Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I will try and put it a bit more simply for you then BarryW.
This benefit cut (bedroom tax) is financially costing this country more to implement than it is ever going to save and therefor adding to deficit, rather than reducing it.
So how is this helping?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
Well then Barry, trot out the 'this is the legacy we were left by the labour party....', I suppose it was their fault that there was a global recession. I have as much contempt for blair and brown as I do for cameron and osborne, mind you, gove is especially unpleasant, isn't he ?...but you surely can't keep saying this without sounding as if the only policy you have is to cut everything to the bone and blame the previous government. Having listened to several political types speaking on the subject, they repeat the same old mantra time after time, until it sounds as if they have all been back to a 1950s primary school learning multiplication tables parrot fashion. I think that most members of the general public don't actually believe the politicians any more, and I for one am sick of the posturing when we are so deep in the financial muck we should all be working together instead of having policies that fragment the nation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
no good talking to someone with ice running through their veins barrie i have had direct communication with the head of the new dover food bank and the stories are quite harrowing.
not that our politicians are really interested.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
BarryW, nothing ever changes whenever you are unable to defend a policy you always attack either the person or their post.
The families plight was on ITV news but maybe you never got that far with your reading if your sensibilities are so delicate that you find the story distasteful for this forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well said Jan
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Barrie Nicoll wrote:Well then Barry, trot out the 'this is the legacy we were left by the labour party....', I suppose it was their fault that there was a global recession. I have as much contempt for blair and brown as I do for cameron and osborne, mind you, gove is especially unpleasant, isn't he ?...but you surely can't keep saying this without sounding as if the only policy you have is to cut everything to the bone and blame the previous government. Having listened to several political types speaking on the subject, they repeat the same old mantra time after time, until it sounds as if they have all been back to a 1950s primary school learning multiplication tables parrot fashion. I think that most members of the general public don't actually believe the politicians any more, and I for one am sick of the posturing when we are so deep in the financial muck we should all be working together instead of having policies that fragment the nation.
Barrie - the economy works in cycles of growth and contraction. I am not a Keynseyan personally but Brown claimed to be but Brown ignored the inconvenient side of Keynes dictum in failing to balance the deficit built up during the recessionary phase of the economy. Instead, from 2000 after the election pledge to match Ken Clarke's spending plans expired he increased the deficit which, until then had been falling true to Keynes theories. By 2005 he developed a structural deficit, one that could not be closed without cuts and carried on building it even beyond when the slowdown started in 2007.
Because of that the UK economy was in an appalling state to weather the economic slowndown. The fact that many other western countries made the same mistake is no excuse. Those countries that were better managed fiscally did not suffer the downturn anywhere nearly as badly.
Brown's monetary policy errors also made the situation worse, perhaps I should refer to his brief to the Bank of England in 1997 when he ignored the levels of private debt as a factor in interest rate policy. That was a direct cause of the housing and debt bubble alongside the damage it did to UK savings with the reduction in tax free savings allowance and the changes to the tax treatment of pensions and ISAs,
I could go on about the regulatory changes he made in 1997 introducing the tri-partied system that undermined prudential regulation of banks leaving them free to take risks because of lax supervision and his encouragement of banks to do so in his Mansion House speech. This is what resulted in the banks being exposed to US toxic debt and the accumulation of some domestic toxic debt of our own - the direct cause of the banking side of the crisis.
Overall Brown's governance of the economy was a complete disaster that turned a cyclical recession into a full blown economic crisis. The worse Chancellor (and PM) in UK history with Balls and Milliminor as his right hand men.
He did do one thing right - he kept us out of the Euro. If he had done Blair's bidding we would be in the same state as Greece and Spain, perhaps worse under the Euro cosh.
Barrie - the only way to solve a spending and debt crisis is to cut back on spending. Full stop. Government spending is a weight holding back the whole economy. At one point it was 53% of GDP - in other words 47% of the economy was paying for 53%, unstable like a pyramid upside down. A well run economy, like the most successful during the crisis, has the equasion the other way around, in fact I would have public spending at no more than 30% as an average over the whole economic cycle.
Solutions to the economic crisis is bound to fragment opinion because vested interest will always complain about their area. At the end of the day what needs to be done has to be done.
We would be on a faster route to recovery if Osborne had been more aggressive over spending cuts, deeper and faster.
As for the rest - I like Gove. A nice bloke who is doing a lot to sort out the education mess created by left wing idealogues within the education establishment.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Jan Higgins wrote:BarryW, nothing ever changes whenever you are unable to defend a policy you always attack either the person or their post.
The families plight was on ITV news but maybe you never got that far with your reading if your sensibilities are so delicate that you find the story distasteful for this forum.
Actually Jan - I am defending the policy. I am attacking the post as I consider that to have been improper. You can always have sympathy for individual cases but that does not mean the overall policy is wrong.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC wrote:I will try and put it a bit more simply for you then BarryW.
This benefit cut (bedroom tax) is financially costing this country more to implement than it is ever going to save and therefor adding to deficit, rather than reducing it.
So how is this helping?
I have no hesitation in supporting all measures to cut the benefit bill and public spending as I have said. You say it costs more and maybe you get that from left wing websites, I do not know if that is actually true and what basis those figures were calculated. If the policy does end up costing more then it will have to change, but I suspect that will not be the case.
As I said - if you really wanted an economy that can provide more help to those who deserve it then you should be supporting spending cuts, tax cuts and supply side reform. That is how to speed the rebuilding of the economy, more jobs and a level of GDP that can sustain the kind of public spending you would clearly like to see long term without repeated crisis other than cyclical downturns.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
AS I said, I have no more time for the last lot than I have for this lot, blair was a joke, albeit not a very funny one, and he walked out into a very cosy future, leaving the country in the hands of brown. The legacy they have left us with seems to me to be that if you get elected, there will always be someone to support your policies, no matter how misguided they are, due to tribalism or partisan voting, and when it all hits the fan four or five years after the election just make sure you have found your seat on the gravy train, whatever party you are in. Look at blair and mandelson, just as two examples of people who should not have a job anywhere near politics, set for life and never having to answer for any of their misdemeanours. If the tories don't get in next time, plenty on here will be able to use the same sentence with different names as they run off to feather their nests. If you really think these clowns are in politics for the good of the country, us, I feel you are very much mistaken.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to the issue of cost saving it was ian duncan smith not any "lefties" that said any saving on the benefits bill would be miniscule.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
On the 16th of October the Labour Party of Harold Wilson took over from the Conservatives who had been in Government since 1959.
Labour:317 seats
Conservative:304 seats
Liberals:9 seats.
One thing that did not change was the Tory appointed Governor of the Bank of England:Lord Cromer. He was not so concerned with implementing the Labour Manifesto, no, his great worry was the huge deficit in the balance of payments left by the previous administration. Some £800 million.
I mention this as background to what Wilson had to say about the arguments he had at that time with Cromer...
"Not for the first time, I said that we had now reached the situation where a newly elected Government with a mandate from the people was being told, not so much by the Governor of the BoE but by international speculators, that the policies on which we had fought the election could not be implemented;that the Government was to be forced into the adoption of Tory policies to which it was fundamentally opposed. The Governor confirmed that that was in fact the case...
[Genuinely shocked, Wilson drew the political conclusions...]
I asked him if this meant that it was impossible for any government, whatever its party label, whatever its manifesto or the policies on which it fought an election, to continue, unless it immediately reverted to full-scale Tory policies. He had to admit that that was what his argument meant, because of the3 sheer compulsion of the economic dictation of those who exercised economic power."
Wilson then, I read, threatened that in the circumstances he would be left with no alternative but to call another election, one which he predicted would result in a landslide victory for Labour...a deal was done to offset this eventuality.
P.S.
Way back then Fiscal Profligacy was known as, 'Doing a Maudling', no wonder so much emphasis is placed on blaming G Brown.
[The above is an extract from Paul Foot's book 'The Vote']
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Barrie Nicoll wrote:AS I said, I have no more time for the last lot than I have for this lot, blair was a joke, albeit not a very funny one, and he walked out into a very cosy future, leaving the country in the hands of brown. The legacy they have left us with seems to me to be that if you get elected, there will always be someone to support your policies, no matter how misguided they are, due to tribalism or partisan voting, and when it all hits the fan four or five years after the election just make sure you have found your seat on the gravy train, whatever party you are in. Look at blair and mandelson, just as two examples of people who should not have a job anywhere near politics, set for life and never having to answer for any of their misdemeanours. If the tories don't get in next time, plenty on here will be able to use the same sentence with different names as they run off to feather their nests. If you really think these clowns are in politics for the good of the country, us, I feel you are very much mistaken.
Actually there is a lot in what you say.
The problem is that having democratically elected politicians is just the better of a poor lot of options - the alternative governmental systems are simply worse.
The weakness of the system is that they need votes and there are two ways to get votes - to promise the earth to those groups who shout loudest and can deliver most votes (promises that also end up costing the earth)... or to stand by a set of principals and go out to convince the public you are right to get votes providing leadership.
Ever since the days of Mrs T we have had too much of the former and too little of the latter. The last leader to lay out what she believed as a conviction politician and actually led was Mrs T.
When it comes what party to support it comes down to the one that is least untrustworthy, that has the basics for the right policies and has a chance of getting elected - that is the Conservative Party.
Why on earth would anyone who distrusts politicians vote for one of the Parties that wants to spend more money and interfere most in our lives - that is what Labour and the LibDems have in common. You can add to Labour a history of unparalleled incompetence not just on the economy but look at immigration, the Human Right Act and so on.... They are simply unfit for government the results from every term they have had in government speaks for itself.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:getting back to the issue of cost saving it was ian duncan smith not any "lefties" that said any saving on the benefits bill would be miniscule.
Iain Duncan Smith's agenda is to get away from the 'work penalty' inherent in the benefit system before his reforms that resulted in working not paying. Cost savings are not the priority there, at least not in the short term. The long term impact of his reforms will make savings though. My only criticism of his reforms is that benefits remain too high and should have been frozen for 3 years as part of the deficit reduction package.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom Austin wrote:On the 16th of October the Labour Party of Harold Wilson took over from the Conservatives who had been in Government since 1959.
Labour:317 seats
Conservative:304 seats
Liberals:9 seats.
One thing that did not change was the Tory appointed Governor of the Bank of England:Lord Cromer. He was not so concerned with implementing the Labour Manifesto, no, his great worry was the huge deficit in the balance of payments left by the previous administration. Some £800 million.
I mention this as background to what Wilson had to say about the arguments he had at that time with Cromer...
"Not for the first time, I said that we had now reached the situation where a newly elected Government with a mandate from the people was being told, not so much by the Governor of the BoE but by international speculators, that the policies on which we had fought the election could not be implemented;that the Government was to be forced into the adoption of Tory policies to which it was fundamentally opposed. The Governor confirmed that that was in fact the case...
[Genuinely shocked, Wilson drew the political conclusions...]
I asked him if this meant that it was impossible for any government, whatever its party label, whatever its manifesto or the policies on which it fought an election, to continue, unless it immediately reverted to full-scale Tory policies. He had to admit that that was what his argument meant, because of the3 sheer compulsion of the economic dictation of those who exercised economic power."
Wilson then, I read, threatened that in the circumstances he would be left with no alternative but to call another election, one which he predicted would result in a landslide victory for Labour...a deal was done to offset this eventuality.
P.S.
Way back then Fiscal Profligacy was known as, 'Doing a Maudling', no wonder so much emphasis is placed on blaming G Brown.
[The above is an extract from Paul Foot's book 'The Vote']
You are getting very desperate Tom to quote Paul Foot - nearly as bonkers as his dad who was, at least, a honourable if misguided man.
The sad thing about the period of Conservative government in the 50's was their lack of self confidence and excessive willingness to do no more than hold back the tide of socialism rather than reverse it. A trend followed by Heath. Mrs T was the one who corrected that and reversed the steady post war decline.
What you are trying to claim would be better illustrated by using Heath incidentally. The fact is though - the facts of history do not support the point you are making anyway as a comparison between Labour and Tory governments. Think - the 'golden legacy' (Mr T Blair commenting on his economic inheritance) - you can go back further, 200 years in fact as well. You cannot illustrate any period of Labour government that has left any kind of 'golden legacy' an economic crisis every time.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,938
Whichever party is in government their policies always seem to displease someone, usually by them quoting political manifesto's and ramblings about what
their party would do to get us out of a particular mess.
This Country, along with many others, needs to sort out the mess that we are in and there are many ideas and schemes being muted that seem to cost more rather solve the problem.
Forget your political leanings...............what in all honesty do you all believe should be done to extricate us from the deep hole that we find ourselves in?
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Read my posts Bob - I have frequently said what should be done with the economy to get it on a long term more sustainable footing. A difficult route to take that will upset a lot of people but well worth it for the result. The problem is you need a strong government to do what is need willing to take the flack from all the vested public sector interests, coalitions certainly do not provide that strength. Osborne to his credit has moved in the right direction but has been far too timid on spending, supply side reform, tax simplification and tax reductions.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
We have gone round this one so many times,
Obviously Barryc will continue to hold the view, hit the poor, but we must keep the rich happy
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith Sansum1 wrote:We have gone round this one so many times,
Obviously Barryc will continue to hold the view, hit the poor, but we must keep the rich happy
You just do not get it do you....
This is all about helping the poor and it is all about increasing the tax-take from the better off.
Increase the tax take through lower simpler and flat taxes.
Help the poor by creating real prosperity the only way it can, from profitable business providing new jobs from a sustainable economy.
Your way Keith of high taxes, high government spending, intervention and benefits has failed - it damages the means to create the wealth it needs to be sustained and drives us into an economic crisis.
I am amazed that some people cannot see what is in front of their face. It is not rocket science but it does need a lot of people on the left to drop their prejudice and short-sighted ideology.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So Barryw lets get into this a little,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I dont have any prejudice, i only want to see whats fair,
to take up some more of your points,,,,
For some time on here i have been saying the benefits system is flawed and we need to look at it, its to easy to just pick up the dole.(or whatever the term is these days)
and you hear it
just recently a young girl on the bus was talking to another girl about how she was preggers, never worked nor does her partner nor will they(and she proud of it that the state will keep them)
she spoke of the baby on the way and her guarentee of a council house
so that needs to change.
The benefit system should be for people in need, not an expectant.
We can all im sure quote instances of people who have no intention of working ever, but expect the state handout
that shouldnt be.
Of course the concerns are around those caught up in all this, the people that cannot work through medical grounds or other,
sadly we have seen by garyc post of those that get hit
I do believe in those rich taking a hit, and not always going for the poorest in society.
I dont think any one disagrees that we need to get the debt down(thank gawd we are not like the USA where things are at a standstill because the 2 parties won't agree but play political games)
its how fast you do it.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith you need to look at it from the macro issues. These need to be got right first and I will not repeat them yet again.
Its a bit like earning the money before you can spend it.
The problem with the left is that they spend the money first while damaging the means to earn the money. The credit card spend, spend, spend and damn the consequences mentality.
The consequences have not yet been resolved and there is still a long way to go.