General Election 2015

[buctootim]

Why is it a crap idea?

 

For two reasons.

1. It doesn't work, there are always a myriad of ways around it.

2 I don't think its the job of government to be interfering in the price a landlord charges to rent a particular house, or the price Sansbury's charges for sugar. They should be resolving the strategic issue of lack of supply of housing, not trying to 'central plan' the inevitable consequence of a shortage - price rises.

[stug76]

Rents will be allowed to increase with inflation within the three years, and students will be able to agree one year contacts. See the link I posted earlier

Ok fair enough. So if you want to have the 3 year contract you can unless you don't want to. Rent rises will still occur even if the market takes a dive. Im sure there are benefits but it's hardly a policy to get excited about.

[pap]

But whats the alternative ? Part of my job is keeping the lights on for want of a better way of saying it by working in the power distribution industry. How do you plan to keep me providing that service without the banking system ?

 

A big refocusing. Is the banking system there to support the people, or do the people support (whether they like it or not) the banking system? Answering your particular example, that'd be a prime example of creating money to provide infrastructure. I'm not saying that we ditch it, just change the parameters and focus of the system so that it serves human needs, rather than artificial wants and/or the pockets of banks and their shareholders.

 

Remember that we gave 45Bn to the banks to keep them afloat. Who is suffering as a result of this decision? Clue: it's not the banks.

[Smirking_Saint]

For two reasons.

1. It doesn't work, there are always a myriad of ways around it.

2 I don't think its the job of government to be interfering in the price a landlord charges to rent a particular house, or the price Sansbury's charges for sugar. They should be resolving the strategic issue of lack of supply of housing, not trying to 'central plan' the inevitable consequence of a shortage - price rises.

 

I agree with Tim

 

 

Christ

[Unbelievable Jeff]

For two reasons.

1. It doesn't work, there are always a myriad of ways around it.

2 I don't think its the job of government to be interfering in the price a landlord charges to rent a particular house, or the price Sansbury's charges for sugar. They should be resolving the strategic issue of lack of supply of housing, not trying to 'central plan' the inevitable consequence of a shortage - price rises.

 

This is EXACTLY the issue.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

For two reasons.

1. It doesn't work, there are always a myriad of ways around it.

2 I don't think its the job of government to be interfering in the price a landlord charges to rent a particular house, or the price Sansbury's charges for sugar. They should be resolving the strategic issue of lack of supply of housing, not trying to 'central plan' the inevitable consequence of a shortage - price rises.

 

1) that's pretty vague

2) the prices are still fixed by landlords, they just have to plan them over three years. I agree that the lack of housing needs to be solved as well, but tenants need more stability either way.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

1) that's pretty vague

2) the prices are still fixed by landlords, they just have to plan them over three years. I agree that the lack of housing needs to be solved as well, but tenants need more stability either way.

 

But solving the lack of housing solves the rental price problem, which is why they're focusing on the wrong areas.

 

Solve the problem at source and you don't have to deal with all this rubbish downstream.

[Smirking_Saint]

A big refocusing. Is the banking system there to support the people, or do the people support (whether they like it or not) the banking system? Answering your particular example, that'd be a prime example of creating money to provide infrastructure. I'm not saying that we ditch it, just change the parameters and focus of the system so that it serves human needs, rather than artificial wants and/or the pockets of banks and their shareholders.

 

Remember that we gave 45Bn to the banks to keep them afloat. Who is suffering as a result of this decision? Clue: it's not the banks.

 

Which was done in order to keep them afloat and so to avoid making the catastrophe the happened not become apocalyptic.

 

Its not a fair system, but its what we have and unfortunately capitalism works (it has its onvious failures) because wealth creation in turn creates more wealth creation, inmovation and delivery of service.

 

You cant remove a banking system yet still keep money as motivation, who controls things then ? The only way to remove babks would be to create a system that means service and materials are paid via service and materials which would easily make the rich richer and more than likely kill the poor. If I have no materials and no skills to provide I service I have nothing. Those that own the materials would be infinately richer and the disparity between rich and poor would be a lot wider.

[Smirking_Saint]

But solving the lack of housing solves the rental price problem, which is why they're focusing on the wrong areas.

 

Solve the problem at source and you don't have to deal with all this rubbish downstream.

 

Exactly, it works twofold

 

1. Its an undecided vote winner

2. It avoids what the actual issue is

[Ex Lion Tamer]

But solving the lack of housing solves the rental price problem, which is why they're focusing on the wrong areas.

 

Solve the problem at source and you don't have to deal with all this rubbish downstream.

People talk about solving the housing crisis as if it's easy, but homeowners don't want their values to fall due to increased supply, and planning laws make it difficult to get houses built. I'm not holding my breathe that any party will have the balls to do it

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Ok fair enough. So if you want to have the 3 year contract you can unless you don't want to. Rent rises will still occur even if the market takes a dive. Im sure there are benefits but it's hardly a policy to get excited about.

It's exciting for me, I'd love to be able to move into a house and know that I'll be able to afford the rent for the next three years.

 

At present my contract states that rent has to go up by between 3 and 7 percent a year, regardless of inflation or my wages. At some point I'd like to start a family so I want stability, not the threat of having to move every year

[Unbelievable Jeff]

People talk about solving the housing crisis as if it's easy, but homeowners don't want their values to fall due to increased supply, and planning laws make it difficult to get houses built. I'm not holding my breathe that any party will have the balls to do it

 

There does need to be a relaxation on stupid housebuilding rules, there are a number that hurt the smaller firms (106 payments etc), but benefit the bigger firms. There are also some right ignorant and stupid planning officers about who will go as far as they can to not allow housebuilding to start in their areas.

 

Remove some of the restrictions for a limited time and it will help.

[pap]

Which was done in order to keep them afloat and so to avoid making the catastrophe the happened not become apocalyptic.

 

Its not a fair system, but its what we have and unfortunately capitalism works (it has its onvious failures) because wealth creation in turn creates more wealth creation, inmovation and delivery of service.

 

You cant remove a banking system yet still keep money as motivation, who controls things then ? The only way to remove babks would be to create a system that means service and materials are paid via service and materials which would easily make the rich richer and more than likely kill the poor. If I have no materials and no skills to provide I service I have nothing. Those that own the materials would be infinately richer and the disparity between rich and poor would be a lot wider.

 

Which is an entirely different argument, venturing back onto real left and right concepts, such as who should own the means of production.

 

We are already killing the poor in deference to this system, and the rich are getting richer. One of the things that people forget about recessions is that some people do very well out of them. The Guardian reports today that the net worth of many of the rich has doubled since the recession began, and is it any wonder? Recession just means that the poor get a worse shake of things, and who do they go to when seeking to make up the difference? The rich, who benefit from the usury (either directly or indirectly).

 

Capitalism is fine with certain safeguards. The universality of money is a good thing. Neither of us would fancy seeking out a baker who happened to want computer programming or electrical engineering skills. The issue is that over the long term, it always fails, and whenever it does, it's socialism that is left to pick up the pieces. There is bugger all wrong with recognising that before the doom breaks.

[Smirking_Saint]

There does need to be a relaxation on stupid housebuilding rules, there are a number that hurt the smaller firms (106 payments etc), but benefit the bigger firms. There are also some right ignorant and stupid planning officers about who will go as far as they can to not allow housebuilding to start in their areas.

 

Remove some of the restrictions for a limited time and it will help.

 

Just open up brownbelt land for a time and get some houses built, itll provide more supply and help with local jobs. Whats not to like about that ?

 

Tenants should be able to have the security of longer tenancy contracts IMO, but I still dont think caps will work as such

[bridge too far]

There does need to be a relaxation on stupid housebuilding rules, there are a number that hurt the smaller firms (106 payments etc), but benefit the bigger firms. There are also some right ignorant and stupid planning officers about who will go as far as they can to not allow housebuilding to start in their areas.

 

Remove some of the restrictions for a limited time and it will help.

 

And a way needs to be found to discourage land-banking.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Just open up brownbelt land for a time and get some houses built, itll provide more supply and help with local jobs. Whats not to like about that ?

 

Why isn't it happening if it's so easy?

[stug76]

Which is an entirely different argument, venturing back onto real left and right concepts, such as who should own the means of production.

 

We are already killing the poor in deference to this system, and the rich are getting richer. One of the things that people forget about recessions is that some people do very well out of them. The Guardian reports today that the net worth of many of the rich has doubled since the recession began, and is it any wonder? Recession just means that the poor get a worse shake of things, and who do they go to when seeking to make up the difference? The rich, who benefit from the usury (either directly or indirectly).

 

Capitalism is fine with certain safeguards. The universality of money is a good thing. Neither of us would fancy seeking out a baker who happened to want computer programming or electrical engineering skills. The issue is that over the long term, it always fails, and whenever it does, it's socialism that is left to pick up the pieces. There is bugger all wrong with recognising that before the doom breaks.

Who is killing the poor? We? Me? You?

 

I must have missed this earlier but what are you proposing as an alternative to the current capitalist system? Are we just going to wipe the slate clean past ourselves on the back and start all over again?

 

Have you sub concisely ceded your position on real world politics and have now moved on to some sort of utopian ideal debate - which you will win by the way as you are the only one debating on this 'level'.

 

Hope you get better soon.

[pap]

Who is killing the poor? We? Me? You?

 

I must have missed this earlier but what are you proposing as an alternative to the current capitalist system? Are we just going to wipe the slate clean past ourselves on the back and start all over again?

 

Have you sub concisely ceded your position on real world politics and have now moved on to some sort of utopian ideal debate - which you will win by the way as you are the only one debating on this 'level'.

 

Hope you get better soon.

 

Government policy, including benefit sanctions.

 

Nice ad hominem at the end, btw.

[bridge too far]

Who is killing the poor? We? Me? You?

 

I must have missed this earlier but what are you proposing as an alternative to the current capitalist system? Are we just going to wipe the slate clean past ourselves on the back and start all over again?

 

Have you sub concisely ceded your position on real world politics and have now moved on to some sort of utopian ideal debate - which you will win by the way as you are the only one debating on this 'level'.

 

Hope you get better soon.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/follow-george-orwells-road-wigan-5583390#ICID=sharebar_facebook

[Torres]

Who is killing the poor? We? Me? You?

 

I must have missed this earlier but what are you proposing as an alternative to the current capitalist system? Are we just going to wipe the slate clean past ourselves on the back and start all over again?

 

Have you sub concisely ceded your position on real world politics and have now moved on to some sort of utopian ideal debate - which you will win by the way as you are the only one debating on this 'level'.

 

Hope you get better soon.

It started with his solution to a likely problem arising from rent controls, which he's now spun off into some debate in capitalism itself because he knows he was talking arse.

 

I lol'd.

[pap]

It started with his solution to a likely problem arising from rent controls, which he's now spun off into some debate in capitalism itself because he knows he was talking arse.

 

I lol'd.

 

Great, on-topic discussion.

 

Nice to see a consistent approach when the themes get too hard for you

[Torres]

Great, on-topic discussion.

 

Nice to see a consistent approach when the themes get too hard for you

Do you have insider knowledge of an announcement by Milliband tomorrow that he's going to abolish capitalism? [emoji38]

[pap]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/follow-george-orwells-road-wigan-5583390#ICID=sharebar_facebook

 

I think in 2010, people had an excuse to vote Conservative. This time around, we know the beast we're dealing with. There's no excuse. A vote for Conservative is a vote for more of this.

[Torres]

We'll just tell the lenders (presumably including mutual societies and the like?) to write off a load of their debt and give homeowners a break. That'll solve the problem! After all, money isn't real so we can ignore it when it suits.

 

Mental.

[pap]

Do you have insider knowledge of an announcement by Milliband tomorrow that he's going to abolish capitalism? [emoji38]

 

 

Great, on-topic discussion.

 

Nice to see a consistent approach when the themes get too hard for you

[pap]

We'll just tell the lenders (presumably including mutual societies and the like?) to write off a load of their debt and give homeowners a break. That'll solve the problem! After all, money isn't real so we can ignore it when it suits.

 

Mental.

 

Hatstand.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-28/iceland-defies-creditor-backlash-with-debt-relief-nordic-credit

[Smirking_Saint]

Why isn't it happening if it's so easy?

 

No idea, though Id imagine they are being careful with the housing market, too many new houses would reduce house prices, which could cause issues with private investment and possibly inflation, im just speculating though Id hold my hands up and say Im no economist.

 

As for opening up brownbekt land, no idea.

 

That said its difficult investing in housing whilst tackling a deficit

[Smirking_Saint]

I think in 2010, people had an excuse to vote Conservative. This time around, we know the beast we're dealing with. There's no excuse. A vote for Conservative is a vote for more of this.

 

Whats the alternative a vote for a labour I fail to trust with the purse strings ?

 

They effectively got us into this mess in the first place, would Labour have done any better at all ? Very doubtful

[pap]

Whats the alternative a vote for a labour I fail to trust with the purse strings ?

 

They effectively got us into this mess in the first place, would Labour have done any better at all ? Very doubtful

 

No, greedy banks lending money to people that weren't economically sound got us into this mess. Bad consumer debt got us into this mess.

 

The IFS reckons there is a £30bn black hole in the Conservatives spending plans, yet you're complaining about the financial probity of Labour? FFS, mate.

 

The Tories were never good at running an economy. The only thing they know how to do is sell, sell, sell.

 

Contextualising that to me and you, would anyone think we were economically competent if we were to simply sell everything we own at knock-down prices, or would we be considered a pair of f**king chumps with no assets, and less cash than the value of the assets we used to hold?

[Verbal]

I think in 2010, people had an excuse to vote Conservative. This time around, we know the beast we're dealing with. There's no excuse. A vote for Conservative is a vote for more of this.

 

I'm certainly no lover of the Tory party, but to portray Tory voters as being complicit in murder is hysterical yelling of the worst kind. People vote for certain political parties for a variety of reasons, including tactically. Many are voting on local issues, and the quality of the candidate.

 

I'm voting for my local Labour MP, because he's not interested in political office but has a long track record of being intensely committed to local issues, including rolling back the social cleansing of my borough, and the protection of our local hospital, which was the subject of an attempted land grab by 'luxury flats' developers and the ex-Tory council. If I had a Tory candidate of the quality of, say, Matthew Parris (as once was) and he was sufficiently free of narrow doctrine to campaign for rolling back 'sanctions' (as I'm sure he would be, given his record during his parliamentary days) it would be one of the reasons I'd consider voting for him.

 

To say, as you have done, that voters are 'worse than' the architects of sanctions and are not only 'morons' (your word for ALL voters) but murderers, is making you come off like a political screaming banshee. To load on top of that the antique tosh lifted straight from Socialist Worker ('means of production!!' for heaven's sake - Marx was fifty years out of date when he came up with that stuff), and demanding the abolition of money, is bizarre.

 

So as someone else suggested, it would be far better if you could start your own thread on this socialist splinter group dream so we could get back to the election. You're free to do so or not do so - it's just that it was far more interesting before you dived off the deep end and started implying, in true Pol Pot style, that Tory voters are murderers and we should all return to economic Year Zero.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think in 2010, people had an excuse to vote Conservative. This time around, we know the beast we're dealing with. There's no excuse. A vote for Conservative is a vote for more of this.

 

It's been a coalition, not a Conservative government.

[pap]

I'm certainly no lover of the Tory party, but to portray Tory voters as being complicit in murder is hysterical yelling of the worst kind. People vote for certain political parties for a variety of reasons, including tactically. Many are voting on local issues, and the quality of the candidate.

 

I'm voting for my local Labour MP, because he's not interested in political office but has a long track record of being intensely committed to local issues, including rolling back the social cleansing of my borough, and the protection of our local hospital, which was the subject of an attempted land grab by 'luxury flats' developers and the ex-Tory council. If I had a Tory candidate of the quality of, say, Matthew Parris (as once was) and he was sufficiently free of narrow doctrine to campaign for rolling back 'sanctions' (as I'm sure he would be, given his record during his parliamentary days) it would be one of the reasons I'd consider voting for him.

 

To say, as you have done, that voters are 'worse than' the architects of sanctions and are not only 'morons' (your word for ALL voters) but murderers, is making you come off like a political screaming banshee. To load on top of that the antique tosh lifted straight from Socialist Worker ('means of production!!' for heaven's sake - Marx was fifty years out of date when he came up with that stuff), and demanding the abolition of money, is bizarre.

 

So as someone else suggested, it would be far better if you could start your own thread on this socialist splinter group dream so we could get back to the election. You're free to do so or not do so - it's just that it was far more interesting before you dived off the deep end and started implying, in true Pol Pot style, that Tory voters are murderers and we should all return to economic Year Zero.

 

The only person using the term murder is you. As btf's link shows, it's actually suicide by people in desperate circumstances that are causing the deaths. Conservative policy, particularly the targeted benefit sanctions, are the prime driver behind those desperate circumstances.

 

Tory voters are not murderers, but they will be complicit in more suicides if they vote for them this time around. We've seen the effects of five years of Tory-led government. I shudder to think what can be "achieved" in a decade.

 

Unlike 2010, the game is afoot. Know what you're voting for.

[Torres]

No, greedy banks lending money to people that weren't economically sound got us into this mess. Bad consumer debt got us into this mess.

 

And yet you're suggesting that a government encourage this in future by stepping in and forcing lenders to write it off.

[pap]

And yet you're suggesting that a government encourage this in future by stepping in and forcing lenders to write it off.

 

The system will get rebalanced one way or the other. The only question is whether we do that in an orderly fashion, or through the chaos of war and social unrest. My view is that the system favours the elites far too readily, which is more than backed up by any number of financial reports, including the one published in the Guardian today.

 

I've often said that institutions that retain power are the ones that truly wield it. The creation and distribution is arguably one of the most important issues we face, yet we've no direct power to address it. The "hatstand" Iceland incident I linked shows that governments can make a difference with the right political will.

 

I keep saying that it's all IOUs, and that is the truth, sir. Can't we say that people owe a little bit less? Wouldn't the resultant disposable income that people have be good for the economy in general?

 

The banks have to bear some responsibility. The system as constituted allows them to take all of the wealth and none of the risks. What other sector on Earth has that power?

[Smirking_Saint]

No, greedy banks lending money to people that weren't economically sound got us into this mess. Bad consumer debt got us into this mess.

 

The IFS reckons there is a £30bn black hole in the Conservatives spending plans, yet you're complaining about the financial probity of Labour? FFS, mate.

 

The Tories were never good at running an economy. The only thing they know how to do is sell, sell, sell.

 

Contextualising that to me and you, would anyone think we were economically competent if we were to simply sell everything we own at knock-down prices, or would we be considered a pair of f**king chumps with no assets, and less cash than the value of the assets we used to hold?

 

It was spend spend spend and a lack of regulation of the banks too, lets not gloss over the points, the economy fell apart under their watch, thats an irrefutable fact Im afraid.

 

As per the IFS' analysis of the tories plans this is the IFS that show that labour wish to borrow a further 90 billion in order to achieve their plans.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The only person using the term murder is you. As btf's link shows, it's actually suicide by people in desperate circumstances that are causing the deaths. Conservative policy, particularly the targeted benefit sanctions, are the prime driver behind those desperate circumstances.

 

Tory voters are not murderers, but they will be complicit in more suicides if they vote for them this time around. We've seen the effects of five years of Tory-led government. I shudder to think what can be "achieved" in a decade.

 

Unlike 2010, the game is afoot. Know what you're voting for.

 

Capitalism has taken far more people out of poverty than socialism could ever dream of.

[pap]

It was spend spend spend and a lack of regulation of the banks too, lets not gloss over the points, the economy fell apart under their watch, thats an irrefutable fact Im afraid.

 

As per the IFS' analysis of the tories plans this is the IFS that show that labour wish to borrow a further 90 billion in order to achieve their plans.

 

You may as well blame them for a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, and then moan because they spent money on relief.

 

The sub-prime loan crisis which spurred on the financial crash was an external event. If you want to blame anyone, look at the people that thought deregulation was a good idea. Thatcher was certainly one of them, but it was a phenomenon that occurred all over the West.

 

Oddly enough, much of the regulation was introduced after the Great Depression. Deregulate, and we get two global financial crises in the space of 30 years. You seeing the link here?

[JackFrost]

No, greedy banks lending money to people that weren't economically sound got us into this mess. Bad consumer debt got us into this mess.

 

The IFS reckons there is a £30bn black hole in the Conservatives spending plans, yet you're complaining about the financial probity of Labour? FFS, mate.

 

The Tories were never good at running an economy. The only thing they know how to do is sell, sell, sell.

 

Contextualising that to me and you, would anyone think we were economically competent if we were to simply sell everything we own at knock-down prices, or would we be considered a pair of f**king chumps with no assets, and less cash than the value of the assets we used to hold?

 

Gordon Brown was sticking two fingers up at the IMF when they pointed out the deficit was getting out of control. Years before the global financial crisis hit.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051

[pap]

Gordon Brown was sticking two fingers up at the IMF when they pointed out the deficit was getting out of control. Years before the global financial crisis hit.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051

 

I've little time for Gordon Brown, or indeed, the time and effort he must have spent manoeveuring himself into Number Ten. He is not running this time.

 

Also, are we talking the same IMF that is effectively a front for Western interests? The same one that has stoked conflict in Ukraine by tying loan amounts to control of the disputed regions? How credible are they at this point?

[shurlock]

The system will get rebalanced one way or the other. The only question is whether we do that in an orderly fashion, or through the chaos of war and social unrest. My view is that the system favours the elites far too readily, which is more than backed up by any number of financial reports, including the one published in the Guardian today.

 

I've often said that institutions that retain power are the ones that truly wield it. The creation and distribution is arguably one of the most important issues we face, yet we've no direct power to address it. The "hatstand" Iceland incident I linked shows that governments can make a difference with the right political will.

 

I keep saying that it's all IOUs, and that is the truth, sir. Can't we say that people owe a little bit less? Wouldn't the resultant disposable income that people have be good for the economy in general?

 

The banks have to bear some responsibility. The system as constituted allows them to take all of the wealth and none of the risks. What other sector on Earth has that power?

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/opinion/krugman-springtime-for-bankers.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1&referrer=

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-housing-bubble-tanked-the-economy-and-the-tech-bubble-didnt/

[pap]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/opinion/krugman-springtime-for-bankers.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1&referrer=

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-housing-bubble-tanked-the-economy-and-the-tech-bubble-didnt/

 

Interesting articles.

 

Probably an occupational hazard, but these crises hit me the complete opposite away round.

 

The dot com bubble gave me a proper financial spanking, whereas the post-2007 prestidigitation of financial types created quite a bit of demand for contractors that don't appear on any permanent headcount. I left my last permanent job in 2007. Literally the day after, people were speaking of financial icebergs on the horizon. Haven't spent a day out of work since.

 

Here's that Guardian article I was talking about earlier.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis

 

We are not all in it together.

[saint si]

I keep saying that it's all IOUs, and that is the truth, sir. Can't we say that people owe a little bit less? Wouldn't the resultant disposable income that people have be good for the economy in general?

 

Sure, if the balance sheet, share price, shareholder dividends and wholesale existence of the banks is completely meaningless and of no value to the economy. Looking forward to my newly "rebalanced" pension when all those IOUs (aka "loans") are written off.

[JackFrost]

I've little time for Gordon Brown, or indeed, the time and effort he must have spent manoeveuring himself into Number Ten. He is not running this time.

 

No, we have Ed Miliband. The guy that spent significant time and effort manoeveuring himself by cosying up to the unions to get the top Labour job, and then started distancing himself from the unions in his victory speech.

 

Also, are we talking the same IMF that is effectively a front for Western interests? The same one that has stoked conflict in Ukraine by tying loan amounts to control of the disputed regions? How credible are they at this point?

 

Well let me put it this way. They warned Brown that without significantly reducing the deficit our economy would be up a creek without a paddle if disaster struck. Then our economy ended up a creek without a paddle when a financial crisis hit.

 

I also don't get this notion that Labour would be any different. Some of their economic policies in the late 00's were Thatcherism at its finest, like scrapping the 10p tax band.

 

Hansard documents will also tell you that Labour even piloted the bedroom tax back in 2001 (before Ed Miliband voted to introduce it as part of the 2007 Welfare Reform Act).

 

People can bash the Tories treatment of the poor as much as they like (and by the way I do agree that they have implemented some of their welfare policies very badly) but those on the left who believe a Labour government will come along to save the day will be sadly disappointed. There's one simple reason.

 

Those on opposing ends of the political spectrum can bash Tory/Labour ideology as much as they like but what people don't realise or forget, is that the two parties are exactly the same thing.

[pap]

Sure, if the balance sheet, share price, shareholder dividends and wholesale existence of the banks is completely meaningless and of no value to the economy. Looking forward to my newly "rebalanced" pension when all those IOUs (aka "loans") are written off.

 

My general point is that you're not taking anyone else's money. There isn't some large finite pile from which your mortgage is drawn. And are we really doing right by ourselves by being beholden to shareholders, who when push comes to shove, will always insist on the sort of cost-cutting measures that initiate the race to the bottom, thus destroying the structural economy over here?

 

I still look at the example of Cadburys, a perfectly profitable business giving jobs to British workers, relocating to Poland after it was sold to Kraft. tbf to Kraft, shareholder pressure had Cadbury's considering the move in any event, but it's an example of how the greed of shareholders is often to the detriment of those that rely on private industry for work.

[pap]

No, we have Ed Miliband. The guy that spent significant time and effort manoeveuring himself by cosying up to the unions to get the top Labour job, and then started distancing himself from the unions in his victory speech.

 

Yup, to placate the floating voters in the centre. Personally, I think it is a disgrace that Miliband couldn't even march with the Unions when they were trying to protect vital services. I am not a Labour voter, nor am I a slavish apologist for Miliband's behaviour.

 

On the other end of that, I find it amazing that people bemoan the lack of conviction politicians that looked like them, yet fail to see how taking Unions out of the equation had any bearing on it. Classic case of people getting the politicians they deserve.

 

Well let me put it this way. They warned Brown that without significantly reducing the deficit our economy would be up a creek without a paddle if disaster struck. Then our economy ended up a creek without a paddle when a financial crisis hit.

 

I also don't get this notion that Labour would be any different. Some of their economic policies in the late 00's were Thatcherism at its finest, like scrapping the 10p tax band.

 

Hansard documents will also tell you that Labour even piloted the bedroom tax back in 2001 (before Ed Miliband voted to introduce it as part of the 2007 Welfare Reform Act).

 

People can bash the Tories treatment of the poor as much as they like (and by the way I do agree that they have implemented some of their welfare policies very badly) but those on the left who believe a Labour government will come along to save the day will be sadly disappointed. There's one simple reason.

 

Those on opposing ends of the political spectrum can bash Tory/Labour ideology as much as they like but what people don't realise or forget, is that the two parties are exactly the same thing.

 

I don't think they are exactly the same. They share similarities, sure. Both parties are beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. Both parties seem to have nurtured a political class of PPE grads, with no real indication that it'll change anytime soon.

 

Where we agree is that Labour has had to shift right to appeal to the ignorance of those on that side of the divide. Again, I've seen them try and cosy up to the centre with Tory like policies or sentiments. I find it personally disgusting.

 

That said, the level of disgust I have with Labour in its current incarnation for their various mis-steps and appeals at populism is dwarfed by the tangible harm that this government has done to its own people, perhaps only equalled by the contempt for those that know what's going on, and wilfully look the other way.

[Wade Garrett]

Yup, to placate the floating voters in the centre. Personally, I think it is a disgrace that Miliband couldn't even march with the Unions when they were trying to protect vital services. I am not a Labour voter, nor am I a slavish apologist for Miliband's behaviour.

 

On the other end of that, I find it amazing that people bemoan the lack of conviction politicians that looked like them, yet fail to see how taking Unions out of the equation had any bearing on it. Classic case of people getting the politicians they deserve.

 

 

 

I don't think they are exactly the same. They share similarities, sure. Both parties are beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. Both parties seem to have nurtured a political class of PPE grads, with no real indication that it'll change anytime soon.

 

Where we agree is that Labour has had to shift right to appeal to the ignorance of those on that side of the divide. Again, I've seen them try and cosy up to the centre with Tory like policies or sentiments. I find it personally disgusting.

 

That said, the level of disgust I have with Labour in its current incarnation for their various mis-steps and appeals at populism is dwarfed by the tangible harm that this government has done to its own people, perhaps only equalled by the contempt for those that know what's going on, and wilfully look the other way.

 

Personally, I think Labour has moved a little from the right in recent years. No bad thing.

 

Serious question pap, do you eat ReadyBrek, your avatar, if of you, suggests you do. You are also in desperate need of a haircut.

[Smirking_Saint]

Whatever your thoughts on the current government (and IMO you are going well over the top pap) I am a keen believer to not look at incidents at their own value, but looking for a route cause.

 

Of course austerity has been hard (and of course there are always winners too) but a lot was necessary, who is to say a labour period of austerity would be any less painless ? Things had to happen to tackle the defecit, a deficit exacerbated by a 'spend, spend, spend' labour tenure that really brought us into the mire.

[pap]

Personally, I think Labour has moved a little from the right in recent years. No bad thing.

 

Serious question pap, do you eat ReadyBrek, your avatar, if of you, suggests you do. You are also in desperate need of a haircut.

 

Ha, I got lucky. Timed photo standing in front of a lamp. I prefer Last Dragon to Ready Brek, though.

 

Whatever your thoughts on the current government (and IMO you are going well over the top pap) I am a keen believer to not look at incidents at their own value, but looking for a route cause.

 

Of course austerity has been hard (and of course there are always winners too) but a lot was necessary, who is to say a labour period of austerity would be any less painless ? Things had to happen to tackle the defecit, a deficit exacerbated by a 'spend, spend, spend' labour tenure that really brought us into the mire.

 

We'll agree to differ. I totally accept that Tory voters are going to feel deeply uncomfortable with my statement that a Conservative-led government will end up with more people taking their own lives. They should. It is not an unfounded claim, and you'll be voting for even more of the same. Source: this Tory-led government.

[Batman]

I voted in Labour 10 years or so ago. That helped take 1m lives.

[SuperMikey]

Whatever your thoughts on the current government (and IMO you are going well over the top pap) I am a keen believer to not look at incidents at their own value, but looking for a route cause.

 

Of course austerity has been hard (and of course there are always winners too) but a lot was necessary, who is to say a labour period of austerity would be any less painless ? Things had to happen to tackle the defecit, a deficit exacerbated by a 'spend, spend, spend' labour tenure that really brought us into the mire.

 

I think a lot of people don't contextualise why the defecit was so high in the first place though, in 2008 we were just about to see the back of a very costly and controversial war in Iraq and were mid-way through a military intervention in Afghanistan too. I'm not saying that these were the sole causes for the defecit but the increase in military spending definitely contributed to it being run up by Labour. Of course there were overspends and irresponsible financial actions taken by successive governments, but the political climate at the time called for vast amounts of spending which had to come back to bite us at some point - unluckily for Labour it happened to be exacerbated by the global financial crash which was in turn also caused by a failure of many global governments to properly regulate the banks.

 

It's easy to point at Labour and say that they singlehandedly caused the defecit to be as high as it was, but you do have to take into account that there were a number of extraneous circumstances that contributed to it and also the small ideological gap between early 2000s Conservatives and Blair-era Labour meant that the Tories probably would've gone along a similar path with regards to spending as well.