Post Election Blues

[Rincewind]

One for the closet Tories. Good spoofl

 

http://newsthump.com/2015/05/12/millions-of-closet-tories-to-come-out-in-uks-first-greed-pride-march/

 

Previous post re Russel Brand may also be good.

 

At the top it says UK Spoof News and Satire so do not take it serious and presume it is derived from bitterness.

[Strokes]

One for the closet Tories. Good spoofl

http://newsthump.com/2015/05/12/millions-of-closet-tories-to-come-out-in-uks-first-greed-pride-march/

Previous post re Russel Brand may also be good.

Fùcking hell, that article seems more bitter than Kevin Peterson eating his grapefruit this morning.

[Rincewind]

Fùcking hell, that article seems more bitter than Kevin Peterson eating his grapefruit this morning.

It's satire. Read the Russel Brand one  where he decides to stop being Russell Brand. Mentions he tells people not to vote but there was a bigger turnout. So its having a go at  others too. Says he is going in front of the camera to make a film about not wanting publicity.

 

Ah well perhaps my SOH is different to others on here.   I do not see bitterness just satire.

[Strokes]

It's satire. Read the Russel Brand one where he decides to stop being Russell Brand. Mentions he tells people not to vote but there was a bigger turnout. So its having a go at others too. Says he is going in front of the camera to make a film about not wanting publicity.

Ah well perhaps my SOH is different to others on here. I do not see bitterness just satire.

I'm aware its dressed as satire.

[Rincewind]

And in sports news

 

Wonga declares £37.3m loss after accidentally borrowing a fiver from itself

[Guest MattP]

This is a serious breakdown Ken, what are you going to be like in 2020 when Boris Blood wins an election?

[Rincewind]

You still have to keep a SOH despite governments shafting you.

 

There is a football  phone in in the radio section.

 

Forgive me. I a m bored. Off out so wont bother you all for a while.

[Jon the Hat]

You still have to keep a SOH despite governments shafting you.

 

Or even when they are providing you with a flat and early retirement?

[Guest MattP]

Douglas Carswell yet again showing just how principled he is, I wish all MP's behaved like he did.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32707357

 

 

A major stand-off has developed between senior UKIP figures and the party's only MP over public money they are entitled to receive.

UKIP is entitled to around £650,000 of what's known as Short money which goes to opposition parties to help finance their backroom operations.

Douglas Carswell was approached by UKIP's party secretary on Monday and asked to recruit 15 extra staff for his parliamentary office.

The Clacton MP rejected the proposal.

He made it clear he was not going to agree to the plan which sources close to him have described as "improper".

It is also believed the Essex MP thinks spending that amount of taxpayers' money is "not what we're about".

'Absurd'

Details of the dispute were made public by UKIP party officials following Mr Carswell's refusal to agree, I understand.

Mr Carswell told the BBC "I am not a US senator", adding: "I don't need 15 staff".

"UKIP is supposed to be different," he explained.

[Guest]

Or even when they are providing you with a flat and early retirement?

 

If I understand correctly Ken has worked most of his adult life and was only given early retirement because it's so difficult to get jobs for people nearly at retirement age ( and it helps reduce the employment figures). Doesn't seem right to attack him any of that.

[Jon the Hat]

If I understand correctly Ken has worked most of his adult life and was only given early retirement because it's so difficult to get jobs for people nearly at retirement age ( and it helps reduce the employment figures). Doesn't seem right to attack him any of that.

 

Possibly, sorry Ken.  Interested to hear though how exactly the governments have/are shafting him?

[Guest]

Possibly, sorry Ken.  Interested to hear though how exactly the governments have/are shafting him?

 

Are you really?

 

well you've asked for it. 

[Jon the Hat]

Are you really?

 

well you've asked for it. 

 

Haha.  Indeed.

[ADK]

Douglas Carswell yet again showing just how principled he is, I wish all MP's behaved like he did.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32707357

 

Either trying to wrest control of UKIP or preparing to defect back to the Tories now that UKIP have jumped the shark so to speak.

[Jon the Hat]

Either trying to wrest control of UKIP or preparing to defect back to the Tories now that UKIP have jumped the shark so to speak.

 

I doubt that.  He would want to lead the party at some point I am sure, but he has no reason to want to do that now.  He is point man, he doesn't need the shit of dealing with all the idiots as well.

[Webbo]

You're right on that first point (for 2002-2007, at least; not 1997-2001, when spending was tight and Blair/Brown ran a surplus for 3 years). But if you're going to criticise Labour for running a deficit 2001-2007, you also have to criticise Thatcher (ran deficits 9 years out of 11) and Major (ran deficits 7 years out of 7). If you argue that Thatcher/Major weren't Keynesians, where in monetarist or other theory does it claim that governments should run near-permanent deficits?

 

We were experiencing strong growth 2013-14. It's looking a lot less strong now: http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-32493745

So, the growth rate has been falling for 15 months, and manufacturing, construction & agriculture all shrank last quarter, only the dominant services sector grew. Might be temporary, might not if Osborne slashes public spending.

Just say for the sake of argument that I pretend that the last labour govt did a good job with the economy.We both agree that the evil bankers and financial service industries that Labour blame for the crash made billions for the country during the boom. We ignore the fact that Labour governed under far more benign economic conditions and we don't mention how PFI was used to hide the true scale of the borrowing. These were all the policies of New Labour, policies that Ed Miliband, and a lot of the lefties on here, was at pains to distance himself themselves from. They certainly weren't the policies that the present Labour party were planning to follow if they had won the election. So in the context of the election just gone it's totally irrelevant. 

[Guest]

Either trying to wrest control of UKIP or preparing to defect back to the Tories now that UKIP have jumped the shark so to speak.

 

It does sound as though he's distancing himself from them.

[ADK]

I suppose there are 2 strands of UKIP/Euroscepticism.

 

a) The Libertarian that wants minimal government with low taxation but low public spending and a Swiss style relationship with Europe.

 

b) The Nationalist who externalises blame for their own failings and perceived failing of the UK. They have no concrete vision for the future however.

 

I can imagine if you are a) , then you might want to distance yourself from b).

 

I think perhaps b) is becoming increasingly the dominant factor in terms of voter base for them though.

[Strokes]

I suppose there are 2 strands of UKIP/Euroscepticism.

a) The Libertarian that wants minimal government with low taxation but low public spending and a Swiss style relationship with Europe.

b) The Nationalist who externalises blame for their own failings and perceived failing of the UK. They have no concrete vision for the future however.

I can imagine if you are a) , then you might want to distance yourself from b).

I think perhaps b) is becoming increasingly the dominant factor in terms of voter base for them though.

[purpleronnie]

Douglas Carswell yet again showing just how principled he is, I wish all MP's behaved like he did.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32707357

Didn't stop him claiming 40 grand as a Tory in expenses in one year.  Maybe he's changed, maybe he's just doing what looks good for the party.  He's a MP it's hard not to be cynical.

[Jimothy]

How inciteful. If you disagree with what he's put so much that you're laughing at it, why don't you put some kind of counter argument in rather than post a stupid ****ing smiley?

[Strokes]

[Alf Bentley]

Just say for the sake of argument that I pretend that the last labour govt did a good job with the economy.We both agree that the evil bankers and financial service industries that Labour blame for the crash made billions for the country during the boom. We ignore the fact that Labour governed under far more benign economic conditions and we don't mention how PFI was used to hide the true scale of the borrowing. These were all the policies of New Labour, policies that Ed Miliband, and a lot of the lefties on here, was at pains to distance himself themselves from. They certainly weren't the policies that the present Labour party were planning to follow if they had won the election. So in the context of the election just gone it's totally irrelevant. 

 

Labour was indeed wrong to continue the Thatcherite deregulation of finance, a major factor in the crash - and the Tories were wrong to support that Labour policy. I've often criticised Labour for its use of PFI, a system that is inefficient and immoral to future generations. Major was wrong to introduce it, Blair/Brown were wrong to greatly expand it and Cameron/Osborne have been wrong to continue using it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#Development_of_PFI_in_the_United_Kingdom - see History section). I'm also happy to accept that the Labour Treasury benefited from deregulated finance and that 1997-2007 was more economically benign than 2010-2015. In turn, you should accept that 2008-2010 was the hardest time of the lot to govern. Internationally, Brown/Darling were rightly held in high esteem for their handling of the crash - Brown's serious errors, as identified above, came earlier. Instead, we get the contemptible lie that profligate Labour spending caused the mess / deficit.

 

We'll never know how different to New Labour a Miliband government would have been. Significantly but not completely different, I'd guess. That's why he "stabbed his (New Labour) brother in the back", after all. Certainly, Miliband had publicly admitted the error of excessive financial deregulation and planned to set aside significant sums for investment spending, suggesting a move away from PFI.....a couple of good changes and good lessons learned from the failings of New Labour.

 

I'm certainly no fan of New Labour. I preferred them to the Coalition/Tories, but wouldn't have wanted certain of their policies reintroduced - and was glad that Miliband had distanced himself from some parts of that legacy. I only raised New Labour's economic record because I think it should get a fair assessment, pros and cons, particularly with regard to the deficit, for which they're very unfairly blamed.

 

You dodged my question as to whether Thatcher and Major should also be blamed for running deficits most of the time (including throughout the 1980s Yuppie boom, in the case of Thatcher/Lawson). That's a shame, as it's probably a more interesting, non-partisan issue. Presumably, Tories and Labour alike feel that they have to bow to the public demand for low tax AND high quality public services, causing a deficit most of the time....and presumably, most of the time this doesn't do much damage (just a slight drag on the budget)....except when the deregulated global finance system crashes.

 

Will the Tories learn from all this? Will they introduce meaningful regulation of the banks (they haven't yet) or stop using PFI schemes (they haven't yet)?

[Dr The Singh]

Labour was indeed wrong to continue the Thatcherite deregulation of finance, a major factor in the crash - and the Tories were wrong to support that Labour policy. I've often criticised Labour for its use of PFI, a system that is inefficient and immoral to future generations. Major was wrong to introduce it, Blair/Brown were wrong to greatly expand it and Cameron/Osborne have been wrong to continue using it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#Development_of_PFI_in_the_United_Kingdom - see History section). I'm also happy to accept that the Labour Treasury benefited from deregulated finance and that 1997-2007 was more economically benign than 2010-2015. In turn, you should accept that 2008-2010 was the hardest time of the lot to govern. Internationally, Brown/Darling were rightly held in high esteem for their handling of the crash - Brown's serious errors, as identified above, came earlier. Instead, we get the contemptible lie that profligate Labour spending caused the mess / deficit.

We'll never know how different to New Labour a Miliband government would have been. Significantly but not completely different, I'd guess. That's why he "stabbed his (New Labour) brother in the back", after all. Certainly, Miliband had publicly admitted the error of excessive financial deregulation and planned to set aside significant sums for investment spending, suggesting a move away from PFI.....a couple of good changes and good lessons learned from the failings of New Labour.

I'm certainly no fan of New Labour. I preferred them to the Coalition/Tories, but wouldn't have wanted certain of their policies reintroduced - and was glad that Miliband had distanced himself from some parts of that legacy. I only raised New Labour's economic record because I think it should get a fair assessment, pros and cons, particularly with regard to the deficit, for which they're very unfairly blamed.

You dodged my question as to whether Thatcher and Major should also be blamed for running deficits most of the time (including throughout the 1980s Yuppie boom, in the case of Thatcher/Lawson). That's a shame, as it's probably a more interesting, non-partisan issue. Presumably, Tories and Labour alike feel that they have to bow to the public demand for low tax AND high quality public services, causing a deficit most of the time....and presumably, most of the time this doesn't do much damage (just a slight drag on the budget)....except when the deregulated global finance system crashes.

Will the Tories learn from all this? Will they introduce meaningful regulation of the banks (they haven't yet) or stop using PFI schemes (they haven't yet)?

Answer is NO

[Webbo]

 

 

You dodged my question as to whether Thatcher and Major should also be blamed for running deficits most of the time (including throughout the 1980s Yuppie boom, in the case of Thatcher/Lawson). That's a shame, as it's probably a more interesting, non-partisan issue. Presumably, Tories and Labour alike feel that they have to bow to the public demand for low tax AND high quality public services, causing a deficit most of the time....and presumably, most of the time this doesn't do much damage (just a slight drag on the budget)....except when the deregulated global finance system crashes.

 

Will the Tories learn from all this? Will they introduce meaningful regulation of the banks (they haven't yet) or stop using PFI schemes (they haven't yet)?

Mrs Thatcher abandoned monetarism after a couple of years as it was taking to long to work. You can probably make it work in a police state like Chile was but in a democracy you can't endure that level of hardship for the time needed to for it to be a success.

 

The problem with Gordon Brown was that he believed his own publicity, he genuinely thought he was a financial genius who had eradicated boom and bust when all he was doing was borrowing more and more money. If he had used the boom years to eradicate the deficit and pay down the debt this country would be in such a strong economic position now.

 

As for PFI they a bit dishonest but okay in small doses. I can't comment on the ones put forward by the coalition because I never heard anything about them but some of the stories we hear about the schemes negotiated by Labour suggest that we were took to the cleaner in a big way.