The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government

[Johnny Bognor]

Can't argue with this....

http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.com/20...-devalued.html

[Sheaf Saint]

Can't argue with a single word he has said. And it isn't often you will hear me say that about a politician!

 

Brown gives off the aura of a man who is so hopelessly out of his depth in his job that it simply beggars belief. As Hannan rightly points out, it was Browns over-spending and ridiculous borrowing during the boom years that has put our country in the position it is now in, yet he is utterly incapable of accepting that maybe, just maybe, his policies weren't so good during that time.

 

He continously spouts on about how this Labour government 'turned around' the economy of this country, but I seem to remember that it was actually pretty damn healthy when they inherited it from the Tories in 1997. The boom years, it would appear, were despite Blair and Brown, not because of them.

[Special K]

Nicely put by the fella. And it's spot on too.

[Thedelldays]

that was one of the best speeches seen by a politician in a long time

[Son of Bob]

What an awesome speech.

[Johnny Bognor]

Nicely put by the fella. And it's spot on too.

 

that was one of the best speeches seen by a politician in a long time

 

What an awesome speech.

 

 

Indeed. There aren't too many decent politicians around these days and so this guy is wasted in the European Parliment.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I agree that Brown and his cronies don't have a clue i.e. handing over billions to the banks, but what would the Tories do differently?

[Special K]

I agree that Brown and his cronies don't have a clue i.e. handing over billions to the banks, but what would the Tories do differently?

 

Probably not, but you can't blame one of them for trying to make political gain from it. He may also be genuinely upset about it too, but as a politician, that's unlikely

[OldNick]

I agree that Brown and his cronies don't have a clue i.e. handing over billions to the banks, but what would the Tories do differently?

 

I would suggest that when they left power in 1997 that the rules that the BOE was regulating the industry would not have been taken away like Blair and brown did as soon as they came to power.To let the bankers self regulate was a nonsense.

[Gingeletiss]

I agree that Brown and his cronies don't have a clue i.e. handing over billions to the banks, but what would the Tories do differently?

 

Do what they always do when taking over from Labour, attempt to pay all the debt back. This is a political cycle....Labour borrow to buy your votes, Conservatives try to sort the economy out, and get blamed for the previous **** ups.....a bit like RL and LC, with Crouch being blamed for the previous 10 years!!!!

[Saint George]

Daniel Hannan has become an overnight sensation over here...Man, he was even topic for discussion on my 'local' radio this morning......If we can do an "Obama" on his birth certificate we could well see him running for President in 2012

 

Has Britain finally found its new Thatcher or Churchill?..I hope so, because time is fast running out for y'all

[badgerx16]

An article about Government borrowing policy :

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/2008/11/government-borrowing-in-recessions.html

 

Of course, the recession is all Gordy's fault;-

He alone managed the American sub-prime mortgage market and instructed lenders to generously grant inflated loans to people who would never have a chance of repaying them; he created the arcane and inpenetrable web that the derivatives and futures markets turned into; he personally generated the valueless 'toxic assets' on which the inflated company valuations, and hence share prices, were based; he signed the cheques for the city whizzkids who gambled with astronomical amounts of nebulous money to inflate their bonuses; Yes, Gordon Brown is the root cause of everything.

 

Once the current international banking crisis became apparent, he could, of course, have allowed Northern Rock, RBS, Bradford & Bingley, HBoS et al, to fail, and not ploughed money in to stabilise them and get them through the mess that THEY had caused. Do you honestly think that would have made things better ?

 

France, Germany, and the USofA all have Government debt at over 60% of GDP, in Japan it's around 180%.

 

But at the next election you can all vote for Cameron, who has said he is initially committed to following THE SAME fiscal policy as the Government, and then will presumably follow the usual Tory 'slash and burn' blitzkreig, and sacrifice public services on the high altar of tax cuts for the middle and upper classes to keep the middle-Englanders cosy.

[Mole]

Labour = a tax, spend and bankrupt the country party. Always have been always will be.

[Colinjb]

It is disgusting that Brown's reaction to that speach was to turn his face and laugh it off. A worthy man would be able to address and correct criticism, not laugh it off, he is pathetic.

 

Labour are heading for dissaster, it is about bloody time too, just hope they havn't/will not destroy the country by too harsh a degree before they are removed from power. My gut instinct though is that the damage has already been done.

[badgerx16]

It's easy for an opposition with no personal experience of Government office to make all the right noises in order to impress via the generally right-wing biased mass media.

[badgerx16]

just hope they havn't/will not destroy the country by too harsh a degree before they are removed from power. .

 

Of course, the 'milk-snatcher' didn't destroy the coal industry, the steel works, shipbuilding, etc, did she ?

 

( Edit : cue the rabid right-wing response of 'of course not - the unions did ! )

[Colinjb]

Of course, the 'milk-snatcher' didn't destroy the coal industry, the steel works, shipbuilding, etc, did she ?

 

( Edit : cue the rabid right-wing response of 'of course not - the unions did ! )

 

There was a thread about Thatcher a few weeks ago, revive that if you want to discuss her, this is about Labour's remortgaging of the nation. Please stay on topic.

 

Of course its all too easy for Lefties to cry 'Milk Snatcher' to get some perception of moral high ground. Get off your arse, get a paper round, earn some money and buy your own milk FFS!!

[bridge too far]

I am somewhat puzzled that people seem to think that it's only the UK that's taking these steps to try to clear up the mess made by the finance world.

 

IIRC every wealthy nation in the West is doing exactly the same thing and they are finding themselves in the same predicament that we are.

 

In fact, the only opposition to these measures comes from DC and his ilk. I guess they're looking after their buddies - you know, the super-rich, the bankers etc. etc. Chr*st on a bike, even Ken Clarke admits that the Tories' 'inheritance tax plans for millionaires' isn't feasible.

[OldNick]

I am somewhat puzzled that people seem to think that it's only the UK that's taking these steps to try to clear up the mess made by the finance world.

 

IIRC every wealthy nation in the West is doing exactly the same thing and they are finding themselves in the same predicament that we are.

 

In fact, the only opposition to these measures comes from DC and his ilk. I guess they're looking after their buddies - you know, the super-rich, the bankers etc. etc. Chr*st on a bike, even Ken Clarke admits that the Tories' 'inheritance tax plans for millionaires' isn't feasible.

You still wont accept that by taking away the BOE's powers when they came to power was not a stupid decision.May i add that it was obvious that the debt we were taking on personally was only going to end in tears. The government should have taken measures earlier and it has now been suggested that 4 years ago Blair and Brown were warned about it.

May I also ask how you explain McNulty's conduct in drawing expenses on his parents house even though he had another only 8 miles away.I accept the Tories have had a few doing bad things but you came to power as anti sleaze, please explain the difference?

[badgerx16]

please explain the difference?

 

There isn't any, they are all as bad as each other; self-serving, manipulative, and only really interested in the 'common man' when there's a vote that needs grabbing or a sound-bite to record. Not a 'vocational' or altruistic MP amongst them. Remember, "all power corrupts", etc.

Edited 27 March, 2009 by badgerx16
remembered the 'clever' word

[bridge too far]

You still wont accept that by taking away the BOE's powers when they came to power was not a stupid decision.May i add that it was obvious that the debt we were taking on personally was only going to end in tears. The government should have taken measures earlier and it has now been suggested that 4 years ago Blair and Brown were warned about it.

May I also ask how you explain McNulty's conduct in drawing expenses on his parents house even though he had another only 8 miles away.I accept the Tories have had a few doing bad things but you came to power as anti sleaze, please explain the difference?

 

You might want to correct that sentence - you have a double negative there. It negates your argument. Please show me where I have said that it was not a stupid decision? In fact most of the powers were de-regulated in the Regan / Thatcher era as well you know. At the time that Labour formed the government, there was hue and cry the land over about over regulation. Those leading that clarion call must be wishing now they'd kept their mouths shut. OF COURSE I'm in favour of regulation - I'm an auditor FFS

Why should I have to explain? I'm not an apologist for Tony McNulty! The enquiry will establish the facts. Prima facie it would seem that he sought advice and was told it was OK to have a residence in his constituency and to have one nearer to the HofC. Remember, he has two jobs - one as a constituency MP and one as a Minister. David Cameron has a house near me (as a constituency MP) and a residence in London (as Leader of the Opposition). No doubt he claims expenses for this too.

Sleaze has not been established yet. Maybe it will, let's see. But it's a bit different to rooking the taxpayer by paying two of your sons salaries for actually doing nothing.

[Draino76]

The transcript; (for those who are not allowed on youtube.)

 

Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ and that you have subsidised, where you have not nationalised outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words? Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country?

 

The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging; in other words – to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line under the accumulated weight of your debt We are now running a deficit that touches 10% of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. More than ****stan, more than Hungary; countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising; like everyone else I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year - in the last twelve months – a hundred thousand private sector jobs have been lost and yet you created thirty thousand public sector jobs.

 

Prime Minister, you cannot carry on for ever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense! Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so; the European Commission has said so; the markets have said so – which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.

[OldNick]

You might want to correct that sentence - you have a double negative there. It negates your argument. Please show me where I have said that it was not a stupid decision? In fact most of the powers were de-regulated in the Regan / Thatcher era as well you know. At the time that Labour formed the government, there was hue and cry the land over about over regulation. Those leading that clarion call must be wishing now they'd kept their mouths shut. OF COURSE I'm in favour of regulation - I'm an auditor FFS

Why should I have to explain? I'm not an apologist for Tony McNulty! The enquiry will establish the facts. Prima facie it would seem that he sought advice and was told it was OK to have a residence in his constituency and to have one nearer to the HofC. Remember, he has two jobs - one as a constituency MP and one as a Minister. David Cameron has a house near me (as a constituency MP) and a residence in London (as Leader of the Opposition). No doubt he claims expenses for this too.

Sleaze has not been established yet. Maybe it will, let's see. But it's a bit different to rooking the taxpayer by paying two of your sons salaries for actually doing nothing.

BTF we had a series of posts regarding this some months ago.You posted at the time along the lines that there was no regulation taken away. You also made it known that GB was an aquaintence. I love the way if it is a Tory it is sleaze but as soon as a Labour MP is seen to play the game its lets wait and see. We all know the whole lot are using loopholes to earn a little extra.I cannot see how an MP needs to have expenses on his parents home when he has a perfectly good one only 8 miles away. sadly by making excuses rather than being outraged or even a tad unhappy you are letting them hide away behind yet another enquiry. Again it is basically self regulation something that got us into the banking mess in the first place.

The more that these people are allowed to bend the rules the more that the people will not have faith in the system.

As for rooking the system well paying for your parents home on a technicality is no different IMO. My daughter lives in London, perhaps I should claim expenses saying that i have to work up there sometimes, I may get it all back.

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course, the 'milk-snatcher' didn't destroy the coal industry, the steel works, shipbuilding, etc, did she ?

 

( Edit : cue the rabid right-wing response of 'of course not - the unions did ! )

 

 

 

The decline in coal output, in percentages:

• 11 years of Thatcher: 33%
  
• 11 years before Thatcher: 45%
  
• 11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
  
• 11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%
  

I suggest you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7950000/newsid_7952300/7952388.stm

 

 

In the last 44 years, the coal industry declined LESS during her tenure including the last ten years when the darlings of the miners (Is that Lord Miners?) were running it into the ground and LESS than the previous tenures of the lefties who also did more than their fair share to run it into the ground.

 

As for the other apologists, the lefties all try to blame the financiers, and they are in a large way responsible (especially if you abdicate the politicians responsibility to keep them in check), but at the end of the day, Gordon Clown is having to borrow billions (yes, that is borrow as in WE will have to pay it back) becuase HE failed to put some money by for a rainy day. So whoever's fault it is, Clown's failures as a Chancellor means that we will be paying for his legacy for years to come.

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

Edited 27 March, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bungle]

While most of the speech was good, and very well delivered, there are two key issues for me:

 

1) The Tories would have done bugger all differently.

2) When he says you can't "spend your way out of recession" he is wrong. You can't just shut up shop and refuse to spend, that will only make things worse. You need to find ways of getting people to spend what you can afford, and the government needs to bring forward building projects (particularly infrastructure) to give people jobs and build for the future.

[badgerx16]

The decline in coal output, in percentages:

• 11 years of Thatcher: 33%
  
• 11 years before Thatcher: 45%
  
• 11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
  
• 11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%
  

I suggest you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7950000/newsid_7952300/7952388.stm

 

 

In the last 44 years, the coal industry declined LESS during her tenure including the last ten years when the darlings of the miners (Is that Lord Miners?) were running it into the ground and LESS than the previous tenures of the lefties who also did more than their fair share to run it into the ground.

 

As for the other apologists, the lefties all try to blame the financiers, and they are in a large way responsible (especially if you abdicate the politicians responsibility to keep them in check), but at the end of the day, Gordon Clown is having to borrow billions (yes, that is borrow as in WE will have to pay it back) becuase HE failed to put some money by for a rainy day. So whoever's fault it is, Clown's failures as a Chancellor means that we will be paying for his legacy for years to come.

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

 

Two words - Black Wednesday. Yep, your money is safe with the Tories.

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course, the 'milk-snatcher' didn't destroy the coal industry, the steel works, shipbuilding, etc, did she ?

 

( Edit : cue the rabid right-wing response of 'of course not - the unions did ! )

 

Two words - Black Wednesday. Yep, your money is safe with the Tories.

 

 

That's right, on Black Wednesday, only the UK were the only ones to suffer from high German interest rates and money speculators (including George Soros). The biggest mistake was signing up to the ERM in the first place - a stupid leftie socialist idea.

 

The Tories did spend the gold reserves to stay in the system that day, so what was Clown's excuse to virtually GIVE away our Gold Reserves during a "Boom"?

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

[badgerx16]

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

 

Given the apparent right-wing bias on this thread, how on earth have Labour won the last three elections ? In particular, both the Southampton Test and Itchen constituency MPs are members of the democratically elected majority party.

 

( But that will now open a whole new can of worms; how can any electoral system be declared 'democratic' if less than 40% of the electorate can give a Government majority of over 100 seats ? )

[Mole]

Given the apparent right-wing bias on this thread, how on earth have Labour won the last three elections ? In particular, both the Southampton Test and Itchen constituency MPs are members of the democratically elected majority party.

 

( But that will now open a whole new can of worms; how can any electoral system be declared 'democratic' if less than 40% of the electorate can give a Government majority of over 100 seats ? )

 

Most voters are thick as ****. That is why Labour won 3 elections.

[badgerx16]

Most voters are thick as ****. That is why Labour won 3 elections.

Is that also the reason why Maggie won 3 ? Or were those electors smart ? Mind you, they also elected John Major, so maybe not.

[bridge too far]

BTF we had a series of posts regarding this some months ago.You posted at the time along the lines that there was no regulation taken away. You also made it known that GB was an aquaintence. I love the way if it is a Tory it is sleaze but as soon as a Labour MP is seen to play the game its lets wait and see. We all know the whole lot are using loopholes to earn a little extra.I cannot see how an MP needs to have expenses on his parents home when he has a perfectly good one only 8 miles away. sadly by making excuses rather than being outraged or even a tad unhappy you are letting them hide away behind yet another enquiry. Again it is basically self regulation something that got us into the banking mess in the first place.

The more that these people are allowed to bend the rules the more that the people will not have faith in the system.

As for rooking the system well paying for your parents home on a technicality is no different IMO. My daughter lives in London, perhaps I should claim expenses saying that i have to work up there sometimes, I may get it all back.

 

Oh dear, Nicko - you're being economical with the truth again, aren't you

 

1. I have never ever claimed to be 'aquainted' with GB. I have met him. That is all.

 

2. Deregulation of the finance industry occurred on M Thatcher's watch. FACT. Have a read of this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-thatchers-baleful-influence-lives-on-760508.html

 

or this excerpt:

 

During the end of the 1970’s into the 1980’s British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the City of London financial interests who backed her, introduced wholesale measures of privatization, state budget cuts, moves against labor and deregulation of the financial markets. She did so in parallel with similar moves in the USA initiated by advisers around President Ronald Reagan. The claim was that hard medicine was needed to curb inflation and that the bloated state bureaucracy was a central problem. For almost three decades, Anglo-American university economic faculties have turned to Thatcherite deregulation of financial markets as ‘the efficient way,’ in the process, undoing many of the hard-fought gains secured for personal social security, public health care and pension security of the population. Now the ‘poster child’ economy of the Thatcher Revolution, Great Britain, is sinking like the proverbial Titanic, a testimony to the incompetence of what is generally called Neo-liberalism or free market ideology.

 

from:

"Death Agony of Thatcher Deregulated Finance Model"

by F. William Engdahl

 

3. Nobody is 'hiding behind' an enquiry. The enquiry has been instigated by the Commons Standards Committee which is an independent body. This is the same Committee that recently issued a judgement about Caroline Spellman for claiming her nanny's expenses from the taxpayer (not allowed) and about that MP from Kent who paid his sons for doing nothing. It may well adjudge that McNulty (and Jackie Smith for that matter) have claimed inappropriately and if that is the finding, then they will be censured too. The Committee has also been asked to revisit the whole expenses thing because there is so much fog about what is and isn't allowable.

 

4. I do happen to think that MP's claims to expenses for having two residences is justifiable to some extent. They really do have two places of work; the House of Commons and their constituencies. You would be up in arms if your MP (whatever party he represents) wasn't available to hold constituency surgeries - I know I would. Whilst it's true that wealthy MPs (those who hold directorships, do part-time work outside Parliament, have inherited wealth) can probably afford to run two houses, the run-of-the mill MP can't.

 

Unless, of course, you ONLY want to represented by wealthy MPs :smt102

[Draino76]

While most of the speech was good, and very well delivered, there are two key issues for me:

 

1) The Tories would have done bugger all differently.

2) When he says you can't "spend your way out of recession" he is wrong. You can't just shut up shop and refuse to spend, that will only make things worse. You need to find ways of getting people to spend what you can afford, and the government needs to bring forward building projects (particularly infrastructure) to give people jobs and build for the future.

 

Spending your way out of recession is inefficient to say the least. Spending your way out of recession by borrowing, like what we are doing; is just plain lunacy.

[OldNick]

Oh dear, Nicko - you're being economical with the truth again, aren't you

 

1. I have never ever claimed to be 'aquainted' with GB. I have met him. That is all.

 

2. Deregulation of the finance industry occurred on M Thatcher's watch. FACT. Have a read of this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-thatchers-baleful-influence-lives-on-760508.html

 

or this excerpt:

 

During the end of the 1970’s into the 1980’s British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the City of London financial interests who backed her, introduced wholesale measures of privatization, state budget cuts, moves against labor and deregulation of the financial markets. She did so in parallel with similar moves in the USA initiated by advisers around President Ronald Reagan. The claim was that hard medicine was needed to curb inflation and that the bloated state bureaucracy was a central problem. For almost three decades, Anglo-American university economic faculties have turned to Thatcherite deregulation of financial markets as ‘the efficient way,’ in the process, undoing many of the hard-fought gains secured for personal social security, public health care and pension security of the population. Now the ‘poster child’ economy of the Thatcher Revolution, Great Britain, is sinking like the proverbial Titanic, a testimony to the incompetence of what is generally called Neo-liberalism or free market ideology.

 

from:

"Death Agony of Thatcher Deregulated Finance Model"

by F. William Engdahl

 

3. Nobody is 'hiding behind' an enquiry. The enquiry has been instigated by the Commons Standards Committee which is an independent body. This is the same Committee that recently issued a judgement about Caroline Spellman for claiming her nanny's expenses from the taxpayer (not allowed) and about that MP from Kent who paid his sons for doing nothing. It may well adjudge that McNulty (and Jackie Smith for that matter) have claimed inappropriately and if that is the finding, then they will be censured too. The Committee has also been asked to revisit the whole expenses thing because there is so much fog about what is and isn't allowable.

 

4. I do happen to think that MP's claims to expenses for having two residences is justifiable to some extent. They really do have two places of work; the House of Commons and their constituencies. You would be up in arms if your MP (whatever party he represents) wasn't available to hold constituency surgeries - I know I would. Whilst it's true that wealthy MPs (those who hold directorships, do part-time work outside Parliament, have inherited wealth) can probably afford to run two houses, the run-of-the mill MP can't.

 

Unless, of course, you ONLY want to represented by wealthy MPs :smt102

I cant recall which thread youu alluded to your aquaintance with GB, I think you alos mentioned that your other half was a trades union leader or something of the like.Anyway we all can't pick who we meet.Your very Labour biased views would perhaps make me beilieve you would fawn all over him.

Thatcher has nothing to do with the current problems (bloody hell she it was 15 or so years since she was in power), why try and deflect that the labour government took away the powers that were there to stop such disasters happening.I'm all for deregulation but not then to put it in the hands of people who will then carve it up.

The BOE was neutered and the FSA old boys club let the make millions and then walk away leaving the rest of the country to pick up the pieces.

Do you agree that had the labour government not taken away the powers of the BOE to regulate we would still be in the same position now?

[bridge too far]

Spending your way out of recession is inefficient to say the least. Spending your way out of recession by borrowing, like what we are doing; is just plain lunacy.

 

What's the alternative, then?

 

Staple our (collective and individual) wallets shut, buy nothing, build nothing, export nothing?

 

That would be far more expensive in the long run than borrowing out of recession. Think of the cost of unemployment, just for starters!

 

So, to repeat myself, what's the alternative?

[OldNick]

What's the alternative, then?

 

Staple our (collective and individual) wallets shut, buy nothing, build nothing, export nothing?

 

That would be far more expensive in the long run than borrowing out of recession. Think of the cost of unemployment, just for starters!

 

So, to repeat myself, what's the alternative?

I can see what you are saying but we borowed in the boom as well. Sooner or later the nation will have to pay for all the excesses.Frankly I can't see where the country will make any money to pay back the borrowings. Until last year it was the invisible earnings that kept us afloat,well now the banking and insurance industries are on their knees where will the overseas earnings come from.Tesco etc employing more earns us nothing, the government building schools earns the country nothing, where can we pay the debt back? Brown sold our gold when it was at its lowest(not that even if we had it still it would get near paying our debt back), the countries manufacturing industry has been eroded under all parties and so we are basically stuffed.We will suffer for some years and borrowing more will only hurt our chilren and grandchildren, and when the North sea revenues go....

[Draino76]

What's the alternative, then?

 

Staple our (collective and individual) wallets shut, buy nothing, build nothing, export nothing?

 

That would be far more expensive in the long run than borrowing out of recession. Think of the cost of unemployment, just for starters!

 

So, to repeat myself, what's the alternative?

 

The alternative is; LET 'EM FAIL. Bad banks, car, insurance companies should be allowed to go bankrupt. Oh yes there would be some short term pain; but the market got us into this mess and, it left to its own devices, it would get us out. Plus our kids wouldn't have £20k of debt around their necks when they squeeze out.

[bridge too far]

Although the counter argument, Nick, is that by building schools, the government will prop up the construction labour market, prop up the supply side of the construction market etc. etc. As well as providing wages for people to spend, the government will also increase its tax take from the individual and from the companies.

 

And, although my request for viable alternatives wasn't aimed at you, I'd be interested to know what YOU think the alternative plan would be.

 

Never mind what should have happened in the past, what do YOU think should be done now? And why?

[bungle]

I can see what you are saying but we borowed in the boom as well. Sooner or later the nation will have to pay for all the excesses.Frankly I can't see where the country will make any money to pay back the borrowings. Until last year it was the invisible earnings that kept us afloat,well now the banking and insurance industries are on their knees where will the overseas earnings come from.Tesco etc employing more earns us nothing, the government building schools earns the country nothing, where can we pay the debt back? Brown sold our gold when it was at its lowest(not that even if we had it still it would get near paying our debt back), the countries manufacturing industry has been eroded under all parties and so we are basically stuffed.We will suffer for some years and borrowing more will only hurt our chilren and grandchildren, and when the North sea revenues go....

 

1) You have made yourself look a bit silly by saying having more people in employment doesn't help. I don't know how much of an essay to write in response to this!

2) The Tories killed off manufacturing, New Labour have put nails in the coffin, but I'd love to know how all the other parties are responsible? Please inform me.

[bridge too far]

The alternative is; LET 'EM FAIL. Bad banks, car, insurance companies should be allowed to go bankrupt. Oh yes there would be some short term pain; but the market got us into this mess and, it left to its own devices, it would get us out. Plus our kids wouldn't have £20k of debt around their necks when they squeeze out.

 

Hey, I'm no lover of the finance industry but if banks and insurance companies go bust we're all up sh*t creek!

 

There would be a domino effect and all the banks would go bust and we'd ALL be left with worthless houses, cars etc. etc. Pensions worth even less than they are now. Then we'd nearly all be out of work and it would be even worse than it was when there were over 3million unemployed before.

 

So unemployment benefit payments would rocket, together with OAP pension credits, housing benefit etc. More poor people = poorer health so an increase in demand for health services. And that's just off the top of my head.

 

Dreadful scenario...

[OldNick]

1) You have made yourself look a bit silly by saying having more people in employment doesn't help. I don't know how much of an essay to write in response to this!

2) The Tories killed off manufacturing, New Labour have put nails in the coffin, but I'd love to know how all the other parties are responsible? Please inform me.

i didnt think i said it was wrong to have people in employment. What i do say is that borrowing has to be paid back. Keepimng the people in work will only keep the wolves from the door for a certain amount of time. if the country borrowing to keep people in work should be done in the whole world job solved.Of course that is impossible and it is impossible here unless the country is making profits in its exports to keep us solvent. The countries economy is basically a business and if your costs exceed the profits you are going to go bust.very simplistic im sure but that is basically wehat it is all about.

The Tories did not help with the manufacturing base but when Maggie came to power the nation was in an awaful state and we needed somebody to grasp the nettle. For decades the Union power had brought many of our once proud companies to their knees with their strikes and workers power.These people were oblivious to the damage being done to the nation and many did not care quite frankly.

Go back to the last time we had a labour government in power and you will see many similarities, Wilson healey and benn it makes my skin crawl

[bridge too far]

Tony Benn is probably one of the most astute politicians of our time.

 

If you ever had attended any of his lectures or read any of his published works / articles you would see that almost everything he has talked about in the past has come to fruition.

 

Nick - you still haven't offered an alternative solution.

 

We're where we are - what does YOUR future offer?

Edited 27 March, 2009 by bridge too far
prompting Nick for an answer

[bungle]

i didnt think i said it was wrong to have people in employment. What i do say is that borrowing has to be paid back. Keepimng the people in work will only keep the wolves from the door for a certain amount of time. if the country borrowing to keep people in work should be done in the whole world job solved.Of course that is impossible and it is impossible here unless the country is making profits in its exports to keep us solvent. The countries economy is basically a business and if your costs exceed the profits you are going to go bust.very simplistic im sure but that is basically wehat it is all about.

The Tories did not help with the manufacturing base but when Maggie came to power the nation was in an awaful state and we needed somebody to grasp the nettle. For decades the Union power had brought many of our once proud companies to their knees with their strikes and workers power.These people were oblivious to the damage being done to the nation and many did not care quite frankly.

Go back to the last time we had a labour government in power and you will see many similarities, Wilson healey and benn it makes my skin crawl

 

Codswallop!

 

The government needs to bring forward infrastructure projects. The government then sells these contracts to firms who wish to undertake them (such projects could include building schools or insulating all our hospitals). Firms then take on staff to complete these tasks. They also buy raw materials from other firms who provide them. Because of all the projects, more raw materials are needed, so these firms have to hire more staff to look after this, which is covered by the cost of selling more. All these people are now paying tax which helps government coffers.

 

Now, because we have insulated all our hospitals, they spend less on heating and now the NHS isn't spending as much money.

 

There you go. Economy saved!!!

[OldNick]

Although the counter argument, Nick, is that by building schools, the government will prop up the construction labour market, prop up the supply side of the construction market etc. etc. As well as providing wages for people to spend, the government will also increase its tax take from the individual and from the companies.

 

And, although my request for viable alternatives wasn't aimed at you, I'd be interested to know what YOU think the alternative plan would be.

 

Never mind what should have happened in the past, what do YOU think should be done now? And why?

BTF, sadly the train has had the crash and it is going to be hard and painful how to get it back on the rails.It is going to be very painful and I fear we are going to see things that in my 49 years of life have never seen here before.

Employing people as you say is a short fix, the people may spend but that will still be on Chinese and Far eastern goods. You cannot overspend without pain and as much as i dont wish for my business to suffer or my daughter and friends to suffer i can't see how we all won't. The brake needed to be applied a few years back, but (sorry to mention Labour again) the government with their ambitious spending plans needed to close their eyes to the juggernaugt approaching and cross their fingers and hope.They needed all the tax revenue the city was bringing in.

They spun the wheel (like the Wilde bunch did at saints) and have come up red instead of black, they are now having another spin and it terrifies me what will happen if it lands on red again.

Once the worlds money markets start to get spooked by our balance sheet the pound will be through the floor and then who knows.

What woulkd I do. I feel we are going to foot the bill for the banks whatever happens and so all the toxic debt would be held at the BOE, the banks would pay a holding fee for 10years. It would be a large percentage of their profits. In that time some of the assets may turn out better than at first thought. The banks then should feel confident to lend to each other and so then they could lend to business. The BOE would again have the powers it once had and people would have to save before getting a mortgage. Credit cards would have to be cut back if not withdrawn. The less financially aware man in the street has this millstone around their necks for ever. We have as a nation to learn how to budget again and this small period of 'land of plenty' will stop.

Imsure it is not a cure but perhaps may help

[bridge too far]

But what should be done NOW, Nick?

 

What should this country, and all the other western democracies, do NOW to make things better?

 

You mention toxic debt. The government has already addressed this problem by underwriting toxic debt so that the banks, supposedly, will start lending again.

 

Where will this money for banks to lend come from, exactly? Is there a pile of it hidden somewhere? If the man in the street isn't earning money > spending money > adding to some company's profits somewhere > how are the banks going to get money to lend out?

 

It is a vicious circle. Where anyone jumps into it is a matter of conjecture. The more important point is that the circle must keep turning somehow - not put into reverse as some would advocate.

 

So - what should be done NOW, Nick?

[Johnny Bognor]

But what should be done NOW, Nick?

 

What should this country, and all the other western democracies, do NOW to make things better?

 

You mention toxic debt. The government has already addressed this problem by underwriting toxic debt so that the banks, supposedly, will start lending again.

 

Where will this money for banks to lend come from, exactly? Is there a pile of it hidden somewhere? If the man in the street isn't earning money > spending money > adding to some company's profits somewhere > how are the banks going to get money to lend out?

 

It is a vicious circle. Where anyone jumps into it is a matter of conjecture. The more important point is that the circle must keep turning somehow - not put into reverse as some would advocate.

 

So - what should be done NOW, Nick?

 

I think we should carry on with Brown.

 

He's wrecked this country and now he is going around trying to wreck the world (under the guise of saving it). Let him continue, I say, because if the rest of the world buys into his bull****, then at least they will be brought down to our level.

 

Socialism Rocks!

[Legod Third Coming]

But what should be done NOW, Nick?

 

What should this country, and all the other western democracies, do NOW to make things better?

 

You mention toxic debt. The government has already addressed this problem by underwriting toxic debt so that the banks, supposedly, will start lending again.

 

Where will this money for banks to lend come from, exactly? Is there a pile of it hidden somewhere? If the man in the street isn't earning money > spending money > adding to some company's profits somewhere > how are the banks going to get money to lend out?

 

It is a vicious circle. Where anyone jumps into it is a matter of conjecture. The more important point is that the circle must keep turning somehow - not put into reverse as some would advocate.

 

So - what should be done NOW, Nick?

 

And this is where THIS debate and the debate about Tesco collide.

 

What SHOULD be done but WON'T is that the capitalist world should re-appraise its morality and values, and redress the aspirant culture which demands that those who are paid and are 'worth' more should somehow be lauded as more worthy.

 

A more informed and astute government would recognise the moral bankruptcy which has accompanied the so-called 'wealth' generation.

 

We should redress the balance of borrowing and income by taking a more discreet view of wealth in the context of health, sufficiency and human values.

 

We had people borrowing on their homes to buy expensive cars in the belief that somehow they were rich when in fact all they had was 'paper' money in a building that was supposed to be the roof over their and their families' heads.

 

We had people borrowing to invest in buy-to-let on the basis that this was a legititmate way to make a living - conveniently forgetting that values rise and FALL - always have and always will.

 

If there is something that should be done it is this.

 

Pay off debt. Allocate income to that which is important. Refocus on values. Create REAL wealth from productive income not financial chicanery. Set taxes at levels of sustainability based on need (why the feck were local governments taking money from me to invest in Iceland?). Reward and recognise contributions to national product and not national income.

 

One thing is certain - you cannot spend your way out of debt.

[GenevaSaint]

Most voters are thick as ****. That is why Labour won 3 elections.

 

and most right wingers are greedy ****s hence why the Tories won the 4 prior to that.

[badgerx16]

 

Socialism Rocks!

 

Find another catchphrase, we've heard enough of that that b0ll0x now, thanks.

[Gingeletiss]

Find another catchphrase, we've heard enough of that that b0ll0x now, thanks.

 

Nah!!, let him continue, I think he is right on the money......go Johnny B

 

 

Socialism Rocks! :smt083

[badgerx16]

Nah!!, let him continue, I think he is right on the money......go Johnny B

 

 

Socialism Rocks! :smt083

Point is GLT, I know that JB thinks he is being sarcastic, and maybe a tad "clever", ( whether you agree with him or not is up to you ). Personally, as somebody who spent 16 months unemployed at the height of Maggie T's tenure in Downing Street, I have a contrary opinion on the relative merits of 'casino capitalism' and a Labour government.