Shameless labour

moggylover

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I refer you to superbrown and his "I have saved the world" mumblings. If he saved the world, howcome the world is where its at?

As I said, I'm bored of this titt for tatt arguing. BOTH parties are as bad as each other, but I've never actually seen just all out attack from a party with absolutely no substance after about 8 months of questioning what they would do, as labour are doing now.

For every reference labour apologists can pluck out against the tories, theres a reference back you can use against labour. And round in circles we go.

I see that in-fighting as what is fundamentally wrong with the Country. Regardless of ones political leanings it rapidly becomes clear that most Governments are really only interested in what will be seen to have happened IN FOUR YEARS and not in the longer term: it is frequently about "power" (and yes, imo, the interests of those financially secure enough that recessions really do not affect them in a way that is at all significant to their lives) and has little to do with the best interests of the majority of the nation who want just a little life, with a few home comforts and a degree of security and food on the table.


The Thatcher era was when businesses were persuaded that borrowing to grow was a great idea and that holding owned assets and money in reserve was a thing of the past and held them back. I have friends at the moment (not just one medium sized business but several) who are struggling to keep up payments having done just that, and the ones who are benefitting are the larger vulture companies who are just waiting to buy up yet another company in difficulties either to rape it, asset strip it and dismantle it, or to diversify and grow even larger and more powerful. That may be okay for those very large companies: it is not in the best interests of anyone using their services, or buying their products.

I also have friends with very small businesses who are also struggling because the vast majority of the low paid workers around here were not in any great debt (beyond mortgages or high rents) but are finding it harder and harder to manage with increased prices on the essentials of life (food has jumped far more dramatically then the overall inflation would suggest imo) and are simply not spending on trips out, or take-aways or any of the other services that are not entirely necessary but which make up a very large sector of our economy nowadays.

I personally feel that many small/medium businesses are the best thing for an economy and that the large corporations and so forth are frequently far too powerful (and too greedy) to be good for anything except breaking up and spreading about.

To my mind, NOTHING makes any sense anymore. Work pays so poorly in relation to the cost of living that we re-distribute wealth around the middle/working and non-working classes (with WTC as well as other benefits) whilst leaving the extremely wealthy a larger and larger share which does not filter back at all! Furthermore, those companies lack any sense of moral responsibility to the Country so badly that they remove work from it and use foreign labour (often in dreadful conditions and at almost slave labour rates) instead so that the "drip-down" effect that is supposed to happen from increasing wealth at the top is short circuited altogether.

We have inadequate work for the population we have, and yet the big employers are very insistent that we still need to import "specialists" (like retail staff who will put up with being treated like carp by the employer because they can claim benefits here;)) and the Country and private industry as a whole has failed abysmally to provide sufficient variety of work (during a period of extreme gain at the top) to suit the variety of talents that any population will have.

We need to start at the bottom and apply some common sense across the board to ALL of the ways in which our Nation lives and works. In actuality, perhaps the only way this will ever be achieved is for all political parties to put aside their own self-interest and work together and to aim for a balance between paying down debt and serving the very real small people that make up the biggest part of the voting public in this Country.

Yes, we need to reduce borrowing (we did even at the end of the Thatcher era) but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy essential public services, drive the infrastructure of the Country into such a mess that it costs more to re-instate than it would have done to maintain and doesn't put the masses of smaller businesses that really have worked hard (albeit some of them foolishly believing the borrow hard and live harder spiel) and do not deserve the mess that they are currently wallowing in through little fault of their own!

I personally HATE debt, and apart from a mortgage have always tried to steer clear of it. However, I was once told by a very rich man that that was the trouble with the working classes and the reason they stayed poor;)

Rochdale_Pioneers

The level of basic ignorance on here is astonishing. The assumed link between what Osborne said and the facts is frankly laughable.

moggylover

nembot wrote: »

Perhaps you don't understand there was no infinite pot of money for Labour to borrow from?

It's a little naive to suggest we're in this position due to the coalitions short time in office, it'll take years to turnaround the Labour governments mess!!

Well, it could equally be argued that at the time Labour last took over from the Tories that we still had high borrowing but that the NHS, education, road, etc., were in such a poor state of repair that massive investment has been necessary to improve it!

Being old enough to remember local businesses being asked to supply computer print out paper to schools because they couldn't even afford to supply drawing paper for the children (and kids being asked to go to school in buildings that were cold, leaky and mildewed), hospital wards being closed despite huge waiting lists, and roads that needed building/widening altering but weren't getting done I dread going back to that. Furthermore, massive amounts of social housing was sold off, and none was allowed to be rebuilt and so more and more people were forced into the poverty and insecurity of private rental or a mortgage they could ill afford.

Looking back at history (even recent history) is absolutely the only way we can ever learn and move forward and actually create change and a stable economy based on a well-trained, and respected and valued workforce who can actually afford to live and even improve their lives! Certainly nothing I have seen so far convinces me that this lot are even slightly interested in doing that: and I am pretty certain that if we asked the 61 million people in this Country if that would be what they wanted from life then all but a very small and greedy bunch would consider that eutopia!

IronWolf

StevieJ wrote: »

So why are student fees increasing to replace the shortfall?

You realise the univerisities will be getting the same amount of money, and because its in loans they will all be paid by the government up front anyway.

Thats not a funding cut to universities in any way shape or form.

moggylover

angrypirate wrote: »

So this old argument - what would the tories have done? Right now, we are where we are thanks to Labour (ie in a mess).

To answer your question its a matter of opinions. Had the Tory's been in power and done nothing, then the budget deficit would have been lower, inflation would have been lower but interest rates would have been higher. Also, i imagine national debt would have been a lot lower going into the recession.

I imagine the recession would have been worse but would have been a lot lot quicker. We are now in a position where, thanks to labour, this recession is probably going to trundle along now for a number of years.

The REAL fear and the biggest reason for bailing the banks was that once one or two went, the others were at very serious risk of falling as well! Please do not be taken in by the claims that some were more prudent than others: the same sorts of messes were being passed around like a parcel and it was really only a case of who got caught with the worst bits when the music stopped;)

moggylover

abaxas wrote: »

What kind of LSD induced world do you live in?

Why should someone have the right to something they cant pay for?

Because they worked hard for it, and could afford it when they started buying. The increased interest rates were not their fault (they never are because such necessary personal borrowing is seldom the reason for either inflation or recessions) but were brought about by the circles of boom and bust which very much favour the extremely wealthy and keep the rest of us running like rats on a wheel with very little hope of ever truly improving our lives.

If we sit on our backsides in steady jobs and paying just the amount of rent we can afford we are lazy and barstewards who stay poor because we don't try hard enough and if we try we often get scuppered by the inefficient monetary system that rules the World.

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

You realise the univerisities will be getting the same amount of money, and because its in loans they will all be paid by the government up front anyway.

Thats not a funding cut to universities in any way shape or form.

It is a funding cut by the govt, It like saying we have not cut spending on the NHS just made all the hospitals private

Jennifer_Jane

vivatifosi wrote: »

As someone who's worked in the public sector for the last couple of years but not before I never cease to be amazed at the poor levels of service that can be seen as acceptable, nor at the extras that the public sector pay for that the private sector would negotiate as free. This does need to change.

The private sector needs to stop taking the p!ss on some of its contracts and the public sector needs to grow a pair when negotiating. I know that there's been work done in this area by the government to negotiate framework contracts, but much more is needed. Having said that, I know that newer contracts are far less of a free-ride for companies as tighter budgets do drive a need for more forceful negotiation.

Agree. My pretty much only public sector anecdote is that when a boss of mine became a non-exec director of a local NHS trust, she was overlooking a contract which had been drawn up and was all set to go ahead. She noticed that the Company would have been able to charge for the work whether or not any work was done. So even if the job were cancelled, the Trust would have had to fork out £500,000.

She was astonished at this lack of basic business sense.

moggylover

lynzpower wrote: »

I never said there was endless pots of money out there. What is it with this black and white thinking?

That unless you slash to bits you are in someway a spendaholic.

You simply have to spend money sometimes to prevent things getting worse. Preventative work in the NHS for example, support for small businesses.

Keep universities going for gods sake, yes trim if neccesary but dont decimate the whole show.

Increased tax revenues from eg people who are working, earning, growing thier business and dont let the giants like vodaphone off with millions of tax breaks, when the little guy has to pay his way.

It is an absolute disaster for this country in my view to let the likes of tesco design communties, is this really what the country wants?http://www.publicpropertyuk.com/2010/08/17/lsh-and-tesco-back-hertfordshire-lep-bid/

Excellent post :T:T:T

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Has anyone yet answered the question about what labour would do?

So are we talking about what Darling would have done, or what Johnson would have done, or what Balls would have done?

It's not like there's been any consistent party policy.