Condem Government 100 Days Old Today

[jaggybunnet]

I've deleted a long post I was about to make and will add this short one instead. The anti-capitalist agenda from some posters here is astounding. The anti-Tory agenda from some is shocking (mainly in how blinded these people seem to be by their own self interest and bias, which is so bad that they are only able to see self-interest and bias in those espousing the other side of the argument)

 

Rather than debate I choose to no longer care. Why? Because my side has won. Capitalist free market economics (with a little state intervention to smooth the edges) is proven to be the beat way to run an economy and no matter who governs the UK this will hold true. Trade Unions will never get back the power that they once had. And, right now, the Tories are in power (with a LD party that agrees with their core values a lot more than the lefty posters on here want to understand) So, in conclusion, ha ha, deal with it leftys. Enjoy foaming at the mouth (be careful to watch your fluid levels when you add mouth foaming to the pissing and moaning) and I'll sit back and enjoy watching the current government fix the country.

 

ahh but the truth hurts.

[Woodstock Jag]

the point being is that if labour had done just that (regulate) then we would not be in half the mess we are in.

 

The thing is as well, that controlling certain bank activity in respect of speculation is not as difficult to do, and it doesn't even need to be heavy handed, rather intelligent regulation to prevent it. Controlling things like bank charges is something none of them have been particularly good at, and it's harder to stop them finding new ways of passing on the burden than it is to stop them creating the burden in the first place. None of them come out with flying colours, but with Labour being the ones in power in the last 13 years, the blame rests more firmly at their door.

[Vladimir Putin]

the point being is that if labour had done just that (regulate) then we would not be in half the mess we are in.

 

The Tories spend much of the 13 years of New Labour calling for less regulation of the financial sector! Dave and George didn't have a clue what was going on when the crisis hit, and the country would have been in an even worse mess if they had been in power at the time.

 

The idea of the Tories cleaning up anyone's economic mess is risible. During the 80s the UK Treasury was taking in something like £35 million per day in oil revenues. While other countries used the cash to build up substantial funds to protect themselves against future economic downturns, the Tories spend the money on tax cuts and on the unemployment their policies had created. They shouldn't be lecturing anyone about failing to save for a rainy day.

[jaggybunnet]

The Tories spend much of the 13 years of New Labour calling for less regulation of the financial sector! Dave and George didn't have a clue what was going on when the crisis hit, and the country would have been in an even worse mess if they had been in power at the time.

 

The idea of the Tories cleaning up anyone's economic mess is risible. During the 80s the UK Treasury was taking in something like £35 million per day in oil revenues. While other countries used the cash to build up substantial funds to protect themselves against future economic downturns, the Tories spend the money on tax cuts and on the unemployment their policies had created. They shouldn't be lecturing anyone about failing to save for a rainy day.

 

 

can you send me the lottery numbers as well please, you nothing of the sort, same as i cant say they would have been great.

 

and they were trying (again) to sort out a mess left by labour

[Vladimir Putin]

 

 

Rather than debate I choose to no longer care. Why? Because my side has won. Capitalist free market economics (with a little state intervention to smooth the edges) is proven to be the beat way to run an economy and no matter who governs the UK this will hold true.

 

Where would the capitalist free market system of economics in the UK be without the state banking bailout? I don't think anyone would describe that as a 'little state intervention', a more accurate description being 'a massive bailout to prevent the complete collapse of the UK financial sector'.

[Vladimir Putin]

can you send me the lottery numbers as well please, you nothing of the sort, same as i cant say they would have been great.

 

and they were trying (again) to sort out a mess left by labour

 

Which of the points you highlighted from my post are you questioning? The oil revenues, or the fact that the Tories opposed all government action to bail out the banks, something which saved the industry from complete collapse and saved thousands of jobs?

[jaggybunnet]

Where would the capitalist free market system of economics in the UK be without the state banking bailout? I don't think anyone would describe that as a 'little state intervention', a more accurate description being 'a massive bailout to prevent the complete collapse of the UK financial sector'.

 

 

cough No Regulation, Labour cough inept/weak

Edited August 19, 2010 by jaggybunnet

[jaggybunnet]

Which of the points you highlighted from my post are you questioning? The oil revenues, or the fact that the Tories opposed all government action to bail out the banks, something which saved the industry from complete collapse and saved thousands of jobs?

 

 

see my post(57)

 

labour were in power not the tories or libs, THEY allowed the banks to carry on as brown need the tax to try and pay off the massive debts they were building up and he faild anyway.

[Blackpool Jags]

I've deleted a long post I was about to make and will add this short one instead. The anti-capitalist agenda from some posters here is astounding. The anti-Tory agenda from some is shocking (mainly in how blinded these people seem to be by their own self interest and bias, which is so bad that they are only able to see self-interest and bias in those espousing the other side of the argument)

 

Rather than debate I choose to no longer care. Why? Because my side has won. Capitalist free market economics (with a little state intervention to smooth the edges) is proven to be the beat way to run an economy and no matter who governs the UK this will hold true. Trade Unions will never get back the power that they once had. And, right now, the Tories are in power (with a LD party that agrees with their core values a lot more than the lefty posters on here want to understand) So, in conclusion, ha ha, deal with it leftys. Enjoy foaming at the mouth (be careful to watch your fluid levels when you add mouth foaming to the pissing and moaning) and I'll sit back and enjoy watching the current government fix the country.

 

It never fails to make me smile when somebody spouts the universally discredited 'end of history' line. Here's a wee tip from a boring old Marxist: google 'Dialectical Materialism' and spend a few minutes making some sort of effort to get your head round it. Even I'm not daft enough to believe that you'll do any such thing, but it would explain to you why there's no such thing as the end.

 

Anyway, my Jaggy Tory friends, I sincerely hope you've started putting away a few bob for your old age as free healthcare, the welfare state and many other safety net provisions introduced by progressive Labour Governments of the past will be shredded piecemeal as this pernicious bunch of neo-Thatcherites implements its long term goal to abolish publicly funded services and replace the lot with private ones.

 

For that reason and many, many others I say get them TF!

 

NB For the avoidance of doubt this has been an alcohol-free post.

[Mediocre Pundit]

It never fails to make me smile when somebody spouts the universally discredited 'end of history' line. Here's a wee tip from a boring old Marxist: google 'Dialectical Materialism' and spend a few minutes making some sort of effort to get your head round it. Even I'm not daft enough to believe that you'll do any such thing, but it would explain to you why there's no such thing as the end.

 

Anyway, my Jaggy Tory friends, I sincerely hope you've started putting away a few bob for your old age as free healthcare, the welfare state and many other safety net provisions introduced by progressive Labour Governments of the past will be shredded piecemeal as this pernicious bunch of neo-Thatcherites implements its long term goal to abolish publicly funded services and replace the lot with private ones.

 

For that reason and many, many others I say get them TF!

 

NB For the avoidance of doubt this has been an alcohol-free post.

Calm down BJ-I'm perfectly aware of what I'm talking about. While this won't be the end of history I'm confident that the free market won't be beaten (sorry Marx) And the Tories are currently calling the shots. So I'm happy.

 

I'll save for a rainy day, as all folk should. In the meantime I'll work hard and play my part. Others can sit back and moan that they want free hand outs. We all make our choices...

[Mediocre Pundit]

Where would the capitalist free market system of economics in the UK be without the state banking bailout? I don't think anyone would describe that as a 'little state intervention', a more accurate description being 'a massive bailout to prevent the complete collapse of the UK financial sector'.

Ach, ok, I'll make one serious post...

 

Labour let the banks run amok. Which is shit. Not only for the taxpayer (like me) but for those that work for banks that didn't need or ask for a bail out (like me again) My bank was attacked my minority shareholders for years for not taking the risks (and making the profit) that smaller banks were. We stood firm. And you know what-we came through the crisis fine. And make profit. Yet we're targetted just the same as HBOS/RBS/others that cheated the system. That's not fair.

 

A system of proper, FAIR, consistent regulation would do me fine thanks.

[Dragon]

The Tories don't know the meaning of being fair, consistent and proper.

 

Myself, 75% of my former work colleagues, and at least 15,000 others have been made redundant because of Tory lies and deception.

 

Ask yourself this. How much is being paid out in various benefits, like JSA/housing benefit/council tax rebate, to these 15,000 people each month. Then ask yourself what they paid into the country, ie in the shape of rent or mortgage/council tax/income tax/buying goods, etc.

 

Then ask the real question of which one has a positive outcome for the economy of the UK.

 

I know what I would rather be doing and it ain't signing on.

 

Altough the usual Tory comeback will be you shouldn't be getting "free hand outs", "it's your choice being unemployed" (yeah right), and the good old "I'm all right Jack" attitude.

 

Altough in a sense it's good to know a tax paying Tory is happy the Tories are calling the shots. They have still to realise that these same people they are so chuffed about are, in a roundabout sort of way, making them pay to keep me.

[B.C.G. JAG]

Ach, ok, I'll make one serious post...

 

Labour let the banks run amok. Which is shit. Not only for the taxpayer (like me) but for those that work for banks that didn't need or ask for a bail out (like me again) My bank was attacked my minority shareholders for years for not taking the risks (and making the profit) that smaller banks were. We stood firm. And you know what-we came through the crisis fine. And make profit. Yet we're targetted just the same as HBOS/RBS/others that cheated the system. That's not fair.

 

A system of proper, FAIR, consistent regulation would do me fine thanks.

 

My bank also came through fine, because it is Australian owned and they were more prudent about handling toxic loans, and consequentially, as a country they came through it relatively unscathed. Nothing to do with regulation. However the point has to be made that Conservative ideaology is about less interference from the state, less regulation of the FREE market. Yeah Labour dithered when the crisis unfolded, but the Torie's stated policy was to let the market take care of itself. They would not have stepped in - fact. The banks would have collapsed. Consider where that would have left us, whilst remembering that the Tories would have have let the banks take exactly the same risks. As I keep stating, I'm no big fan of Labour, but because the banks messed up under their watch does not mean that an international financial crisis wouldn't have touched us otherwise. I'll pre-empt the reply that the State should have been saving up more for a rainy day, but as someone who works with mentally ill people - the very people you would reject for not pulling up their socks and getting on with it - I'll take an expensive but compassionate state over a callous conservative one any day.

[Mediocre Pundit]

I'll pre-empt the reply that the State should have been saving up more for a rainy day, but as someone who works with mentally ill people - the very people you would reject for not pulling up their socks and getting on with it - I'll take an expensive but compassionate state over a callous conservative one any day.

This is where you don't seem to understand (or want to understand) my point. I'm not about wantig no government support or intervention. I'm wanting less overall but to have it better targetted to where it's needed, and allow the market to take care of bits that it can do better/more efficiently than the government. Your example above is an area where the government needs to help. But there are countless things labour had the government doing, expensively, where the market could be left to do it, cheaper. I'd never want to go as market oriented as America, for example, with the lack of support mechanisms (and economic stabalisers) Neither do the Tories. It would make neither economic or social sense.

[Woodstock Jag]

This is where you don't seem to understand (or want to understand) my point. I'm not about wantig no government support or intervention. I'm wanting less overall but to have it better targetted to where it's needed, and allow the market to take care of bits that it can do better/more efficiently than the government. Your example above is an area where the government needs to help. But there are countless things labour had the government doing, expensively, where the market could be left to do it, cheaper. I'd never want to go as market oriented as America, for example, with the lack of support mechanisms (and economic stabalisers) Neither do the Tories. It would make neither economic or social sense.

 

This is spot on.

 

Incidentally, looks like Labour's Legacy is an even bigger structural debt than even the Tories are admitting: You have to draw the line somewhere and they just didn't!

[B.C.G. JAG]

The election results convinced me it was time to think a bit more seriously about emmigrating to the land of my wife's birth Down Under, but now it looks like they're voting in the horror show that is Tony Abbot's Liberal Party. Bloody hell.

[GrantB]

I've made this point many times before but it has never been more relevant now.

 

If you want rid of the ConDem nightmare, there is only one way to get it (and it isn't by voting Labour)

[jaggybunnet]

I've made this point many times before but it has never been more relevant now.

 

If you want rid of the ConDem nightmare, there is only one way to get it (and it isn't by voting Labour)

 

 

UKIP?

Edited August 21, 2010 by jaggybunnet

[twinny]

"Over time" being to 67 at some point within this Parliament and estimates that it will rise to 70 by about 2050. It's hardly as though the intervening 40 years won't be enough to turn efforts towards improving the life expectancy in Northern England and Scotland, is it?

Clicky

[GrantB]

UKIP?

 

 

Most certainly not UKIP!

[Woodstock Jag]

Clicky

 

The Guardian in February estimated the figure I gave based on another report. Either way, if you actually look at the article you cite in full...

 

The think-tank said if the Government wanted to maintain the amount of time people could claim the state pension constant at the 1981 level, it would need to increase the age at which they first received it to 72 by 2030.

 

It added that even if people were to receive it for around 30 per cent of their life, the state pension age would still need to rise to 68 within 20 years.

 

Either way, it doesn't suggest that this government is going to raise it beyond 67. What it does prove beyond all debate, though, is that with more people living longer we can't afford to continue to pay pensions to people from 65 at the current value.

 

So what would you rather: we cut the state pension or raise the retirement age?

Edited August 21, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Blackpool Jags]

Can we afford to continue to forfeit the £billions in tax receipts we get defrauded out of each year by the shifty mega-rich whose crafty tax avoidance strategies beggar belief? Or maybe we should simply continue to batter the disadvantaged and keep talking about how we can't afford to pay a decent pension to the working poor because the rotten sods are living too long.

 

The ConDem policy of starving the NHS of vital funds will sort out the problem of working class serfs living too long, that's for sure. And so by reducing life expectancy of the proletariat, the ConDems will be able to create more tax breaks for the pornographically wealthy, like His Lordship Ashcroft. Oops sorry, I forgot that this eminent patriot and Tory grandee doesn't actually contribute a bean.

[Woodstock Jag]

Can we afford to continue to forfeit the £billions in tax receipts we get defrauded out of each year by the shifty mega-rich whose crafty tax avoidance strategies beggar belief?

 

Remind me again which party had the power to crack down on this in the last 13 years and didn't even try?

 

Or maybe we should simply continue to batter the disadvantaged and keep talking about how we can't afford to pay a decent pension to the working poor because the rotten sods are living too long.

 

Oh come on stop this nonsense. Anyone who thinks these sort of changes wouldn't be happening under Labour are completely deluded. Why else were they themselves already planning increases to the retirement age pre-election, which most observers thought weren't going far enough to balance the books.

 

The ConDem policy of starving the NHS of vital funds will sort out the problem of working class serfs living too long, that's for sure. And so by reducing life expectancy of the proletariat, the ConDems will be able to create more tax breaks for the pornographically wealthy, like His Lordship Ashcroft. Oops sorry, I forgot that this eminent patriot and Tory grandee doesn't actually contribute a bean.

 

What rubbish. NHS front-line services are being ring-fenced: something even Labour didn't guarantee.

 

As for Ashcroft: Firstly he's given up his non-dom status, and does pay tax. Secondly Labour did less than nothing in 13 years to crack down on non-domiciled tax loop-holes.

[B.C.G. JAG]

As for the odious fraudster that is Ashcroft...

[Woodstock Jag]

As for the odious fraudster that is Ashcroft...

 

Are you imputing criminality? That's a dangerous path to go down...

 

As far as I'm concerned, his behaviour is not substantially different from (say) the Trades Unions bankrolling the Labour Party, with countless examples of people being signed-up automatically to the political levy regardless of their political persuasion, having to pick up on it and specifically ask to be withdrawn from it to stop them getting their grubby mits on their money.

 

Oh, and while we're talking about hypocrisy with respect to the vulnerable, can TU leaders really claim to represent their members while on six figure pay-packets?

 

Lord Ashcroft has given up his non-dom status. He now pays tax. That is the end of it.