Socialists

[southstand1882]

Not quite. Few things missing:

- Rampant immigration massively increased government spending
- Government debt also tripled under Labour's era. From £20 billion to £60 billion.
- Average house prices also tripled under Labour's era. From £80K to £210K.
- Public sector wages are now higher than private sector
- Public sector pensions are out of control

 

[southstand1882]

So can we say summarise this by agreeing that..

1. Politicians, both right and left-wing, are to blame for not regulating the banks sufficiently from the 80's onwards

2. The banking sector are responsible for the economic shock of 2008 which sent government spending to higher levels whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of monies being raised through taxation, levies etc thus resulting in a significantly higher level of debt:GDP.

Now the debate becomes about how to get out of the current problem and those facing us in the future. Correct?

Oh and the FSA (which provided light-touch regulation of the banks) was formed in 2001 (under Labour)

Can't blame the Tories for that one!

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has sought to restore Labour's battered credentials on the economy as he expressed profound regret for the party's failures which contributed to the banking crisis in 2008.

Warning that the current economic situation was "the most dangerous time in the economy in my lifetime", Balls refused to make promises about reversing tax rises and spending cuts, while he tried to rebuild public trust in Labour.

"The banking crisis was a disaster," he said. "All around the world the banks behaved irresponsibly, but regulation wasn't tough enough. We were part of that. I'm sorry for that mistake, I deeply, deeply regret it.", Ed Balls (Labour)

He added: "The thing which we said at the time was, we wanted it to be risk-based, we wanted it to be lighter where there was less risk, tougher when there was more risk. What we failed around the world to see was the scale of those risks. I'm sorry about that. It's also the case we made some mistakes in other areas – of course we didn't spend every pound of public money well."

 

[southstand1882]

So can we say summarise this by agreeing that..

1. Politicians, both right and left-wing, are to blame for not regulating the banks sufficiently from the 80's onwards

2. The banking sector are responsible for the economic shock of 2008 which sent government spending to higher levels whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of monies being raised through taxation, levies etc thus resulting in a significantly higher level of debt:GDP.

Now the debate becomes about how to get out of the current problem and those facing us in the future. Correct?

Yes, we need to pay off the debt. We can't do that with a deficit.

A combination of two things must occur:

- Increase in revenues (tax)
- Decrease in public sector spending

I would suggest that abolishing final salary pensions is also required.

These pensions have disappeared from the private sector. If corporations can't afford them, then the bloody government certainly can't.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

But it was the Tories (and Republicans in the US) during the 80's who started deregulation of the banking sector. It was also the Republican govt in the US that was in power from '00-'08 who behaved in the same manner as Labour did, so you can't lay the blame for the lack of govt oversight merely on the left-wing govts. It was govts all over the world, regardless of their political idealogy, that basically bent over and allowed the bankers to shove it right up everyone's a***.

Again, the current problem was not merely caused by left-wing "socialist" spending. It was because of our elected "leaders" inability to be able to see further ahead than their next election, regardless of political leaning.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Trying to keep up with your posts! :lol:

Not quite. Few things missing:

- Rampant immigration massively increased government spending - Agree. But, as above, don't think this can be pinned on Labour exclusively
- Government debt also tripled under Labour's era. From £20 billion to £60 billion. - Ok. But as Dubai posted earlier, the GDP also tripled during this period so the % of govt spending-to-revenue stayed approx the same.
- Average house prices also tripled under Labour's era. From £80K to £210K. - In a capitalist society, people would be rioting in the streets if the govt interfered with rising house prices, so again can't be blamed on the govt. In fact, this can also be blamed on the bankers since the boom was fuelled by loose loaning practices
- Public sector wages are now higher than private sector - I didn't read the link you supplied since it wanted me to register first so I have a question on this. Is this because public sector wages are increasing or due to private sector wages decreasing?
- Public sector pensions are out of control - Addressed in my next post

 

[southstand1882]

Sorry

Public sector workers saw their pay rise by 1.6 per cent last year, slightly more than the increase in the private sector, despite the coalition’s two-year pay freeze for public servants, official figures show.

The median gross weekly pay of full-time employees in the public sector rose to £565 a week in the year to April, according to an annual survey of hours and earnings by the Office for National Statistics.

In the private sector, earnings increased by 1.5 per cent to £479 a week.

The public sector pay freeze, announced by George Osborne, the chancellor, in mid-2010, exempted those earning under £21,000 and the armed forces.

The ONS found that workers in the public sector earned on average 2.2 per cent more that those in the private sector, adjusted for the fact that the public sector has a higher proportion of large organisations, which tend to pay more than smaller ones.

Excluding the effect of different organisation sizes, public sector workers earned 7.3 per cent more than those in the private sector.

The ONS found the difference was largest at the bottom end of the scale. Adjusted for organisation size, the lowest public sector earners – those at the fifth percentile, the point at which 5 per cent earn less and 95 per cent earn more – earned on average 11.2 per cent more than in the private sector.

The public sector’s highest earners – those at the 95th percentile – earned 10.3 per cent less on average than employees in the private sector.

Only the highest earning public sector employees (i.e. those on massive 6 figure salaries) earn less than their private sector counterparts.

 

[southstand1882]

Immigration

Britain experienced the largest influx since the Saxons during the 13 years of the last Government with migrants arriving in the UK at a rate of almost one a minute.

Up to another million are feared to be here illegally, while a million Britons left the country during the years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The true legacy of the last Government is exposed today in a comprehensive review by the think-tank Migrationwatch.

It has meant pressure on public services, roads, housing, schools and hospitals. The report also shows:

:: three in four new jobs created since 1997 have been accounted for by migrant workers
:: one in four children is born to a foreign mother
:: a third of future extra households will be due to immigration
:: half a million extra foreign-born children arrived at a primary school
:: the UK population could hit 70 million within two decades, largely driven by immigration
:: research by leading demographer, Professor David Coleman of Oxford University, concluded that if immigration continues at its present level the ‘white British’ may become a minority in the UK by the late 2060s.

It was most definitely a Labour policy problem!

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Despite what you think the causes of this problem were it is hard to disagree that the answers are not massive cuts in welfare. Yes we need growth but anyone who does not think we as a country have not been living beyond our means for years is living in cloud cuckoo land.

No government will be prepared to do it because they want to get back in so my advice and im serious is, by land and learn how to tend to a veg plot.

Oh and on immgration i was reading on the telegrapgh website the other day what ian duncan smith said about tax credits and them not knowing who got it. Well i actually do know a latvian lady who moved to the country last year and gets tax credits and housing credits because she can not afford her rent, she only works 3 days a week. Mental if you ask me that we are buying to help people to live who have no right to ask for help. But then im just a nutty UKIP guy so i guess my opinon does not count, or so the left would say(its a way of belittling my opinon even if it is correct)

 

[southstand1882]

Despite what you think the causes of this problem were it is hard to disagree that the answers are not massive cuts in welfare. Yes we need growth but anyone who does not think we as a country have not been living beyond our means for years is living in cloud cuckoo land.

No government will be prepared to do it because they want to get back in so my advice and im serious is, by land and learn how to tend to a veg plot.

Oh and on immgration i was reading on the telegrapgh website the other day what ian duncan smith said about tax credits and them not knowing who got it. Well i actually do know a latvian lady who moved to the country last year and gets tax credits and housing credits because she can not afford her rent, she only works 3 days a week. Mental if you ask me that we are buying to help people to live who have no right to ask for help. But then im just a nutty UKIP guy so i guess my opinon does not count, or so the left would say(its a way of belittling my opinon even if it is correct)

My grandparents are shocked by the amount of money people spend these days (usually on credit)

It's not nutty at all to point out the billions we spend on this brick

UKIP will get stronger and stronger unless the Tories / Labour realise that the tax payer has had enough

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I would suggest that abolishing final salary pensions is also required.

These pensions have disappeared from the private sector. If corporations can't afford them, then the bloody government certainly can't.

So do you think it's "fair" per se for a public sector worker to have worked diligently for the past 40 years with the understanding that their final pension would be at a certain level, and then pull the rug from underneath them at the last minute because our so-called "leaders" didn't have the balls to reign in the banking sector? If you want to institute changes that take effect in 10 years time so the the about-to-be-pensioned workers don't suffer for the excesses of the few, then that wouldn't have any effect for another 10 years. I do agree with you that some of the public pensions out there are completely out of whack however, and new regulation on this is completely justworthy to a certain degree, but the problem is a whole lot more complicated than this. It all starts with comprehensive banking reforms IMO and, unfortunately, the current crop of politicians are still failing us on this.

 

[southstand1882]

My policies would be:

- Increase interest rates
- Introduce mansion tax for >£1m properties
- Limit immigration based on skills shortages
- Only provide benefits to immigrants providing they have contributed via PAYE and NI for 12 months
- Abolish ALL final salary pension schemes
- Decrease corporation tax and abolish employer NI
- Distribute profits from selling bank shares to tax payers
- Maximum council house size is 3 bedrooms
- Decrease benefits for long term unemployed

 

[southstand1882]

So do you think it's "fair" per se for a public sector worker to have worked diligently for the past 40 years with the understanding that their final pension would be at a certain level, and then pull the rug from underneath them at the last minute because our so-called "leaders" didn't have the balls to reign in the banking sector? If you want to institute changes that take effect in 10 years time so the the about-to-be-pensioned workers don't suffer for the excesses of the few, then that wouldn't have any effect for another 10 years. I do agree with you that some of the public pensions out there are completely out of whack however, and new regulation on this is completely justworthy to a certain degree, but the problem is a whole lot more complicated than this. It all starts with comprehensive banking reforms IMO and, unfortunately, the current crop of politicians are still failing us on this.

No. Existing pensions stand.

You can't take them away like that.

But they're abolished as of today.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

It was most definitely a Labour policy problem!

We agree!!!! However, I would again state that this was more a lack of any kind of political leadership from either party rather than merely a Labour one. Or is it not a condition of EU membership?

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Off to cook breakfast for the missus and I. Back in a bit.

 

[southstand1882]

We agree!!!! However, I would again state that this was more a lack of any kind of political leadership from either party rather than merely a Labour one. Or is it not a condition of EU membership?

They wouldn't flood here if the handouts weren't offered!

Personally, I'm more than happy to take another million immigrants, providing they are NET CONTRIBUTORS to society.

Many have a brilliant work ethic (more so than some of our own lazy fudgewits). e.g 1 in 3 households in Liverpool have NEVER worked.

But no house and benefit handouts unless they've paid tax & NI for at least a year. Benefits should be earned

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

So do you think it's "fair" per se for a public sector worker to have worked diligently for the past 40 years with the understanding that their final pension would be at a certain level, and then pull the rug from underneath them at the last minute because our so-called "leaders" didn't have the balls to reign in the banking sector? If you want to institute changes that take effect in 10 years time so the the about-to-be-pensioned workers don't suffer for the excesses of the few, then that wouldn't have any effect for another 10 years. I do agree with you that some of the public pensions out there are completely out of whack however, and new regulation on this is completely justworthy to a certain degree, but the problem is a whole lot more complicated than this. It all starts with comprehensive banking reforms IMO and, unfortunately, the current crop of politicians are still failing us on this.

Anyone who worked in the private sector and paid into pensions will know full well what gordon fat scottish **** brown did to pensions as soon as he got in. Good for me because i thought fudge it and went all out on property but it was bad for the country and we are still feeling the effect of it today. My dads pension went down from £18,000 in 96 to £7,800 when he retired in 2003 brown is and always will be a **** for that alone.

As for public sector pensions, we have been living beyond our means, with an ageing population those pensions are not affordable unless of course older people expect younger ones to work longer for there pensions. The thing is pensions should have been reformed even in thatchers day, the retirement age is still to young. No government especailly a tory one wants to pt up the pension age to where it should be because of losing votes, especailly the tories because that is ther core vote.

I hate labour and i hate the tories, but the tories are slightly better at running the economy. The pension age needs to be raised and all these people moaning about it because they are coming close to retirement are being extremly self centred because it is the future generations that will pay for it. We all deserve a decent retirement for sure but living standards and life spans have changed, the unions and the civil service need to understand this and wake up to the real world.

I actually blame the tory party for the pension problem, like a lot of things they should have changed as soon as they got in when people still blamed labour for the mess we are in, will be much harder now for them to do it.

That is the problem when you get a two faced **** like cameron as prime minister. I hate the man.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

My policies would be:

- Increase interest rates - Do you mean income tax? If so, coupled with a decrease in corporation taxes as mentioned below then I Agree.
- Introduce mansion tax for >£1m properties - Agree
- Limit immigration based on skills shortages - Agree
- Only provide benefits to immigrants providing they have contributed via PAYE and NI for 12 months - Ok
- Abolish ALL final salary pension schemes - Ok
- Decrease corporation tax and abolish employer NI - Ok. See above
- Distribute profits from selling bank shares to tax payers - Agree but in what form?
- Maximum council house size is 3 bedrooms - Ok
- Decrease benefits for long term unemployed - Too broad a scope for me to agree wholly with but I get where you're going with this so in general....Agree

Throw in systematic banking reforms and I'd vote for you.

Add in increased consumer protections from predatory business practices and environmental controls (inc. incentives for green and sustainable energy businesses) and I'd help you with your campaign.

Support the legalization of marajuana and gay marriage and I'll hang a picture of you on my wall.

 

[thfcsteff]

Read the words again

'Families affected by cancer'

I didn't say 'patients inflicted with cancer'

Do you have any experience with cancer in your family?

If you did you would be aware that doctors and nurses don't support your family at all. They provide medical care to patients.

But really.......indeed

I disagree based on the experiences I've been through not just with my mother but several friends. The docs and nurses went out of their way to take a few mins whenever necessary and discuss what was going on, etc.

 

[thfcsteff]

With respect, I'm think you're making things up

It works for Macmillan. They provide care to millions.

1 in 3 people are affected by cancer at some point. that's about 20 million

So why not charities look after the jobless for example

And what would you call such a charity? And who would fund it? All the tossers who refuse to invest in their own country's, farm out labor and tech support to the third world for the cheap factor/fattest profit margin? How much will they put in? Enough to buy a little bit of 'we're doing our bit' pie? I'm sorry, this is a preposterous idea, it really is, on so many fronts...

 

[thfcsteff]

Manageable debt is good

But we're at a tipping point now. The debt is too much, and the deficit is too large.

When we run debt at many hundreds of percent of GDP, it will lead to misery and ruin.

It is not sustainable.

We don't have the excuse of fighting world wars anymore.

It is shameful.

LOL, dont get me going re: the industrial military complex...if you look ever so carefully, you will see that not only has a war been created from the ashes of tragedy, it has been maintained with some degree of skill and another potential one is being allowed to simmer gently on the back stove...wow...this thread could really become a marathon and tangent off...I'd best be quiet!!!!