|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 12:57:26 GMT
Perhaps right wing politics is the politics of greed and therefore by necessity the politics of the rich and usually better educated, as better educations are reserved for the rich or very fortunate. Knowing something is wrong, does not make it right, just expedient. Bob Diamond as an example. Id rather be thought of as stupid and honest than rich and a dishonest. Roll on the day that politics is once again taught in our schools then NO ONE will ever agree with Nick again. Lets hope Cameron is a better defender than he is a PM. As we know, there's no such thing as a dishonest poor person. All dishonest people are rich and should therefore be continually battered and hated by the poor. Greed is evident in every level of our society, rich, poor, intelligent, pig thick, fat, slim, whatever. I assume you believe that if a left wing\Labour supporter became head of a UK bank that he'd be incapable of doing a 'Bob Diamond'? You can equate so called right wing 'greed' with left wing 'hypocrisy'. After all, if you can't afford it why should anyone else be able to? That's how most left wingers think until the day they come into money.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 11, 2012 14:13:07 GMT
Perhaps right wing politics is the politics of greed and therefore by necessity the politics of the rich and usually better educated, as better educations are reserved for the rich or very fortunate. Knowing something is wrong, does not make it right, just expedient. Bob Diamond as an example. Id rather be thought of as stupid and honest than rich and a dishonest. Roll on the day that politics is once again taught in our schools then NO ONE will ever agree with Nick again. Lets hope Cameron is a better defender than he is a PM. As we know, there's no such thing as a dishonest poor person. All dishonest people are rich and should therefore be continually battered and hated by the poor. Greed is evident in every level of our society, rich, poor, intelligent, pig thick, fat, slim, whatever. I assume you believe that if a left wing\Labour supporter became head of a UK bank that he'd be incapable of doing a 'Bob Diamond'? You can equate so called right wing 'greed' with left wing 'hypocrisy'. After all, if you can't afford it why should anyone else be able to? That's how most left wingers think until the day they come into money. i call it hypocritical socialism
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 14:16:46 GMT
Not really, Squareball.
There's a very big difference to how you assume leftwingers think and how they actually think.
In the meantime, the evidence from the City (and elsewhere) is that those folk, who are already very nicely off indeed, cheat and corrupt their way to even bigger riches, which they then seek to avoid paying taxes on.
I guess if you're poor and you see what tricks the rich are up to, despite not even needing to, it doesn't fill you with any great moral inclination to remain honest when you're not rich.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 14:20:06 GMT
As we know, there's no such thing as a dishonest poor person. All dishonest people are rich and should therefore be continually battered and hated by the poor. Greed is evident in every level of our society, rich, poor, intelligent, pig thick, fat, slim, whatever. I assume you believe that if a left wing\Labour supporter became head of a UK bank that he'd be incapable of doing a 'Bob Diamond'? You can equate so called right wing 'greed' with left wing 'hypocrisy'. After all, if you can't afford it why should anyone else be able to? That's how most left wingers think until the day they come into money. i call it hypocritical socialism Call it what you like, Al, but you don't really know what socialism is, so whatever your idea of hypocritical socialism is, who knows? If you're referring to New Labour as socialists, in what sense does the Tories being cut from the same ideational cloth make either of them socialist these days?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 11, 2012 14:23:50 GMT
Not at all, I would have no issue whatsoever as being viewed as a selfish cnut. I don’t understand why you have an issue with me being happy with a couple of options but merely having a preference though? It’s only the ‘miring the country in debt’ that I have an issue with. If I was that selfish then I wouldn’t even be bothered about that would why? I’m just not a great advocate of generational theft when there is really no need for it.
It’s not me you need to convince on higher taxes for improved public services – it was the Labour Party.....but you are 15 years too late. Now, you can blame the populace all you want but the truth is that Labour should have had that honest debate prior to the 1997 election. The argument is why that being a tax and spend party is perfectly plausible...and above all...honest.
And the debt did reduce right up to the financial crisis and recession.
Not from 2001 it didn’t.
Perhaps you might get round to answering why our debt never gets down to zero before we spend anything. Is this what you want? If not, what level of debt do you consider acceptable while maintaining these public services you're sometimes in favour of and sometimes against?
Why not? I think having an aim of getting to zero would be the right thing to do.
The point you missed was just how much Balls was in step with right wing free market policy back in 2006 and there he is hypocritically nodding along with Miliband as he points out exactly the same in respect of Cameron's free market doctrine! Ie they both adopted the same laissez faire right wing approach as I have said all along!
Whether or not Cameron believes in a laissez faire right wing approach is irrelevant. Brown and Balls didn’t inherit the country from Cameron – they inherited it from Major. They then decided to reform, regulate and govern in their own special. The way they spent money certainly seemed to smack of Socialism.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 11, 2012 14:27:39 GMT
Not really, Squareball. There's a very big difference to how you assume leftwingers think and how they actually think. In the meantime, the evidence from the City (and elsewhere) is that those folk, who are already very nicely off indeed, cheat and corrupt their way to even bigger riches, which they then seek to avoid paying taxes on. I guess if you're poor and you see what tricks the rich are up to, despite not even needing to, it doesn't fill you with any great moral inclination to remain honest when you're not rich. if by elsewhere you mean politics then blair, brown and livingstone prove leftwingers do the same
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 11, 2012 14:29:47 GMT
luke hypocritical socilaism are these left wingers who constantly moan about the rich, tories etc but are at it all the same.
i love it how people keep trying to distance new labour from socialism a bit like germans from the nazis
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 17:47:54 GMT
Not really, Squareball. There's a very big difference to how you assume leftwingers think and how they actually think. In the meantime, the evidence from the City (and elsewhere) is that those folk, who are already very nicely off indeed, cheat and corrupt their way to even bigger riches, which they then seek to avoid paying taxes on. I guess if you're poor and you see what tricks the rich are up to, despite not even needing to, it doesn't fill you with any great moral inclination to remain honest when you're not rich. if by elsewhere you mean politics then blair, brown and livingstone prove leftwingers do the same You still think they're leftwingers do you?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 18:02:05 GMT
luke hypocritical socilaism are these left wingers who constantly moan about the rich, tories etc but are at it all the same. i love it how people keep trying to distance new labour from socialism a bit like germans from the nazis Here's a challenge for you, since you don't always believe what you read!, I'd like to see the examples of leftwingers who "constantly moan about the rich but are at it all the same [earning loads and avoiding tax]". You said it, you prove it! Remember before you start, New Labour were neither leftwing nor socialists! They were cut from the same ideational cloth as the Tories! Love that distancing if you like, but I'm afraid it's true! I could quite happily provide a list of rightwingers who have earned shitloads and avoided tax: Cameron's late father, Osborne's offshore trust fund, to name just two but I'd happily guess that most of the bankers who earn millions in bonuses and avoid taxes like the plague are not lefties! Must be true it's in the Daily Mail! www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2170245/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Do-little-people-resent-tax-avoidance-And-does-Government-really-heart-tackle-problem.html
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 18:38:55 GMT
mcf
No, I was just trying to understand why your position changed form wanting lower taxes and shittier public services to the opposite over the course of a few posts!
But if you choose the former, as you now prefer, how do you then provide a 21st century standard of living for an ageing population. This is why I try to get you to answer these questions which you sadly consider to be a waste of time. You don't want the country to borrow money at all (zero debt as you have now said - is this where the nation is like a business that is like a household comes from?) so how do we provide for this if you don't want higher taxes but also won't borrow money? Or do we just say, sorry, the rest of us won't cough up the taxes to fund these things (as comparatively low taxation levels for many decades appears to indicate) so we're not going to get into debt and it's just tough on you guys?
And before Squareball gets all unnecessarily apocalyptic once again, no I'm not talking about shoving kids up chimneys, but you will see hospitals and schools closing, the mortality rate rising, massive unemployment rises, poorer public transport etc etc. So how do you get down to zero debt and still have the kind of society we all want? Get everyone to pay directly? Is this thinking the basis of why you think any kind of debt is very very bad, even when, in context, and in your own IFS report, it's quite clearly not out of control as reckless overspending should indicate? (Please don't go on about post 2007-08 again, as if nothing happened globally!)
"It’s not me you need to convince on higher taxes for improved public services – it was the Labour Party.....but you are 15 years too late. Now, you can blame the populace all you want but the truth is that Labour should have had that honest debate prior to the 1997 election. The argument is why that being a tax and spend party is perfectly plausible...and above all...honest."
Yes, as those figures I put up showed, Labour's tax burden was not greatly different to that of any other UK government in recent times. They really weren't socialists you know. Can we put that one to bed now?!
No-one will vote for higher taxes in this country even if told directly that they will be used to fund the NHS and education. Why, you ask? Simple, because others (usually the right) will come along and say no, you can have all these bells and whistles but you don't need to pay any more. We can just save wastage and improve efficiency. Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe that there is even an opportunity of an open and honest debate to had about this! And the majority of the populace, as Rhodesy neatly demonstrates, doesn't understand or give a fuck about politics or the real impact of policies like these on their lives. They just go ooooh I'll save a bit of cash! We've had a comparatively low tax burden for years in this country and still we don't have anything like a modern European standard health and education system. The rich get richer, avoid paying their greater contribution and the remainder get to use the shitty public services that are the best we can (or can't) afford. It's no mystery to me. You used the phrase generational theft - you could apply that to the level of public services the Tories left us with in 1997 after 18 years. I'm not saying New Labour did a great job of improving them, but improve them they did and at least they tried.
And the debt did reduce right up to the financial crisis and recession.
Not from 2001 it didn’t.
Feel free to ignore the record of the entire decade of 97-07 if you have to, but it's a bit weak. (Btw, I'm not ignoring post 07-08, just think this step change has a very obvious reason).
"Whether or not Cameron believes in a laissez faire right wing approach is irrelevant. Brown and Balls didn’t inherit the country from Cameron – they inherited it from Major. They then decided to reform, regulate and govern in their own special. The way they spent money certainly seemed to smack of Socialism".
As I've already shown you, that article on the New Labour paradigm would disagree with that conclusion!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 12, 2012 0:06:23 GMT
i love it how people keep trying to distance new labour from socialism a bit like germans from the nazis Did you actually think about this before you wrote it?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 13, 2012 10:22:24 GMT
Same old, same old.
Surely you have a better defence than 'dysfunctional capitalism' and 'the thick population that won't pay taxes but want everything'?
Dysfunctional or not, its the only show in town so you need a competent government that understands what the fuck is going on and how to use it to benefit society in the long run.
That is why the specific changes they made to the financial system will always be viewed as one of the major mistakes. The totally fuck up in the management of the 'system' seems to more than outweight any basic flaws. It allowed private individuals to rack themselves up just a much debt as the government did. That is why we have a big hole in growth now - most analysts seem to think its the gap in consumer demand as they try and balance their books.
Labour's time totally smacked of socialism as they tried to bring a supposed 'fairer' society by throwing money around at all levels.
Issues with welfare, immigration, long term unemployed (especially for the young), crowding out manufacturing with higher paid than needed public sector jobs....they all contributed (and are inter linked) to the mess we have now.
Milliband admits all of this as well doesn't he?
If he and the rest of the Labour crowd can accept they fucked up, then why can't you? Between them, they've admitted it all. Immigration went to far, we spent too much, we should have regulated the bankers (well, you tried, but you fucked it this entire piece up)
Utter, utter wank.
|
|
|
Post by oldgit57 on Jul 15, 2012 10:09:24 GMT
Same old, same old. Surely you have a better defence than 'dysfunctional capitalism' and 'the thick population that won't pay taxes but want everything'? Dysfunctional or not, its the only show in town so you need a competent government that understands what the fuck is going on and how to use it to benefit society in the long run. That is why the specific changes they made to the financial system will always be viewed as one of the major mistakes. The totally fuck up in the management of the 'system' seems to more than outweight any basic flaws. It allowed private individuals to rack themselves up just a much debt as the government did. That is why we have a big hole in growth now - most analysts seem to think its the gap in consumer demand as they try and balance their books. Labour's time totally smacked of socialism as they tried to bring a supposed 'fairer' society by throwing money around at all levels. Issues with welfare, immigration, long term unemployed (especially for the young), crowding out manufacturing with higher paid than needed public sector jobs....they all contributed (and are inter linked) to the mess we have now. Milliband admits all of this as well doesn't he? If he and the rest of the Labour crowd can accept they fucked up, then why can't you? Between them, they've admitted it all. Immigration went to far, we spent too much, we should have regulated the bankers (well, you tried, but you fucked it this entire piece up) Utter, utter wank. Tried to bring about a fairer society ......... The bastards! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jul 15, 2012 12:42:17 GMT
i love it how people keep trying to distance new labour from socialism a bit like germans from the nazis Did you actually think about this before you wrote it? My guess is no !! ;D
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jul 15, 2012 12:51:02 GMT
'nu' labour socialist .......sorry still cannot see it when looking at the big picture ( i.e. not only the economy ) This new shower are even worse though........they're attempting to destroy virtually all the real/actual public services that have been so hard fought for by previous generations............and they're most definitely ethos, not necessity, driven .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2012 12:59:33 GMT
mcf, I don't see the need for any 'defence' as you bizarrely put it, the facts and figures are there for all to see whether you choose ukpublicspending or the Guardian or go direct to the ONS or OBR.
Labour's term of office saw them spend money, which we've all finally agreed was necessary (or perhaps we haven't and the fact that the Tories have admitted investment was needed and agreed to match Labour spending plans was in fact not correct!). Yet even this spending didn't create a debt that was anything like out of control right up until the financial crisis and associated 30s style recession. And this spending, the investment to try to produce the quality of public services the majority of the UK public demands, produced a deficit which, as I assume you understand, impacts directly on our debt. Yet our debt wasn't anything out of the ordinary either comparatively to other similar countries or historically. Would have been surely if reckless overspending was going on!
I can see why you run scared from answering any of my questions! After all you said yourself "you get what you pay for" but don't appear to understand the consequences of that statement to any degree of depth. Perhaps deep down the combination of those lists of comparative European tax contributions plus their relative contentedness plus the quality of their public services is striking a chord but you're just too stuck in a Daily Mail rightwing mindset to acknowledge that they might actually be 'better off' collectively as a society rather than individually with a few extra pennies in their pockets?
"Dysfunctional or not, its the only show in town so you need a competent government that understands what the fuck is going on and how to use it to benefit society in the long run."
Like the current one?! How come they're not planning on reducing debt to zero as you think is a good idea before doing any spending? Won't that benefit society in the long run? I've seen a good 30+ years of capitalism and broadly right wing economic policies and I don't see a great deal of benefit to society right now. The rich - yes; society as a whole - not much. I see the gap becoming broader and more and more people getting pissed off with it. Perhaps that's why we come so low down on these happiness tables despite not paying much tax relatively? Weird that isn't it? How do you explain it?
"The totally fuck up in the management of the 'system' seems to more than outweight any basic flaws. It allowed private individuals to rack themselves up just a much debt as the government did".
I guess it does if you're casting around desperately for something, anything, to blame Labour and not the overarching policy! But at least you appear to acknowledge the impact of private debt. But take a step back a minute. Who was it who promoted the idea of owning your own home? Who thought deregulating the financial sector was a good idea? And who is it who thinks people should be responsible for their own behaviour and not have the state control them (eg their borrowing). Sounds a bit right wing this doesn't it? A bit like not interfering with financial sector regulation - light touch we might call it! You've no idea what socialism is, but New Labour wasn't it. Read that paradigm article again - cut from the same cloth as I've said all along.
"Labour's time totally smacked of socialism as they tried to bring a supposed 'fairer' society by throwing money around at all levels".
As I said, I don't think you even know what socialism is. Any spending appears to you to be "throwing money around at all levels" - it's the best analysis you can come up with, based on the fact that any spending when debt is not zero is bad, bad, bad! And even now you appear to be reverting to saying the investment in public services is now throwing money around! There's no consistency or coherence here at all.
No-one, least of all me, is saying New Labour were in any way perfect. But your conclusion, like that of so many rightwingers on here, is simply borne out of dogmatic dislike of anything non-Tory. The figures and the Tories' actions don't support your conclusion of reckless overspending, the collapse of the deregulated financial sector and its ongoing issues over corruption are what caused the recession and damage to our finances. If Dangerzone Dave can't win an overall majority even in the face of the economic state we were in back in 2010, then I'm afraid the electorate disagrees with you, mcf, and understands where the blame really lies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 10:38:24 GMT
You either can't see the wood for the trees or are simply too stubborn to admit that Labour were fucking up pre-crash.
Yet again you want to blame the previous Tory government for wanting people to own their homes, find it easier to borrow and generally look after themselves. These are all good things but, and this is where you seem to struggle, Labour's mismanagement of the banking system and their need to bring in as much taxation as possible was largely responsible for the fuck up we're having to endure.
Stupidly low interest rates, stupidly high house prices, stupid amounts of remortaging and borrowing, people pulling out of pensions and using second homes as an investment and a huge reduction in the number of people saving ALL HAPPENED UNDER LABOUR. Their reliance on public and private debt was way too high.
They introduced the 'chav' economy. Don't bother saving or spending what you can afford - buy it now, have it all. Look how low interest rates are? Remortage, have a BMW. Fucking hell, how good is this?
Labour change like the wind when it comes to giving people responsibility and letting them fend to themselves depending on how it suits them. When it comes to welfare state handouts and benefits they're all poor helpless individuals who can't cope and need assistance from every fucking angle. But, when we're talking about the behaviour of young people and the lack of jobs, we hear that they're all intelligent hard working sensible sorts who are being let down by the private sector or Tory governments.
It's nothing but vote grabbing shit for simpletons who believe they're intelligent enough to look after themselves but want the state and everyone else to bail them out when they finally realise they're as thick as pig shit. No matter what the situation though, Labour will always support stupidity if there's a vote to be had. Between 1997 and 2008 they actually fuelled stupidity and let the money roll in.
These are the people who've been royally shafted by Labour.
But what do you do? hark back to the days of Thatcher - how predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 9:01:24 GMT
But, Squareball, the figures don't support your assumption that Labour were fucking up pre 2007-08 I'm afraid. If debt and deficit were out of control, they'd be there for all to see. Deficit and spending directly impact on debt remember. And we have an IFS report which states that public finances were in better shape after a full ten years of "reckless overspending". It's nonsense I'm afraid.
On a point of doctrine, you Tories are always saying that people don't need regulating and that they can look after themselves without government interference, no?! So it's their own fault if they choose to get into too much debt isn't it? Surely you want the govt to back off!? In much the same way that we had light touch regulation of the financial sector. This is is the right wing way. What are you complaining about? Or do you see flaws in your dogma at last?
Only the other day I saw a programme about obesity in this country and the Tory minister who was put up to answer questions about regulating the food industry was horrified at such a suggestion. People are smart enough to not get fat was the gist of her reply, we don't need to legislate! Same mistakes as the financial sector (Labour and Tory) all over again.
All the evidence I see tells me that people need a great deal of steering in their lives and that without it society would be fucked. You've only got to look at what happens when you remove traffic wardens and parking restrictions (as has been done several times) to see the utter chaos and breakdown that ensues. Look at the level of taxation in this country relative to European levels and you'll see that people still think they can have great services without paying for them - it's daft.
And while we're on the subject of flaws in your belief system, have you noticed the ongoing banking exposes? Lastest is HSBC (Europe's biggest bank) running drug money! Anything to make a profit eh! Daft old Sifuluke blaming the banks all the time, as if they were up to no good, what a muppet! And now G4S taking our money and not even providing a decent service! What was it you said? "The sooner we privatise this shit the better". Can't wait, mate, simply can't wait ;D.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 18, 2012 9:30:04 GMT
For the love of God....this is what the IFS described it as....not me..not squareball....not the Daily Mail but the IFS....
Unless you can accept this rather than choosing to ignore it, then it is no wonder that you struggle with the most basic of truths on this.
For the 100th time.....
By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries.
The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 16:10:14 GMT
Yes, I know. Which is why I'm trying to get you to answer a question about the link between deficit and debt . I live in hope you'll grow some bollocks . Meanwhile, looks like your lot have pissed off the Home Office so badly they're planning on going out on strike. The wheels are definitely starting to wobble for Dangerzone Dave. At least they had the decency to wait until the summer recess, otherwise I fear he may have exploded at PMQs! Paul Dacre at the Mail has turned against him and apparently they've been wargaming in the Treasury for Osborne's departure. He has looked woefully out of his depth and a liability for some time. I think Hague might fancy another crack.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 19, 2012 7:01:33 GMT
'Yes, I know'
Well why have you bleated for best part of 30 pages another argument entirely?
Nearly everybody that writes for the Mail hates Cameron and Osborne - they have for years.
Similar (but far less drastic) story with the Telegraph where they hope for a bout of Conservatism to break out at the head of the party.
To a fashion, I agree with them.
In opposition, they were far from clever - no more so than agreeing with Labour spending plans. This doesn't mean Labour were right though - they were both wrong.
In government, I think most Tories were hoping for true cuts to a public sector that we can't afford.
Still, they were handed an absolute shocker where their hands are really tied.
So far, apart from stupid errors they have the bigger picture correct, they just need to be bolder - they shouldn't worry that there are sifuluke's out there ready to pounce because Courtney can't get a tit job on the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 17:38:02 GMT
In the plainly vain hope that you might realise that the two are inextricably linked. You think it's another argument entirely ;D.
Or that you might get round to answering my questions which were designed to explore that link! Perhaps this is why you're not brave enough to tackle them!
And in the belief, clearly erroneous, that you might wish to provide some evidence to dispute the report this thread was initially based upon!
I guess if you think a debt and deficit reduction plan which was based entirely on growth, then killing said growth to the point where we enter another recession, constitutes getting the bigger picture right, or has you scratching your head about where the government is failing!, then we shouldn't be surprised about the rest of your "correct conclusions".
Funny though isn't it, that where Labour's 'bigger picture' of light touch regulation of the financial sector is, according to you, an utter fuck up based on the idiosyncracies of Brown's lack of regulation and not the overarching policy of non-interventionism, by contrast the current government's descent into recession, absence of growth, extra borrowing etc are simply stupid errors and evidence that the bigger picture is sound! I've said it before: you apply entirely the same criticisms in entirely different ways according to whether it's concerning Labour or Tory. I can just picture the amount of 'fucktards' and 'fuckpigs' you'd be using to describe the Labour party if they were running the country like the Tories are at present!
I'm not bothered about Courtney's tit job, whatever that's meant to mean! I am concerned about decades of under-funding through not providing enough tax money. What do you think about European levels of tax revenue and the standards of their services? Or is this simply another question you don't need to consider? One of the growing list of things which cease to be real if I ignore them?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 20, 2012 7:25:51 GMT
This is where you get stupid as I’ve already dealt with the tax issue previously. Labour had a choice. They could have taxed even more and improved the public services if that is what they wanted to do. It was entirely their choice and I’ve already said that it is one that I personally don’t mind. It’s a far better choice than saddling the country with debt and allowing them to live a lie. What they did was negligent and reckless. All you do is respond that our country won't wear it!? That is hardly my fucking fault is it? Do you even know what you are asking me here? Let me get this right – you think that I don’t know that deficits get added to the debt!? This is another area of idiocy for you. You think because we are struggling with growth then the government must have the tactics wrong. I personally don’t think they killed the growth – where they were wrong is that (and they weren’t alone) is that they predicted far too much growth. I agree that they need to do more for growth but the answer isn’t found in doing what have done since 2000 that put us in this sorry position. There are plenty of articles based on sound figures that suggest why we are where we are. Go back to that paper from Tim Morgan at Tullett Prebon and a few of the economists in the broadsheets and its fairly obvious why we are having a tough time and that is because many of our reliant industries are no longer growing and why – you just blew it off because it was highly critical of Labour. It isn’t about killing growth, it’s about finding growth that isn’t simply based on public and private borrowings. That is where the government needs to get its act together. Not easy though when you pick up a country that has a bloated public sector on bloated pay with bloated pension benefits that have and will continue to crowd out other industry until it is dealt with and it presses on with other plans to help exports. Time will tell though and I certainly don’t sit here saying that the current lot have done a good job do I? It just seems fairly obvious that they would do a far better job than an opposition who have already been voted in by the unions, complain about the cuts, generally offer no policies whatsoever, bitch about the moral failings of some of the few sectors where we make lots of money and already have a track record of being involved in the 00s fuck up. That is why they were and will remain fucktards. They have learned nothing. So, you think that if I’m wrong on the current analysis (of which I admit time will give us the answers) then it has to be that I’m wrong on the analysis of former Tory v New Labour times? How fucking stupid is that argument? ‘Deregulating’ the financial sector was a good idea – we make billions from it don’t we? What wasn’t such a good idea was spending and committing to spending the kind of sums that outstripped the country’s income on some insane belief that you’ve solved boom and bust and a recession will never hit. You just don't get this though do you. The issue with regulation is that we want to cut back on worthless box ticking etc but actually govern the overall key issues (and not fucking up the a key issue of excluding housing inflation from monetary targeting) That is the simplistic distinction of what needs to be achieved and always needed to be achieved. The reason why your argument doesn't stack up is that it was and is a regulated industry - it's as simple as that. It was just done badly by New Labour (not to say it was perfect under the Tories either) People do need steering - they are called the laws of the land. Again, the simplistic version is the government should set the model ie govern, not do. Basically, you are off your tits - you ask for proof and back up from sources like the IFS and then when they get them – just totally ignore them and just spout on with a whole host of issues that have been addressed plenty of times before ie tax, deregulation. It’s insane.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 21:38:39 GMT
Well I am surprised, no Sif comment this weekend? He didn't go a recent showing of a Batman film did he
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 17:56:09 GMT
Well I am surprised, no Sif comment this weekend? He didn't go a recent showing of a Batman film did he Still alive you'll be delighted to hear! I'm wary of upsetting our resident OCD sufferer. He's very obsessive over what time you post and is likely to respond with furious indifference . Edit: Christ, I edited out a typo a bit later, he's gonna go fuckin ape
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 18:53:54 GMT
You certainly have dealt with the tax issue previously, mcf. Variously you've been in favour of paying more to get better services, getting what you pay for (whatever that means!), paying less tax for shittier public services and finally accepting that both are ok but preferring the shittier public services so it's kind of hard to know where you are at any given time! "All you do is respond that our country won't wear it!? That is hardly my fucking fault is it? Do you even know what you are asking me here?"Do you even understand the point of the question I wonder? Given that the country as a whole wants good public services but, again as a whole, consistently votes for parties which promise low tax burdens, how do you propose the country gets that quality of public service? This is why I asked you this about a dozen or so pages ago and your mature response was "I don't have to say cos I'm not running the country". Well, it doesn't stop you making ill-informed comments about the running of the country so I think it's only fair to seek your opinion on this! "Let me get this right – you think that I don’t know that deficits get added to the debt!?"I was beginning to wonder and would not be at all surprised if you didn't understand the link. But now that you do, why do you think the "record-breaking" deficits you keep harking back to in the one aspect of your IFS report you still like, didn't result in equally out of control debts? Or the fact that despite these deficits and the fiscal drift you cling to, the finances were considered in better shape than a decade previously? Weird isn't it! Go on about post 2008 if it helps but pre 2007-08 the public finances were very much not out of control. I'm afraid the figures just don't support your conclusion. "This is another area of idiocy for you. You think because we are struggling with growth then the government must have the tactics wrong. I personally don’t think they killed the growth" Your one-eyed loyalty to the boys in blue is endearing if a little sad. It's not just me who thinks the current govt is fucking up, mcf, the IMF told them last week, the chairman of the BCC told Osborne this weekend! Idiots the lot of them plainly! No, as I said, I think your precious Tullet Prebon report is ok apart from the rants against Gordon Brown where the writer's subjectivity is allowed free rein. Remember they didn't guarantee any of the findings or data those findings were based upon! But it does show the massive imbalance towards private debt compared to government debt! "It isn’t about killing growth, it’s about finding growth that isn’t simply based on public and private borrowings."And in the very same post, you say "deregulating the financial sector was a good idea because we made billions from it". ;D Billions based largely on casino banking, 125% mortgage lending, debt repackaging etc etc. You've really not got any coherent understanding of this at all! I genuinely think you've convinced yourself that rightwing economic policy cannot be in any way flawed. We've been doing this way of free market capitalism for the last 30 odd years and this is where it ultimately took us, not overspending! "Not easy though when you pick up a country that has a bloated public sector on bloated pay with bloated pension benefits that have and will continue to crowd out other industry until it is dealt with and it presses on with other plans to help exports."I love these statements of yours, mcf. Just trot them out and expect them to be swallowed whole with no evidence to back them up at all! You've already shown that the public sector under Labour was no larger than under Major and smaller than under Thatcher, yet it's all the public sector's fault once again! It's laughable. "Time will tell though and I certainly don’t sit here saying that the current lot have done a good job do I?"You ask how they're failing! ;D "It just seems fairly obvious that they would do a far better job than an opposition who have already been voted in by the unions, complain about the cuts, generally offer no policies whatsoever, bitch about the moral failings of some of the few sectors where we make lots of money and already have a track record of being involved in the 00s fuck up. That is why they were and will remain fucktards. They have learned nothing".This is just embarrassing! Voted in by the Unions? Do you mean Miliband? They complain about the speed and depth of the cuts so that the growth which even you accept is essential is not destroyed further. You argue that the cuts should be deeper but guess what, despite the cuts, the current govt is borrowing more! Go figure, mcf! Offer no policies? Like Cameron before 2010 then pretty much, but you voted for him, yes? The moral failings of the sectors which made us money? Jesus, where to start? Bitching about corruption in the banking sector, bitching about HSBC being involved in drug money, bitch about the sector which made money on debt? And this is just bitching about some moral failings is it? I'd always thought you rightwingers didn't give a shit about how you made money, just make it and fuck the consequences! "So, you think that if I’m wrong on the current analysis (of which I admit time will give us the answers) then it has to be that I’m wrong on the analysis of former Tory v New Labour times? How fucking stupid is that argument?"Nope, lost me there. "What wasn’t such a good idea was spending and committing to spending the kind of sums that outstripped the country’s income on some insane belief that you’ve solved boom and bust and a recession will never hit. You just don't get this though do you."Two points for you to ignore: isn't this what happened in the 80s? Second, perhaps you'd might consider the question you never bother to answer - how do you improve shitty public services in a country where people don't vote for raising tax to fund them? You love context, there's a question about context for you to ignore once again! "and not fucking up the a key issue of excluding housing inflation from monetary targeting" Can you explain to me what you mean by this and what impact it had? How can you refer to deregulating an industry then state it was and always has been regulated? What are you on about? Light touch regulation since 1986. Tory and Labour. It's no mystery. "Basically, you are off your tits - you ask for proof and back up from sources like the IFS and then when they get them – just totally ignore them and just spout on with a whole host of issues that have been addressed plenty of times before ie tax, deregulation. It’s insane."What are you on about ;D? I'm always asking for proof and then when you put up your IFS report, I quoted it verbatim, how does that qualify as ignoring things! I'm always going to official ONS or OBR figures for back up! Look at the relative European tax contributions info I posted. If I do go on about issues that have been asked before it's for one of two reasons - either you've shit out of answering, or because I'm trying to get you to understand the context of what you're saying in the probably hopeless aspiration that you might see how the claims you make don't actually make any sense in context. Dear, oh dear, mcf
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 23, 2012 21:15:02 GMT
I should like to point out on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, That although we are very nice people we have absolutely no idea how to run a country.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 25, 2012 7:55:28 GMT
All your noise on tax and public services is a smokescreen for the utter fuck up of Labour building up debts and deficits. There is no point criticising the fact that I’m not overly bothered on how our government stays financially healthy as long as it does. It isn’t my job. It isn’t my job to convince a public that they will ‘get what they pay for’ either. To my mind, I’m not making ill-informed comments about running the country – I actually side step it on the basis that I’m not qualified to do so. You are the one that seems to have issue with this so make your mind up. All I’m doing is comparing the performances of the Tory governments and then the Labour governments on a financial basis using the kind of sources that you asked for only for you to then ignore the majority of their findings. I was beginning to wonder and would not be at all surprised if you didn't understand the link. But now that you do, why do you think the "record-breaking" deficits you keep harking back to in the one aspect of your IFS report you still like, didn't result in equally out of control debts? Or the fact that despite these deficits and the fiscal drift you cling to, the finances were considered in better shape than a decade previously? This simply isn’t true and that is not how the IFS describes the situation. We have record breaking deficits because the Labour government decided to build deficits and reverse the surpluses that we were having. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, the fact remains that they left us in a very grim position as the IFS describes. The figures do support that conclusion. The figures show the building of deficits when tax receipts were going up and up. Spending was organised on the basis that tax receipts would just keep going up and up and this simply was very, very unlikely. It was reckless to build deficits during this time. If you don’t get this then I can’t help you and you cling to whatever beliefs you want that fly in the face of us having a substantial structural deficit on the eve of the crunch that has ensured that our debts rocketed. No, as I said, I think your precious Tullet Prebon report is ok apart from the rants against Gordon Brown where the writer's subjectivity is allowed free rein. Remember they didn't guarantee any of the findings or data those findings were based upon! But it does show the massive imbalance towards private debt compared to government debt!So, you think it’s ok until the writer actually gets to his conclusions which is ultimately the fuck of up of Gordon Brown, which ironically is exceptionally close to the conclusions of the IFS report that you ignore. Yes, increases in private debt – which Brown encouraged as a result of his ‘regulation’....and yes, public spending. That is why those pesky economists I quoted (that we looked at) blamed...could it be...by golly it could....Brown’s bungled regulation and overspending. Fuck me. How can you refer to deregulating an industry then state it was and always has been regulated? What are you on about? Light touch regulation since 1986. Tory and Labour. It's no mystery.The markets were opened up in 1986 but they were still regulated. When you research this area there are plenty of people that seem to be concerned about the misuse of the term deregulation. Brown decided to change the regulation/deregulation/rules and he fucked it. Given the world is trying to repair the current model then I’d rather say this backs up the bungling of a model rather than a broken model in itself (and yes, I know it’s not perfect) Waffle on with the rest of your shite if you want but is comes down to these 2 key factors – bungled regulation and overspending - as stated by many credible sources that you ignore. Anyway, I'm off to prop up the Euro with Rhodesy for a while. Al - at least the Lib Dems know that compromises have to be made rather than saying yes to everybody. Certainly a lot more time for them than the Labour muppets who still offer no alternative way than a proven, disasterous model. Aligning themselves to Hollande may not prove such a clever move in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 25, 2012 8:39:38 GMT
mcf the analogy i use is that is ok to use your over draft and run up credit cards tolive the high life if you can afford the repayments etc
however when you have that car crash, burst pipe, smashed window etc and you have no money left to pay for the repairs you are fucked.
labour spent maney like it was going out of fashion, borrowed more, spent that. sold our gold, spent that. wanted new hospitals PFI'd that and when the car crash of the banking collapse happened we were not in a good enough position to ride through
that is the bottom line, you can talk about deficits and historic borrowing of past governments but this shower of shit happened on Tony and Gordon's watch so they are culpable.
They spent to appease the masses and win votes, they got into bed with the bankers and let almost encouraged them to do what they want. and the country fell for it
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 25, 2012 9:29:22 GMT
Anyway, I'm off to prop up the Euro with Rhodesy for a while. call him a cunt and give him a punch from me and the lads
|
|