Jump to content
Pat's Guide to Glasgow West End

Recommended Posts

Although still arguing that measures will fall more heavily on richer people?

No, they're only arguing that verbally. The CSR document makes it quite clear (supported by the Institute of Fiscal Studies) that, whilst the richest will lose out more in numerical terms, the poorest will lose out most in percentage terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny Alexander on Newsnight now.... he looks haunted.

Still, they didn't have to get someone to sit in front of him.

He's pretty sure it's no his fault and nothing ideological about the approach taken. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Moore on Newsnight Scotland wittering on about folk going back into work. They are not going to allow people to be 'trapped in benefits'. Struggling to answer how - apart from this amazing new Work Programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the main thing is whether you sympathise with public sector workers who are loosing their jobs or not, HH. More about the effects.

you are talking in general terms, I was speaking from a personal perspective.

Social Workers have been flat out for years with huge case loads of very needy clients

The only Social Worker I know is on annual leave every time I call her and of course these days, they don't have clients, they have service users.

However, many of us are going to be effected by these cuts.

Many of us will, many of us have in the past, many of us will continue to live day to day within our means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Social Worker I know is on annual leave every time I call her and of course these days, they don't have clients, they have service users.

Customers darling. You are sooo out the loop *muwuh!*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are talking in general terms, I was speaking from a personal perspective.

The only Social Worker I know is on annual leave every time I call her and of course these days, they don't have clients, they have service users.

Many of us will, many of us have in the past, many of us will continue to live day to day within our means.

I've been unemployed too, HH, and on benefits. It's not so easy but how's it going to work when you are expected to find a job that is non-existent and not entitled to benefits?

Apparently the private sector in Scotland haven't stepped up to the mark in creating jobs. This could be their big opportunity. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Customers darling. You are sooo out the loop *muwuh!*

That may be true in the girly south, up here we are a hardier breed, in Greenock they are known as 'Service Abusers' :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been unemployed too, HH, and on benefits. It's not so easy but how's it going to work when you are expected to find a job that is non-existent and not entitled to benefits?

..................................

That's what Alan Johnson meant when he spoke about the cuts being ideologically driven. Decent people will be made jobless with no jobs to be found. Changes in housing benefit will render them homeless and vulnerable to whatever sanctions the government choose to subject them to.

That's what Johnson meant when he accused the Conservations of having come into politics to achieve just such an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what Alan Johnson meant when he spoke about the cuts being ideologically driven. Decent people will be made jobless with no jobs to be found. Changes in housing benefit will render them homeless and vulnerable to whatever sanctions the government choose to subject them to.

That's what Johnson meant when he accused the Conservations of having come into politics to achieve just such an end.

I would find it hard to disagree with his view. Although, there have always been plenty of 'decent people' who are jobless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wanted it and they got it, the Liberals have done what they always do when they get a sniff of power and the Tories have served their masters as ever. Hope the buck eejits who voted these failed circus performers in are happy now and I don't want to hear any b1tching from them this time. 'Oh we never thought this would happen' Nope you just never thought. Anyway. last words to Johann...

'Johann Hari.

Margaret Thatcher is lying sick in a private hospital bed in Belgravia -- but her political children have just pushed her agenda further and harder and deeper than she ever dreamed of. The government of David Cameron just took the Tea Party's deepest fantasies -- of massive budget cuts, introduced immediately -- and imposed them on Britain. When was the last time Britain's public spending was slashed by more than 20 percent? Not in my mother's lifetime. Not even in my grandmother's lifetime. No: It was in 1918, when a conservative-liberal coalition said the best response to a global economic crisis was to rapidly pay off this country's debts. The result? Unemployment soared from six percent to 19 percent, and the country's economy collapsed so severely that they lost all ability to pay their bills, and the debt actually rose from 114 percent to 180 percent. "History doesn't repeat itself," Mark Twain said, "but it does rhyme."

George Osborne, the finance minister, has just gambled Britain's future on an extreme economic theory that has failed whenever and wherever it has been tried. In the Great Depression, we learned some basic principles. When an economy falters, ordinary people -- perfectly sensibly -- cut back their spending and try to pay down their debts. This causes a further fall in demand and makes the economy worse. If the government cuts back at the same time, then there is no demand at all, and the economy goes into freefall. That's why virtually every country in the world reacted to the Great Crash of 2008 -- caused entirely by deregulated bankers -- by increasing spending, funded by temporary debt. Better a deficit we repay in the good times than an endless depression. The countries that stimulated hardest, like South Korea, came out of recession first.

David Cameron and George Osborne have ignored all this. They have ignored the warnings of the Financial Times, the newspaper most critical of their strategy. They have dismissed the warnings of Nobel Laureates for Economics like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, whose warnings have consistently been proven right in this crisis. They have refused to learn from the fact that the country they held up as a model for how to deal with a recession -- "Look and learn from across the Irish Sea," Osborne said -- has suffered the worst collapse in the developed world. They have instead blindly obeyed the ideological precepts they learned as baby Thatcherites: Slash the state, and make the poor pay most.

Osborne galloped through his Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) speech, failing to name almost any of the services that will be slashed or shut down. It's revealing that he doesn't want to publicly name them while the nation is watching.

But beneath the statistics, there was a swathe of human tragedies that will now unnecessarily unfold across Britain. PriceWaterhouseCooper -- nobody's idea of a Trotskyite cell -- says that a million people will now lose their jobs as a direct result. My father lost his job at the height of the last Tory recession and had to leave the country to get another one. I remember how that felt. I remember what that did to my family. Now it's going to happen to a million more families -- and probably more after that. For the private sector to get all these people into work, as Osborne claims, there would have to be the most rapid business growth in my lifetime. Does anyone think that will happen?

Osborne has chosen the weakest people to take the worst cuts. The poorest sixteen year olds were given £30 a week to stay on in education, so they could afford to study -- until Osborne's team dismissed it as a "bribe" and shut it down. The most frail old people depend on council services to wash them and feed them -- yet Osborne just slashed their budget by 30 percent, which service providers say will mean more pensioners being left to die in their own filth. Every family living on benefits is set to lose an average of £1000 a year -- which, as I've seen from living in the East End of London, will mean many poor kids across Britain never getting a birthday party, or a trip to the seaside, or a bed of their own, or a winter coat. This isn't just On Yer Bike, it's On Yer Own.

The irrationality of this approach is perhaps plainest when you look at housing. We badly need more affordable housing in Britain. Some 4.5 million people are stuck on waiting lists for housing, and the average age of a home buyer is now 37. It's a cause of constant stress to the real middle class and despair for the poor. By a happy coincidence, house-building is one of the best stimulators of the economy: It employs a lot of people on average wages, who then spend their money quickly in a "multiplier effect."

Yet Osborne has chosen the opposite. There will be on average one new home built per week in the whole of London and the southeast. That's one. Indeed, instead of building homes, he's driving people out of them. By slashing housing benefit, London councils alone say 83,000 people here are going to be forced to leave their homes, with 1.3 million ending up in more debt. Cameron has revealed that his baby daughter sleeps in a cardboard box decorated for her by her big sister. Thanks to him, a lot more people are going to be sleeping in cardboard boxes soon.

It can't be coincidental that this is being done to us by three men -- Cameron, Osborne, and Nick Clegg -- who have never worried about a bill in their lives. On a basic level, they do not understand the effects of these decisions on real people. Remember, Cameron said before the election: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school." Osborne lives in a £4 million trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn, and which is stashed offshore to prevent it being taxed. Clegg actually thought the state pension was £30 a week, a level that would kill pensioners.

These attitudes have real consequences. We're not in this together. Who isn't in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: They are being let off left, right and center. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6 billion -- but Osborne simply canceled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. Ordinary British citizens should try refusing to pay their taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to them as he does to the super-rich.

There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7 billion in bonuses in Britain -- much of it taxpayers' money -- to reward themselves for failure. That's the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about "fairness."

Britain just became colder and crueler country. And for what? To pantingly follow a disproven ideology over a cliff. On the eve of the general election, Cameron told us: "There'll be no cuts to frontline services," "we're not talking about swingeing cuts," and "all cuts will be fair." Is it possible to call him anything but a liar and an ideologue today?

You can enjoy a long rest, Baroness Thatcher -- your successors have embarked on a cocaine-charged imitation that exceeds your most fantastical dreams.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"caused entirely by deregulated bankers -" and who deregulated them? The last shower of criminaly incompetent economic numpties,and that all their supporters now seem to have developed historic blindness to the havoc they set up in the last 13 years!

You could say that because of their proliference (the last governments) and the pursuance of THEIR political agenda and social "engineering"we are now in the position we are in now, with the resultant right wing bampots we have now got!

Mibbes if the last lot had kept their original promisses and didnt suck up to the rich and the banking fraternity we wouldny be in this position!

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"caused entirely by deregulated bankers -" and who deregulated them? The last shower of criminaly incompetent economic numpties,and that all their supporters now seem to have developed historic blindness to the havoc they set up in the last 13 years!

You could say that because of their proliference (the last governments) and the pursuance of THEIR political agenda and social "engineering"we are now in the position we are in now, with the resultant right wing bampots we have now got!

Mibbes if the last lot had kept their original promisses and didnt suck up to the rich and the banking fraternity we wouldny be in this position!

)

Mibbees aye and mibbees naw but sure looks like we got the biggest ever bunch of 'criminaly incompetent economic numpties' running the country noo. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the term was 'clients'.

Not if you're being funded by those edjits at Supporting People ...rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"caused entirely by deregulated bankers -" and who deregulated them? The last shower of criminaly incompetent economic numpties,and that all their supporters now seem to have developed historic blindness to the havoc they set up in the last 13 years!

You could say that because of their proliference (the last governments) and the pursuance of THEIR political agenda and social "engineering"we are now in the position we are in now, with the resultant right wing bampots we have now got!

Mibbes if the last lot had kept their original promisses and didnt suck up to the rich and the banking fraternity we wouldny be in this position!

)

The Finance Act 1986 deregulated them, away and google who was in power then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Finance Act 1986 deregulated them, away and google who was in power then.

If the act was so bad why didnt Labour repeal it? They had 12 years to do so

We both know why, the easy money was far too attractive & if Labour had tried to repeal it they would have been immensely unpopular and may have actually lost office ...shock horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the act was so bad why didnt Labour repeal it? They had 12 years to do so

We both know why, the easy money was far too attractive & if Labour had tried to repeal it they would have been immensely unpopular and may have actually lost office ...shock horror.

The clever people knew that deregulation was the way, its the neo con right wing way, free markets, unregulated trade and commerce, no taxes, every man for themselves, and make sure you have a compliant media and a populous so brain washed to believe this rubbish. You need to ask yourself Oz, why would re-regulating the banks have been extremely unpopular? The general public wouldn't have had a clue why it was being done, they were only interested in their windfall shares as mutuals demutualised? Yet you know this would have been whipped up by a compliant right wing, in the pockets of Murdoch, media to a communist invasion.

Well you know what, the right wing neo con libertarians got their way, and the lives of millions lie shattered at their feet, still their wedge is safe in the Cayman Islands, so that's okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clever people knew that deregulation was the way, its the neo con right wing way, free markets, unregulated trade and commerce, no taxes, every man for themselves, and make sure you have a compliant media and a populous so brain washed to believe this rubbish. You need to ask yourself Oz, why would re-regulating the banks have been extremely unpopular? The general public wouldn't have had a clue why it was being done, they were only interested in their windfall shares as mutuals demutualised? Yet you know this would have been whipped up by a compliant right wing, in the pockets of Murdoch, media to a communist invasion.

Well you know what, the right wing neo con libertarians got their way, and the lives of millions lie shattered at their feet, still their wedge is safe in the Cayman Islands, so that's okay.

Yes All because of a weak ill-informed Government that hadnt the guts to repeal the laws coz it would have restricted credit and made the bubble look even more fragile. They would probably even had to cut their borrowing.

You can cut the blarney, cuts no ice its only rhetoric with no real substance to the basic tenets of regulation. We all know there are crooks that need to be controlled.

The fault lies squarely with the government for not taking the appropriate action timeously or indeed any action at all so letting the shysters away with it. The Labour party had 12 years to do it but they sat on their hands. (or with thumbs up their bums if you prefer)

They did it here ( regulated the banks that is) in 90's Made $$$ harder to get, much wailing & gnashing of teeth about restricting credit, trade etc etc. It worked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes All because of a weak ill-informed Government that hadnt the guts to repeal the laws coz it would have restricted credit and made the bubble look even more fragile. They would probably even had to cut their borrowing.

You can cut the blarney, cuts no ice its only rhetoric with no real substance to the basic tenets of regulation. We all know there are crooks that need to be controlled.

The fault lies squarely with the government for not taking the appropriate action timeously or indeed any action at all so letting the shysters away with it. The Labour party had 12 years to do it but they sat on their hands. (or with thumbs up their bums if you prefer)

They did it here ( regulated the banks that is) in 90's Made $$$ harder to get, much wailing & gnashing of teeth about restricting credit, trade etc etc. It worked

You can cut the blarney, cuts no ice its only rhetoric with no real substance to the basic tenets of regulation

I do not have a clue what that means?

However, I find it curious you have no criticism of the party that introduced deregulation in the first place and of course sat back and watched it unfold for the next 11 years and did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can cut the blarney, cuts no ice its only rhetoric with no real substance to the basic tenets of regulation

I do not have a clue what that means?

It means cut the bullshit.

However, I find it curious you have no criticism of the party that introduced deregulation in the first place and of course sat back and watched it unfold for the next 11 years and did nothing.

Wrong! They should never have been de-regulated in first place. It was a stupid thing to do to lose control of your country's cash.

However, I thought we were discussing re-regulation so I didnt bother with the de-regulation in the first place. I thought my post would have been obvious that I considered de-regulation a bad idea irrespective of who did it.

The main thing is Labour in 12 years did nothing to correct it. Sure they can blame Tories for introducing it but they should be castigated for their own lack of action to rectify it but they didnt want too. Easy money led people believe Labour were doing well. 2008 disproved that perception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...