I don't disagree that Blair paid for an unlawful war but I don't accept they created un-necessary jobs - jobs were there to help create wealth by allowing more spending in the market (Keynes) - however I think my point was that there is a damnation on both houses tory and labour and that it isn't true that labour were solely responsible for the collapse of the economy - actually you can add the w I mean bankers into that equation as well.
Only 'add' them in? They are the major component of the equation - the government were only minor players who pulled them out of the poo by giving them our money. Two things I've never really understood about that: 1) Where did all the money actually go to - ie, who got their sticky fingers on it? 2) Why did the government just give it to them? Surely the taxpayers would have been better served had the money been channeled to the banks via paying off mortgages? The banks would then still have received the funds they needed, and taxpayers would have received a tangible benefit - rather than the big fat zero they actually got when the money disappeared to wherever it went, along with even more tax hikes & spending cuts.
I know everyone loves to have an easy go at the bankers - however they were only doing what bankers do - giving loans to people. The trouble was that it was done in an unregulated way and part of the fault of that lay in the Blair government abandoning the controls that existed when they came to power in 1997. They let the children play with toys without control. Yes the bankers are a mercenary lot and did not care about society as a whole - just on what bonuses they could make - helloooo - most people at work do so for their own self interest. If they can cause others a problem they need regulation - would you like an unregulated nuclear power station? The money the government put into the banks went to other banks that ours had borrowed from. A lot of the problem emanated from the US Freddy Mac and Fanny MAe or whatever. They lent money and helped create a housing boom bubble. Dodgy debts were then parceled up with other debts and sold on to unsuspecting - and incautious other bankers who smelled a profit in getting cheap access to lots of debt but forgetting that debts can be defaulted on. Hey presto trouble in the offing Now compound that problem with a government who had abandoned their first term pledge to not spend spend spend and pass control from the likes of Blair to the rampant socialist Brown who spent money we did not have and you are approaching the crunch. They like to use taxpayers money for their own pet projects and did so. The illegal Iraq War was one of them. The final ingredient was a world wide economic downturn - partly as a result of the factors above. Oh yes BB - I would have danced with joy if the government had used my money - taxpayers money - to pay off other people's mortgages. Oh and in case anyone thinks I would have had more faith in the Tories the answer is marginally yes in terms of looking after our economy and not spending as much money that the country did not have - but no in terms of caring about people in our society.
Spot on Lenny. Our countries obsession with either supporting the Tories or Labour just allows them to perpuate their ridiculous polarisation..when will we get politicians that can review a problem, determine the root cause and apply the best possible solution irrespective if it aligns with their traditional party positioning or not?
I always used to say I would vote for any politician who could deliver a tenth of what they promise - I now think that would be far too optimistic. Like you w-y I also do not like the polarisation and continual swing from one end of the spectrum to the other - so I used to advocate PR to get hung parliaments and "compromise" politics - but having seen what the current shower are capable of I am no longer so keen
According to Osbourne & the Daily Mail it's not the bankers that are to blame for Britian's plight. It's the poor - Millions of fectless Derby County fans having loads of kids for the £50 a week they get to support them. It would be funny if it didn't have its origins in tragedy. I would say that the Daily Mail is at least partly responsible for the current crisis due to its obsession with house prices which created the sub-prime monster. That and they employ Martin Samuel! Back to Di Canio - When cornered he says "I'm only a footballer, what do I know of politics". Everyone should know about politics. Otherwise running or ruining the country is left to either; incompetents, fanatics, jobworth civil servants, the Generals or even (Lord preserve us) Boris.
The frightening thing is that the "current shower" are probably the best government we could have ended up with. I'm not saying I like them, but a Tory or Labour majority would have caused far more damage, and a Lib-Lab coalition in which Labour sought nationalist votes when the parties disagreed would probably have been worse still.
for me , i will be partying big style the day they declare thatcher dead-- she and her cronies started this dismantling of welfare state, and all its gains for working class people-- all that came after her carried on with the 'project' --labour's enthrallment with the 'city'-- was pitiful-- a gambling house where the losers are bailed out by the taxpayer-- the ruling class salt all their illgotten in offshore tax havens-- a proper revolution is needed-- share out the wealth to those who truly create it---not the illusionists..
Suggest you try living in Russia then and then come back and you will vote Tory and worship at Thatcher's statue
what absolute drivel-- leonardo-- try living in russia-- i think thats 20 years out of date-- no i live here, where i was born-- its pot luck which fanny you drop out of-- just got to make the most of what you can-- for me that is collectively-- no man is an island in my book-- to me socialism is the only way to live, don't go for selfishness and conservatism-- or versions of...
Oh - you don't agree with me then Gave up believing in socialism when I grew up and realised almost everyone is selfish to an extent. Out and out capitalism and socialism are the bad ends of the spectrum - you have to try to find a way to give people an incentive to succeed and the conditions to do it.
i haven't 'grown up' obviously-- still plenty of time for that-- if being selfish means wanting everyone to have a piece of the oie, thereby ensuring that i get some, well thats my kind of 'selfishness'-- the rest you can shove into a lonely place that is the preserve of the 'rich' !
I see that she has requested a State Funeral too! After what she did to Scotland, when she does pop her clogs, I suspect that there will be mass State Street Parties up here.
I think the comparison to Russia may not have been a good idea ! You only need to look at the Scandinavian model for an example of semi socialist systems which work. The fact is that there is practically no country in Europe with a more unequal distribution of wealth than Britain.
I strongly doubt that. I don't know the statistics so stand to have them thrust down my throat but I suspect that there is a small core of super rich in every country. Those are the people who come from inherited money and can trace their lineage to some baron or other and fought in a war and were given lands etc etc. Do you know what - I don't care. I am not jealous of them just because I don't have their privilege. I did not go to public school nor did my kids. My father worked hard to get what he could and just taught me to do the same. Every single thing I have was earned by my own sweat and I value it because of that. However I do not want to pay taxes so someone else can have a breast implant or a child for me to pay for. I have paid enough looking after my own. People now believe they have a "right to this or that benefit" The definition of poverty is so awaful it would make anyone in the third world laugh if they had the strength. I do not want to pay for people who do not make their marrriages work and then pretend they are single parent . Whenever you hear "the government should pay for that" try substituting the phrase "my neighbour" or " a stranger" or just "someone else" should pay for that. Alot of socialists would have us believe that taxing the super rich would solve all their problems - wel sorry they wont. Rant over - for now
I don't have that many statistics to hand, but one I do have. If you accumulate the interest earned (or should I say gained) by the wealthiest 10% of the British population on their capital. It exceeds the total income of the poorest 20%. This is the real crime in our society because interest does not simply fall out of the sky - it goes missing in another place. You don't have to be a Communist to believe that interest = theft, the Bible and the Koran condemn this practice already. Although most modern believers don't know this. I do not want to live in a society in which my success is dependant upon someone else's failure - which is more or less always the case within Capitalism - I simply do not feel comfortable living that way - does this make me a Communist or any other -ist ?
