A common argument given by Labour fans is that it started in America and everything else, which is true. The real way we were let down by them is because we did not put in place a meaningful stimulus package after.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Old Blyth Power's Almanack - 2011
- Thread starter BlythPower
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You may be right. But I think there is a difference in the relationship that might have been critical. Conservatives, whether rightly or wrongly, are seen in the city as understanding the business; traditionally, Labour are not, and this was certainly true from 1997 onwards. So a Conservative "request" for self-regulation in the past has tended to produce results. From what I hear, Labour were too easily fobbed off - they didn't request a tighter regime, they believed it when they were told it would not be necessary.
You may have a point on the regulation part but was it not our fabled ex chancellor who deregulated the banks to the excess of letting them do pretty much what they wanted...
And a lot of the bother was the very people who wanted 125% mortgages that stupid banks were offering just to inflate perceived profit margins. All allowed and encouraged by the last Labour government.
whilst this coalition are not making themselves look good with a few bits its all about how the person rather then the government makes changes. As i said earlier - when its yourself you cut back heavily when times are tight - theres no reason why the country as a whole should not do the same
I don't know enough about bank deregulation to either agree or disagree with what you say! I don't remember any political party either encouraging or discouraging the banks in their elnding policies, it was pretty much left to them, which as we know now is where the trouble started! Blaming people for taking advantage of 125% mortgages or self certified mortgages is a bit like blaming a young child for gettign a bad stomach if they've been left in the sweet shop!
I'm not putting forward an argument for any political party here, I'm saying that it doesn't matter which one was in power then, or which one is in power now, it would all work out much the same in the end.
I'm not putting forward an argument for any political party here, I'm saying that it doesn't matter which one was in power then, or which one is in power now, it would all work out much the same in the end.
But then again the Tories did not support the help package for UK banks such as Northern Rock, NatWest RBS etc. If Labour had not implemented such packages we'd have a lot more people on the dole and be in a worse position now.
Can't see how the Tory plans for the private sector taking on more workers to mitigate the losses in the public sector will work (UK unemployment actually went up last week), or how the idea of Big Society will get us through the recession.
BlythPower
Member
can't get my head around this one either. Both the public sector itself and (soon to be unemployed) public sector workers purchase goods and services from the private sector. How can the private sector find work for ex-public sector workers when it will itself be hit hard in the new year by loss of income?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
What makes me sick about the ConDems is that they have little idea how their policies will effect people.
They, and many of their voters I work with in MK, have no understanding why 15,000 people work for the local authority in say Gateshead or Middlesbrough. They cant understand why there are no other jobs. What do they think will happen to the 5000 who loose their job? Where will the replacement jobs come from? How much will be lost in tax/extra benefit payments?
Come on Mr Cameron & Mr Clegg which massive employer is going to build a new facility in Middlesbrough? WHO, come on? Which small business are going to take on these workers? What are you going to do attract these employers to deprived areas? (that is not London or the SE)
What will you do to create jobs - NOTHING because you don’t believe in that do you. Your job is to " provide the conditions for the economy to grow" Stop avoiding your responsibility (can you even find Middlesbrough, or Darlington, or Hull or any other horrible northern sh*thole on a map? Do you care? ) People are going to be in a terrible state because of this. Homelessness, joblessness, long term unemployment, depression, despair, family break up, financial disaster, crime, drugs etc But hey, they are labour voters and we have never had it so good. We are all in this together chaps.
B*ll*cks - Why not tax your rich chums a bit more? Why not tax the bankers and fat cats who have creamed off millions while Rome burns? Why not spread the pain around a bit? Why not make those who can afford it pay a little bit more?
Sorry for the rant but they make me sick. As for the LibDems, they are going to pay a terrible price at the next elections. I would love to ask Mr Sell Out (sorry Clegg) if it was worth it and which of his principles are not for sale for a sniff of power and the role of the fall guy when the brown stuff hits the fan.
They, and many of their voters I work with in MK, have no understanding why 15,000 people work for the local authority in say Gateshead or Middlesbrough. They cant understand why there are no other jobs. What do they think will happen to the 5000 who loose their job? Where will the replacement jobs come from? How much will be lost in tax/extra benefit payments?
Come on Mr Cameron & Mr Clegg which massive employer is going to build a new facility in Middlesbrough? WHO, come on? Which small business are going to take on these workers? What are you going to do attract these employers to deprived areas? (that is not London or the SE)
What will you do to create jobs - NOTHING because you don’t believe in that do you. Your job is to " provide the conditions for the economy to grow" Stop avoiding your responsibility (can you even find Middlesbrough, or Darlington, or Hull or any other horrible northern sh*thole on a map? Do you care? ) People are going to be in a terrible state because of this. Homelessness, joblessness, long term unemployment, depression, despair, family break up, financial disaster, crime, drugs etc But hey, they are labour voters and we have never had it so good. We are all in this together chaps.
B*ll*cks - Why not tax your rich chums a bit more? Why not tax the bankers and fat cats who have creamed off millions while Rome burns? Why not spread the pain around a bit? Why not make those who can afford it pay a little bit more?
Sorry for the rant but they make me sick. As for the LibDems, they are going to pay a terrible price at the next elections. I would love to ask Mr Sell Out (sorry Clegg) if it was worth it and which of his principles are not for sale for a sniff of power and the role of the fall guy when the brown stuff hits the fan.
BlythPower
Member
Apparently, the North should come darn sarf and pick fruit
according to some Tory berk.
according to some Tory berk.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I have come darn sarf mate - to get a new job! ( Not picking fruit!)
Geezertronic
Established Member
They are still not half as bad as Labour were in 1997 and the first three years of their terms and I doubt they ever will be at least for me. They could get as bad as but not exceed Labour's incomprehensible incompetence.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
but they didnt target the poor, the unemployed or the low waged. They didnt close down entire towns (cf Easington/Seaham) simply becuase they didnt like the people who lived there. They didnt destory entire industires becuase they had made the them look stupid once to often.
What did they do that was so bad? I am not nor ever have been self employed so i ask in all innocence. ( i assume you are self employed Geezertonic as you talk about corporation tax/PAYE - i am not trying to cause trouble - i am just intrested in your view.)
Mine for what it is worth is that Labour tried to improve things in society in general and in the NHS, law & order and education in particular , with some success. It could and perhaps should have been even better. The chance was there to be really radical and address serious problems in this country but it wasnt taken.
I dont think things would have been MUCH better if Labour had won the election, i just think the pain may have been spread out fairly and felt by all.
What did they do that was so bad? I am not nor ever have been self employed so i ask in all innocence. ( i assume you are self employed Geezertonic as you talk about corporation tax/PAYE - i am not trying to cause trouble - i am just intrested in your view.)
Mine for what it is worth is that Labour tried to improve things in society in general and in the NHS, law & order and education in particular , with some success. It could and perhaps should have been even better. The chance was there to be really radical and address serious problems in this country but it wasnt taken.
I dont think things would have been MUCH better if Labour had won the election, i just think the pain may have been spread out fairly and felt by all.
Well, for starters, try the pension "reform", which decimated pension provision for everyone, but hitting the small people more. Or the ridiculous obsession with PFI, that meant the NHS, schools and virtually every other public service is committed to spending way, way above its income for the next 25 years or so, hitting those who cannot afford to go private. Both the brainchild of the towering economic genius, G. Brown
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Now i agree with you on PFI - that is a bombshell that seems to have been forgotton about. 20 odd years till we pay the bill for that one. However the father of PFI was not Gordon Brown but was in fact John Major. Who was attacked by Labour for such a terrible plan! Mind you PFI did keep direct taxation down when vast sums were needed to rebuild. Still a bad idea
Until recenlty i have never had a pension so can comment on the effect on people. It will be at least 40 years till i draw mine (unless the age of retirement goes up even further!) State pensions rose, but not enougth. Private Pensions perhaps not
Until recenlty i have never had a pension so can comment on the effect on people. It will be at least 40 years till i draw mine (unless the age of retirement goes up even further!) State pensions rose, but not enougth. Private Pensions perhaps not
Geezertronic
Established Member
IR35 is a good starting point... (I am an "IT Professional" for the record so was stitched up by this policy)
DarloRich
Veteran Member
yes - that was not be helpful. Many of my "partners" were also subject to this legislation. It was designed to close tax avoidance loop holes (which is a good thing) but got used to widely (IMO)
Its not a case of the public sector workers buying things.
Take one person on a salary of £20K.. that would take, in essence another 10 people in the same role/spending as much as someone in the same role just to make up the taxes to pay for that 1 persons wages.
so you have say, 5 million people in the public sector all on a wage of £20K a year. That takes 10 million people on the same wage to pay their wages in the public sector. then it escalates.
its ok saying that they spend money on stuff but it doesnt even add up to h9ow much they each cost when you add taxes and NI and then the pension per year.
Thats where the money goes to and what do you get? I recently have had to have a major op. I am now trying to consult my consultant and am lost in the never ending NHS loop and even when i get through to an operator they send me the wrong way and after 3 days ive given up;.
Yet that costs me money on my call ..
That'd all be OK if by making lots of public sector workers redundant everyone else would get a tax cut and start spending in the economy to replace the spending from the public sector bods. As it is we're all likely to see tax increases as well as large scale public sector redundancies, so, short of a total structural change to the system that will take years to achieve, making public sector workers redundant will simply see them stop spending and the economy suffer in the short to medium term.
Geezertronic
Established Member
Tony Blair listening to the British public:
Gordon's response to the British people:
Al Murray said:
Gordon's response to the British people:
Old Timer
Established Member
I think they have more knowledge of that than you have about the basic laws of world economics, old chum.
You two posts demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and demonstrate only that you act as a medium to transfer Leftist hogwash from someone else's mouth into this forum. The only thing that is mising is reference to Mrs Thatcher - Ye gods !
Can you please explain why the Coalition Government job cuts in the public sector are SO different from the SAME job cuts that were planned by the last LABOUR Government. If you took time to do even the most basic of factual research before coming on here to spout such drivel you would have understood that and not made yourself look stupid in front of the whole Forum.
Still why let the facts spoil a good old Left wing rant. :roll:
Maybe you should ask the same of Gordon Brown and Alisdair Darling , after all THEY did so much (along with the Marxist Primarolo) to destroy the foundations upon which small businesses were built. If you really think any Company wants to set up in the London and the South East then I think you need to go back to school and complete your education. Alternatively you could just widen your reading in which case you would understand why such a comment does nothing than demonstrate your own ignorance.
It has obviously escaped your notice that Labour spent the last 14 years creating "non-jobs". You CANNOT create jobs as a Government. Jobs have to be created by the private sector (something even Labour understand but you so evidently do not) because it is only through a private sector that a Country can earn money.
If you were not so blinded by your shallow hatred and bile, and had a modicum on questioning intellect you would have worked that one out for yourself. You would also have worked out that Labour closed the remaining mining industry in the North, and in Wales. Not much to say about that, but then of course it was done by Labour so it cannot be wrong now can it :roll: :roll: :roll:
And you do not think that any of this is due to Labour encouraging the biggest spending spree on record ?
If you had again done even a little research you would have discovered that this spending boom was caused by LABOUR removing Conservative financial controls, thus allowing Building Societies to become banks, and allowing financial institutions to become little more than legalised casinos.
Whilst all this was going on, Labour emasculated the various Regulatory bodies, and Bliar and Brown openly went on public record supporting this policies, indeed they publicly pushed for the boom.
At the same time they had burdened our NHS with hospital costs that have broken one NHS Trust, and have resulted in NHS Trusts being unable to pay for the staff to man these new hospitals. THIS has all happened under Labour's watch YOU however are completely oblivious, or incapable of, or unwilling to see this. Then again why spoil a good rant with the pertinent facts ?
What a bit like Labour didn't ?
Brown not only did not close tax avoidance loopholes, but indeed some of Labour's richest donors and financial backers benefited from these loopholes. Some of Labour's biggest financial supporters were endowed with peerages on the basis of how much they gave, and in return Labour turned a blind eye whilst parasites such as Labour Peer Lord Paul, sucked the CORUS pension fund dry. What about the poor sods there then ? The poor sods whose pensions have not only been shafted by Labours destruction of the nations pensions but what little was left was stolen from them ? Meanwhile the Left wing newspapers sat quietly by saying nothing because they too were on the same gravy train.
Seems Labour have a long history of their donors, Ministers, and Peers, robbing either their Companies, or the Country or sometimes both - Maxwell being a good example
It might do you better to go and talk to people like the various Marxists who now inherit the Opposition, those who benefited from a good education and now that they have gotten there, have pulled up the ladder behind them ?
You could start with the Leader of the Opposition, the Boy Millipede whose Marxist father not only made £millions, but bought houses in the very best parts of London, sent his children to private school and ensured he avoided death taxes.
So very socialist don't you think ?
And you come on here with your inaccurate gibbersih and rant and rave on things you neither understand nor indeed have bothered to investigate before writing.
I can see a great future for you in Socialist Politics.
BlythPower
Member
As opposed to Rightist hogwash...
Or a Right wing rant...
Over the coming years, we're going to see a huge reduction in public services. Try telling the people affected by cuts in the police, fire service and health that these so-called "non-jobs" weren't necessary.
Rich is from the north-east - his hatred of Thatcher will be anything but shallow. It'll run deep - and with good reason.
The alternative to spending was to allow the banks and thus the UK ecomony to collapse - presumably you'd have preferred that?
"Conservative financial controls"..? A contradiction in terms if ever there was one. Do you seriously expect that the laissez-faire Tories would EVER regulate their old school chums in the banking sector..? BTW, the conversion of building societies to banks began in earnest under Johnny Major.
Again - Tories just don't do regulation.
Sadly, Labour did indeed carry on with the Tory PFI mess.
So the Tories would close tax avoidance/evasion loopholes? You don't expect us to believe that do you? Though if they did, we could wipe the deficit without any cuts, such would be the sum raised.
And as for donors - what about Lord Cashcroft of Belize..?
Pot/kettle.
Old Timer
Established Member
Nothing constructive to add then.
They did not simply "carry on", Gordon Brown (against the advice of just about everyone) enhanced it (and, I seem to recall, renamed it as an "Initiative") and it is almost entirely down to him that any organisation touched by PFI is now virtually bankrupt. I would read the Private Eye special on the subject for evidence. And the "Non-jobs" had not been created in essential front-line services (despite what the opposition is claiming is about to be cut) but by creation of unnecessary quangos and the like, and duplication of existing ones. Sadly, because of the inability of, in particular, local government to make rational decisions, cuts are being considered on a percentage rather than a work-analysis basis. Oh, and the idea that the bulk of the over-spending was to protect the banking system from collapse is another myth. In banking, it was simply to preserve the status quo, again to avoid having to take difficult decisions; much of the other spending was on unnecessary job-creation (by creating new public jobs rather than stimulating private provision). And I am deeply grieved that the current opposition has settled so quickly into lies and name-calling, rather than any sort of intellectual analysis of what is being proposed. But, since 1994, intellectual analysis is beyond the leaders of the Labour Party!
BlythPower
Member
That actually illustrates a good point. In at least the Department of Health, they have been going about this properly, looking at the functions seeing what can be done effectively in other ways, scrapping, maintaining and enhancing as necessary. Savings made. At other Departments (I suspect the DCMS is one) they seem to have applied the percentage approach, with everyone taking an equal hit, with the result that savings are not made, and confusion reigns. I agree that this is probably the result of doing things too quickly. And we should not forget, with these or any other "cuts", that the snippers are starting from historically high levels - even with drastic cuts provision in many areas will still be higher than 15 years ago. But the "cuts" are still necessary - they should just have been part of the normal process of government, but haven't been since 1997.
- Status