Thatcher changed Britain for the worse

by Ivanhoe Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:29 pm

First topic message reminder :

Through the Thatcher Major, years, millions of British people were made poor as a matter of policy, while others got rich as a matter of policy.

Blair and Brown embraced Thatcherism due to the change in the British, and now Milliband wants to change Labour again due to a changed Britain.

I personally long for a political party that sticks to it's core values, that has conviction, that does not change itself to suit a greedy selfish uncaring British populas who'se only thought is "self". In my view this "self" is mainly among the British middle classes.

Thatcher changed Britain for the worse, and now we are reaping through this dreadful coalition, what has been sown.

by Ivanhoe Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:31 am

blueturando wrote:To many people both young and old Thatcher will always be a hero and a person they admire. I know this goes against the majority here, but you are not a fair representation of the country so it doesn't really matter what you say against her.

Socialism and the greed of the unions brought the country to its knees and Thatcher saved us. Socialism can work in the short term, but generally it runs out of money very quickly and makes the county uncompetetive in a global market.
Socialism would take down the a path to becomming a third world country. Some people just CANNOT see the bigger picture....or just dont want to

Bluey,

Thatcher created over 3 million unemployed, she plunged millions of pensioners into poverty, she stopped building council houses for people who could not afford to buy, she deregulated the banks, she brought in a low waged, welfare State economy.

The Unions were not greedy, they were protecting their own working class workers in a fight which began in our industrial past, when workers exploitation was rife, and remains so today under Cameron.

Britain will never run of out money while we can give tax cuts to the rich, spend £9.1 billion a year in overseas aid, fight foreign wars, not forgetting £50 million a day into the EU.

This "running out of money" is a myth.

And yet so many people are believing this brainwashing tactic.

by Ivanhoe Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:29 am

blueturando wrote:To many people both young and old Thatcher will always be a hero and a person they admire. I know this goes against the majority here, but you are not a fair representation of the country so it doesn't really matter what you say against her.

Socialism and the greed of the unions brought the country to its knees and Thatcher saved us. Socialism can work in the short term, but generally it runs out of money very quickly and makes the county uncompetetive in a global market.
Socialism would take down the a path to becomming a third world country. Some people just CANNOT see the bigger picture....or just dont want to

Bluey, let me showe you a bigger picture.

There is no doubt that the rich have gotten rich sincxe the 80's, you must agree with that, and that the poor have gotten poorer.

Now we are all living in a country that defeated Hitler, yet the oldest among this very generation who fought for our frreedom today, are living on a disgustingly low State pension because your hero broke the link which kept the State pension increasing with national prosperity in 1980, over 30 years ago, whiule the rich in general have enjoyed mammoth tax cuts.

In this time millions of our elderly people have been and still are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food, and this is 21st century Britain.

Now I woiuld like your opinion of this particular issue, please ?

by Redflag Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:57 am

Ivanhoe wrote:
blueturando wrote:To many people both young and old Thatcher will always be a hero and a person they admire. I know this goes against the majority here, but you are not a fair representation of the country so it doesn't really matter what you say against her.

Socialism and the greed of the unions brought the country to its knees and Thatcher saved us. Socialism can work in the short term, but generally it runs out of money very quickly and makes the county uncompetetive in a global market.
Socialism would take down the a path to becomming a third world country. Some people just CANNOT see the bigger picture....or just dont want to

Bluey, let me showe you a bigger picture.

There is no doubt that the rich have gotten rich sincxe the 80's, you must agree with that, and that the poor have gotten poorer.

Now we are all living in a country that defeated Hitler, yet the oldest among this very generation who fought for our frreedom today, are living on a disgustingly low State pension because your hero broke the link which kept the State pension increasing with national prosperity in 1980, over 30 years ago, whiule the rich in general have enjoyed mammoth tax cuts.

In this time millions of our elderly people have been and still are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food, and this is 21st century Britain.

Now I woiuld like your opinion of this particular issue, please ?

Your view of the times of Thatcher Ivanhoe is very precise, and just take a look at what is happening in the UK the" SAME BLOODY THING" under the BACKSTUD Scam..er..on I have always said that he went into her papers from her reign of terror in the 1980s and that is where PLAN A came from.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:33 pm

Thatcher created over 3 million unemployed

I disagree...The unions played a major part in helping British businesses become uncompetetive. Other countries coud buy cheaper and better elsewhere.......True or not?!

The Unions were not greedy, they were protecting their own working class workers in a fight which began in our industrial past, when workers exploitation was rife, and remains so today under Cameron

Unfortunately many Unions ARE greedy and also play their own political game using their members as pawns

Britain will never run of out money while we can give tax cuts to the rich, spend £9.1 billion a year in overseas aid, fight foreign wars, not forgetting £50 million a day into the EU.

This I agree with...A awfull waste of money!!!

There is no doubt that the rich have gotten rich sincxe the 80's, you must agree with that, and that the poor have gotten poorer

No I don't agree the poor have gotten poorer.....What is the evidence of this? More poorly educated maybe!

A ruthless woman who acted like a dictator. In the end even her own party were against her and ousted her. Too late for this country i'm afraid blue..

Yes she was ruthless and at times acted like a dictator....but with so many weak people around her and in opposition, the country needed a strong leader......If only we could find one now?!

by astra Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:41 pm

Thatcher will always be a hero and a person they admire. I know this goes against the majority here, but you are not a fair representation of the country so it doesn't really matter what you say against her.

Hello Blue, try saying that in Scotland.

She did single handedly to Scotland, that which Edward the First and Henry the 8 AND Oliver Cromwell could not do!

She broke the back of the place.
(I see Diageo are putting some money BACK into Scotland. Too Little too late! Diageo are a major donator to Tory funds and have been living off the fat of the workforces for 40 years! and IMO this is trying to get more Tory MPs in Scotland than Pandas) By Tory fan estimates on here and the old MSN, the Whisky (note NO 'E'!) Industry never has contributed that much to the overall balance of payments of Scotland, so would not help that much when Scotland goes it alone
SO!

This is to boost Conservative popularity in Scotland, and-

Throw a spanner in the works for devoution.

Diageo are not doing this for the benefit of the Scots, iffifn they were, they could have done this 8 years ago!

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:45 pm

Why did the country need a "strong leader"? To crush the miners and the Unions? To de-regulate the banking sector? To educate people to a dog eat dog attitude?
What % of good did she achieve? About zero % against 100% damage.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:46 pm

In this time millions of our elderly people have been and still are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food, and this is 21st century Britain

Ivanhoe......When the coal miners went on strike frequently during the 70's and early 80's, did they give a toss that our pensioners did not have coal to keep warm, or were they happy to sacrafice a few oldies to get another huge percentage wage increase the country and the coal industry could not afford

by Ivanhoe Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:50 pm

blueturando wrote:
In this time millions of our elderly people have been and still are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food, and this is 21st century Britain

Ivanhoe......When the coal miners went on strike frequently during the 70's and early 80's, did they give a toss that our pensioners did not have coal to keep warm, or were they happy to sacrafice a few oldies to get another huge percentage wage increase the country and the coal industry could not afford

Bluey, I see your trying the old divide and conquer here then.

Im not talking about the coal miners that's a different issue.

Im talking about what your hero did to the elderly people of this country in 1980 when Thatcher broke the State pensions link with male average earnings.

What do you think of that policy ?

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:50 pm

Hello Blue, try saying that in Scotland.

She did single handedly to Scotland, that which Edward the First and Henry the 8 AND Oliver Cromwell could not do!

As I have never even been to Scotland I cannot really argue with you here

by Ivanhoe Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:01 pm

Redflag wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
blueturando wrote:To many people both young and old Thatcher will always be a hero and a person they admire. I know this goes against the majority here, but you are not a fair representation of the country so it doesn't really matter what you say against her.

Socialism and the greed of the unions brought the country to its knees and Thatcher saved us. Socialism can work in the short term, but generally it runs out of money very quickly and makes the county uncompetetive in a global market.
Socialism would take down the a path to becomming a third world country. Some people just CANNOT see the bigger picture....or just dont want to

Bluey, let me showe you a bigger picture.

There is no doubt that the rich have gotten rich sincxe the 80's, you must agree with that, and that the poor have gotten poorer.

Now we are all living in a country that defeated Hitler, yet the oldest among this very generation who fought for our frreedom today, are living on a disgustingly low State pension because your hero broke the link which kept the State pension increasing with national prosperity in 1980, over 30 years ago, whiule the rich in general have enjoyed mammoth tax cuts.

In this time millions of our elderly people have been and still are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food, and this is 21st century Britain.

Now I woiuld like your opinion of this particular issue, please ?

Your view of the times of Thatcher Ivanhoe is very precise, and just take a look at what is happening in the UK the" SAME BLOODY THING" under the BACKSTUD Scam..er..on I have always said that he went into her papers from her reign of terror in the 1980s and that is where PLAN A came from.

Since the 80's Britain has been run by the right wing, including the New Labour Government and now this coalition.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:13 pm

Im talking about what your hero did to the elderly people of this country in 1980 when Thatcher broke the State pensions link with male average earnings.

What do you think of that policy ?.
Ivanhoe

Pensions is a completely seperate issue (and valid one) that cannot be summarised in a few lines......The facts of the matter are every pensions analyst agrees we are heading towards a pensions time bomb where the country simply cannot afford to pay large pensions to people living 20/30 years after retirement.
Both Thatcher and Blair went for a more 'Private' option (Stakeholder Pensions), so even Labour recognise there are serious problems in publically financing pensions in the future.

So my question once again on this forum is....Where do you think the money can come from to continually pay massive and unaffordable welfare and pension bills?

by sickchip Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:32 pm

blue,

If you want to know where the money is, I suggest you look at my previous post.

by astra Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:34 pm

Seems to me, going by Stox' posts, that the money is there. The pension funds are in excess, Gordon Brown saw fit to raid that kitty, it is NOT what is unaffordable, it is what you want to spend the moneys on!

The aid for other countries, IS, "massive and unaffordable, in my humble opinion!

by **Ivan** Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:07 pm

blueturando. Two books (in addition to my family background and my own experiences of life) have had a profound influence on my thinking - ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’ by Robert Tressell and ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins. I’d now add a third one – ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein. I strongly urge you to read it before making any more statements about those of us on the left being "brainwashed". People who vote for Tories and US Republicans have been hoodwinked into inadvertently supporting an aggressive corporatist takeover, something which Mussolini himself described as an essential feature of fascism.

Klein writes about what she calls ‘disaster capitalism’ – orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities. This is the essence of her argument:-

"For more than three decades, Milton Friedman and his powerful followers had been perfecting their strategy: wait for a major crisis, sell off pieces of the state to private players while citizens were still reeling from the shock, then make the ‘reforms’ permanent.

The accurate term for a system that erases the boundaries between Big Government and Big Business is not liberal, conservative or capitalist but corporatist. Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor, and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security."

Your friend Thatcher adopted this policy with her mass privatisations between 1984 and 1988, after her friend and mass murderer Pinochet had done something similar in Chile. And she certainly changed our housing facilities for the worse. As Klein describes: “Thatcher opposed council houses on philosophical grounds, believing that the state had no role to play in the housing market…..With that in mind, she offered strong incentives to the residents to buy their properies at reduced rates. Those who could became homeowners, whilst those who couldn’t faced rents that were twice as high as before….and the streets of Britain’s large cities saw a visible increase in homelessness.”

Our current government has followed the ‘disaster capitalism’ model, using the excuse of the recent global banking crisis to asset-strip the NHS and what’s left of the state. Cameron and his corrupt cronies are using Milton Friedman as their guidebook.

Stump up and buy Klein’s book, and see if it makes you think any differently.

by sickchip Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:24 pm

Read the following books:

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha Joon Chang

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

When China Rules The World by Martin Jacques

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:32 pm

If you want to know where the money is, I suggest you look at my previous post

I agree Sickchip......The we need to find a party to vote for who will stop all overseas aid, withdraw from the EU and stop trying to be the worlds' policeman. I would vote for that party whoever they maybe

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:47 pm

Ivan.......I agree with much of what you say and this book certainly does sound like and interesting read.

There are large parts of Conservatism and Socialsm that I do not trust. Each creates or attracts a circle of power hungry and greedy people, who skillfully use the rest of us to attain these ends.

I believe Conservatives or Corporates manipulate global economies and financial disasters for their own ends.....
And I believe Socialists always desire ultimate power over the population, their lives and their finances, again usually only to benefit the people at the top.

This is a quick overview of my thoughts and I will go into more detail and examples when I can escape the office

There is somewhere inbetween, but so far I have yet to see it

by sickchip Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:52 pm

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:21 pm

No point hoping for the perfect party, one has to vote for one of the three parties which are the fairest to the masses and not few at the top.

Now those who have seen where this Tory led Coalition are going must surely not vote for either at the next election, unless of course they are wealthy or demented.

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:22 pm

Nice one Chip.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:40 pm

No point hoping for the perfect party, one has to vote for one of the three parties which are the fairest to the masses and not few at the top

Then we are destined to go round in circles for the forseeable future. It's like being given a choice between hanging or firing squad. If you're happy with that then good luck to you Mel

by Ivanhoe Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:29 pm

A study by consultancy firm Aon shows the state pays pensioners an income equivalent to just 17% of average earnings.

This is the lowest level in Europe and well below the average for all European Union countries of 57%. Even the Netherlands, which has the second-lowest level, provides a state pension nearly double the UK figure, the study shows.

The UK also has one of the highest retirement ages in Europe at an average of 62.2 years, with 57% of people aged between 55 and 65 still working.
Aon says the 'inadequacy' of the UK's state pension system is 'beyond question'.

At the heart of the problem is the Government's failure to undo the damage caused by the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, who cut the link between average earnings and pensions in 1980. Since then annual pension increases have been tied to retail price inflation.

FOR COMPARISON NOTE THAT:
Greece pays the most generous state pension at 95.7%.

This issue is rarely ever brought up in the media!, something has got be to done to help the elderly! as this is all being buried by the BBC TV media, please read as follows,-
Yahoo news:
Cold kills 180 British pensioners a day during winter. Britain has 12 million elderly people.

“”Nine elderly people died every hour from cold-related illnesses last winter against a background of soaring energy bills.

Official figures show the number of deaths linked to cold over the four-month period reached

25,400 in England and Wales, plus 2,760 in Scotland.

Charities and energy company critics claim the UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe, even worse than much colder countries such as Finland and Sweden.

Winter worries: More than 300,000 UK pensioners have died of cold related illnesses since 1997

There are fears the toll could rise this year following a recent barrage of price rises that may frighten elderly people into not turning on their heating.

Heated issue: Pensioners see rising fuel bills and worry about whether they can afford to warm the house

While the UK death rate is high, the total was down by around 30 per cent compared with 2008/9 because there were fewer flu outbreaks, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Coalition government has cut the last administration’s Winter Fuel Allowance payments of £250 for pensioners and £400 for those over 80, by £50.

ENERGY BILL RISES

Energy providers have announced big rises in prices this winter.
• Scottish Power is increasing electricity bills by 8.9 per cent.
• Scottish & Southern Electricity is putting up gas by almost 10 per cent.
• British Gas announced a 7 per cent rise on gas and electricity

Michelle Mitchell, director of the charity Age UK, said:'It’s still unacceptable that in this day and age tens of thousands more older people die in this country every winter from the effects of the cold weather.

'As another winter sets in, plummeting temperatures will once again spell misery, ill-health and, in some cases, even death for too many people in later life across the country.

'The simple fact that the UK has one of the highest winter mortality rates in Europe – higher than even Sweden or Finland – makes it clear this is very much a home-grown problem.
The fact is the UK’s elderly have seen their living standards plummet since the 80’s, and as a result millions of pensioners have and are living in poverty, after paying taxes and N.I. Contributions into the system all their working lives, ie for 30, 40, and 50 years.
And the same thing is going to happen to young people also, if things don’t change for the betters, soon.
So, there is a Pensions Petition which has been accepted on the Government’s own web site, now all it needs are signatures.
If this Petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Government are obliged to take it on board. So, please get involved.
Go to this link and sign the petition on the Government’s web site.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19311

All elderly people should receive residential care free, via the State, and a much higher basic State pension free of means testing

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

The Government must fund elderly people's rights to free residential Care paid for by the State because our elderly people have paid into the system all their working lives, and Government must also pay all pensioners now and in the future, a much higher basic state pension by restoring the National Insurance Act born of a Labour Government in 1974 which linked increases in the State pension to male average earnings, or The Retail Price Index ( RPI), whichever the greater. In 1975, the then Labour Government passed the "Social Security Act", introducing a State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme, this was considered in the pensions industry, the most cost effective scheme ever.

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

blueturando wrote:
No point hoping for the perfect party, one has to vote for one of the three parties which are the fairest to the masses and not few at the top

Then we are destined to go round in circles for the forseeable future. It's like being given a choice between hanging or firing squad. If you're happy with that then good luck to you Mel

It certainly has and will create death among our poorer pensioners as Ivanhoe has pointed out under a Tory rule.

I vote for fairness and care for the masses. Even if Labour do not come up 100% to scratch, they have always proven that they care more for the poor the sick and the elderly, including public health care. It is proven that Tories do the opposite as we see today.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:49 pm

blueturando wrote:
Thatcher created over 3 million unemployed

I disagree...The unions played a major part in helping British businesses become uncompetetive. Other countries coud buy cheaper and better elsewhere.......True or not?!

The Unions were not greedy, they were protecting their own working class workers in a fight which began in our industrial past, when workers exploitation was rife, and remains so today under Cameron

Unfortunately many Unions ARE greedy and also play their own political game using their members as pawns

Britain will never run of out money while we can give tax cuts to the rich, spend £9.1 billion a year in overseas aid, fight foreign wars, not forgetting £50 million a day into the EU.

This I agree with...A awfull waste of money!!!

There is no doubt that the rich have gotten rich sincxe the 80's, you must agree with that, and that the poor have gotten poorer

No I don't agree the poor have gotten poorer.....What is the evidence of this? More poorly educated maybe!

A ruthless woman who acted like a dictator. In the end even her own party were against her and ousted her. Too late for this country i'm afraid blue..

Yes she was ruthless and at times acted like a dictator....but with so many weak people around her and in opposition, the country needed a strong leader......If only we could find one now?!

Blue
you need to get real here mate

Lawson’s respect for hedge fund managers springs from nostalgia. Sipping a strong black coffee in the peer’s lounge at the House of Lords, Lawson looks back fondly on the time when he roamed the Square Mile as a financial journalist (which included a stint as City editor of The Sunday Telegraph) during the 1960s. “I think the old City was a much more attractive place. It was very clubby, and you knew which people you could trust and those you couldn’t.”

Lawson believes that the hedge fund industry is the loudest echo of London before the Big Bang of 1986, when new rules led the London Stock Exchange to switch from floor trading to electronic trading, and partner-owned merchant banks merged with dealers or were snapped up by Wall Street firms.

Lawson, who was chancellor from 1983 to 1989 and one of the key architects of the Big Bang, said: “Hedge funds are largely still in partnership form. The proprietors have their money in the hedge fund, so that makes them more careful. And unlike the banks, they never thought they would be bailed out by the tax man. During 2008 there were far more problems in banks than there were in hedge funds.”

Big Bang itself, on October 27, 1986, coincided with the coming of screen trading, but was essentially about deregulating the Stock Exchange. Above all, it enabled 100 per cent outside ownership of member firms – a move enforced by the Thatcher government on a largely reluctant City, so that London could operate on a modern, properly capitalised basis as an international financial centre.
For those with a historical perspective, undoubtedly including Margaret Thatcher’s chancellor, Nigel Lawson, the gleam in the eye was the hope of reprising the City’s golden age.

The arrival of the Euromarkets in the 1960s, followed by the floating of exchange rates and abolition of exchange controls, began the re-internationalisation of the City, but Big Bang took it much further: a legion of deep-pocketed commercial banks, often foreign, bought up long-established broking and jobbing firms such as James Capel, Phillips & Drew, Panmure Gordon and Wedd Durlacher, while simultaneously ambitious American investment banks such as Goldman Sachs beefed up their London presence and would rapidly supplant the British merchant banks, traditionally the City’s crème de la crème.

So now you all know what it feels like to be part of Lawson's dream to be crème de la crème.

Thatcher government bet the house on services, above all financial services. Crucially, these would be geared to the world at large rather than the domestic economy, least of all manufacturing. Over the next 20 years, as the City roared on, few questioned that model or the implications of the City becoming an increasingly detached, offshore island, with the grotesque imbalance

Lawson, who was Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer under Margaret Thatcher’s premiership in the 1980s, believes they have proved a safer bet than the banking sector.

MAY BE THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL BEING A REAL HERO. STILL WE NOW HAVE A GROTESQUE IMBALANCE WITHIN OUR ECONOMY THAT WILL TAKE THE UK YEARS TO BUT RIGHT. THAT IS IF WE ARE LUCKY?

But the real truth of what is happening today has nothing to really do with either the UK national debt or the need to control public spending. But everything to do with the rights economic agenda of the State. I have written so much on this state of the national debt and the failed policy of austerity that I can almost remember all the facts and figure of by heart now. but I this issue of our economy and the answer to it I am in total agreement with Paul Krugman and about 60 others who have written on this question.

However, The right wing believe they are carrying out unfinished business from there neocon agenda of the 1980s while hiding behind the last government spending or what they call debt. yet all economic data shows this to be a red herring to cover for there hero's failed economic policy of the big bang in 1983 or as Maggot put it.... the cutting of Red tape that is holding back the financial service sector. as we will now become the a service sector country. selling our financial service around the world. Maggot said. I never believed her then, and do not today.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:07 pm

Mel wrote:
blueturando wrote:
No point hoping for the perfect party, one has to vote for one of the three parties which are the fairest to the masses and not few at the top

Then we are destined to go round in circles for the forseeable future. It's like being given a choice between hanging or firing squad. If you're happy with that then good luck to you Mel

It certainly has and will create death among our poorer pensioners as Ivanhoe has pointed out under a Tory rule.

I vote for fairness and care for the masses. Even if Labour do not come up 100% to scratch, they have always proven that they care more for the poor the sick and the elderly, including public health care. It is proven that Tories do the opposite as we see today.

Hello Mel
I just cannot agree more with you. yes Labour got things wrong. but it never cost the UK £350 BILLION pounds bank bail out. or £158 Billion in government over borrowing. Hell they have manage all of that in just 2 years. what's more it my best guess that the bank of England will add £50 billion more QE by August this year. while UK growth is -0.2%. now I do not know about Blue Mel. but I cannot think of ANY UK GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICY THAT CAN MATCH THESE FIGURES IN OUR WHOLE HISTORY. STILL THIS IS THE WORK OF BLUES HERO. GEE I DO WISH THE RIGHT WING HERO WOULD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. as the economic stink to high heaven

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:32 pm

MEL and STOX......

I think you will find Bank bail out are not confined to the Coalition, unless your memory escapes you that is?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the bail-out was: "unprecedented but essential for all of us", and would thaw frozen money markets.

"In extraordinary times, with financial markets ceasing to work, the government cannot just leave people on their own to be buffeted about," he added

I do not agree with more and more cash being pumped into the banks though and any money pumped into the enonemy should be directed to the people and businesses that need a break

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:41 pm

blueturando wrote:MEL and STOX......

I think you will find Bank bail out are not confined to the Coalition, unless your memory escapes you that is?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the bail-out was: "unprecedented but essential for all of us", and would thaw frozen money markets.

"In extraordinary times, with financial markets ceasing to work, the government cannot just leave people on their own to be buffeted about," he added

I do not agree with more and more cash being pumped into the banks though and any money pumped into the enonemy should be directed to the people and businesses that need a break

Blue
Gordon put £122 Billion into bank bails outs, if he had not then people would of woke up with no bank accounts in RBS, NORTHAN ROCK to name just two. but we have gone well past that Blue. as The Tories are not stopping banks going bust now. there busy building firewalls on banks that lent bad loans in Europe.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:43 pm

The American economist has a plan to escape the financial crisis, and it doesn't involve austerity measures or deregulating the banks. But will policy-makers, including our coalition government, heed his advice?

By now you will probably have read an awful lot about the financial crisis. Perhaps I've been reading all the wrong stuff, but until now I hadn't managed to find answers to the most puzzling questions. If the crash of 2008 was preceded by an era of unprecedented prosperity, how come most of the people I know weren't earning much?

End This Depression Now!
by Paul Krugman

Buy it from the Guardian bookshop
Search the Guardian bookshop

Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book
Deregulation of financial services was supposed to have made us all better off, so why did most of us have to live off credit to keep up? Now that it has all gone wrong, and everyone agrees we're in the worst crisis since the Great Depression, why aren't we following the lessons we learned in the 1930s?

President Obama is the only world leader who has attempted a Keynesian stimulus programme. Why has it been only minimally effective? Why do most other western leaders still insist the only way out is to tighten our belts and pay off our debts, when that clearly isn't working either? And how come the bankers, credit agencies and bond traders are still treated with cowed reverence – don't frighten the markets! – when they got us into this mess?
These mysteries were beginning to make me feel as if I must be going mad – but since reading Paul Krugman's new book, I fear I'm in danger instead of becoming a bore. It's the sort of book you wish were compulsory reading, and want to quote to anyone who'll listen, because End This Depression Now! provides a comprehensive narrative of how we have ended up doing the opposite of what logic and history tell us we must do to get out of this crisis.

Its author is a Nobel prize-winning economist who writes a column in the New York Times and teaches economics at Princeton University. An authority on John Maynard Keynes, Krugman wrote a book in 1999 called The Return of Depression Economics, largely about the Japanese slump, which drew ominous parallels between Japan's economic strategy and the pre-New Deal policies of the early 30s that turned a recession into catastrophic depression. At the time, unsurprisingly, most western economists weren't bowled over; in thrall to the seemingly endless boom, the Great Depression looked to them to be more or less irrelevant. Krugman's latest book will be much harder to ignore.

He doesn't expect it will be an easy message to sell, though. "As far as I can make out, the serious opposition to the coalition's policy is basically a half-dozen economists, and it looks as if I'm one of them – which is really weird," he laughs, "since I'm not even here." Visiting London last week, he met lots of what he calls Very Serious People: "And there are lots of things these people say that sound very wise and sensible. But it's all upside-down; it's all wrong. Yet the power of their orthodoxy – even when it's failing – is quite awesome."

These Very Serious People present economics as a morality play, in which debt is a sin, and we have all sinned, so now we must all pay the price by tightening our belts together. They tell us the crisis will take a long time to resolve, and must inevitably be painful. All of this, according to Krugman, is the opposite of the truth. Austerity is a self-imposed collective punishment that is not just unnecessary, but won't work. We know what would work – but for complex political and historical reasons that his book explores, we have chosen to forget. "Ending this depression," he writes, "should be, could be, almost incredibly easy. So why aren't we doing it?"

Krugman offers the example of a babysitting co-op, or circle, in which parents are issued with vouchers they can exchange for babysitting hours. If all of the parents simultaneously decide to save their vouchers, the system will grind to a halt. "My spending is your income, and your spending is my income. If both of us try to slash our spending at the same time, then we are also slashing our incomes, so we don't actually end up saving more." We could issue more vouchers to everyone, to make them feel "richer" and encourage them to spend – which would be the circle's equivalent of quantitative easing. But if everyone is determined to save, the parents will hold on to the extra vouchers, and the circle still won't work. This is what's called a liquidity trap, "and it's essentially where we are now".

The same principles apply to the "paradox of deleverage". Debt in itself is not a terrible thing, he says. "Debt is one person's liability, but another person's asset. So it doesn't impoverish us necessarily. The real danger with debt is what happens if lots of people decide, or are forced, to pay it off at the same time. High debt levels make us vulnerable to a crisis – and this is when you get the self-destructive spiral of debt deflation. If both of us are trying to pay down our debt at the same time, we end up with lower incomes, so the ratio of our debt to our income goes up."

Crucially, Krugman continues, "what's true for an individual is not true for society as a whole". The analogy between a household budget and a national economy is "seductive, because it's very easy for people to relate to", and it makes some sense when we're not in the grip of a macro-economic crisis. "But when we are, then individually rational behaviour adds up to a collectively disastrous result. It ends up that each individual trying to improve his or her position has the collective effect of making everybody worse off. And that's the story of our times."

At these moments someone has to start spending – and, Krugman argues, it is the government. But we're endlessly being told by the coalition that it has to pay off its debts because servicing the interest is ruinous, and the bond markets will destroy us unless we're seen to be tackling the deficit.
"Well, now. We know that advanced economies with stable governments that borrow in their own currency are capable of running up very high levels of debt without crisis. And we know it, actually, best of all from the history of the UK – which spent much of the 20th century, including the 30s, with debt levels much higher than it has now."

But what about bond markets? Invoked as global bogeymen, we're warned that they punish governments who fail to cut spending – even if cuts don't reduce the deficit. I've never understood why the markets should care how and when we reduce the deficit, as long as we can pay our way. According to Krugman, they don't.

"That's the interesting thing. The actual verdict of the markets, for countries that have their own currencies, has been that they don't really care at all in terms of what you're doing in short-run policy." Likewise, the danger of being downgraded by a credit rating agency has been wildly overstated. "We saw it in Japan in 2002; they had the downgrade, and nothing happened. Which led us to predict that would happen for the US," whose credit rating was downgraded by one agency last year. "And it was exactly right. Nothing happened."

Thus far, Krugman has essentially restated the case for Keynesianism. "And these are not hard concepts, actually. It's not hard to get it across to an audience. But it doesn't seem to play in the political sphere." What's fascinating is his historical analysis of why policy-makers, who once understood these principles, collectively decided to forget them.
In the years following the Great Depression, governments imposed regulatory rules upon the banking system to ensure that we could never again become indebted enough to make us vulnerable to a crisis. "But if it's been a long time since the last major economic crisis, people get careless about debt; they forget the risks. Bankers go to politicians and say: 'We don't need these pesky regulations,' and the politicians say: 'You're right – nothing bad has happened for a while.'"

That process began in earnest in 1980, under President Reagan. One by one the regulations on banking were lifted, until "we lost the safeguards, and it meant there was an increasingly wild and woolly financial system willing to lend lots of money". Politicians were in part persuaded to deregulate by the argument that it would make us all richer. And to this day, "there's this very widespread belief that there was, in fact, a great acceleration in growth. But this really isn't hard. You sit down for a minute with the national account statistics, and you see it ain't so."

If we divide the period between the second world war and 2008 into two halves, "the first half is a really dramatic improvement to living standards, and the second half is not." It was certainly dramatic for the top 0.01%, who saw a seven-fold increase in income; in 2006, for example, the 25 highest-paid hedge fund managers in America earned $14bn, three times the combined salaries of New York City's 80,000 school teachers. But between 1980 and the crash, the median US household income went up by only roughly 20%. "So it's a total disconnect."

Why would economists claim ordinary people were getting much richer if they weren't? "The answer, I think, has to be that you need to ask: 'Well who are the people who say these things hanging out with? What is their social circle?' And if you're a finance professor at the University of Chicago, the people that you're likely to meet from the alleged real world are going to be people from Wall Street – for whom the past 30 years have, in fact, been wonderful. If you're a mover and shaker in the UK, you're probably hanging out with people from the City. I think that is the story of the disconnect."

But the influence of the top 0.01%'s mindboggling wealth didn't stop at finance professors. Their mansions and yachts and luxury lifestyles created "expenditure cascades", whereby, "if you're a little bit down the income distribution from there, you're going to feel some compulsion to match some of that too. And then, in turn, the people below you can feel some compulsion too."

There were early warning signs, such as the savings and loans crisis of the late 80s, that should have alerted politicians to the dangers of financial deregulation, moral hazard and subsequent spiralling debt. But by then Wall Street's influence over policy-makers had rendered them deaf to alarm bells – in part because bankers were financing so many politicians' campaigns. Krugman quotes Upton Sinclair's famous observation: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" – but more than that, he suspects the sheer glamour of wealthy bankers had a powerful influence over politicians.

"My impression is that old style captains of industry can be rather boring. I'm not sure how much thrill there is in hanging out with someone like that. But Wall Street people are in fact very smart; they're funny, they're not company men who work their way up the chain. They're impressive."

Even Obama is not immune to their charms, says Krugman. Early into the administration he met the president and his economics team, "and it was just clear that rumpled professors with beards just didn't come across as being so impressive. Yeah," he chuckles. "I had that definite sense." But even many of the rumpled professors had been seduced by the promise of a new world economic order, in which Keynesianism was not just redundant but faintly ridiculous.

By 1970, Krugman writes, "discussion of investor irrationality, of bubbles, of destructive speculation had virtually disappeared from academic discourse. The field was dominated by the 'efficient-markets hypothesis'," which persuaded economists that: "We should put the capital development of the nation in the hands of what Keynes called a 'casino'." The death of Keynesianism was "triumphantly" announced, largely by Republican economists whose work had become "infected by partisanship and political orientation". Now, as they are faced with the catastrophic collapse of their theories, Krugman thinks political bias and professional pride are what's stopping them admitting they were wrong.

Those economists cite the woefully limited impact of Obama's almost $800bn stimulus package as proof that they are still right. According to Krugman, the only thing wrong was it wasn't enough. Almost half went on tax cuts, and most of the remaining $500bn went on unemployment benefits, food stamps and so on. "Actual infrastructure spending – that's more like just $100bn. So if your image of the stimulus programme is: 'We're going out there and building lots of bridges' – that never happened."

In an economy that produces $15tn worth of goods and services each year, $500m "is just not a big number". Back in 2009, Krugman had warned: "By going with a half-baked stimulus, you're going to discredit the idea of stimulus without saving the economy." And that, he sighs, "is exactly what happened. Unfortunately it was one of those predictions that I wish I'd been wrong about. But it was dead on."

Since the crash Krugman has become the undisputed Cassandra of academia, but he jokes: "I'm kind of sick of being Cassandra. I'd like to actually win for once, instead of being vindicated by the disaster coming – as predicted. I'd like to see my arguments about preventing the disaster taken into account instead."

The likelihood of that is a fascinating question. Krugman is not the most clubbable of fellows. In person he's quite offhand, an odd mixture of shy and intensely self-assured, and with his stocky build and salt-and-pepper beard he conveys the impression of a very clever badger, burrowing away in the undergrowth of economic detail, ready to give quite a sharp bite if you get in his way. His public criticisms of the Obama administration have upset many Democrats in the US, while his more vociferous criticisms of George Bush used to earn him death threats from angry rightwingers.

I hope none of that gets in the way of his argument. What we need to do, Krugman says, is simple: ditch austerity, kickstart the economy with ambitious government spending, and bring down the deficit when we're back above water again. Most importantly of all, we need to do it now.
"Five years of very high unemployment do vastly more than five times as much damage as one year of high unemployment. To say: 'Yes, it's painful, but time does heal these things … " He breaks off and sighs in despair. "Well, no. Time may not heal it."

by Ivanhoe Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:22 pm

blueturando wrote:MEL and STOX......

I think you will find Bank bail out are not confined to the Coalition, unless your memory escapes you that is?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the bail-out was: "unprecedented but essential for all of us", and would thaw frozen money markets.

"In extraordinary times, with financial markets ceasing to work, the government cannot just leave people on their own to be buffeted about," he added

I do not agree with more and more cash being pumped into the banks though and any money pumped into the enonemy should be directed to the people and businesses that need a break

bluey, how about this answer to Britain's problems, from the top down.

Return a manufacturing and industry base to this country.

Bring in a higher minimum wage.

Increase income tax on middle and higher earners.

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

Increase State pensions universially for all UK pensioners.

Remove all reasons for workers to strike by making the system fair.

Bring in a universial council housing programme so people could indeed stand on their own two feet and pay their own rents without the need for means testing in the high rent private sector, this way we could put builders and other tradesmen to work overnight.

bluey, would you vote for this ?, if not, why not ?

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:26 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
blueturando wrote:MEL and STOX......

I think you will find Bank bail out are not confined to the Coalition, unless your memory escapes you that is?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the bail-out was: "unprecedented but essential for all of us", and would thaw frozen money markets.

"In extraordinary times, with financial markets ceasing to work, the government cannot just leave people on their own to be buffeted about," he added

I do not agree with more and more cash being pumped into the banks though and any money pumped into the enonemy should be directed to the people and businesses that need a break

bluey, how about this answer to Britain's problems, from the top down.

Return a manufacturing and industry base to this country.

Bring in a higher minimum wage.

Increase income tax on middle and higher earners.

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

Increase State pensions universially for all UK pensioners.

he may not but I would be happy to vote for that.

Remove all reasons for workers to strike by making the system fair.

Bring in a universial council housing programme so people could indeed stand on their own two feet and pay their own rents without the need for means testing in the high rent private sector, this way we could put builders and other tradesmen to work overnight.

bluey, would you vote for this ?, if not, why not ?

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:28 pm

Well blue may not, but I would vote for that. but then I would like to live in a modern world and not relive the past

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:00 pm

bluey, how about this answer to Britain's problems, from the top down.

Return a manufacturing and industry base to this country.

I agree that we need to encourage and finacially support a more diverse economy. Manufacturing is one that should be encouraged, but we have to make sure these business are competetive and not another industry that needs subsidise or bail outs.

Bring in a higher minimum wage.

I am not sure how increases in minimum wage works in the uk, but I would call for annual increases in line with inflation.

Increase income tax on middle and higher earners.

Higher taxation does NOT promote or encourage growth....Just more government waste

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

No!.....Everyone uses the same services, so we must all pay the same

Increase State pensions universially for all UK pensioners.

To universally increase the state pension, government and society has to have the money to afford this. Our society is in a very different position to when state pension and the pension age was introduced, so there has to be changes in levels of contribution and the retirement age to be able to afford this

Remove all reasons for workers to strike by making the system fair.

I'm not sure what you mean, specifics please

Bring in a universial council housing programme so people could indeed stand on their own two feet and pay their own rents without the need for means testing in the high rent private sector, this way we could put builders and other tradesmen to work overnight.

I agree 1 million % with this

bluey, would you vote for this ?, if not, why not ?.

I would vote for common sense policies not pie in the sky political ideologies. If I was PM I could change this country around in no time at all....but that's not going to happen is it

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:14 pm

No blue, that's not going to happen. In fact quite the opposite is happening right now in the UK and thst's fact and not pie in the sky.

What is pie in the sky is those who would like an alternative government, complain about the only viable ones and live on cloud nine thinking that their vote "if they don't sit on the political fence and abstain of course) for one of the periphery parties will come to fruition when those parties have no chance of being elected, Therefore a completely wasted vote.

by Ivanhoe Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:30 pm

blueturando wrote:
bluey, how about this answer to Britain's problems, from the top down.

Return a manufacturing and industry base to this country.

I agree that we need to encourage and finacially support a more diverse economy. Manufacturing is one that should be encouraged, but we have to make sure these business are competetive and not another industry that needs subsidise or bail outs.

Bring in a higher minimum wage.

I am not sure how increases in minimum wage works in the uk, but I would call for annual increases in line with inflation.

Increase income tax on middle and higher earners.

Higher taxation does NOT promote or encourage growth....Just more government waste

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

No!.....Everyone uses the same services, so we must all pay the same

Increase State pensions universially for all UK pensioners.

To universally increase the state pension, government and society has to have the money to afford this. Our society is in a very different position to when state pension and the pension age was introduced, so there has to be changes in levels of contribution and the retirement age to be able to afford this

Remove all reasons for workers to strike by making the system fair.

I'm not sure what you mean, specifics please

Bring in a universial council housing programme so people could indeed stand on their own two feet and pay their own rents without the need for means testing in the high rent private sector, this way we could put builders and other tradesmen to work overnight.

I agree 1 million % with this

bluey, would you vote for this ?, if not, why not ?.

I would vote for common sense policies not pie in the sky political ideologies. If I was PM I could change this country around in no time at all....but that's not going to happen is it

Again I respond to another posting bluey,

"""To universally increase the state pension, government and society has to have the money to afford this. Our society is in a very different position to when state pension and the pension age was introduced, so there has to be changes in levels of contribution and the retirement age to be able to afford this"""

Leaving aside the billions we send overseas. If we cant afford a decent State pension, then we definately cant afford private pensions due to the expensice and the insecurity of them for the ordinary joe.

So the altenative is to die before we retire, and no im not joking.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:35 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
blueturando wrote:
bluey, how about this answer to Britain's problems, from the top down.

Return a manufacturing and industry base to this country.

I agree that we need to encourage and finacially support a more diverse economy. Manufacturing is one that should be encouraged, but we have to make sure these business are competetive and not another industry that needs subsidise or bail outs.

Bring in a higher minimum wage.

I am not sure how increases in minimum wage works in the uk, but I would call for annual increases in line with inflation.

Increase income tax on middle and higher earners.

Higher taxation does NOT promote or encourage growth....Just more government waste

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

No!.....Everyone uses the same services, so we must all pay the same

Increase State pensions universially for all UK pensioners.

To universally increase the state pension, government and society has to have the money to afford this. Our society is in a very different position to when state pension and the pension age was introduced, so there has to be changes in levels of contribution and the retirement age to be able to afford this

Remove all reasons for workers to strike by making the system fair.

I'm not sure what you mean, specifics please

Bring in a universial council housing programme so people could indeed stand on their own two feet and pay their own rents without the need for means testing in the high rent private sector, this way we could put builders and other tradesmen to work overnight.

I agree 1 million % with this

bluey, would you vote for this ?, if not, why not ?.

I would vote for common sense policies not pie in the sky political ideologies. If I was PM I could change this country around in no time at all....but that's not going to happen is it

Again I respond to another posting bluey,

"""To universally increase the state pension, government and society has to have the money to afford this. Our society is in a very different position to when state pension and the pension age was introduced, so there has to be changes in levels of contribution and the retirement age to be able to afford this"""

Leaving aside the billions we send overseas. If we cant afford a decent State pension, then we definately cant afford private pensions due to the expensice and the insecurity of them for the ordinary joe.

So the altenative is to die before we retire, and no im not joking.

I am 100% sure that us die before we retire, is on there minds Ivanhoe

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:36 pm

Back to the topic.

Thatcher is responsible for the banking crisis along with Reagan by de-regulating the banks in the UK and in USA. That move spread internationally so as to keep up as it were. Bank to bank lending became rife over the following years, no government world wide could do anything to stop it. De-regulation is welcomed by banks with open arms, whereas regulation is resisted en-mass vigourously.

We have been forced to rely upon invisible earnings (banking and Insurance etc) because the Witch sacrificed Industry with the excuse that the Nationalised Industries "were not" viable. The truth is that she could think of no other way of squashing Union power, which in turn satified her and the private business sectors desire to create unemployment of 4 million
which in turn created cheap labour for them. Figs were hidden and massaged by shoving many unemployed on to incapacity benefit.

The sale of Council housing was a means of assiting Local Tory Authorities who were complaing about rent collection being a problem. She knew that by selling them off and not building any would force people to have to go private and pay extortionate rents to line the pockets of the landlords.

Total and digusting Tory ideology, take from the poor and give to the rich. Has been the same for nearly two centuries and is still going on. A return to the Victorian era is the vision. It's so plain to see.

Wecome to hell soon you Witch of Witches.

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:51 pm

What is pie in the sky is those who would like an alternative government, complain about the only viable ones and live on cloud nine thinking that their vote "if they don't sit on the political fence and abstain of course)

Distrust in Politicians and the main parties are at their highest levels ever and coincidentally, voting turn out is very low. I think this sums up how many, many people feel about our current politicians.

I know you are a very loyal Labour supporter so your judgment may be a little clouded, but the overwhelming feeling out there is that our politicians of all the main parties are.....

Style over substance
show weak leadership
are out of touch with ordinary people
are in the pockets of money men and big business
still waste vast amount of tax payers money
Have no clue or interest in securing a long term future for the country...only the length of a term in government
They are greedy, selfish and in the main, career politicians

Unfortunately for you, this list above also includes the Labour Party, maybe not at grass route but certainly at the shadow cabinet level.
I for one am fed up with us going round in circles passing the government football from one party to the other, with no real improvement or forward thinking in sight.
All we get from our current politicians is sound bites, failed promises and fantasy manifestos.

I would put money on it that 5 of us here could sit round together and put a 10 point plan together to get the country back on track. The difference is we're not in anyone’s pockets and we know what it's like to live in the real world

by astra Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:55 pm

Abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a fair system of local tax based on ability to pay.

No!.....Everyone uses the same services, so we must all pay the same

Blue

Every where has differing costs!
People in Northumberland DO NOT get the same wage as someone in Lunding - this to include teachers and Nurses!
SO, People in Northumberland and County Durham SHOULD NOT be paying the same as someone in London to get their waste taken away!

London Weighting should be applied over the WHOLE country. or else be taken away to produce the - "we must all pay the same" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Leaving aside the billions we send overseas. If we cant afford a decent State pension, then we definately cant afford private pensions due to the expensice and the insecurity of them for the ordinary joe.

So the altenative is to die before we retire, and no im not joking.

The scary thing is Ivanhoe is I know youre not joking and youre also right. There are ways to get the tax payer money back to pay for a DECENT state pension and Sickchip brought this up earlier...

Stop all oversees aid (unless in cases of sudden natural disasters)
Stop paying MILLIONS into a defunct EU experiment
Make sure big business pay their fair share of tax (Billions are lost every year)

These saving alone will more than pay for a decent state pension and probably a large council housing building programme too...BUT will it happen? Nope, LIB/LAB/CON will keep wasting our money as they always do

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:00 pm

ASTRA......Excuse my niavety (we don't have council tax in Jersey) just parish rates.

Are all the council tax rates the same across the UK?

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:41 pm

blueturando wrote:
What is pie in the sky is those who would like an alternative government, complain about the only viable ones and live on cloud nine thinking that their vote "if they don't sit on the political fence and abstain of course)

Distrust in Politicians and the main parties are at their highest levels ever and coincidentally, voting turn out is very low. I think this sums up how many, many people feel about our current politicians.

I know you are a very loyal Labour supporter so your judgment may be a little clouded, but the overwhelming feeling out there is that our politicians of all the main parties are.....

Style over substance
show weak leadership
are out of touch with ordinary people
are in the pockets of money men and big business
still waste vast amount of tax payers money
Have no clue or interest in securing a long term future for the country...only the length of a term in government
They are greedy, selfish and in the main, career politicians

Unfortunately for you, this list above also includes the Labour Party, maybe not at grass route but certainly at the shadow cabinet level.
I for one am fed up with us going round in circles passing the government football from one party to the other, with no real improvement or forward thinking in sight.
All we get from our current politicians is sound bites, failed promises and fantasy manifestos.

I would put money on it that 5 of us here could sit round together and put a 10 point plan together to get the country back on track. The difference is we're not in anyone’s pockets and we know what it's like to live in the real world

Blue
I know that it helps to say we maybe a little clouded, but for me this just does not come into it. but to be 100% truth I worked within politics form 1984 to 1997. I was what was called a back room boy deal with rules and selections and by-elections. What I would say this much I would not of swap my job with that of an MPs for three times the salary. I could just not put up with the 24/7 media to start with. it looks very easy till you happen to try it. then you find out that everyday is a problem day. as the mail just does not stop coming weather you're on holiday or not. I know one MP who got 6 sackfuls every three days.

anyway yes I am sure we could come up with a 10 point plan. but then that is only the start of it. as it does not take very long to get bogged down with it. just the budget alone take 6 weeks within the commons just to give it its first reading. then 6 more weeks in committee and that is if everyone is playing ball. then its the Lords and it goes on and on. i am not feeling sorry for anyone in the HOC but its can be a very stressful job and its one that does not stop because you do not feel like it one day.

by Sponsored content