Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Mr Garvie's letter in the NWN today (20/12) is disingenuous
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 06:25 PM
LETTER IN THE NWN TODAY (20TH Dec) by Richard Garvie
FAILING schools, rising fuel prices and help for the growing number of homeless in West Berkshire. All subjects featured in last week's letters in Newbury Weekly News.
Is this what people vote for at the last General Election when they voted Tory, or Lib Dem? Did they vote for longer waiting times at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, the withdrawal of support for those in full-time education, or the need to reply on food banks?
The economic policies of this Government have failed, and whilst our local MP 'praises' the work of local food banks, I feel he, and our local Liberal Democrat candidate, need to think about why these food banks exist in the first place.
Richard Garvie,
Newbury Labour Party"
I must take umbrage with Richard Garvie's letter in the Newbury Weekly News today. Either he is stupid or playing politics.
In his letter he says "The economic policies of this Government failed". Did anybody really expect that any government, any economic policies would solve our crisis – which I might add were caused by the Labour Government – within 2 years of being elected? The state of our debt was going to take many years into the future and properly beyond. I also must remind Mr Garvie that Alistair Darlings and Brown's economic policies weren't that far of from the Tories. All the failures that Mr Garvie pointed out would have happened whoever was in power.
Mr Garvie say the government's economic policies have failed? According to whom (apart from Labour politicians and Mr Balls)? If you listen to independent economic experts the governments polices have better chance than the current Labour parties policies of spend, spend, spend.
Mr Garvie said in today's paper "is that what people voted for at the last General Election? That is a stupid comment. We are in debt and whoever would have been in power would have created the same results. Even Balls said he wouldn't undo the coalition's government current economic policies. He is being totally disingenuous and insulting with his letter. To suggest that Labour would have solved the problems that Labour created themselves is laughable.
Just a matter of interest; we had soup kitchens and food parcels under the last failed Labour government. And didn't Brown and Darling praise those soup kitchens and food parcels when they were in government?
Posted by: motormad Dec 20 2012, 06:54 PM
I personally think you should get out more.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but rather that nothing is really going to change because of it.
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 06:58 PM
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but rather that nothing is really going to change because of it.
You could argue that everybody on here should get out more. But we write and reply because we've got something to say and want to express it. Agreement and disagreement is part of forum life; that is why we are on here.
Posted by: user23 Dec 20 2012, 08:13 PM
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 08:15 PM
For somebody who claims he doesn't like drivel you half write some. Too much time sitting at your computer at WBC with nothing to do.
Posted by: x2lls Dec 20 2012, 08:22 PM
Oh well, another thread goes personal very quickly, never mind eh?
In response to OP:-
Labour are so good at spending our money like the BBC has.
I'll say it again, they always leave us broke, recession or not!
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 08:31 PM
In response to OP:-
Labour are so good at spending our money like the BBC has.
I'll say it again, they always leave us broke, recession or not!
I agree. You try to create a thread to debate - and those that are critical of going off topic and spoiling a thread - are those that are actually the worse abusers. Maybe he should but himself on "ignore".
Posted by: user23 Dec 20 2012, 08:50 PM
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 08:57 PM
That is not the point. You criticise others for spoiling threads (and not saying anything intelligent) and that we all should put so-and-so on "ignore" when you do exactly what you condemn others for. Which makes your a hypocrite. It is all right for you to spoil threads but when somebody does it to you, you get on your high horse. By your own admission you should put yourself on "ignore".
Posted by: user23 Dec 20 2012, 09:11 PM
In this thread I was just replying to a post by motormad with a quick quip about your traffic warden stalking antics. No need to take it so personally.
Posted by: GMR Dec 20 2012, 09:17 PM
In this thread I was just replying to a post by motormad with a quick quip about your traffic warden stalking antics. No need to take it so personally.
I wasn't taking personally, it is just annoying that you accuse me of doing something and then doing the same yourself; i.e spoiling threads. Personally I don't care what people do to threads; but don't criticise others for doing something you don't like and then do it yourself. As I said, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
Posted by: motormad Dec 20 2012, 10:19 PM
Popcorn for everybody!
Posted by: Penelope Dec 20 2012, 10:21 PM
OOoh yes please, and can you turn the sound up a bit?
Posted by: user23 Dec 20 2012, 10:28 PM
Posted by: motormad Dec 20 2012, 10:37 PM
All sorts, even Toffee! Arguably the best kind of popcorn. Butterkist is just... Mmm, mmm, mmm mm mm.
Up to 11, Lady P.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2012, 12:06 AM
No party put us in the situation we, as a country, find ourselves; fate and the population did that.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2012, 08:16 AM
Nevertheless, politicians steer us and set the drum beat. Labour still haven't quite got it. For instance, listening to Margaret Beckett being very sanctimonious on the committee grilling Starbucks and the like about avoiding taxes, legally avoiding that is where she was twittering on about moral duties!! I would love to have been the Company representative answering her questions! All we've done is copied the House Mrs B but at least we kept the law! Similarly, us off shoring our HO function and doing high recharges; well we thought you lot liked PFI! Similarly, all the Socialist squealscalling for Mitchell's resignation because he swore at a Copper but OK for the Deputy PM to physically assault a member of the public!
Lets have some real difference and can't the Labour Party remember first principals. Not a chance these days as we all have short memories so suspect that's what Richard Garvey is hoping for!
Posted by: pbonnay Dec 21 2012, 09:20 AM
Is the author responsible for the appalling grammar seen in the letter, or has his prose been edited?
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2012, 10:38 AM
Lets have some real difference and can't the Labour Party remember first principals. Not a chance these days as we all have short memories so suspect that's what Richard Garvey is hoping for!
People voted Labour in with a significant majority; 'more the same please' we said. I saw no popular concern at the time by the general public that the economy was 'over-heating'.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 21 2012, 10:56 AM
A resounding 'more the same please' three times I think.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2012, 11:00 AM
Oh well, you live and learn by your mistakes...............
Don't we??
Posted by: massifheed Dec 21 2012, 11:36 AM
Knowing RG on here as we do, which do you think it is?
Posted by: user23 Dec 21 2012, 12:44 PM
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2012, 12:44 PM
I think you echo what the Queen said to the economists - didn't you see it coming? There was no popular or indeed professional concern that there was anything wrong with the economy. Everything going very well, the statistics actually supported that. Certainly before Blair took a dive, Gordon Brown was seen by many as 'Mr Prudence'.
However, we all thought that Bankers and their auditors had some degree of integrity, ruthless yes, but 'my word is my bond'. As this turned out to be untrue, our economy was built not on sand, but sh**.
So why blame Labour? Well, for me, and I know this isn't popular, I don't go along with 'having a good spend up' at any time, good or bad. Public money should be spent very very carefully. During the Brown years, we were simply throwing money at education, health and so on - but as it was unfocussed, no real benefit.
Posted by: Sherlock Dec 21 2012, 12:58 PM
I don't support any of the main parties, but the idea that the current economic crisis was caused entirely by the New Labour government can't go unchallenged. This is my take on what has actually happened:
- Thatcher decimated the UK's industrial base during the 1980s and created, via the Big Bang, a dependence on the banks and the financial sector. She also blew our North Sea oil income instead of reinvesting them for the long term, which is what Norway has done;
- Major reinforced this trend and introduced the Private Finance Initiative which, disastrously, mortgaged public sector assets long term to gain short cash for the exchequer (meanwhile Europ's most successful economy, Germany, followed almost exactly the opposite course, strenghtening its industries and keeping banks in check - it's far too late for us to emulate them now);
- Blair realised that the only way that Labour could win an election was to seize the centre ground and appeal to tory voters. His Chancellor, Brown, further degregulated the banks.
- Up to 2008 the tories broadly supported Labour's spending plans;
- the credit crunch in 2008 was caused by deeply corrupt practices within deregulated banks in both the USA and UK;
- Brown was forced to nationalise major chunks of UK banks to prevent a complete meltdown of the system.
- Neither Cameron nor the Libdems won the 2010 general election. Instead they cobbled together a coalition which is forcing through policies which, as Cameron boasts, are far more radical than those even contemplated by other conservative governments. The Libdems, led by the deeply distrusted Clegg, are treated with contempt by the tories and ignored on all issues of substance but continue, suicidally to prop up Cameron'
- Labour are an ineffective opposition and have elected a deeply ineffective charisma-free leader who can't relate to ordinary people.
- We're all doomed.
- That's it.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2012, 02:15 PM
- Thatcher decimated the UK's industrial base during the 1980s and created, via the Big Bang, a dependence on the banks and the financial sector. She also blew our North Sea oil income instead of reinvesting them for the long term, which is what Norway has done;
- Major reinforced this trend and introduced the Private Finance Initiative which, disastrously, mortgaged public sector assets long term to gain short cash for the exchequer (meanwhile Europ's most successful economy, Germany, followed almost exactly the opposite course, strenghtening its industries and keeping banks in check - it's far too late for us to emulate them now);
- Blair realised that the only way that Labour could win an election was to seize the centre ground and appeal to tory voters. His Chancellor, Brown, further degregulated the banks.
- Up to 2008 the tories broadly supported Labour's spending plans;
- the credit crunch in 2008 was caused by deeply corrupt practices within deregulated banks in both the USA and UK;
- Brown was forced to nationalise major chunks of UK banks to prevent a complete meltdown of the system.
- Neither Cameron nor the Libdems won the 2010 general election. Instead they cobbled together a coalition which is forcing through policies which, as Cameron boasts, are far more radical than those even contemplated by other conservative governments. The Libdems, led by the deeply distrusted Clegg, are treated with contempt by the tories and ignored on all issues of substance but continue, suicidally to prop up Cameron'
- Labour are an ineffective opposition and have elected a deeply ineffective charisma-free leader who can't relate to ordinary people.
- We're all doomed.
- That's it.
Yep - that's about it. Shame the predictions about the end of the Earth weren't accurate!
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2012, 02:18 PM
just beacuse Mother Nature didn't throw in the towel does not mean today was D-Day for us humans.
Just when you thoughht the economic crisis could not get any worse....
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2012, 02:25 PM
However, we all thought that Bankers and their auditors had some degree of integrity, ruthless yes, but 'my word is my bond'. As this turned out to be untrue, our economy was built not on sand, but sh**.
The only person I remember saying anything at the time was Vince Cable, but it would have taken a very brave PM to say we need to tighten out belts whilst the economy looked benign.
This was their biggest failing I think. Unsustainable investments with no proper productivity deals in place.
Posted by: Jayjay Dec 21 2012, 02:29 PM
Totally agree with your comments and would like to add a few more. Thatcher sold off the housing stock but did not reinvest it in affordable housing, hence the current housing shortage.
Blair pursuaded the electorate that you were nothing without some sort of degree. The young went to university and had great expectations of being on the top rung of the ladder when they left and refused the more menial but necessary jobs. Immigration greatly increased to fill the jobs with all the issues that has brought.
Osborne's measures clearly are not working, we are hitting a tripel dip recession. Make everyone redundant so they do not spend anything, they do not pay tax and they increase the social budget.
Posted by: Blake Dec 21 2012, 04:46 PM
Labour policy is total hypocrisy and duplicity.
This was a party that promised to turn Britain into a "New Jerusalem" and who thinks after all this time that they actually got anywhere near it??
Harold Wilson promised to transform Britain with the "white heat of technology". And what do we have to show for that promise??? Even Concorde was conceived before he got into power.
It makes no sense for Socialists to encourage higher living standards and upward mobility as then voters will see Socialism for the utter sham and self-defeating C R A P it is and then back other parties that back enterprise and self-improvement.
Socialists seek the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the proletariat. Blair and Brown have abolished functionaing capitalism and Jeremy Kyle now seeks to inflict the rule of the proletariat of our airwaves. How spirit crushing...
Posted by: Jayjay Dec 21 2012, 05:27 PM
This was a party that promised to turn Britain into a "New Jerusalem" and who thinks after all this time that they actually got anywhere near it??
Harold Wilson promised to transform Britain with the "white heat of technology". And what do we have to show for that promise??? Even Concorde was conceived before he got into power.
It makes no sense for Socialists to encourage higher living standards and upward mobility as then voters will see Socialism for the utter sham and self-defeating C R A P it is and then back other parties that back enterprise and self-improvement.
Socialists seek the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the proletariat. Blair and Brown have abolished functionaing capitalism and Jeremy Kyle now seeks to inflict the rule of the proletariat of our airwaves. How spirit crushing...
Socialism is having essential services run by the state on a non profit system. Coal, gas, electricity, public transport are examples of this - they were better run and far cheaper than they are now they are run by foreign companies for profit. Labour is not a socialist party in the true sense. What was the last thing you can recall Labour nationalising?
Posted by: Sherlock Dec 21 2012, 06:27 PM
This was a party that promised to turn Britain into a "New Jerusalem" and who thinks after all this time that they actually got anywhere near it??
Harold Wilson promised to transform Britain with the "white heat of technology". And what do we have to show for that promise??? Even Concorde was conceived before he got into power.
It makes no sense for Socialists to encourage higher living standards and upward mobility as then voters will see Socialism for the utter sham and self-defeating C R A P it is and then back other parties that back enterprise and self-improvement.
Socialists seek the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the proletariat. Blair and Brown have abolished functionaing capitalism and Jeremy Kyle now seeks to inflict the rule of the proletariat of our airwaves. How spirit crushing...
Well done, that's hilarious! The idea that Blair and Brown were socialists and sought 'the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the proletariat' is the funniest thing I've heard this week. Have you considered a career in stand up?
Posted by: GMR Dec 21 2012, 06:35 PM
This was a party that promised to turn Britain into a "New Jerusalem" and who thinks after all this time that they actually got anywhere near it??
Harold Wilson promised to transform Britain with the "white heat of technology". And what do we have to show for that promise??? Even Concorde was conceived before he got into power.
It makes no sense for Socialists to encourage higher living standards and upward mobility as then voters will see Socialism for the utter sham and self-defeating C R A P it is and then back other parties that back enterprise and self-improvement.
Socialists seek the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the proletariat. Blair and Brown have abolished functionaing capitalism and Jeremy Kyle now seeks to inflict the rule of the proletariat of our airwaves. How spirit crushing...
If I can quote what Tony Benn said "Labour has never been a socialist party, but there are socialist in the party."
The Labour party promised a "New Jerusalem" many decades ago. Parties change and adapt to the times. Blair and Brown were never socialists, as pointed out above.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2012, 07:28 PM
[quote name='GMR' date='Dec 21 2012, 06:35 PM' post='75770']
If I can quote what Tony Benn said "Labour has never been a socialist party, but there are socialist in the party."
The Labour party promised a "New Jerusalem" many decades ago. Parties change and adapt to the times. Blair and Brown were never socialists, as pointed out above.
[/quoout te]
So they do, but as things have become very blurred and over lapping I think we deserve some clear definition. For instance, there was never any need to abolish Clause 4, it just needed modernising and bringing up to date. Similarly, the arrangements with the Trades Unions. Not sure you are 100% about Brown, he is certainly driven and his convictions are certainly socialist. Suspect he became disoriented by the spinners such as Mandleson and Campbell.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2012, 07:45 PM
I think it is a matter of scale. Socialism would work better in small scale environments, where as capitalism works better in larger ones. In truth we probably need a bit of both at the moment.
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Dec 21 2012, 08:08 PM
'And your proof of this is???'
Posted by: Criddleback Dec 22 2012, 08:48 PM
I think you might mean Margaret Hodge....
Posted by: Criddleback Dec 22 2012, 08:56 PM
Harold Wilson promised to transform Britain with the "white heat of technology". And what do we have to show for that promise??? Even Concorde was conceived before he got into power.
Blimey! Bringing up Wilson! He did establish the Open University and made less of a balls up of everything than Heath. He also left office at the time of his choosing, which even Maggie T didn't, and won four General Elections, which is one more than Maggie. A marvellous man, was Mr Wilson. I had the pleasure of meeting him and talking with him at some length during his later years.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 22 2012, 09:00 PM
Really?
Posted by: Ron Dec 22 2012, 11:09 PM
And he also did a lot to kill off the apprentice system, particularly in the engineering world, as it existed in the late 1950s, one they are trying to resurrect now.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 23 2012, 09:56 AM
I suspect Brown's drivers are Christian ethics rather than socialism per se - of course the two are often the same.
Posted by: pbonnay Dec 23 2012, 10:20 AM
The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25.1-13).
The 5 maidens caught out with not enough oil in their lamps because of a delay in a wedding ceremony were shut out from the great feast. Doesn't sound very "Christian" to me.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2012, 11:21 AM
The 5 maidens caught out with not enough oil in their lamps because of a delay in a wedding ceremony were shut out from the great feast. Doesn't sound very "Christian" to me.
Like many such things including Christianity and Socialism., people tend to pick and mix the values and ethics, only use the ones they like.
Posted by: pbonnay Dec 23 2012, 12:05 PM
Yes. A bit like Wikipedia - anyone can find and quote words that say what they want.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2012, 02:58 PM
Most certainly! The Ministry of Truth on line. Just one minor example, a week or so back I noticed Herbert Morrison's second wife had been airbrushed from his entry. Both Lord and Lady Morrison are now dead so why?
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 23 2012, 03:36 PM
That is true of anything, from anywhere. Some could argue the OED and the EB can be inaccurate, or out of date.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 23 2012, 05:23 PM
Which takes up back to the OP, I guess...... Any 'political' observation is always disingenuous as it is made with a particular outcome in mind. His writings will always seek to focus on a negative, even if the whole truth is a 95% success story. Then, by repeating and repeating the issue, the proles are made to believe the world is approaching apocalypse....
Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2012, 05:26 PM
How very true and haven't we heard that somewhere before?
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 23 2012, 05:33 PM
Standard propaganda methodology.........
Posted by: pbonnay Dec 24 2012, 09:32 AM
On the issue of poverty and benefits, I would recommend listening to Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead). He speaks from a position of great experience and knowledge and the story he related on Radio 4's Any Questions last week was interesting.
He met with 3 unemployed young men from his constituency and questioned them on their desires and expectations. They maintained it was not worth working unless a job paid at least £300 per week. When it was asked why they would not take a job paying less, they appeared indignant at it being suggested they should have to stoop so low as to take “Immigrant Jobs” (their words).
We now appear to have a number in our society who think the benefit system enables a two-tier job market.
BBC iPlayer, Any Questions, at 47:18
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 24 2012, 11:12 AM
[/size]
I must take umbrage with Richard Garvie's letter in the Newbury Weekly News today. Either he is stupid or playing politics.
In his letter he says "The economic policies of this Government failed". Did anybody really expect that any government, any economic policies would solve our crisis – which I might add were caused by the Labour Government – within 2 years of being elected? The state of our debt was going to take many years into the future and properly beyond. I also must remind Mr Garvie that Alistair Darlings and Brown's economic policies weren't that far of from the Tories. All the failures that Mr Garvie pointed out would have happened whoever was in power.
Mr Garvie say the government's economic policies have failed? According to whom (apart from Labour politicians and Mr Balls)? If you listen to independent economic experts the governments polices have better chance than the current Labour parties policies of spend, spend, spend.
Mr Garvie said in today's paper "is that what people voted for at the last General Election? That is a stupid comment. We are in debt and whoever would have been in power would have created the same results. Even Balls said he wouldn't undo the coalition's government current economic policies. He is being totally disingenuous and insulting with his letter. To suggest that Labour would have solved the problems that Labour created themselves is laughable.
Just a matter of interest; we had soup kitchens and food parcels under the last failed Labour government. And didn't Brown and Darling praise those soup kitchens and food parcels when they were in government?
Not playing politics at all. Just upsets me when the Tories and Lib Dems talk about food banks like they are a good thing. The economic policy (austerity) of this government is flawed and has killed off the strong growth we had at the last election. When has austerity ever worked??
With regards to the point about Labour not reversing all of the cuts, it won't be possible to reverse a lot of what is happening because of the economic conditions. It's not neccessarily because Balls agrees with them, there just isn't a way to reverse them.
This Government is borrowing more and spending more. They have missed their fiscal tsrgets massively and have even included the sale of 4g capacity to make the books look good even though we haven't started the sale process. Isn't this kind of creative accounting why the banks went belly up??
The banks caused the financial meltdown, and whilst those on lower incomes get raided by the chancellor, the wealthiest 8,000 people in the country have had their tax bill slashed by £107,000 despite many of them being... BANKERS!!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 24 2012, 11:41 AM
If true, why isn't Labour making a bigger fuss, because that is false accounting in my view.
The only way we will be able to get jobs is by making the UK an attractive place for people to invest. Taxing high earners has always proved counter productive, no matter how unsavoury it might be.
Posted by: GMR Dec 24 2012, 11:55 AM
I disagree. I think you are trying to promote yourself.
And of course we wouldn't have had food banks if Labour had won (even though food banks existed when they were in power). Even though we shouldn't have to have them they are a good thing. Labour thought so when they were in power and no doubt they would be promoting them as a good thing if they had won the election.
All economic policies are flawed. There is not such thing as a perfect economic policy. The difference is Balls policies are more flawed than the coalitions.
But if they had won the election their economic polices wouldn't be that far of the Tories. So it is a bit rich you criticising them.
Nothing you said here couldn't be pointed at the Labour government then or now if they had won.
The banks caused the financial meltdown because the Labour government relaxed the banking regulations. Even your ex-leader Brown admitted this.
Posted by: GMR Dec 24 2012, 11:56 AM
The only place we will be able to get jobs is by ,making the UK an attractive place for people to invest. Taxing high earners has always proved counter productive, no matter how unsavoury it might be.
Agreed.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2012, 12:24 PM
I make that 0.013% of the population. Just sayin'
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 24 2012, 12:56 PM
A letter signed by a representative of the local Labour Party is not making a political point? Yeah, right..... It wasn't announcing the Christmas Fete, was it?
As always, every 'fact' has a counter, and a potential different interpretation.
Austerity is such an emotive word, chosen for the imagery of poverty etc. Living within means is so 'Plain Jane'. Apart from scale national economy is not much different from a personal budget. A few years ago I was out of work, debt up to my ears, not eligible for benefits. Spending my way out was not an option as it only built a problem for later on. Now, while not exactly rich, I am on the up and the situation improves each month. I haven't been on an austerity budget, just limiting spends to the essential and the affordable.
The debt the nation is incurring at the moment is due to fixed spends exceeding income, so filling the gap with borrowing. That is a balanced budget as the source of all funds is identified. Once those fixed spends end/reduce the borrowing will follow. The previous administration, we are told, created the need to spend without a scoobie where the money was coming from - the image of 'free money'. Maybe a deliberate ploy to create chaos and step back in at the next election with the promise of 'we can work it out'?
Posted by: blackdog Dec 25 2012, 08:39 AM
Then along came this government and 'quantitative easing' - hey presto 'free money'!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 25 2012, 11:42 AM
Who are getting a 860m tax cut between them. Fair??
It was these people who caused the financial crisis (bankers).
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 25 2012, 11:43 AM
Ed Balls did make a fuss about it.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 25 2012, 11:54 AM
In 2010, the economic rebound was strong and the debt was coming down, as was borrowing. By keeping people in work by investing in infrastructure projects, more people were paying taxes and confidence was returning to the markets.
Enter the coalition who wanted to cut the deficit and debt much quicker. Sack public service workers, stop infrastructure investment and put vat up. The result is that the welfare bill went up massively and tax income fell. Economic output (driven by construction projects) fell and took us back into recession, killing confidence and the recovery.
I agree with having to reduce the debt and deficit, but the fact is we are borrowing more as and the debt is going up. I agree we need to reform welfare. I agree that we need to be more prudent. But we need an economic policy that reduces debt and borrowing, austerity results in the opposite.
Labour sorted out the mess left by the Tories last time around, and will have to do so again. I keep saying it, look at the data from 97 and the data from before the financial crisis. The bankers caused the mess, and instead of making them pay with the 50p tax and a tax on bonuses, Cameron and Osborne are asking them to contribute less whilst the rest of us contribute more!!
Posted by: GMR Dec 25 2012, 01:20 PM
Enter the coalition who wanted to cut the deficit and debt much quicker. Sack public service workers, stop infrastructure investment and put vat up. The result is that the welfare bill went up massively and tax income fell. Economic output (driven by construction projects) fell and took us back into recession, killing confidence and the recovery.
I agree with having to reduce the debt and deficit, but the fact is we are borrowing more as and the debt is going up. I agree we need to reform welfare. I agree that we need to be more prudent. But we need an economic policy that reduces debt and borrowing, austerity results in the opposite.
Labour sorted out the mess left by the Tories last time around, and will have to do so again. I keep saying it, look at the data from 97 and the data from before the financial crisis. The bankers caused the mess, and instead of making them pay with the 50p tax and a tax on bonuses, Cameron and Osborne are asking them to contribute less whilst the rest of us contribute more!!
Actually the economic situation when Labour took over was very good. Even Brown and Blair admitted this.
You are very selective. You forgot to mention that when labour lost the election in 1979 Thatcher had to spend years sorting out Labour's failures and economic wreck. When Blair came to power in 1997 the situation was a lot better and stronger.
You are very critical of the coalition but most of the economic experts say they would have found the same problems or things could have been a lot worse if Labour had won. The coalition is two years into government. Thatcher Government took years (more than 8 years) to solve Labour's mess. The coalition was left with a far worse debt than they inherited from the last Labour government. You would be better spending your time educating your party in why they went wrong and failed than just spouting propaganda bull****.
I accept that there are faults within this coalition. But I would rather have the coalition's faults than Labour's continuous incompetents.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 25 2012, 08:37 PM
Enter the coalition who wanted to cut the deficit and debt much quicker. Sack public service workers, stop infrastructure investment and put vat up. The result is that the welfare bill went up massively and tax income fell. Economic output (driven by construction projects) fell and took us back into recession, killing confidence and the recovery.
I agree with having to reduce the debt and deficit, but the fact is we are borrowing more as and the debt is going up. I agree we need to reform welfare. I agree that we need to be more prudent. But we need an economic policy that reduces debt and borrowing, austerity results in the opposite.
Labour sorted out the mess left by the Tories last time around, and will have to do so again. I keep saying it, look at the data from 97 and the data from before the financial crisis. The bankers caused the mess, and instead of making them pay with the 50p tax and a tax on bonuses, Cameron and Osborne are asking them to contribute less whilst the rest of us contribute more!!
Labour, in my view, sorted nothing out, they rode on a wave of personnel debt. The Tories didn't leave a mess, bear in mind Labour followed their spending plans for several years after gaining office. They then did NOTHING to stem the profligacy that is for sure.
Just like Britain thought it needed Thatcher because of the wimp Labour government (destructive unions ruled the party), we now have people who think we need an austere government because of Labour's imprudence.
Sorting out mess is judged by what the conditions are after you leave, not as you leave.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 26 2012, 12:12 AM
I accept that. But the economy only went down the toilet after the Government changed track on how to deal with the debt and deficit. Look at the data. GMR says that the experts sided with the Tories. These experts are now distancing themselves from the Coalition and admitting they got it wrong.
GMR - the data about the country and its finances between 97 and the crash does not lie. Labour reduced debt and deficit left by the Tories, introduced the minimum wage, rebuilt schools and hospitals,rebuilt roads and railways and everything else, yet still got the country in a better place than what they inherited.
Labour should have had a better grip on immigration, built more affordable houses and dealt with Iraq in a different way. But on the whole, life was good under Labour and the figures were healthy. The economic crisis meant we had to bail out the banks and spend even more trying to keep the economy growing. How the crisis was dealt with would have been similar under all parties. The difference is getting out of the mess. I believe we were heading out of the crisis in a strong way, and the data supports this. Austerity and trying to cut too far and too fast killed off the recovery and led to the turbulent period we are now in.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 26 2012, 10:40 AM
The country was doing well by about the half life of their office; however, Brown as prime minister, broke his own fiscal rules in the final year of so and started borrowing to finance debt. Labour's spending on the things you list as improvements were and are unsustainable. Labour fooled us into thinking we can have our cake and eat it.
Posted by: Adrian Hollister Dec 26 2012, 10:49 AM
It's the sustainable economy that neither Labour or Conservatives seem to get. Capitalism and it's 'free trade' model relies upon boom and bust - with the goal of staying on the boom whilst others bust. There is always a looser in this approach with conflict, hardship and exploitation following in it's wake.
If they were in any way http://greenparty.org.uk/policies/policies-2010/2010manifesto-economy.html they would look at sustainable fair trading models and look to remove the casino economy.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 12:43 PM
No matter how hard Labour try; the ghost of Christmas past is ever present. Was up too early this morning and listening to the usually pro Labour BBC radio 4 presenter talk to a union official representing the striking tube drivers. I thought the new watch I'd been given for Christmas had a time travel feature and it was Christmas 1978! Apparently its still OK for the Union to walk away from a very recent and very generous settlement because 'fings 'ave changed'. The drivers want quality time with their families. Their pay might be generous, but thats what they've fought for and done a lot of bargaining. What of other much lower paid staff on the Underground and the many not well paid staff who had to get to work this morning? Well, that's nothing to do with the drivers, they need to look out for themselves! Makes you want to weep. So then, vote Tory / LibDem and they'll simply let a load of bankers shaft us, vote Labour one letter changes and same happens.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 26 2012, 01:55 PM
Was there a tube strike during Xmas in 1978? I know there was one last year (under the Tory coalition).
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 03:05 PM
I have absolutely no idea. Just remember that for that whole period it seemed there was strike after strike. Always amazed me that the Unions selected the bloke with the biggest gob to present their side of the story - which even then was simply 'we want more than our fair share and **** to the rest of you'. Even then, I listened to 'Today' on the Radio; and it was almost a replay this morning. At the time I was working for one of the nationalised industries in London, even to very lowly clerk, it was pretty clear something drastic had to happen.
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 26 2012, 04:25 PM
Yes and I bet that lowly clerk was grateful for every penny that that union bloke with big gob fought to get him.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 26 2012, 04:38 PM
Ah, the Government should have given into them then. The strikes were as a result of the Governments inflation policy at that time. How would you have fixed it so there were no strikes?
And I'll also bet that those who didn't join the strike also didn't hand any pay rises back when it was all over
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 04:51 PM
Ironically he wasn't. It was a closed shop and along with my colleagues, we bitterly resented being made to join the union. If it was that good, we'd have gladly joined of our own accord. The managers were also members of the trades union; so guess who got the best pay settlements?
I was employed in a section called 'Establishments' a predecessor to the HR industry. We had a problem recruiting staff at my grade because the pay scales at that level didn't match what was on offer elsewhere - the reason I left. Strange, but a few of the senior managers wanted and end to national pay bargaining for that very reason.
So no, the bloke with the big gob was heavily subsided by young idiots who actually did the work. In fact the bloke who I was grateful for was an out and out capitalist; who paid the rate for the job.
(The union was just as good with its own money. Would hold massive meetings for the officials in central London on Saturday mornings. People would travel in from all over South East, 1st class as it was union business. Someone would then start the meeting and generally within half an hour a contentious issue would be raised. At that point someone would declare the meeting inquorate and they'd all go home!)
Posted by: NORTHENDER Dec 26 2012, 07:51 PM
A massive meeting means a lot of people does it not? Inquorate means that there are not enough people to make a quorum. Funny meetings.
Posted by: Hugh Saskin Dec 26 2012, 08:02 PM
From lowly clerk to an expert on pretty much any subject you care to mention. How lucky we are to have him living in these parts
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 08:08 PM
Quite so, all managed by slight of hand and bizarre rules. Most people just had their subs automatically deducted from their pay and simply let the activists get on with it. Democracy, but not as we know it. This was also regarded as one of the more moderate unions. Whatever the revisionists say about the Callaghan government we were going to **** in a handcart. Callaghan could see what was going to happen but it was too late. Poetic justice in a way, he was the lead 'anti' when Barbara Castle tried.
Posted by: Squelchy Dec 26 2012, 09:52 PM
No, it's called laziness and apathy on the part of the members.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2012, 09:56 PM
...and so how empires fall!
Posted by: x2lls Dec 27 2012, 12:41 AM
Yes it is, swap sub for vote.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)