselves or their money abroad and revenues will go down.

[hibsbollah]

The headline figure is nonsense...you present this like it was money that went out the door. It didn't. The vast majority of that figure is in the the form of guarantees, indemnities and insurance issued to banks.


£850 billion of insurance?:confused: I don't think so. Please refer to the article and try to back up the statement that it isnt 'money that went out the door'.

[ballengeich]

Its about time this narrative was challenged. The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit.
ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)
Trying to blame the deficit solely on an alleged spendthrift Labour government is ludicrous, but seems to be easily swallowed by those who dont want to face up to the realities of what happened in 2008.

You're right in saying that the deficit is not solely due to government spending, but the underlying structural deficit arising from the difference between government expenditure and tax revenue would still be there. The OECD believes it to be the biggest % of GDP of any major economy.

The cost of bailing out the banks has not created, but has greatly increased the deficit problem. It's a pity that UK banks were not as strictly regulated as those in some other countries. As far as I know, the Spanish, Canadian and Australian governments have not had to spend money to prevent their banks' collapse. I never shared Labour's trust in our financial institutions.

[Darth Hibbie]

I have no real sympathy for these people, many in the private sector have not had pay rises this year, why should the public sector have a devine right to increases?

I take it by THESE PEOPLE you are referring to the Nurses, teachers, police, fire brigade, ambulance service, council workers etc etc. :bitchy:

Many in the private sector have had a pay rise also. The point is the private and public sectors are totally different and what happens in one cannot be compared to the other.

These pay freezes will effect the people on the front line in the schools, hospitals and streets many of whom have already had below the rate of inflation rises over the that few years. Would it not have been more appropriate to cut the bonuses paid out to the senior managers in these organisations instead?

[hibsbollah]

It's a pity that UK banks were not as strictly regulated as those in some other countries. As far as I know, the Spanish, Canadian and Australian governments have not had to spend money to prevent their banks' collapse. I never shared Labour's trust in our financial institutions.

Quite so.

[Borders Hibby]

Class war? What a load of crap. Why would any party in a democracy want to alienate the majority of the population?

Labour voters just have to understand that we've tried pissing money up the wall and hoping that the bills will somehow pay themselves, it failed miserably that's why we're in the mess we're in now (please don't quote me some middle class leftie writing in the Guardian saying everything was wonderful, we all know that's rubbish).

You've got to take your head out of your ******** and realise that there is no alternative. There is a levy on the banks, the rich will pay a larger share than the poor, but if you try and put punitive taxes on the successful they will just move themselves or their money abroad and revenues will go down.

Raise income tax then and freeze all pay in both sectors. And allow inflation rises in council tax. Or maybe that would anger the tory voters.

Abolish child benefit and means test it through child tax credit. Why should millionaires get child benefit?

[Borders Hibby]

Quite so.

Spain is a bad example surely!

[Borders Hibby]

'Rob the poor to give to the rich'

:yawn: take off the anti tory blinkers eh! I think this is a very fair budget, which certainly doesnt rob the poor.

I still think a lot more needs to be done in terms of scrapping benefits for those who wont work, and i was disappointed the tax threshold will not increase to 10K sooner. I think its right that no disability benefits will be paid without a medical assesment - i dont care if this takes longer (surely it will be backdated anyways) there are simply too many people taking advantage of this benefit and it needs to be addressed!


I have no real sympathy for these people, many in the private sector have not had pay rises this year, why should the public sector have a devine right to increases?

I agree with tightening up on benefits, we are seen as a soft touch. Lets mean test child benefit as well. But surely the easy option would have been to increase income tax along with an increase in the allowance to protect low earners. But raising income tax and council tax are vote losers, doesnt make them bad options.
I am a teacher and while I dont mind a bit of austerity it should be spread to both sectors.

[RyeSloan]

Quite so.

Yeah the Spanish casa banks area shining example of effective regulation and fiscal prudence right enough.

[RyeSloan]

£850 billion of insurance?:confused: I don't think so. Please refer to the article and try to back up the statement that it isnt 'money that went out the door'.

Sadly I do have to do some work today so can't respond in detail right now but the following should help fom the independent link:

"Indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.


So it's protection against losses in the £200bn liquidity support given by the BoE...not £200bn out the door

Guarantees against £250bn...not £250bn out the door

Loans of £40bn...loans out the door yes but no consideration if tht may be repaid

Insurance on £280bn of assets...not £280bn out the door.

Even excluding the loans and the fact that monies spent part nationlising banks may/will be recouped the figures are £730bn for insurance and guarantees.

[hibsbollah]

Sadly I do have to do some work today so can't respond in detail right now but the following should help fom the independent link:

"Indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.


So it's protection against losses in the £200bn liquidity support given by the BoE...not £200bn out the door

Guarantees against £250bn...not £250bn out the door

Loans of £40bn...loans out the door yes but no consideration if tht may be repaid

Insurance on £280bn of assets...not £280bn out the door.

Even excluding the loans and the fact that monies spent part nationlising banks may/will be recouped the figures are £730bn for insurance and guarantees.

Can that money be used for anything else? Schools, hospitals? Answer: No. Hence, it is 'money out of the door' in a fiscal sense.

[Leicester Fan]

Raise income tax then and freeze all pay in both sectors. And allow inflation rises in council tax. Or maybe that would anger the tory voters.


Do Labour voters enjoy paying council tax then?:confused:




Abolish child benefit and means test it through child tax credit. Why should millionaires get child benefit?

Would probably cost more to administer than it would save.

[RyeSloan]

Can that money be used for anything else? Schools, hospitals? Answer: No. Hence, it is 'money out of the door' in a fiscal sense.

What does 'fiscal sense' mean? Either the governement has had to borrow all of those hundreds of billions (and thus increase the national debt) or they have not. As evidenced the majority of the £850bn figure quoted has not been paid and has therefore not been borrowed.

You clearly tried to link the deficit to the bank bailout: "The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit."

I examplified why you were wrong to do so and evidenced that your £850bn figure was no where near accurate in reflecting how much has actually been added to the national debt by the bail out.

[hibsbollah]

What does 'fiscal sense' mean? Either the governement has had to borrow all of those hundreds of billions (and thus increase the national debt) or they have not. As evidenced the majority of the £850bn figure quoted has not been paid and has therefore not been borrowed.

You clearly tried to link the deficit to the bank bailout: "The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit."

I examplified why you were wrong to do so and evidenced that your £850bn figure was no where near accurate in reflecting how much has actually been added to the national debt by the bail out.

In a 'fiscal sense' means when you look at the overall ability of Government to manage the economy by taxation and public spending.

[Borders Hibby]

Do Labour voters enjoy paying council tax then?:confused:



Would probably cost more to administer than it would save.

I am not political, just know that raising council tax and income tax is unpopular so governments raise money through indirect taxation eg vat which then punishes lower earners.

You are having a laugh, it costs £11 billion a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tax credit means testing already exists so just add it on to that. Does it not annoy you that all these premiership footballers get £30 a week for their kids! This gives both sides.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article7138335.ece

[Mibbes Aye]

'Rob the poor to give to the rich'

:yawn: take off the anti tory blinkers eh! I think this is a very fair budget, which certainly doesnt rob the poor.



You maybe didn't notice that this thread was started before the Budget and was about Tory plans to take the money for free school meals and divert it into setting up 'independent' schools at the expense of everyone else's education.

I agree with you, blinkers are a terrible thing :greengrin

[Borders Hibby]

You maybe didn't notice that this thread was started before the Budget and was about Tory plans to take the money for free school meals and divert it into setting up 'independent' schools at the expense of everyone else's education.

I agree with you, blinkers are a terrible thing :greengrin

Going to stop them for primary school kids in the Borders. Its like Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher!!!

[RyeSloan]

In a 'fiscal sense' means when you look at the overall ability of Government to manage the economy by taxation and public spending.

Fair enough and you could argue that some of the possible future liabilities of the guarantees given will effect the governments spending, taxing and borrowing in years to come (it could of course also be argued that it will be helped by floating it holdings in RBS) but how does that apply to the statement "The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit." and the obvious suggestion that it was the £850bn figure that caused it?.

As i have said the fact is that the bank bailout itself did not cause the national debt, the associated recession (and in no small part to the evaporation of bank corp tax and bonus income tax that the government had become wedded to in order to keep spending!!) did. Sure there is a element caused by the banks but national debt was already about 40% before the bust and no surplus had been recorded since 2003 despite the intervening period being exactly the correct point in the cycle to be ensuring this was the case....no bank bail out was responsible for this total disregard to future hard times.

Labour overspent and planned to continue to overspend before the crisis arrived and had to borrow to provide the required stimulus when the 'perfect storm' hit instead of having a fighting fund ready...that shock could have came from anywhere, in this instance it was banks, previously it was tech companies. So although the catalyst was the banks (and there is no doubting that this in itself proved expensive to fix) to simply blame the current national debt on the bank bail out is just plain wrong.

[Borders Hibby]

Fair enough and you could argue that some of the possible future liabilities of the guarantees given will effect the governments spending, taxing and borrowing in years to come (it could of course also be argued that it will be helped by floating it holdings in RBS) but how does that apply to the statement "The cost of bailing out the banks is the reason why we're in deficit." and the obvious suggestion that it was the £850bn figure that caused it?.

As i have said the fact is that the bank bailout itself did not cause the national debt, the associated recession (and in no small part to the evaporation of bank corp tax and bonus income tax that the government had become wedded to in order to keep spending!!) did. Sure there is a element caused by the banks but national debt was already about 40% before the bust and no surplus had been recorded since 2003 despite the intervening period being exactly the correct point in the cycle to be ensuring this was the case....no bank bail out was responsible for this total disregard to future hard times.

Labour overspent and planned to continue to overspend before the crisis arrived and had to borrow to provide the required stimulus when the 'perfect storm' hit instead of having a fighting fund ready...that shock could have came from anywhere, in this instance it was banks, previously it was tech companies. So although the catalyst was the banks (and there is no doubting that this in itself proved expensive to fix) to simply blame the current national debt on the bank bail out is just plain wrong.

So is freezing my pay!:wink:

[Leicester Fan]

I am not political, just know that raising council tax and income tax is unpopular so governments raise money through indirect taxation eg vat which then punishes lower earners.

You are having a laugh, it costs £11 billion a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tax credit means testing already exists so just add it on to that. Does it not annoy you that all these premiership footballers get £30 a week for their kids! This gives both sides.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article7138335.ece
From your article;

It is much better value for the taxpayer too. It’s far less labour-intensive and cheaper to administer as a universal benefit.

[Borders Hibby]

From your article;

I agree thats one view, but really £11 billion, when Beckham, David Cameron and Gordon Brown can get the same amount as someone on £15000 a year seems unfair. I would nullify the admin charges by adding it into the means test for child tax credits.

If they do stop existing final salary pensions for existing public sector members I think there will be a backlash

[Leicester Fan]

I hold child benefit very dear to my heart. My dad would never claim any benefits when we were kids and the child benefit was the only thing that kept the wolf from the door some weeks. If you had to fill in forms and claim then a lot of people wouldn't bother and in some cases that would be a tragedy.

[Borders Hibby]

I hold child benefit very dear to my heart. My dad would never claim any benefits when we were kids and the child benefit was the only thing that kept the wolf from the door some weeks. If you had to fill in forms and claim then a lot of people wouldn't bother and in some cases that would be a tragedy.

I agree, it just rankles that many get it who dont need it. We need to use all our resources effectively. Be interesting to know how many MPs claim it!

[Removed]

I agree, it just rankles that many get it who dont need it. We need to use all our resources effectively. Be interesting to know how many MPs claim it!

What rankles with me is folk who claim poverty but can still afford the full sky package.

How about using that as a means test?

[Borders Hibby]

What rankles with me is folk who claim poverty but can still afford the full sky package.

How about using that as a means test?

Yep, would want to see that end of the spectrum tightened as well!:agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

I have no real sympathy for these people, many in the private sector have not had pay rises this year, why should the public sector have a devine right to increases?

Why should the public sector have to suffer for the private sector putting us into this mess?

Why should teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen etc etc see their pay cut because the private sector wrecked our economy?

Didn't hear many from the private sector complaining during the good years when they were getting higher pay increases and bonuses than the public sector, but of course now that some in the private sector aren't getting increases the public sector must take the hit too? Smacks of rank hypocrisy.

I thought 'we are all in this together'. Surely then the private sector can all take pay cuts too, or is it just the public sector that has to suffer?

[Mibbes Aye]

Why should the public sector have to suffer for the private sector putting us into this mess?

Why should teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen etc etc see their pay cut because the private sector wrecked our economy?

Didn't hear many from the private sector complaining during the good years when they were getting higher pay increases and bonuses than the public sector, but of course now that some in the private sector aren't getting increases the public sector must take the hit too? Smacks of rank hypocrisy.

It's true. IIRC the argument was that the private sector took bigger risks and thus deserved bigger rewards........or at least that was the argument until things went wrong. And then everyone had to pay for the failure of the few. It's not quite the 'invisible hand' that Adam Smith envisaged, is it?

I agree, there is a hypocrisy whereby one can believe in the 'free market' when it rewards, and complain when it doesn't. Claiming rights but not taking responsibility.

[Borders Hibby]

It's true. IIRC the argument was that the private sector took bigger risks and thus deserved bigger rewards........or at least that was the argument until things went wrong. And then everyone had to pay for the failure of the few. It's not quite the 'invisible hand' that Adam Smith envisaged, is it?

I agree, there is a hypocrisy whereby one can believe in the 'free market' when it rewards, and complain when it doesn't. Claiming rights but not taking responsibility.

Good point well presented!:agree:

[IWasThere2016]

It's true. IIRC the argument was that the private sector took bigger risks and thus deserved bigger rewards........or at least that was the argument until things went wrong. And then everyone had to pay for the failure of the few. It's not quite the 'invisible hand' that Adam Smith envisaged, is it?

I agree, there is a hypocrisy whereby one can believe in the 'free market' when it rewards, and complain when it doesn't. Claiming rights but not taking responsibility.

The Private Sector also provided the tax revenues to fund a gross expansion in the Public Sector .. so would you agree the Public Sector can expect the opposite too then?

[Beefster]

Why should the public sector have to suffer for the private sector putting us into this mess?

Why should teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen etc etc see their pay cut because the private sector wrecked our economy?

Didn't hear many from the private sector complaining during the good years when they were getting higher pay increases and bonuses than the public sector, but of course now that some in the private sector aren't getting increases the public sector must take the hit too? Smacks of rank hypocrisy.

I thought 'we are all in this together'. Surely then the private sector can all take pay cuts too, or is it just the public sector that has to suffer?

You don't think that anyone in the private sector, outside banking, has had a pay freeze?

It was predictable that this type of argument would be trotted out when the reality hit home. Can I ask why my household should pay tens of thousands in tax to pay for folk to sit watching Jeremy Kyle all day or for folk to retire with a guaranteed pension?

PS I don't actually believe that argument but it's exactly the same theory - "Why should I contribute to the problems of our society"

[Borders Hibby]

You don't think that anyone in the private sector, outside banking, has had a pay freeze?

It was predictable that this type of argument would be trotted out when the reality hit home. Can I ask why my household should pay tens of thousands in tax to pay for folk to sit watching Jeremy Kyle all day or for folk to retire with a guaranteed pension?

PS I don't actually believe that argument but it's exactly the same theory - "Why should I contribute to the problems of our society"

I agree, but I should have a guaranteed pension as it is part of my contract of employment and is my only perk, apart from long holidays of course!:wink:

[Beefster]

I agree, but I should have a guaranteed pension as it is part of my contract of employment and is my only perk, apart from long holidays of course!:wink:

Most workers in the private sector who had 'final salary' pensions as part of their terms and conditions have had future entitlement changed to 'money purchase'. It'll happen to all public sector pensions eventually.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Private Sector also provided the tax revenues to fund a gross expansion in the Public Sector .. so would you agree the Public Sector can expect the opposite too then?

Sorry TQM, don't understand your post - not being funny, it's just me being a bit befuddled I suspect! :greengrin

What I would say, and don't know if this addresses your point, is that the expansion of public services was funded by all tax wealth, including that from public sector workers.

And pertinently, public services are used by the vast majority of people, whichever sector they work in.

And an ever-increasing amount of public services, in many areas the entirety, are delivered by private sector workers.

[ArabHibee]

Why should the public sector have to suffer for the private sector putting us into this mess?

Why should teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen etc etc see their pay cut because the private sector wrecked our economy?

Didn't hear many from the private sector complaining during the good years when they were getting higher pay increases and bonuses than the public sector, but of course now that some in the private sector aren't getting increases the public sector must take the hit too? Smacks of rank hypocrisy.

I thought 'we are all in this together'. Surely then the private sector can all take pay cuts too, or is it just the public sector that has to suffer?

I think you'll find quite a lot of them have. It's called redundancy.

[Borders Hibby]

I think you'll find quite a lot of them have. It's called redundancy.

There will be redundancies in the public sector to. Efficiencies are definately needed in the public sector but I do fear that the government is partially hiding behind the deficit to impose their political ideologies.

[GlesgaeHibby]

The Private Sector also provided the tax revenues to fund a gross expansion in the Public Sector .. so would you agree the Public Sector can expect the opposite too then?

Well of course the private sector tax revenues alongside the public sector revenues funded this expansion. I'm not out to purely attack the private sector, I work in the private sector and just got a 2.3% annual rise (not great but in this climate it's not bad). We need a strong private sector, as well as a strong public sector. BUT a strong private sector needs a strong public sector to provide well educated, healthy employees.

I can understand the need to tighten the belts and I'm sure, having worked for a summer at a local council, that certain areas of the public sector can be cut without a big impact. However, areas such as education are really struggling as it is just now and further cuts to their budgets will see certain subjects cut/teacher numbers cut and the overall quality of education diminished.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh shock...it's a class war !!!! :yawn:

I would actually take your inital arguement further and say we should be asking why our governemnt has so much involvement in our lives and seriously question if they should continue to do so. The REMOVAL of central planning and spending should give a leaner, meaner government and allow all Britons to see that their tax payments are actually being used in a useful and effective manner.

For the record I was not snorting in any derisory manner but no matter who you want to quote you won't shake my belief that governments should maintain fiscal responsibility and that bloated deficit's can only harm a nation and it's ability to have effective and responsible government over the medium to long term.

Ha, of course, any mention of class or class interests must be boring/outdated/ludicrous/laughable (delete as appropriate). When in fact it's, demonstrably, absolutely integral to everything. But if you can't see it right now you're never going to, so fair enough.

The F.T.'s couple of very (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fleninology.blogspot.com%2F ) good articles (http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/a8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fcachef.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fa8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hibs.net%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D2499395) on the actual impact of the 'fair and progressive' budget from the last few days.

It's really, really important to understand that what's happening now isn't new, it's about following the same process that was established (and to that extent a Labour government would only have been capable of ameliorating the effects to a small level) in the wake of the NYC financial crisis of the mid-70s. Financial institutions will be protected by the state at all costs and the population at large will be responsible for picking up the bill generated by doing this. The crisis was created out of problems in the accumulation of capital and the 'solution' is an attempt to adjust this through pushing down the living standards of people in general to increase profitability in the global market. The problem is that the 'solution' is an entrenchment of the system that created the mess in the first place.

So there's two options possible in the future; socialism or barbarism.

[One Day Soon]

Ha, of course, any mention of class or class interests must be boring/outdated/ludicrous/laughable (delete as appropriate). When in fact it's, demonstrably, absolutely integral to everything. But if you can't see it right now you're never going to, so fair enough. Or you could just be wrong. Though I do agree there is a very strong class element involved here, but its much more to do with electoral politics than anything else.

The F.T.'s couple of very (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fleninology.blogspot.com%2F ) good articles (http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/a8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fcachef.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fa8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hibs.net%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D2499395) on the actual impact of the 'fair and progressive' budget from the last few days.

It's really, really important to understand that what's happening now isn't new (That's right if governments either let spending get out of control to the extent that happened here or get caught in the middle of a strategy of heavy borrowing to support public investment in the medium term by a global recession, then they do have to find drastic fiscal restructuring measures. Otherwise those who are lending them the money will charge ever higher premiums to cover the risk, therefore accelerating the cost of that borrowing and eventually you end up as Greece), it's about following the same process that was established (and to that extent a Labour government would only have been capable of ameliorating the effects to a small level) in the wake of the NYC financial crisis of the mid-70s. Financial institutions will be protected by the state at all costs and the population at large will be responsible for picking up the bill generated by doing this. Really? Lehman Brothers?

The crisis was created out of problems in the accumulation of capital (no it wasn't if we are talking about the financial sector crisis, it was created out of extremely poor lending practices, negligible effective regulation and a lot of serially stupid/corrupt borrowers) and the 'solution' is an attempt to adjust this through pushing down the living standards of people in general to increase profitability in the global market. The problem is that the 'solution' is an entrenchment of the system that created the mess in the first place.

So there's two options possible in the future; socialism or barbarism.
You like to believe that but there is also the mixed economy option which is entirely sustainable. Do you seriously believe that the sensible answer here is an economy in which all enterprise is either state or collectively owned or am I surmising incorrectly?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Or you could just be wrong. Though I do agree there is a very strong class element involved here, but its much more to do with electoral politics than anything else.

Well, which is it?


(That's right if governments either let spending get out of control to the extent that happened here or get caught in the middle of a strategy of heavy borrowing to support public investment in the medium term by a global recession, then they do have to find drastic fiscal restructuring measures. Otherwise those who are lending them the money will charge ever higher premiums to cover the risk, therefore accelerating the cost of that borrowing and eventually you end up as Greece)

Crikey, you condemning New Labour. That's a first.


no it wasn't if we are talking about the financial sector crisis, it was created out of extremely poor lending practices, negligible effective regulation and a lot of serially stupid/corrupt borrowers

What other crisis was there?

Anyway, no, you couldn't be more wrong. The financial policies that led to the crisis (which, again, wasn't anything new, it is/was exactly the same kind of crisis that hit NYC and in the mid-70s, Mexico in the early 80s and the S.E. Asian economies in the mid-90s) were the result of the economic restructuring carried out in the seventies. The contraction of wages, union-busting, deregulation, artificial booming of economies, public spending and welfare cuts and everything else that was part of that project necessitated the production of enormous consumption to hold up aggregate demand etc.

The only way this could be done without completely blowing out the economy, due to wages not rising alongside profits, lack of fiscal stimulus etc., was to encourage people to take up credit including the lunatic practices that were particularly damaging (this, incidentally, is why the 'we're all in this together' rhetoric - based in some spurious notion that ordinary people spending on credit was partially responsible for the crisis - is so ****ing stupid, the credit spending was absolutely integral to the operation of the system) such as sub-prime mortgages. The system was based in credit driven growth.


You like to believe that but there is also the mixed economy option which is entirely sustainable. Do you seriously believe that the sensible answer here is an economy in which all enterprise is either state or collectively owned or am I surmising incorrectly?

I don't believe that capitalism, in any form, can ever adequately serve the needs of humanity. Surmise what you wish.

[IWasThere2016]

FAO Glesgae

You in the Private Sector and got 2.3% - I'm Public Sector and am getting 0% and I have no issue with that. Nor do I believe any sector or part should be exempt from cuts and contributing to putting things right. It is such a mess that we all have to realise we are all in this together.

[RyeSloan]

Ha, of course, any mention of class or class interests must be boring/outdated/ludicrous/laughable (delete as appropriate). When in fact it's, demonstrably, absolutely integral to everything. But if you can't see it right now you're never going to, so fair enough.

The F.T.'s couple of very (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F47b05ac2-7efe-11df-8398-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fleninology.blogspot.com%2F ) good articles (http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/a8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fcachef.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fa8d8edc8-7c8d-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hibs.net%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D2499395) on the actual impact of the 'fair and progressive' budget from the last few days.

It's really, really important to understand that what's happening now isn't new, it's about following the same process that was established (and to that extent a Labour government would only have been capable of ameliorating the effects to a small level) in the wake of the NYC financial crisis of the mid-70s. Financial institutions will be protected by the state at all costs and the population at large will be responsible for picking up the bill generated by doing this. The crisis was created out of problems in the accumulation of capital and the 'solution' is an attempt to adjust this through pushing down the living standards of people in general to increase profitability in the global market. The problem is that the 'solution' is an entrenchment of the system that created the mess in the first place.

So there's two options possible in the future; socialism or barbarism.

You are right, I do find your constant desire to align everything to a class war quite boring/outdated/ludicrous/laughable...you of course seem to think it is the root of all things....no surprise on either side there I suppose :greengrin

I'm not sure how you get from a short period of slow or no growth in wages and economic and labour reform can automatically be assumed to pushing down the living standards of people when it is quite clear that over the long term capitalism has resulted in a massive increase in the nations living standards...you quote this like it is the ultimate dark aim of all governments to push down the living standards of its citizens, yet as I have evidenced on another thread this same system provides over £400bn worht of annual spend on helping to maintain a minimum standard for all (universal healthcare, education and welfare).

I do like your last line though....it truely made me laugh, I suppose you will be shining a torch on Chavez to evidence just how great things can be under Socialism or why not go even further and bang the drum for some Stalinist Cuba style intervention??

[LiverpoolHibs]

You are right, I do find your constant desire to align everything to a class war quite boring/outdated/ludicrous/laughable...you of course seem to think it is the root of all things....no surprise on either side there I suppose :greengrin

It is at the root of all things.


I'm not sure how you get from a short period of slow or no growth in wages and economic and labour reform can automatically be assumed to pushing down the living standards of people when it is quite clear that over the long term capitalism has resulted in a massive increase in the nations living standards...you quote this like it is the ultimate dark aim of all governments to push down the living standards of its citizens, yet as I have evidenced on another thread this same system provides over £400bn worht of annual spend on helping to maintain a minimum standard for all (universal healthcare, education and welfare).

What? No I don't.


I do like your last line though....it truely made me laugh, I suppose you will be shining a torch on Chavez to evidence just how great things can be under Socialism or why not go even further and bang the drum for some Stalinist Cuba style intervention??

Why would you suppose either of those?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I do like your last line though....it truely made me laugh, I suppose you will be shining a torch on Chavez to evidence just how great things can be under Socialism or why not go even further and bang the drum for some Stalinist Cuba style intervention??

Blaming communism on Stalin is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. (Bet nobody expected that) :greengrin.

I just think it is amusing that capitalism is held up as the shining beacon of how to run a society, and what is best for human beings, when it leaves so much misery in its wake.

By the way, I think the vast majority of people in Cuba are happy. I also agree that it is a class war, how else do you explain the use of the apparatus of the state to further the ends of one group of people - the rich?

Our whole ethos is that if the rich do well, the wealth will be spread around. In fact what is happening is that those who are able to grab the money are the ones who decide how everyone else should fare.

Maybe if we got down to measuring things like people's well being and happiness, rather than equating the national wealth to success, we might get closer to running things for the benefit of everyone.

[lapsedhibee]

You've got to take your head out of your ******** and realise that there is no alternative.

To coin a phrase.

[RyeSloan]

Blaming communism on Stalin is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. (Bet nobody expected that) :greengrin.

I just think it is amusing that capitalism is held up as the shining beacon of how to run a society, and what is best for human beings, when it leaves so much misery in its wake.

By the way, I think the vast majority of people in Cuba are happy. I also agree that it is a class war, how else do you explain the use of the apparatus of the state to further the ends of one group of people - the rich?

Our whole ethos is that if the rich do well, the wealth will be spread around. In fact what is happening is that those who are able to grab the money are the ones who decide how everyone else should fare.

Maybe if we got down to measuring things like people's well being and happiness, rather than equating the national wealth to success, we might get closer to running things for the benefit of everyone.

You repeat yourself, I have already answered this and given you perfectly good examples of how these things are measured and how much these measurements have gone up on another thread....still don't let that stop you from repeating a vague notion that something isn't right without articulating what you would replace it with.

As for the vast majority of people in Cuba being 'happy'....yeah I'm sure they just love the food and power shortages and the huge restrictions they are forced to live their lives under. I sincerely hope you are not promoting the Castro way as some sort of panacea to the 'class war' (although is he not the embodiment of this taken to it's natural conclusion) and that this would be preferable to the demon of capitalism?

Oh and as for " I also agree that it is a class war, how else do you explain the use of the apparatus of the state to further the ends of one group of people - the rich?"

Really so the £400bn+ spent by the UK government this year on anything but counts for nothing then??

[RyeSloan]

It is at the root of all things.

In your opinion it is.




What? No I don't.

Sure read that way to me.

"The crisis was created out of problems in the accumulation of capital and the 'solution' is an attempt to adjust this through pushing down the living standards of people in general to increase profitability in the global market. The problem is that the 'solution' is an entrenchment of the system that created the mess in the first place

So you state that governments are implemting a solution that they know entrenches a system that you accuse of pushing down living standards. No?


Why would you suppose either of those?

Just the first two Socialist minded states that sprung to mind, why are you uncomfortable with these examples? Is so feel free to provide examples of effective and working socialism that has raised the standards of living for all it's citizens and has done so over the long term.....

[Beefster]

Blaming communism on Stalin is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. (Bet nobody expected that) :greengrin.

I just think it is amusing that capitalism is held up as the shining beacon of how to run a society, and what is best for human beings, when it leaves so much misery in its wake.

By the way, I think the vast majority of people in Cuba are happy. I also agree that it is a class war, how else do you explain the use of the apparatus of the state to further the ends of one group of people - the rich?

Our whole ethos is that if the rich do well, the wealth will be spread around. In fact what is happening is that those who are able to grab the money are the ones who decide how everyone else should fare.

Maybe if we got down to measuring things like people's well being and happiness, rather than equating the national wealth to success, we might get closer to running things for the benefit of everyone.

You're right. Cuba are in the upper echelons of the Happy Planet Index. They're up there with Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and China.

[LiverpoolHibs]

In your opinion it is.

Well, obviously...


Sure read that way to me.

"The crisis was created out of problems in the accumulation of capital and the 'solution' is an attempt to adjust this through pushing down the living standards of people in general to increase profitability in the global market. The problem is that the 'solution' is an entrenchment of the system that created the mess in the first place

So you state that governments are implemting a solution that they know entrenches a system that you accuse of pushing down living standards. No?

No, they are implementing a solution that results in pushing down living standards to increase profits - which is what always happens at the 'resolution' point of a crisis. I've said nothing about the system constantly pushing down standards, because that would be stupid.


Just the first two Socialist minded states that sprung to mind, why are you uncomfortable with these examples? Is so feel free to provide examples of effective and working socialism that has raised the standards of living for all it's citizens and has done so over the long term.....

I'm uncomfortable with them because you directly implied that I was uncritically supportive of both Venezuela and Cuba. It wasn't your place to make such an assumption.

There's not really anything genuinely 'socialist' about either Cuba or Venezuela. You seem to constantly confuse state ownership with socialism - they're not the same thing. Venezuela is, therefore, no more of a socialist state than Britain was in 1947.

What do you mean by 'long-term'? I don't think there has ever been properly instituted socialism but if you're referring to what's often called Actually Existing Socialism, living standards in the Soviet Union rose pretty dramatically throughout its tenure.

[Green Mikey]

Blaming communism on Stalin is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. (Bet nobody expected that) :greengrin.

I just think it is amusing that capitalism is held up as the shining beacon of how to run a society, and what is best for human beings, when it leaves so much misery in its wake.

By the way, I think the vast majority of people in Cuba are happy. I also agree that it is a class war, how else do you explain the use of the apparatus of the state to further the ends of one group of people - the rich?

Our whole ethos is that if the rich do well, the wealth will be spread around. In fact what is happening is that those who are able to grab the money are the ones who decide how everyone else should fare.

Maybe if we got down to measuring things like people's well being and happiness, rather than equating the national wealth to success, we might get closer to running things for the benefit of everyone.

Pesonally, I think the continual beration of the 'rich' is completely ludicrous. From what I can gather you and other people believe that the banks were supported so that the rich could stay rich. I don't believe this is the case.

Banking and finance is the biggest contributor of corporate tax revenue in the UK, without this we would be more broke than we are now. Tax revenues are needed to pay for the public sector this is a fundamental truth. Furthermore, some of the largest shareholders of banks were pension funds, if the banks had gone bust completely the effect on the pension industry would have been devastating. The state supported the private sector because without this there would be no public sector, the two are intertwined.

[Green Mikey]

Well, obviously...



No, they are implementing a solution that results in pushing down living standards to increase profits - which is what always happens at the 'resolution' point of a crisis. I've said nothing about the system constantly pushing down standards, because that would be stupid.



I'm uncomfortable with them because you directly implied that I was uncritically supportive of both Venezuela and Cuba. It wasn't your place to make such an assumption.

There's not really anything genuinely 'socialist' about either Cuba or Venezuela. You seem to constantly confuse state ownership with socialism - they're not the same thing. Venezuela is, therefore, no more of a socialist state than Britain was in 1947.

What do you mean by 'long-term'? I don't think there has ever been properly instituted socialism but if you're referring to what's often called Actually Existing Socialism, living standards in the Soviet Union rose pretty dramatically throughout its tenure.

How would you describe Cuba if it is not socialist?

Actually Existing Socialism is the first steps towards full socialism (I might be wrong but this involves the removal of money eventually). It acts as a good proxy for what full socialism so saying that you can't debate the long term aspects of socialism is really just an attempt to avoid any scrutiny on the regimes that have experienced Actually Existing Socialism.

Extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union is a bit mental! Famine, Gulags, Nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses are just a few of the aspects of the Soviet Union that were deplorable.

[Borders Hibby]

You're right. Cuba are in the upper echelons of the Happy Planet Index. They're up there with Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and China.

Unhappiness comes from disparity in wealth and not wealth itself. The bigger the gap the more unhappy are the population. Vietnam is great and they have it sussed, happy with the simple things.

The budget is decided by the rich and effects everyone but it does seem that the gaps are widening and they will continue to do so, whether this is due to the deficit or political ideology.

[steakbake]

I'd be interested to see how people who have access to the internet, have benefitted from a level of education to write and debate these things online and most likely find themselves in some form of employment might define "rich". Poverty is relative, as is wealth.

Rich to me is probably different and the same as someone elses interpretations. It's a bit of a false categorisation. "Rich" is a statement which is loaded with assumptions in the same way as "poor" is.

So when a leftwinger is ranting about "Burning/Eating the Rich" they could be talking about me for all I know, because it depends how they define it even though I might not consider myself rich.

It's a flaw in the definition which I think, undoes much of the arguments about the relation between "rich" and "poor" or at least resigns them to sounding like an empty rant than a purposeful manifesto.

[hibsbollah]

You're right. Cuba are in the upper echelons of the Happy Planet Index. They're up there with Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and China.

Cuba does pretty well on a range of measurements, including child mortality, health, education etc. I personally doubt 'the great majority of Cubans are happy' because of the effects of the US blockade.

But if you're going to be poor in the Americas, Cuba is probably the best country to be poor in. Far more so than be poor in the USA, for example.

I can also recommend it as a great place for a holiday; go before its too late:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

No, they are implementing a solution that results in pushing down living standards to increase profits - which is what always happens at the 'resolution' point of a crisis. I've said nothing about the system constantly pushing down standards, because that would be stupid.

Thanks for the clarification. I would therefore suggest that a system that has been proven to substantially increase everyone's standard of living dramatically overtime may be excused short periods of re-adjustment to allow the long term trend to continue. It would seem somewhat fantasty to suggest that any system wich covers such a disparte population, needs and wants could ever be devised to produce a perfectly smooth updards movement in all indicators of standards of living and any other measure you would want to apply.




I'm uncomfortable with them because you directly implied that I was uncritically supportive of both Venezuela and Cuba. It wasn't your place to make such an assumption.

It was no assumption, you have clearly supported Chavez and his actions on this forum before.



There's not really anything genuinely 'socialist' about either Cuba or Venezuela. You seem to constantly confuse state ownership with socialism - they're not the same thing. Venezuela is, therefore, no more of a socialist state than Britain was in 1947.

What do you mean by 'long-term'? I don't think there has ever been properly instituted socialism but if you're referring to what's often called Actually Existing Socialism, living standards in the Soviet Union rose pretty dramatically throughout its tenure.

Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps? And if it hasn't what gives you the unshakable belief that it would be so much better and fairer than the numerous examples of different types of ecomonic ideas that have been tried or exist currently?

As you also know living standards may have risen in absolute terms throught the lifetime of the Soviet Union but they dramatically lagged behind the pace of increase in the west. C'mon the Soviet Union, really is that the example you would genuinly offer to support the move away from Capitalism towards this unknown/unseen/never been tried before nirvana of pure Socialism??

[Phil D. Rolls]

The state supported the private sector because without this there would be no public sector, the two are intertwined.

Under the current system, yes. But there are other ways of looking at how things could be.

My main gripe is with the assumption that capitalism is a benevolet system, that it is the only way of living and that all we have to do is keep tweaking it when it goes horribly wrong.

Marx foretold that capitalism would destroy itself in a series of increasingly frequent crashes. That is exactly what is happening, yet the poor (by which I mean those other than the super rich) are the ones who bear the brunt of its failures.

It seems to me any system that encourages people to take more than they need is just wrong. There surely comes a point when the amount of wealth any individual holds is meaningless.

Yet we are continually lectured that we have to get out of the mindset that the state is fundamentally an organisation that exists for the welfare of its citizens. Thatcher tried the experiment that wealth generation would solve societies ills, yet we are in a bigger mess now than we have ever been as far as I can see.

I'm not here to propose a solution, just to flag up the fact that the way we are organised just now is not working. There has to be another way, and we should question who it is gains from the status quo.

[Leicester Fan]

There is no perfect system. There will never be a time when everybody is happy, fulfilled and has everything that they need. Capitalism has it's faults just as socialism has but the standard of living and levels of freedom are far more preferable under capitalism.

[RyeSloan]

Under the current system, yes. But there are other ways of looking at how things could be.

My main gripe is with the assumption that capitalism is a benevolet system, that it is the only way of living and that all we have to do is keep tweaking it when it goes horribly wrong.

Marx foretold that capitalism would destroy itself in a series of increasingly frequent crashes. That is exactly what is happening, yet the poor (by which I mean those other than the super rich) are the ones who bear the brunt of its failures.

It seems to me any system that encourages people to take more than they need is just wrong. There surely comes a point when the amount of wealth any individual holds is meaningless.

Yet we are continually lectured that we have to get out of the mindset that the state is fundamentally an organisation that exists for the welfare of its citizens. Thatcher tried the experiment that wealth generation would solve societies ills, yet we are in a bigger mess now than we have ever been as far as I can see.

I'm not here to propose a solution, just to flag up the fact that the way we are organised just now is not working. There has to be another way, and we should question who it is gains from the status quo.

Who says it is not working, what measure are you using to state that Capitalism has not worked?

You state there has to be another way then quickly affirm that you actually don't have any idea of what that may be.

As I have already shown you the question of who gains from the status quo is a good one when you examine the size of current government spending and the vast sums spent on healthcare, education, pensions and welfare..to therefore put forward the argument that only the Super Rich (whatever that actually means) are the only ones that gain from the current system is just plain daft.

As for not allowing people to take more than they need....just who do you propose should set such limits, how should it be applied and how do you quantify what people actually need compared to what they want. You could start us on this path to alleged redemption by proposing to ban 2 cars per houshoild, strictly impose square foot per person per household rules, ration food to ensure no one consumes more than they need etc etc etc. The belief here is that some institution, normally a government, can decide better than individuals as to what the need and then be given free reign to impose this.....the whole concept is really quite bizzare.

[Beefster]

Unhappiness comes from disparity in wealth and not wealth itself. The bigger the gap the more unhappy are the population. Vietnam is great and they have it sussed, happy with the simple things.

The budget is decided by the rich and effects everyone but it does seem that the gaps are widening and they will continue to do so, whether this is due to the deficit or political ideology.

"Fifty per cent of the population still live on less than US$2 a day and many remain vulnerable to sliding back into poverty as a result of either economic shocks or natural disasters."

Sounds awesome for the population. I think some folk let ideology and envy get in the way of the fact that life for the vast majority in the UK is a piece of piss compared to places like Vietnam.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Who says it is not working, what measure are you using to state that Capitalism has not worked?

You state there has to be another way then quickly affirm that you actually don't have any idea of what that may be.

As I have already shown you the question of who gains from the status quo is a good one when you examine the size of current government spending and the vast sums spent on healthcare, education, pensions and welfare..to therefore put forward the argument that only the Super Rich (whatever that actually means) are the only ones that gain from the current system is just plain daft.

As for not allowing people to take more than they need....just who do you propose should set such limits, how should it be applied and how do you quantify what people actually need compared to what they want. You could start us on this path to alleged redemption by proposing to ban 2 cars per houshoild, strictly impose square foot per person per household rules, ration food to ensure no one consumes more than they need etc etc etc. The belief here is that some institution, normally a government, can decide better than individuals as to what the need and then be given free reign to impose this.....the whole concept is really quite bizzare.

A doctor can treat someone and they don't get better. He knows the treatment didnt work, he then has to admit he doesn't know what will. Should he just continue using the other treatment and blame the patient.

If capitalism works, then why do we still have starvation in the world; why do we still have large gaps in mortality rates between rich and poor; why do people continue to pitch up at surgeries with depression when they have "all they could ever want"?

The concept of shared responsibility isn't bizarre when you consider there are things that affect each and every one of us, such as disease or the environment. If people didn't work together to tackle those things then we'd be in trouble.

[One Day Soon]

Well, which is it?

Not class war in the sense that you promote. Simple electoral mathematics targeting a coalition of interests.



Crikey, you condemning New Labour. That's a first.

Don't get too excited, more than one government was caught out and from a range of different political persuasions so its hardly an attack on Labour. And actually it isn't a first but don't let facts get in the way.



What other crisis was there?

There were/are two. A global recession and a global lending crisis. They are related but separate.

Anyway, no, you couldn't be more wrong. The financial policies that led to the crisis (which, again, wasn't anything new, it is/was exactly the same kind of crisis that hit NYC and in the mid-70s, Mexico in the early 80s and the S.E. Asian economies in the mid-90s) were the result of the economic restructuring carried out in the seventies. The contraction of wages, union-busting, deregulation, artificial booming of economies, public spending and welfare cuts and everything else that was part of that project necessitated the production of enormous consumption to hold up aggregate demand etc.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. But since you insist on looking at everything that happens in the world through outdated weird marxist shaped spectacles it doesn't leave much room for debate.

The only way this could be done without completely blowing out the economy, due to wages not rising alongside profits, lack of fiscal stimulus etc., was to encourage people to take up credit including the lunatic practices that were particularly damaging (this, incidentally, is why the 'we're all in this together' rhetoric - based in some spurious notion that ordinary people spending on credit was partially responsible for the crisis - is so ****ing stupid, the credit spending was absolutely integral to the operation of the system) such as sub-prime mortgages. The system was based in credit driven growth.

Dearie me. Conflating credit at any level of lending with the crisis that occurred really is wilfully misinterpreting facts. The crisis was caused by a) reckless lending to people who could not afford the meet the repayments b) the bundling of the bad debt created into packages that were silently sold on so that (not unlike a virus) almost all institutions within the financial system were exposed to losses c) the utterly nonsensical decision to then stop lending en masse (including to ordinary people - which is the majority of those who borrow - who COULD still afford to repay loans) and perhaps as importantly as all the preceding d) the woeful under capitalisation of the financial institutions which is what really placed them at risk when bad debt became evidently endemic.


I don't believe that capitalism, in any form, can ever adequately serve the needs of humanity. Surmise what you wish.

No system can. To believe otherwise is in my view more than a bit mad really. It is one of many weaknesses of systematic perspectives on society, economy and communities that they try to reduce human activities and interaction to the banal level of predictable equations. It doesn't work because humans are simultaneously both rational and irrational beings and there is no objective measure or standard of happiness, contentedness or satisfaction.

Rather than surmising again - since I already did that - perhaps you can describe to us the system that you believe would adequately serve the needs of humanity?

[Green Mikey]

A doctor can treat someone and they don't get better. He knows the treatment didnt work, he then has to admit he doesn't know what will. Should he just continue using the other treatment and blame the patient.

If capitalism works, then why do we still have starvation in the world; why do we still have large gaps in mortality rates between rich and poor; why do people continue to pitch up at surgeries with depression when they have "all they could ever want"?

The concept of shared responsibility isn't bizarre when you consider there are things that affect each and every one of us, such as disease or the environment. If people didn't work together to tackle those things then we'd be in trouble.


Is anyone actually claiming that capitalism can solve starvation, depression and mortality rates? These are very diverse issues it is not possible that one system will have the answers to. What would socialism do to resolve these issues?

I don't understand how introducing socialism would suddenly enliven a feeling of shared responsibility within the population. It is people not the system that will bring shared responsibilty.

[Borders Hibby]

"Fifty per cent of the population still live on less than US$2 a day and many remain vulnerable to sliding back into poverty as a result of either economic shocks or natural disasters."

Sounds awesome for the population. I think some folk let ideology and envy get in the way of the fact that life for the vast majority in the UK is a piece of piss compared to places like Vietnam.

and yet they are the happiest people I have ever met!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is anyone actually claiming that capitalism can solve starvation, depression and mortality rates? These are very diverse issues it is not possible that one system will have the answers to. What would socialism do to resolve these issues?

I don't understand how introducing socialism would suddenly enliven a feeling of shared responsibility within the population. It is people not the system that will bring shared responsibilty.

So we just accept these things? Yes it causes disparity because it encourages people to focus on creation of wealth at all costs.

Socialism probably isn't the answer, as Mitterand said "people have moved on from that". But things in the world should be better than they are, and I think humanity could work a bit harder to find the answers.

Capitalism is an inhuman, vicious system.

[sKipper]

The Private Sector also provided the tax revenues to fund a gross expansion in the Public Sector .. so would you agree the Public Sector can expect the opposite too then?


Exactly.

The private sector funds the public sector. If the former weakens then its only a matter of time before the affects are felt in the latter.

[sKipper]

Sorry TQM, don't understand your post - not being funny, it's just me being a bit befuddled I suspect! :greengrin

What I would say, and don't know if this addresses your point, is that the expansion of public services was funded by all tax wealth, including that from public sector workers.

.

No area of public service in the UK is self funding. All are subsidised by the private sector.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Exactly.

The private sector funds the public sector. If the former weakens then its only a matter of time before the affects are felt in the latter.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

Of course they also benefit from having enough healthy people to do the work, and enough poor people to protect their assets by joining the army.

[LiverpoolHibs]

How would you describe Cuba if it is not socialist?

Actually Existing Socialism is the first steps towards full socialism (I might be wrong but this involves the removal of money eventually). It acts as a good proxy for what full socialism so saying that you can't debate the long term aspects of socialism is really just an attempt to avoid any scrutiny on the regimes that have experienced Actually Existing Socialism.

Extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union is a bit mental! Famine, Gulags, Nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses are just a few of the aspects of the Soviet Union that were deplorable.

Christ. It might have been mental if I had extolled the virtue of the Soviet Union, but I didn't do so anywhere. I stated a fact, that living standards rose enormously over the course of it existing. There's no moral judgement in that whatsoever. It's 'a bit mental' to think that stating this fact amounts to someone extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union.


Thanks for the clarification. I would therefore suggest that a system that has been proven to substantially increase everyone's standard of living dramatically overtime may be excused short periods of re-adjustment to allow the long term trend to continue. It would seem somewhat fantasty to suggest that any system wich covers such a disparte population, needs and wants could ever be devised to produce a perfectly smooth updards movement in all indicators of standards of living and any other measure you would want to apply.

It achieves increased living standards for some people (not that this is the be-all-and-end-all of everything) largely through exploitation en masse of lots of other people (and through the exploitation of the people whose living standards are increased).


It was no assumption, you have clearly supported Chavez and his actions on this forum before.

No, I have been critically supportive of certain aspects and defended him against the more spurious charges levelled against him and his government. To think that is the same as 'shining a torch on Chavez as evidence of how great socialism [and as I've said, there's nothing really socialist about Venezuela] can be is very stupid indeed.


Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps? And if it hasn't what gives you the unshakable belief that it would be so much better and fairer than the numerous examples of different types of ecomonic ideas that have been tried or exist currently?

I don't know what you mean. Would it have been justifiable for someone living under a feudal economy in, say, 1550 to complain about someone articulating the basic tenets of capitalism saying, "Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps?"


As you also know living standards may have risen in absolute terms throught the lifetime of the Soviet Union but they dramatically lagged behind the pace of increase in the west. C'mon the Soviet Union, really is that the example you would genuinly offer to support the move away from Capitalism towards this unknown/unseen/never been tried before nirvana of pure Socialism??

No, no it isn't. Why are people struggling so much with this?

Given that you seem to believe socialism and the Soviet bloc are synonomous (which is of course wrongheaded) and that you then asked for an example of such a system raising the living standards of its populace, I gave you the objective example of the Soviet Union. For some reason you (and others) have now decided that this means I believe that the Soviet Union is a beacon for all other nations to follow and that I parade around my living room to the greatest hits of the Red Army Choir. I'm not exactly sure why that's happened.


Not class war in the sense that you promote. Simple electoral mathematics targeting a coalition of interests.

What's the substantial distinction you're drawing?


Don't get too excited, more than one government was caught out and from a range of different political persuasions so its hardly an attack on Labour. And actually it isn't a first but don't let facts get in the way.

I wasn't getting excited...


There were/are two. A global recession and a global lending crisis. They are related but separate.

In what sense were they separate? They were the interconnected results of a crisis of capital accumulation, they were not the starting points.


Actually you couldn't be more wrong. But since you insist on looking at everything that happens in the world through outdated weird marxist shaped spectacles it doesn't leave much room for debate.

What shape would Marxist spectacles be?

Would it be dreadfully wrong of me to take you claiming there's 'no room for debate' to mean that you actually can't debate it? Especially given past form...


Dearie me. Conflating credit at any level of lending with the crisis that occurred really is wilfully misinterpreting facts. The crisis was caused by a) reckless lending to people who could not afford the meet the repayments b) the bundling of the bad debt created into packages that were silently sold on so that (not unlike a virus) almost all institutions within the financial system were exposed to losses c) the utterly nonsensical decision to then stop lending en masse (including to ordinary people - which is the majority of those who borrow - who COULD still afford to repay loans) and perhaps as importantly as all the preceding d) the woeful under capitalisation of the financial institutions which is what really placed them at risk when bad debt became evidently endemic.

What? 'Conflating credit at any level of lending with the crisis' is 'a wilful misenterpretation' then it was caused by 'reckless lending to people who couldn't meet repayments'?

I have no idea what exactly it is that you're disagreeing with.


No system can. To believe otherwise is in my view more than a bit mad really. It is one of many weaknesses of systematic perspectives on society, economy and communities that they try to reduce human activities and interaction to the banal level of predictable equations. It doesn't work because humans are simultaneously both rational and irrational beings and there is no objective measure or standard of happiness, contentedness or satisfaction.

Rather than surmising again - since I already did that - perhaps you can describe to us the system that you believe would adequately serve the needs of humanity?

Why? Presumably you know how socialists think an alternative system should basically operate - the common ownership of the means of production and the allocation of resources based on human need rather than potential for profit.

There's no reductionism involved whatsoever.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't know what you mean. Would it have been justifiable for someone living under a feudal economy in, say, 1550 to complain about someone articulating the basic tenets of capitalism saying, "Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps?"


People are under the impression that capitalism has "aye been". It was a radical approach once. :agree:

[IWasThere2016]

Exactly.

The private sector funds the public sector. If the former weakens then its only a matter of time before the affects are felt in the latter.


They would say that, wouldn't they?

Of course they also benefit from having enough healthy people to do the work, and enough poor people to protect their assets by joining the army.

I'm in the Public Sector, FR .. And I agree with sKipper

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't know what you mean. Would it have been justifiable for someone living under a feudal economy in, say, 1550 to complain about someone articulating the basic tenets of capitalism saying, "Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps?"


But this isn't an argument or a response to the question raised by SiMar. It's a form of "Tu Quoque" Logical Fallacy (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/).

You were asked to defend your point with evidence of where your idea of society has been implemented, you can't because has never existed. Your answer does however get me thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail ".. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week..."

[bighairyfaeleith]

The bottom line is that the majority of people did not vote for these measures a few weeks ago. Yet they are being forced upon us. Labour already had big cuts planned and the tories are just adding to them.

They probably won't achieve them but they will in the process sink us back int recession. I reckon before the year is out we will be in recession just because the tories have scared everyone into stopping spending what they have in there pockets.

Bring on october and lets kick that smug prick out of downing street:thumbsup:

[marinello59]

The bottom line is that the majority of people did not vote for these measures a few weeks ago. Yet they are being forced upon us. Labour already had big cuts planned and the tories are just adding to them.
:

You are right, the majority didn't vote for these measures because not one of our political parties respected the electorate enough to be honest about what had to be done. There was a conspiracy of silence amongst our so called leaders so that after the election those in opposition could just cry foul at everything the other lot did. (Even though they would have done more or less the same thing.)
Will Self was right. We were not offered differing ideologies. We were offered a choice of management style as the economy is so screwed whoever won had to make massive savings. The bankers and the politicians got us in to this mess and the rest of us will pay for it in one way or another.

[LiverpoolHibs]

But this isn't an argument or a response to the question raised by SiMar. It's a form of "Tu Quoque" Logical Fallacy (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/).

You were asked to defend your point with evidence of where your idea of society has been implemented, you can't because has never existed. Your answer does however get me thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail ".. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week..."

No, I think you've missed the point.

You can't, as a supporter of capitalism, use the fact that socialism has never been properly implemented as a mode of organising society as an argument against it when the same argument could have been put to a proponent of capitalism in a feudalist society. There's no logical fallacy involved and it's certainly not a form of the 'tu quoque' fallacy.

I'm more than happy to admit that my vision for society has never been implemented, but so what? The slave-based economy never existed until it replaced the hunter-gatherer society, the feudal system never existed until it replaced the slave-based economy and the capitalist system never existed until it replaced the feudal system. Using the fact that a mode of organisation has never been implemented as an argument against it is the actual logical fallacy here.

Of course, this isn't a defence of socialism in any shape or form either.

N.B. I'm also confused as to how the Monty Python line applies, but ho-hum.

[Twa Cairpets]

No, I think you've missed the point. possibly - it can be hard sometimes to follow where your point is...


You can't, as a supporter of capitalism, use the fact that socialism has never been properly implemented as a mode of organising society as an argument against it when the same argument could have been put to a proponent of capitalism in a feudalist society. There's no logical fallacy involved and it's certainly not a form of the 'tu quoque' fallacy.

Of course you can, and with complete validity. Your comparison is flawed becuase (1) The concept of capitalism as a pre-packed ideology in feudal times just didnt exist, and (2) Socialism - however its been defined, in whatever country has tried it - hasn't worked, or at the least has been shown to be unable to keep pace with the general advancement of humankind. From what I gather from your posts, your form of socialism is very idealistic and very commendable, but not practical because unfortunately it needs to be applied to people.


I'm more than happy to admit that my vision for society has never been implemented, but so what? The slave-based economy never existed until it replaced the hunter-gatherer society, the feudal system never existed until it replaced the slave-based economy and the capitalist system never existed until it replaced the feudal system. Using the fact that a mode of organisation has never been implemented as an argument against it is the actual logical fallacy here.

Nonsense. Its very easy to put forward arguments for idealistic but fundamentally unworkable ideas, because they can't be disproved, and you always have the argument "but we can't know for sure until we get there" - it's the ultimate cop-out. Any evidence put up to the contrary is dismissed as "it was the wrong type of socialism", or whatever, and you retain the high ground.


N.B. I'm also confused as to how the Monty Python line applies, but ho-hum.

Just the vision that jumped into my head when you talked about Feudalism and political systems. Maybe its just me.

[One Day Soon]

Christ. It might have been mental if I had extolled the virtue of the Soviet Union, but I didn't do so anywhere. I stated a fact, that living standards rose enormously over the course of it existing. There's no moral judgement in that whatsoever. It's 'a bit mental' to think that stating this fact amounts to someone extolling the virtues of the Soviet Union.



It achieves increased living standards for some people (not that this is the be-all-and-end-all of everything) largely through exploitation en masse of lots of other people (and through the exploitation of the people whose living standards are increased).



No, I have been critically supportive of certain aspects and defended him against the more spurious charges levelled against him and his government. To think that is the same as 'shining a torch on Chavez as evidence of how great socialism [and as I've said, there's nothing really socialist about Venezuela] can be is very stupid indeed.



I don't know what you mean. Would it have been justifiable for someone living under a feudal economy in, say, 1550 to complain about someone articulating the basic tenets of capitalism saying, "Ahhh so your perfect system has never actually been implemented by any one or any country? Is there a reason for this perhaps?"



No, no it isn't. Why are people struggling so much with this?

Given that you seem to believe socialism and the Soviet bloc are synonomous (which is of course wrongheaded) and that you then asked for an example of such a system raising the living standards of its populace, I gave you the objective example of the Soviet Union. For some reason you (and others) have now decided that this means I believe that the Soviet Union is a beacon for all other nations to follow and that I parade around my living room to the greatest hits of the Red Army Choir. I'm not exactly sure why that's happened.



What's the substantial distinction you're drawing?



I wasn't getting excited...



In what sense were they separate? They were the interconnected results of a crisis of capital accumulation, they were not the starting points.



What shape would Marxist spectacles be?

Would it be dreadfully wrong of me to take you claiming there's 'no room for debate' to mean that you actually can't debate it? Especially given past form...

Pretty ironic from someone who still hasn't explained what the policies of a non-neocon government would have looked like over the last 13 years.



What? 'Conflating credit at any level of lending with the crisis' is 'a wilful misenterpretation' then it was caused by 'reckless lending to people who couldn't meet repayments'?

That's right, read it again slowly and think about it.

I have no idea what exactly it is that you're disagreeing with.



Why? Presumably you know how socialists think an alternative system should basically operate - the common ownership of the means of production and the allocation of resources based on human need rather than potential for profit.

I take it then that you are quite special in that you have never read a history book or met another human being. I cannot see how you could otherwise conclude that the method above would work in practice.


There's no reductionism involved whatsoever.

And there you go again, its pretty indiscriminate to suggest that all Socialists think the same way on common ownership and allocation on the basis of need.

[RyeSloan]

Various responses.....

Ok so let me get this clear:

You support Chavez but only when you feel he is mis-represented not his actual policies.

You don't believe the Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela represent any true Socialist tendancies and are not reflective of your view on the worlds panacea to Capitalism

You believe that despite various attempts at Communism and Socialism (or variations of) that the fact that these have in almost all cases failed and failed to maintain the progress of alternative systems that this has no bearing on your belief that true socialism would be a huge success.

You think that beacause someone in feudal Britiain had never heard of Capitalism it's the same as debating such issues now despite centuries of economic developments and experiments to draw on as evidence of what may or may not work.

Finally you refuse to provide any colour to your alternative system beyond stating it will be based on need not profit...easy to say but how do you measure this need, who would decide and how would it be allocated....that's without even asking the questions of how you remove humans from having wants as well!!

I would suggest that you continued refusal to fully expalin just how your brave new world would look suggests that it is really just a paper excercise and that in reality it is simply not acheivable nor desirable.

[One Day Soon]

Ok so let me get this clear:

You support Chavez but only when you feel he is mis-represented not his actual policies.

You don't believe the Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela represent any true Socialist tendancies and are not reflective of your view on the worlds panacea to Capitalism

You believe that despite various attempts at Communism and Socialism (or variations of) that the fact that these have in almost all cases failed and failed to maintain the progress of alternative systems that this has no bearing on your belief that true socialism would be a huge success.

You think that beacause someone in feudal Britiain had never heard of Capitalism it's the same as debating such issues now despite centuries of economic developments and experiments to draw on as evidence of what may or may not work.

Finally you refuse to provide any colour to your alternative system beyond stating it will be based on need not profit...easy to say but how do you measure this need, who would decide and how would it be allocated....that's without even asking the questions of how you remove humans from having wants as well!!

I would suggest that you continued refusal to fully expalin just how your brave new world would look suggests that it is really just a paper excercise and that in reality it is simply not acheivable nor desirable.

That seems to be about the size of it.

[Mibbes Aye]

So, IIRC, the Tories have proposed around 40-50 billion in spending cuts over and above what a Labour government would have been forced to make.

And on the evidence of the Tory budget, they're happy to reward the richest six times better than the poorest.

I'm very interested in what Lib Dem and Tory voters think.

If you're a Lib Dem, you probably agreed to spending cuts. Did you think that when you voted Lib Dem it would support a government that picked on pensioners and the unemployed?

If you voted Tory was it with that in mind? If not, how do you defend yourselves? Why hit our grandparents hardest? Why hit the poor instead of the rich?

[Leicester Fan]

If you voted Tory was it with that in mind?
I was hoping to spread misery.

There's nothing we like better than evicting orphans from their pathetic lodgings.

As for pensioners they all smell don't they. I think we should burn them in power stations, saving the rich from having to support them with pensions and solving global warming at the same time. Everyones a winner.

[I'm_cabbaged]

I was hoping to spread misery.

There's nothing we like better than evicting orphans from their pathetic lodgings.

As for pensioners they all smell don't they. I think we should burn them in power stations, saving the rich from having to support them with pensions and solving global warming at the same time. Everyones a winner.

Sadly putting you're sarcasm aside, it's not far off the truth. With housing benefit being cut there will thousands of low income families being evicted from their privately rented homes, with very little social housing where are they going to go? (a large % of the housing that are getting rented out being ex council with the tax payer propping up the over inflated rent, that works well!!!)

[Phil D. Rolls]

I always thought the Dead Kennedys saying Kill the Poor was quite an amusing track. Who could have forseen that some politicians would take them seriously?

[RyeSloan]

Sadly putting you're sarcasm aside, it's not far off the truth. With housing benefit being cut there will thousands of low income families being evicted from their privately rented homes, with very little social housing where are they going to go? (a large % of the housing that are getting rented out being ex council with the tax payer propping up the over inflated rent, that works well!!!)

Is that not exactly the problem though?

Housing benefit payments have risen 50% in a decade and have now been capped to £1000 - £1600 per month.

[Woody1985]

Sadly putting you're sarcasm aside, it's not far off the truth. With housing benefit being cut there will thousands of low income families being evicted from their privately rented homes, with very little social housing where are they going to go? (a large % of the housing that are getting rented out being ex council with the tax payer propping up the over inflated rent, that works well!!!)


Is that not exactly the problem though?

Housing benefit payments have risen 50% in a decade and have now been capped to £1000 - £1600 per month.

Even the cap is too high for some areas.

My mum was in a council house up at blackford in a 6 in a block. The place was riddled with damp when she moved in with all of the carpets etc damaged and the council were paying £1050 pcm for it.

They then moved her to a temporary flat in Morrison St and was told she'd stay there for 6 months. The rent is £1300 pcm. They've now decided to move her again after only 2 months in the flat.

The amount being paid out to these companies renting to the council is disgusting.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Even the cap is too high for some areas.

My mum was in a council house up at blackford in a 6 in a block. The place was riddled with damp when she moved in with all of the carpets etc damaged and the council were paying £1050 pcm for it.

They then moved her to a temporary flat in Morrison St and was told she'd stay there for 6 months. The rent is £1300 pcm. They've now decided to move her again after only 2 months in the flat.

The amount being paid out to these companies renting to the council is disgusting.

Aye but selling all the council houses revitalised the country did it not :confused:

[RyeSloan]

Aye but selling all the council houses revitalised the country did it not :confused:

Whatever it did is a moot point here surely. The deed has been done and now this is the situation left by it....are we expected simply to sit around and say "aye well they should never have sold off the stock in the first place so lets just let the housing benefit payments spiral upwards forever"???

[bighairyfaeleith]

Whatever it did is a moot point here surely. The deed has been done and now this is the situation left by it....are we expected simply to sit around and say "aye well they should never have sold off the stock in the first place so lets just let the housing benefit payments spiral upwards forever"???

Surely the point is that the tories plans for shrinking the state can't and never do work, in this instance they sold all the council houses incredibly cheaply and now the government has to pay a premium to house people.

whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses.

All for coming up with solutions to the problems, but the solution is going to cost money, so I reckon they'll just ignore the problem and blame labour instead.

[Beefster]

Surely the point is that the tories plans for shrinking the state can't and never do work, in this instance they sold all the council houses incredibly cheaply and now the government has to pay a premium to house people.

whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses.

All for coming up with solutions to the problems, but the solution is going to cost money, so I reckon they'll just ignore the problem and blame labour instead.

Can you name me a single Labour government that left power with unemployment lower than when they took over?

You might like to know that the last Labour government left power with record levels of youth and long-term unemployment.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Can you name me a single Labour government that left power with unemployment lower than when they took over?

You might like to know that the last Labour government left power with record levels of youth and long-term unemployment.

I'm sorry but what has labour got to do with it?

[Beefster]

I'm sorry but what has labour got to do with it?

You said that unemployment only happens under Tory governments.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You said that unemployment only happens under Tory governments.

no I didn't

[RyeSloan]

no I didn't

"whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses."

Correct but you certainly stated that only high unemployment happens under the Tories.

You also suggested that there wasn't a real need for council housing under any other government.

Strange that you should directly link a desire/need for council housing to unemployment, I'm not sure if the two are directly linked are they? Or are you suggesting the publicly owned stock of housing should be for the unemployed only...??

[Beefster]

no I didn't

Semantics. As SiMar said, you implied that high unemployment only happens under Tory governments. I was busting that myth.

[RyeSloan]

Surely the point is that the tories plans for shrinking the state can't and never do work, in this instance they sold all the council houses incredibly cheaply and now the government has to pay a premium to house people.

whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses.

All for coming up with solutions to the problems, but the solution is going to cost money, so I reckon they'll just ignore the problem and blame labour instead.

Away from the unemployment side show I'm curious as to this last sentance...surely the new government has done the oppposite.

They have acted and done so by limiting the amount of money now available through housing benefit to save cash. You can certainly argue if that was the right thing to do or not (I would suggest that a £1000 p.m for a 1 bed flat is probably a fair max that the state should be paying) but it's somewhat strange to say they they are ignoring the problem when they have already acted :confused:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Semantics. As SiMar said, you implied that high unemployment only happens under Tory governments. I was busting that myth.

I don't think you where busting that myth, labour having higher unemployment when they left isn't the same as having high unemployment throughout there time in government. You could argue that parties only get voted out when things are going bad and they take the blame, but given time they may have corrected the issue.

Now my argument wasn't actually meant to be pro labour, but merely to show the problems with the tories, that appear to once again be appearing.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Away from the unemployment side show I'm curious as to this last sentance...surely the new government has done the oppposite.

They have acted and done so by limiting the amount of money now available through housing benefit to save cash. You can certainly argue if that was the right thing to do or not (I would suggest that a £1000 p.m for a 1 bed flat is probably a fair max that the state should be paying) but it's somewhat strange to say they they are ignoring the problem when they have already acted :confused:

So they have taken steps to make around 600k peoiple unemployed, and also cut back the pool of available properties that councils can rent from. Have they announced any plans to build new houses?

Thats not the sort of action I want to see

[bighairyfaeleith]

"whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses."

Correct but you certainly stated that only high unemployment happens under the Tories.

You also suggested that there wasn't a real need for council housing under any other government.

Strange that you should directly link a desire/need for council housing to unemployment, I'm not sure if the two are directly linked are they? Or are you suggesting the publicly owned stock of housing should be for the unemployed only...??

I reckon they are linked, the more people unemployed, the more mortgages that cannot get paid, the more people homeless and in need of housing. It's not rocket science is it:confused:

I think a publicly owned stock of housing should go to those that need it, I think the unemployed would score points in whatever system is used to decide merit, along with things like havings kids, having no current house etc.

I would reckon the need for council housing, certainly in Edinburgh was much less in the last ten years than it will be in the next ten. Time will tell I suppose if I'm right.

[RyeSloan]

So they have taken steps to make around 600k peoiple unemployed, and also cut back the pool of available properties that councils can rent from. Have they announced any plans to build new houses?

Thats not the sort of action I want to see

OK so the government of 2 months should be immediately sorting out decades of wrong? It was after all Mr Brown that was happy to encourage the massive surge in house prices that has contributed much more to the housing problem than the reduction in council stock...if housing was more affordable for all then the pressure to house people through public bodies would be much less.

Of course the decision by the governemnt LAST year to lower the target of affordable homes to 55,500 instead of 70,000 under the National Affordable Housing Programme with only 13,500 a year for social rent against a forecast of 45,000 shows just how deep rooted a problem this is.

Still I take your point that there needs to be significantly more action (although I do think you are being a touch harsh in somehow expecting the present government to come up with instant solutions) about the affordability of homes in general however I'm not quite sure that any government can actually build enough houses (all efforts to even build enough houses full stop, not just 'affordable' ones have failed miserably) or indeed should be trying to build enough houses to then give to every unemployed or low paid worker in the country but there you go that's where you and I will probably differ in views quite significantly!!

Finally you might not agree that stopping the already massive £18bn cost of housing benefit spriraling any further was a priority but I do. This money does nothing to alleviate the issue in the long term and significant sums were being lost in over inflated rents...I think it's sensible that the government has sent a message that benefits should not mean a free for all and that housing benefit in particular should not paid at any cost for any property.

(As an aside the 600k figure is an estimate to 2015..no one knows what the net employment figured will be. You could quite as easily have said that by stopping a crisis in confidence in Britain sovereign debt that the governement has prevented interest rates from having to rise sharply and quickly thus potentially saving millions of jobs!!)

[RyeSloan]

I reckon they are linked, the more people unemployed, the more mortgages that cannot get paid, the more people homeless and in need of housing. It's not rocket science is it:confused:

I think a publicly owned stock of housing should go to those that need it, I think the unemployed would score points in whatever system is used to decide merit, along with things like havings kids, having no current house etc.

I would reckon the need for council housing, certainly in Edinburgh was much less in the last ten years than it will be in the next ten. Time will tell I suppose if I'm right.

I'm not so sure, vast house price inflation in the last decade has moved buying property out of the reach of many in the last decade. A decade of much more sensible house prices may actually improve the situation!

I'm also not convinced that City Councils should really have vast amounts of real estate to look after and have enough to cover all unemployed no matter what that number may be....seems like a recipe for disaster (as most council efforts to run their housing stock were/are)

I'm much more tempted to provide assistance to short term unemployed to keep their current homes than immediately assume that they should be moved to a state built alternative and I am even less certain that the state should be prioritising building housing for long term unemployed over say looking at methods of providing affordable housing for low paid workers.

As for rocket science, well it doesn't take that to look beyond the state for every solution to every problem either does it........

[bighairyfaeleith]

I reckon they are linked, the more people unemployed, the more mortgages that cannot get paid, the more people homeless and in need of housing. It's not rocket science is it:confused:

I think a publicly owned stock of housing should go to those that need it, I think the unemployed would score points in whatever system is used to decide merit, along with things like havings kids, having no current house etc.

I would reckon the need for council housing, certainly in Edinburgh was much less in the last ten years than it will be in the next ten. Time will tell I suppose if I'm right.

I'm not so sure, vast house price inflation in the last decade has moved buying property out of the reach of many in the last decade. A decade of much more sensible house prices may actually improve the situation!

I'm also not convinced that City Councils should really have vast amounts of real estate to look after and have enough to cover all unemployed no matter what that number may be....seems like a recipe for disaster (as most council efforts to run their housing stock were/are)

I'm much more tempted to provide assistance to short term unemployed to keep their current homes than immediately assume that they should be moved to a state built alternative and I am even less certain that the state should be prioritising building housing for long term unemployed over say looking at methods of providing affordable housing for low paid workers.

As for rocket science, well it doesn't take that to look beyond the state for every solution to every problem either does it........

I'd be more tempted to keep them in jobs but I take your point. I actually think the government should build some affordable housing because the private sector won't do it, mainly because it is not profitable enough, and also the banks won't lend to the house builders to do it.

Of course you could argue the housing boom actually started with the sale of the council houses the first time around. Suddenly people at the bottom of the ladder had equity and they used to move around and upgrade and so it started.

I'm not saying labour are blameless far from it, but I do think there more gradual cuts would have served the nation far better. I genuinely believe that we will be back in a recession before the year is out.

[bighairyfaeleith]

One other thing I wanted to say is that if the government really wants to stop paying out on benefits etc it needs to attract new industries to the country. I don't see any moves by the government, and haven't for quite a few years any attempts to actually stimulate new business. We have lost a lot of jobs in the electronics / cars / finance industries and I don't see where the new jobs are coming from.

Hope they do something about it, because if they don't all there cuts will leave us in big trouble!!

[RyeSloan]

One other thing I wanted to say is that if the government really wants to stop paying out on benefits etc it needs to attract new industries to the country. I don't see any moves by the government, and haven't for quite a few years any attempts to actually stimulate new business. We have lost a lot of jobs in the electronics / cars / finance industries and I don't see where the new jobs are coming from.

Hope they do something about it, because if they don't all there cuts will leave us in big trouble!!

Now yer talking my language :thumbsup: :wink:

Encouraging growth and growing the economy is exactly the best way to help all the countries citizens.

Sadly I think we have been left in a precarious position so any government of any colour would have bene faced with a horrible balancing act to try and cut where reuquired without damaging the growth that is needed...sure there will be plenty of more debate here and elsewhere as this unfolds.

One thing I will say is that the cutting of the transport capital budget is a mis move, nothing provides better stimulus to an economy than effective transportation links...Britain has especially poor transport for such a crowded country and I would have liked to have seen substantial new investment in this area to really help and attract the new business you have mentioned above.

[RyeSloan]

I'd be more tempted to keep them in jobs but I take your point. I actually think the government should build some affordable housing because the private sector won't do it, mainly because it is not profitable enough, and also the banks won't lend to the house builders to do it.

Of course you could argue the housing boom actually started with the sale of the council houses the first time around. Suddenly people at the bottom of the ladder had equity and they used to move around and upgrade and so it started.

I'm not saying labour are blameless far from it, but I do think there more gradual cuts would have served the nation far better. I genuinely believe that we will be back in a recession before the year is out.

Fair enough :thumbsup:

[IWasThere2016]

One other thing I wanted to say is that if the government really wants to stop paying out on benefits etc it needs to attract new industries to the country. I don't see any moves by the government, and haven't for quite a few years any attempts to actually stimulate new business. We have lost a lot of jobs in the electronics / cars / finance industries and I don't see where the new jobs are coming from.

Hope they do something about it, because if they don't all there cuts will leave us in big trouble!!

There were lowered taxation rates for all businesses IIRC. Attracting new business would mean MORE spending - that could only happen via cuts in our Public Services to free up the resources.


Now yer talking my language :thumbsup: :wink:

Encouraging growth and growing the economy is exactly the best way to help all the countries citizens.

Sadly I think we have been left in a precarious position so any government of any colour would have bene faced with a horrible balancing act to try and cut where reuquired without damaging the growth that is needed...sure there will be plenty of more debate here and elsewhere as this unfolds.

One thing I will say is that the cutting of the transport capital budget is a mis move, nothing provides better stimulus to an economy than effective transportation links...Britain has especially poor transport for such a crowded country and I would have liked to have seen substantial new investment in this area to really help and attract the new business you have mentioned above.

Transport, Renewables, Social Housing should have been targets for some investment - rather than the moves to shore up too many banks IMHO. One or two should have been allowed to go under with the Govt. underwriting any savers funds. We should have had more eggs in more baskets IMHO.

[Green Mikey]

There were lowered taxation rates for all businesses IIRC. Attracting new business would mean MORE spending - that could only happen via cuts in our Public Services to free up the resources.



Transport, Renewables, Social Housing should have been targets for some investment - rather than the moves to shore up too many banks IMHO. One or two should have been allowed to go under with the Govt. underwriting any savers funds. We should have had more eggs in more baskets IMHO.

Allowing some banks to go under would have created more unemployment that wouldn't have been offset by the increased investment in other areas you mentioned. Why should the government underwrite savings and lose money when they could save banks. Spending money on saving banks allows the government to charge interest on loans and have large holdings in the banks that can be sold back to the market in the future for a profit.

I don't condone the actoins of the banks but if we had let them go to the wall then the current crisis could have been a lot worse.

[RyeSloan]

Allowing some banks to go under would have created more unemployment that wouldn't have been offset by the increased investment in other areas you mentioned. Why should the government underwrite savings and lose money when they could save banks. Spending money on saving banks allows the government to charge interest on loans and have large holdings in the banks that can be sold back to the market in the future for a profit.
I don't condone the actoins of the banks but if we had let them go to the wall then the current crisis could have been a lot worse.

Which is a very fair point as it is interesting to note that the US government has to date made $21bn profit from it's direct holdings in 'saved' banks that it has since sold back to the market including a $2bn profit from it's Citigroup stake (which was probably the US version of RBS in that it was significanlty converted to public ownership). Excluding AIG which was a particular basket case the US treasury are making signifcant profits from their support of the banking sector.

The BoE recently stated it had made a £1bn profit from emergency loans in 2009, expects to make £60m from bonds purchased the QE programme etc.

So letting the banks fail may have sounded like what they deserved (and in some cases probably was!) but the implications would have been so huge on the country (ranging from mass unemployment, substantial knock on impacts throughout the economy, compensation for savers etc etc) and of course would not have presented the governement to obtain large chunks of a number of business at fire sale prices that had in many cases a vast amount of sound and profitable divsions within them which they can now look to sell back to the market at a profit.

Of course it would have been much better for all if the whole situation had been avoided in the first place but allowing major UK banks to fail was never the sensible approach to take.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Surely the point is that the tories plans for shrinking the state can't and never do work, in this instance they sold all the council houses incredibly cheaply and now the government has to pay a premium to house people.

whats ironic is that it's only under the tories that people really need council housing due to the high levels of unemployment that always materialises under there governments, yet they sold all the council houses.

All for coming up with solutions to the problems, but the solution is going to cost money, so I reckon they'll just ignore the problem and blame labour instead.

I just dont see how people can complain about the council houses being sold off

My Gran worked all her life, paid rent on her council house for 40 odd years, and has been given a fairly comfortable old age because of the Tories - and it has created wealth for my family, passing it from the council (or govt) and into the hands of people who have worked hard.

What is gthe problem with that?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, I think you've missed the point.

You can't, as a supporter of capitalism, use the fact that socialism has never been properly implemented as a mode of organising society as an argument against it when the same argument could have been put to a proponent of capitalism in a feudalist society. There's no logical fallacy involved and it's certainly not a form of the 'tu quoque' fallacy.

I'm more than happy to admit that my vision for society has never been implemented, but so what? The slave-based economy never existed until it replaced the hunter-gatherer society, the feudal system never existed until it replaced the slave-based economy and the capitalist system never existed until it replaced the feudal system. Using the fact that a mode of organisation has never been implemented as an argument against it is the actual logical fallacy here.

Of course, this isn't a defence of socialism in any shape or form either.

N.B. I'm also confused as to how the Monty Python line applies, but ho-hum.


Is this not the problem with the 'left' though - it sounds great when being discussed in a Uni lecture theatre or Union, but it simply doesnt wash in the real world - Even the once proud socialist party, Labour, have abandoned any real left convictions, and the public have no appetite for collectivism - the left have pretty much lost the argument.

Thats not to say i think capitalism is perfect, far from it, but i have no faith in the humans to ever implement a 'perfect' system - humans are not perfect, there will always be jealousy, greed, envy, malice and all the other human frailties - and unfortunately all that it takes is for a few people with these human frailties to get into the position of 'deciding' who needs what in your perfect system and gthe whole thing goes corrupt - and we are no better off.

I have come to believe in a meritocracy, i think that while this country is far from perfect, it IS possible for anyone to make the most of their hard workd and talent - it may not be easy, but who said it should be? We have health and education, poverty in this country is really non-existent by global standards, we all have access to education and good employment opportunites.

I think we do have a pretty meritocratic society - it could be more so, but the vast majority of people dont want socialism, they dont want someone telling them what they deserve or need, they want to be left alone to get on with their lives and be able to afford luxuries, something that almost everyone in the country can do.

[IWasThere2016]

Allowing some banks to go under would have created more unemployment that wouldn't have been offset by the increased investment in other areas you mentioned. Why should the government underwrite savings and lose money when they could save banks. Spending money on saving banks allows the government to charge interest on loans and have large holdings in the banks that can be sold back to the market in the future for a profit.

I don't condone the actoins of the banks but if we had let them go to the wall then the current crisis could have been a lot worse.

HBOS effectively went .. Is a job in banking anymore important than a job in Woolies, or construction or leisure or manufacturing or anything else for that?


I just dont see how people can complain about the council houses being sold off
My Gran worked all her life, paid rent on her council house for 40 odd years, and has been given a fairly comfortable old age because of the Tories - and it has created wealth for my family, passing it from the council (or govt) and into the hands of people who have worked hard.

What is gthe problem with that?

Labour didnt stop it either - indeed later said they'd have introduced it also.

[Dashing Bob S]

I foresee big problems ahead. I don't think we can go on looking for the 3% economic growth which sustains capitalism, without draconian population control, as it will result in the destruction of the world's natural resources.

I don't believe that we are mature, disciplined and activist to develop and sustain a true socialist democracy.

I really think the next few decades will see some sort of fascist global order emerge.

[easty]

Which is a very fair point as it is interesting to note that the US government has to date made $21bn profit from it's direct holdings in 'saved' banks that it has since sold back to the market including a $2bn profit from it's Citigroup stake (which was probably the US version of RBS in that it was significanlty converted to public ownership). Excluding AIG which was a particular basket case the US treasury are making signifcant profits from their support of the banking sector.

The BoE recently stated it had made a £1bn profit from emergency loans in 2009, expects to make £60m from bonds purchased the QE programme etc.

So letting the banks fail may have sounded like what they deserved (and in some cases probably was!) but the implications would have been so huge on the country (ranging from mass unemployment, substantial knock on impacts throughout the economy, compensation for savers etc etc) and of course would not have presented the governement to obtain large chunks of a number of business at fire sale prices that had in many cases a vast amount of sound and profitable divsions within them which they can now look to sell back to the market at a profit.

Of course it would have been much better for all if the whole situation had been avoided in the first place but allowing major UK banks to fail was never the sensible approach to take.

I dont own any shares in anything, never have, so excuse my ignorance on the subject. I get that the shares the government bought in the banks are worth more now than what was paid for them, so now in theory we can make money on them. But, wouldnt the share price tumble if the government actually tried to sell the shares? Due to the huge number of shares the government owns, any attempt to sell would devalue the share price wouldnt it? Sort of a supply/demand situation, the supply of the shares would be large (isnt it 70% of RBOS we own), the demand can't be great for overpriced shares in a, proven in the last few years dodgy, banking system. High supply + low demand = lower price?

Also, can the government limit how many shares any one person can buy? Or could we end up with a bank like the RBOS being bought over and owned by a shady Russian businessman?

Or am I just wrong?

[RyeSloan]

I dont own any shares in anything, never have, so excuse my ignorance on the subject. I get that the shares the government bought in the banks are worth more now than what was paid for them, so now in theory we can make money on them. But, wouldnt the share price tumble if the government actually tried to sell the shares? Due to the huge number of shares the government owns, any attempt to sell would devalue the share price wouldnt it? Sort of a supply/demand situation, the supply of the shares would be large (isnt it 70% of RBOS we own), the demand can't be great for overpriced shares in a, proven in the last few years dodgy, banking system. High supply + low demand = lower price?

Also, can the government limit how many shares any one person can buy? Or could we end up with a bank like the RBOS being bought over and owned by a shady Russian businessman?

Or am I just wrong?

Not entirely wrong. :wink:

As far as I am aware the current value of RBS shares takes account of the shares held by the UK government. Effectively these shares are already in issue so any dilution to existing shareholders has already happened.

It is true to say though that putting a significant percentage of shares onto the market at one time would result in a price dip but if done sensibly in tranches over a reasonable period then there should be more than enough demand to meet the supply.

It's also true that the government would probably not prevent certain interested parties in buying signficant amounts of the banks they are selling off (however I suppose they could if they really wanted to) but I think other institutions (like rival banks or pension funds) will be much more interested in a UK Bank than any shady russian....in any case I would say it is much more likely that the overseas interest would be Chinese rather than Russian!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Interesting article in Guardian that is quite relevant to this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/13/anti-capitalist-ideology-economic-crisis

What is to replace the left as the default alternative?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I just dont see how people can complain about the council houses being sold off

My Gran worked all her life, paid rent on her council house for 40 odd years, and has been given a fairly comfortable old age because of the Tories - and it has created wealth for my family, passing it from the council (or govt) and into the hands of people who have worked hard.

What is gthe problem with that?

The problem is that these houses where never replaced so people in a similar position to your gran when she needed a council house can't get one. I don't have a problem with the individual taking advantage of what was offered to them, the problem I have is that the stock was never replenished, also too many houses were sold too cheaply so the local authorities could never hope to replace them with the money that came in.

This is all part of the tories grand scheme to have a smaller government and use the private sector all the time, the trouble is that the private sector by it's very nature is out for profit, and some areas should not be profit driven!