Labour admits the Tories were right all along

[MooseBreath]

You're asking for a hell of a lot of government control over business there. I don't know who would put their own capital at risk in that kind of environment. I know I certainly wouldn't.

[leicsmac]

You're asking for a hell of a lot of government control over business there. I don't know who would put their own capital at risk in that kind of environment. I know I certainly wouldn't.

 

Fair point. You can't trust government bureaucrats to invest your money either, not without it having to go through a hundred different committees. So in todays society you're at the mercy of the big corporate powers or the government bureaucrats, both of whom only have self-interest as their guiding principle. So I guess we're screwed either way. 

[Guest MattP]

Fair point. You can't trust government bureaucrats to invest your money either, not without it having to go through a hundred different committees. So in todays society you're at the mercy of the big corporate powers or the government bureaucrats, both of whom only have self-interest as their guiding principle. So I guess we're screwed either way. 

 

Would much rather have my business in the hands of corporate investors than a government though, at least you know they want you to be successful make money.

 

Labour would want me on a council estate on their payroll.

[leicsmac]

Would much rather have my business in the hands of corporate investors than a government though, at least you know they want you to be successful make money.

 

Labour would want me on a council estate on their payroll.

 

They'd want themselves to be successful and get a good rate of return, you being successful would be a secondary concern. Investors go into that line of work because of greed and self-interest - they have the money and they want more, similar as government bureaucrats skimming a take off the proceeds of businesses. Self interest all round really.

 

But you're right in if you've got the rich investors on your side when starting a business they'll try to help you make money, because the itnerest is mutual. If that is indeed what you want.

[Alf Bentley]

Labour promised to match The Tories spending plans for the first 2 years during the 1997 election which tbf they did, which accounts for the surplus.

 

There was a recession in the early/mid 90s which accounts for most of the deficit under Major but it was coming down towards the end. Labour ran a deficit during a boom so it's not a strictly fair comparison.

 

"There was a recession in the early/mid 90s"? One could just as easily say, "there was a recession from 2008 to 2010". If Labour have to take responsibility for running a small deficit in a boom and contributing to the 2008 crash through financial deregulation (and I agree that they should), don't Lawson/Major/Lamont have to take responsibility for the 1990s recession, caused by the Lawson bubble of the late 80s and their decisions over the Exchange Rate Mechanism?

 

As I said earlier, capitalism is evolution. The world won't stop suddenly,something will occur and we'll all survive because there isn't any alternative.

 

Obviously, I hope you're right with your last point - and you may well be. Human civilisation has proved to be resilient and adaptable (though it has yet to last a fraction as long as the dinosaurs). Capitalism has shown those same qualities. But various civilisations have crashed and burned before, from the Incas and Aztecs to the Roman Empire and the advanced Islamic Caliphates of the Middle Ages....all our eggs are in one basket now, with global capitalism.

 

The world's population is up to 7bn and is predicted to be 9-10bn by 2050. Meanwhile, climate change could have disastrous effects on food production, not to mention rising sea levels from melting polar ice-caps, salinization of land and water, extreme weather events etc. Throw in an ever greater demand for fuel resources from fast-growing economies around the world, when mineral resources are under strain and alternative energy sources are underdeveloped....and it's high stakes, where a highly-strung system beyond democratic control could malfunction very quickly with nightmarish consequences for resources - and ultimately civilization itself.

 

Of course, technology is developing all the time to try to counter these phenomena: biotechnology for food; renewable energy, shale gas fracking and nuclear power (maybe even nuclear fusion) for energy. I'm sure there'll be policies and technologies to partly address the effects of climate change, too.....

 

...but then there's capitalism, which requires material growth and profits, or it implodes. This, in a world of limited physical resources. Who knows, maybe infinite capitalist growth will become possible through previously unimaginable technologies: importing minerals from the moon or Mars, to throw onto the bonfire of growth?! I prefer the idea of a gradual switch from material "standard of living" - and the capitalism that underpins it - to "quality of life". Don't ask me how we get there, though!

 

"Something will occur", eh? That's almost a direct quotation from Dickens' Mr. Micawber, isn't it?! Not saying you're wrong, mind. I remember fears of an impending ice age in the 70s and nuclear armageddon in the 80s. I'm an optimist by temperament myself....but the rational realist in me sees a poker game where the stakes keep getting higher and higher...

[Jon the Hat]

**** me there is ignorance in this thread.

[Alf Bentley]

**** me there is ignorance in this thread.

 

What a shame that you could not find it in your heart to enlighten us, Oh Guru, preferring to shoot a pea from inside your concrete-lined bunker of smugness..

[Webbo]

 

"There was a recession in the early/mid 90s"? One could just as easily say, "there was a recession from 2008 to 2010". If Labour have to take responsibility for running a small deficit in a boom and contributing to the 2008 crash through financial deregulation (and I agree that they should), don't Lawson/Major/Lamont have to take responsibility for the 1990s recession, caused by the Lawson bubble of the late 80s and their decisions over the Exchange Rate Mechanism?

I'm not here trying to tell you that everything the Tories have ever done has worked and they've never made mistakes because that's obviously not true. I share the mindset though, small govt, living within your means and taking responsibility for your own life.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not here trying to tell you that everything the Tories have ever done has worked and they've never made mistakes because that's obviously not true. I share the mindset though, small govt, living within your means and taking responsibility for your own life.

 

Yes, it usually boils down to fundamental political preferences in the end. I'd probably favour smaller government than most on the left - instead, more (carefully regulated) decentralization to people through local government, communities, workplace organisations etc. Also more regulation (not control) of capitalism at an international level to avoid giving a free hand to cartels, monopolies, tax dodgers and those who'd abuse decent social/labour standards. Living within your means (in the long-term) and taking responsibility are certainly good goals...though easier to achieve when you have more means in the first place and/or have been brought up to take responsibility. Wealth distribution and education/upbringing still matter....as does quality of life.

[Guest MattP]

Double Dip Recession appears to have never actually happened.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349469/The-double-dip-recession-happened-Revised-figures-economy-performed-better-thought.html

[Alf Bentley]

Sorry I missed this, you need to move into 2013 here Alf, the Mail has little political sway anymore and doesnt really care, they have the 'right minds' thing still going but most read that online without even going to the DM now. I worked at Northcliffe Media for 3 years, the target audience is middle aged women. It's like a glorified Heat magazIne half the time.

 

If you want to moan at middle aged white guys being racist and moaning on tax the Express is your bet now.

 

Double Dip Recession appears to have never actually happened.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349469/The-double-dip-recession-happened-Revised-figures-economy-performed-better-thought.html

 

What are you doing quoting a "glorified Heat magazine" that "targets middle-aged women" and "has little political sway", Matt?!

Of course, you're quite right about the declining influence of all newspapers, due to the internet etc. Though the Mail remains the paper with the 2nd highest circulation after The Sun...and a lot of people doubtless read its articles on-line. Its print version was still very influential in the early years of NuLabour, though, particularly among "swing voters".

 

The circulation figures certainly show why so many papers are struggling financially: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

Those figures don't include on-line pay-to-view newspaper sites, though. The accounts for papers like the Grauniad and the Indie must make for interesting reading.

[Guest MattP]

I knew I was taking a risk posting that.

 

I'm staggered the Mail's circulation is that high, the Mirror as well? They don't even sell that in my local newsagents (Lancashire and Yorkshire must account for 500,000 of that). I don't think the Guardian and Independant would be that much higher would it? Their circulations were still the bottom two before we had pay to view.

 

Interesting the paper I read The Times circ was the only one that went up last year and that's a pay to view website as well. I still buy it in print everyday, can't beat the feeling of actually reading a newspaper properly.

[purpleronnie]

Double Dip Recession appears to have never actually happened.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349469/The-double-dip-recession-happened-Revised-figures-economy-performed-better-thought.html

 

Pretty much anything published in the mail gets negative feedback from its readers sometimes I do wonder why people don't like positive stories....its all a little odd to me.

[Guest MattP]

Pretty much anything published in the mail gets negative feedback from its readers sometimes I do wonder why people don't like positive stories....its all a little odd to me.

 

Maybe every leftist in Britain spends time scouring the Mail every day looking for racism and that's why it's getting so much PR and views?

[purpleronnie]

Maybe every leftist in Britain spends time scouring the Mail every day looking for racism and that's why it's getting so much PR and views?

 

I was really making a point about the mail online website and the readers who will only post negative comments even when the actual news story is a positive one.  Its truly baffling and makes me concerned why so many Daily mail readers refuse to be positive about anything.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm staggered the Mail's circulation is that high, the Mirror as well? They don't even sell that in my local newsagents (Lancashire and Yorkshire must account for 500,000 of that). I don't think the Guardian and Independant would be that much higher would it? Their circulations were still the bottom two before we had pay to view.

 

Interesting the paper I read The Times circ was the only one that went up last year and that's a pay to view website as well. I still buy it in print everyday, can't beat the feeling of actually reading a newspaper properly.

 

I grew up in the SE and did a paper round in my nice, Tory-voting Kentish village. About 60% of the papers that I delivered were the Daily Mail - though I'd imagine that the Mirror has a higher Northern circulation.

 

Private Eye (by far the best source of info about what's really going on) regularly slates the Guardian for not making its website pay-to-view, leading to massive losses underwritten by partner corporations (often very unlikely ones). Yet, the online Guardian seems to be very popular among American liberals/lefties. Maybe they see a future for themselves as an international American-oriented on-line publication funded by advertising - or maybe they're just financially clueless?

 

Can't imagine that the Indie will survive in its current form - though there could be a future for the "i", selling at 20p and funded by  advertising, as it includes anything worth reading from the Indie - and there's still a market for a decent quality, independent-minded centre/left paper.

[Webbo]

I was really making a point about the mail online website and the readers who will only post negative comments even when the actual news story is a positive one.  Its truly baffling and makes me concerned why so many Daily mail readers refuse to be positive about anything.

Matt's right, a lot of the comments are from haters looking for things to complain about.

[purpleronnie]

Matt's right, a lot of the comments are from haters looking for things to complain about.

 

Do you mean Matt's lefty comment?  Because I'm not talking about stories about racism, its any story especially the positive ones.

[Webbo]

Do you mean Matt's lefty comment?  Because I'm not talking about stories about racism, its any story especially the positive ones.

I suspect a lot of them are leftwing although there are UKIP supporters who rubbish any positive news regarding the govt.

[purpleronnie]

I suspect a lot of them are leftwing although there are UKIP supporters who rubbish any positive news regarding the govt.

Boy is that true doesnt even have to be a story about the government either.

 

Not sure why leftwing voters would go on the daily mail site and post negative stories about this country on non political stories though, especially as a lot of the negative comments often include criticism of the past labour government.

[Guest MattP]

I suspect a lot of them are leftwing although there are UKIP supporters who rubbish any positive news regarding the govt.

 

Very good point.

 

I was really making a point about the mail online website and the readers who will only post negative comments even when the actual news story is a positive one.  Its truly baffling and makes me concerned why so many Daily mail readers refuse to be positive about anything.

 

Yeah I just realised I missed the point you were making. Maybe they don't want to be positive, does any newspaper really want to be? It doesn't sell does it? The Guardian and The Indy want to tell everyone everything is rosy and they are bottom of the Circ tables.

 

That said The Mirror is more negative than anything I've ever read, it clearly is grim up north and they love it.

 

I grew up in the SE and did a paper round in my nice, Tory-voting Kentish village. About 60% of the papers that I delivered were the Daily Mail - though I'd imagine that the Mirror has a higher Northern circulation.

 

Private Eye (by far the best source of info about what's really going on) regularly slates the Guardian for not making its website pay-to-view, leading to massive losses underwritten by partner corporations (often very unlikely ones). Yet, the online Guardian seems to be very popular among American liberals/lefties. Maybe they see a future for themselves as an international American-oriented on-line publication funded by advertising - or maybe they're just financially clueless?

 

Can't imagine that the Indie will survive in its current form - though there could be a future for the "i", selling at 20p and funded by  advertising, as it includes anything worth reading from the Indie - and there's still a market for a decent quality, independent-minded centre/left paper.

 

The Indy is done, I got it a few times, just boring, paying money to be bored isn't going to work. Maybe that is the Guardian's plan, they already have a abundance of coffee shops in the US, just need some coid trousers and geography teachers arm patches.

[Webbo]

Boy is that true doesnt even have to be a story about the government either.

 

Not sure why leftwing voters would go on the daily mail site and post negative stories about this country on non political stories though, especially as a lot of the negative comments often include criticism of the past labour government.

Because they hate the Daily Mail, there are even websites dedicated to it.

[purpleronnie]

Very good point.

 

 

Yeah I just realised I missed the point you were making. Maybe they don't want to be positive, does any newspaper really want to be? It doesn't sell does it? The Guardian and The Indy want to tell everyone everything is rosy and they are bottom of the Circ tables.

 

That said The Mirror is more negative than anything I've ever read, it clearly is grim up north and they love it.

 

 

The Indy is done, I got it a few times, just boring, paying money to be bored isn't going to work. Maybe that is the Guardian's plan, they already have a abundance of coffee shops in the US, just need some coid trousers and geography teachers arm patches.

 

I understand negative stories sell newspapers but surely most realise that theres a balance, most comments are almost always negative on that site, and often the comments are incorrect - it comes across as people wanting to be miserble, thats what I cant fathem theres very little common sense on there.  The 'end of the world' comments about pretty much everything is worrying I just want to say cheer up, you do realise it aint all bad.

[purpleronnie]

Because they hate the Daily Mail, there are even websites dedicated to it.

Who hates the mail?  lefties?  So you think all the negative comments that include comments criticising the labour government are from labour voters on a tory paper.

 

Seems a bit of a stretch especially when most praise tory and UKIP.

[Guest MattP]

I understand negative stories sell newspapers but surely most realise that theres a balance, most comments are almost always negative on that site, and often the comments are incorrect - it comes across as people wanting to be miserble, thats what I cant fathem theres very little common sense on there.  The 'end of the world' comments about pretty much everything is worrying I just want to say cheer up, you do realise it aint all bad.

 

But maybe for a lot of people it is mostly bad Ron.

 

Have to remember not everyone lives in a nice place in the countryside, has plenty of money and has a weekend retreat in St Ives.

 

For all you know the people commenting could be people whose cleaning company has gone down the toilet as a Polish firm can do it for 50% as they have ten living in a house, things aren't cut and dry in life.