Shameless labour

tattycath

woodbine wrote: »

of course the tory led govt is to blame after all they are in power,and lets be honest about this they arent making a very good job of it so far are they?

And let's face it they have a mountain to climb to get us in as much s$%t as labour always seem to manage when they make the decisions!!-

Graham_Devon

woodbine wrote: »

of course the tory led govt is to blame after all they are in power,and lets be honest about this they arent making a very good job of it so far are they?

I don't think any party could.

However, considering the landscape, and considering we have the strange formation of a lib dem and tory government, I honestly don't think they are doing too badly.

I remember when they joined forces, and many were rolling around laughina and predicting they had a month until number 10 was bought to it's knees.

Apart from the student fee's fiasco, which was silly for lib dems to suggest, but never for once at the time thought they may actually be in a position to implement it, the coalition so far, has done a pretty good job, again, considering the backdrop of the economy, UK, and globally.

The actual war between the parties, and the supporters is merely masking over the real issues.

We'd be screwed right now whoever was in. If labour were still in, these are their policies, therefore we'd be facing the same as we do now.

As the coalition is in, it's fashionable to simply lay the blame for everything at their door. Doesn;t matter if it's true or simply lies, it's fashonable, and thats that.

In reality, what we have, is global pressures, and a unique country, in terms of currency and policies, operating and buying most of it's goods from the Eurozone, the US and the East.

If a country is going to slide, it's going to slide. No one party can stop it. All one party can do, is try and use the plasters more effectively.

Trouble is, no one really knows what plasters to use, and the best way of applying them....and the sad thing is, in amongst the blame game and political warfare, we'll never actually know which was the best way, as we can only go one way. Both ways end up at the same point. A serious financial problem, with both sides pointing the finger at the other.

So, which path is more beneficial?

Well, we have the labour path, and all we seem to know is they would spend and borrow, to invest in growth. That growth would then pay down the borrowing.

The problem here is that spending costs money in interest, and any growth would have to be in boom territory, to pay the ever increasing interest payments, the ever increasing interest demands (we'd have to pay a higher price for more and more lending) and to also pay down the defecit at the same time, without any extra tax take.

Then we have the coalition path. Cut spending, increase taxes. This will affect jobs, is more likely to put us back into recession, so is more likely to cost the government money in benefit type payments etc and the cost of borrowing will again go up. Life, for most UK citizens goes backwards.

Path one, we end up with what would have to be a boom, and even bigger debt than we have now. This has been tried and tested. It's why we are where we are.

The second path, ends up with a worse quality of life, absolutely loads of blame, but a reduced amount of debt. This path has also been tried and tested. It's why we ended up where we did when labour took power in 1997 with a nice load of cash.

The only difference this time, is the whole global thing.

So, which tried and tested path do you choose? Both have been played before, weve seen the results of both, things are slightly different this time, and the impact of both paths is larger than before.

I know which one I'm choosing though. The tried and tested which ended up with lots of pain, but a functioning, and prosperous country at the end of it, and one problem, fixed.

I'm not so sure that more borrowing to provide more growth to pay every increasing interest on ever increasing debt is sustainable.

Massive post, I apolgise. Just trying to bring some real discussion to the table inbetween the rest of the sniping and references to anyone suggesting people should actually pay for something having the implication laid on them that they want our kids starving and ridled with disease.

diable

!!!!!! the problem is not Labour nor Tory but a load of Etonite Oxbridge Cambridge !!!!!! who studied PPE at UNI funded by rich parents at £25k a year running this country who are totally out of touch with the average Jo and the hardships experienced.

thor

This is what happened:

1. Labour spent heavily as they expected the economy to grow and be able to pay for it.
2. The GLOBAL banking crisis hit which meant that confidence was lost and everyone became sh*t scared to spend. Labour failed to provide enough regulation to stop greedy bankers acting recklessly( although the tories wanted even LESS regulation iirc )
3. The bankrupt banks had to be saved otherwise all financial institutions would have collapsed and we would have been reduced to bartering.
4. Reduced income from economy + propping up the banks = huge debt.

The root of the problem lay in american sub-prime loans. That is what has f*cked up everything.
Now as austerity kicks in with increasing unemployment government revenue will be decreased further with no avenue for growth to get us out of this mess. For Cameron to tell us that private companies will be able to absorb the hundreds of thousands thrown out of work is a complete joke!

Graham_Devon

thor wrote: »

The root of the problem lay in american sub-prime loans. That is what has f*cked up everything.

Well, it only f*cked up those who chose to play a part in the debt game.

There were countries that were fine, thanks very much, as they didn't take part in such practices.

leveller2911

diable wrote: »

!!!!!! the problem is not Labour nor Tory but a load of Etonite Oxbridge Cambridge !!!!!! who studied PPE at UNI funded by rich parents at £25k a year running this country who are totally out of touch with the average Jo and the hardships experienced.

Has to be the most accurate post on the thread...;)..

I've had to endure 7 pages of waffle only to find the most accurate post last.......If I could hit the "Thanks" button 100 times I would.

To the rest of you go to bed and hope you all wake up in a better mood in the morning, obviously too many late nights.....:D

diable

thor wrote: »

This is what happened:

1. Labour spent heavily as they expected the economy to grow and be able to pay for it.
2. The GLOBAL banking crisis hit which meant that confidence was lost and everyone became sh*t scared to spend. Labour failed to provide enough regulation to stop greedy bankers acting recklessly( although the tories wanted even LESS regulation iirc )
3. The bankrupt banks had to be saved otherwise all financial institutions would have collapsed and we would have been reduced to bartering.
4. Reduced income from economy + propping up the banks = huge debt.

The root of the problem lay in american sub-prime loans. That is what has f*cked up everything.

Wrong.

The people in power still want to control the masses and how they spend their money.

It's keeping the masses under control.

A._Badger

diable wrote: »

!!!!!! the problem is not Labour nor Tory but a load of Etonite Oxbridge Cambridge !!!!!! who studied PPE at UNI funded by rich parents at £25k a year running this country who are totally out of touch with the average Jo and the hardships experienced.

Well, perhaps. But in what sense is that any worse than having the country run by a bunch of failed lawyers, polytechnic lecturers and former student activists?

It is possible for both parties to stink.

diable

A._Badger wrote: »

Well, perhaps. But in what sense is that any worse than having the country run by a bunch of failed lawyers, polytechnic lecturers and former student activists?

It is possible for both parties to stink.

Tony was a Lawyer and an exclusive pupil at an exclusive school funny he sent his children to the same school that my children went to.

Flyboy152

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with you?

You sound more like an extreme socialist than a labour supporter.

Can you please explain, rather than simply going off on tangents, how it's nasty, and you have no compassion if you believe people have a right to shelter, but not a right to own it if they can't afford it?

I can honestly not see how that can be construed as nasty, or having no compassion, or not giving a fig for your fellow man, yet you seem to be well off on tangents trying to make it out to be....so I'd love to know your reasoning.

More like a human being with compassion and a conscience with a sense of responsibility; something you sorely lack.