Oh well, you live and learn by your mistakes...............



Don't we??

Knowing RG on here as we do, which do you think it is?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

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.

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.

Yep - that's about it. Shame the predictions about the end of the Earth weren't accurate!

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....

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.

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.

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...

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?

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?

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.

[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.

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.

'And your proof of this is???'

I think you might mean Margaret Hodge....

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.

Really?

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.