The Conservative Party’s reaction to what I said at the weekend shows they just don’t get it

So weak!

I agree with ed ball.David Cameron and his party don't care if people don't have a Job or a house.

So i do trust Gordon Brown.

No matter what the conman, his party and the trolls below say, the Conservatives are hoping the world crisis is as long and as hard as possible, and will try to drain out as much political gain out of it as possible. They are not interested about people losing their jobs or companies going bust the more it happens they think the more chance people will vote agianst Labour.Look at PMQ's, the shadow cabinet sat there all smug and smirking as the conman reads out the list of more job losses, they are loving it.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or just plain stupid.

Ed.

Nice try but I think you need to get in touch with what the man on the street thinks about Labours economic competence.

You taxed the tax but spent it badly and you didn’t get the results people expected.

Much of the so called investment is from PFIs. So in short not paid for out of taxation but is merely rented from private sector companies.

The stories of poor quality public secotor procurement are never out of the news.

The stories of exorbitant public sector pay are never out of the news. I gather its now more lucrative to work for the public sector that the private one. Salaries are said to be, on average higher, and that does not take into account final salary pensions or the job security and extra perks.

People feel over taxed and certainly do not feel that they have had value for money from the huge amounts that they have handed over.

Just look at one example. The NHS database, originally costed at 6 billion pounds, now estimated to cost over 20 billion. Cripes you could bail a bank out for that. And that is just the start of it.

You think the man on the street wants a ID card when he cant even find an NHS dentist.

Labours reputation for economic competence is shot.

And you didn’t help with the SO What comment about taxation.

The problem is that the British people just don't trust Gordon Brown anymore -- not his word, not his competence, not his ethics. Today he had the gall to state that he was unaware that the FSA had raised the alarm about HBOS -- despite his being Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time! Sorry, but to anyone with half a brain that makes his either a liar or an incompetent. Mr. Balls, if you really want the country to "pull together." then let's have an ELECTED Prime Minister that we can rally behind; preferably one that didn't get us into this mess in the first place.

I agree with you Paul. Quite frankly Brown's performance is now so bad you actually feel embarrassed for him. Why not stop pretending,a s he does, that everything that goes wrong is down to somebody else - even in the affair about Crosby: that is that nasty Mr. Paul Moore's fault, apparently, for blowing the whistle.

And today I read that the government has dropped plans to stop RBS from paying out bonuses from the money we gave them out of charity. I can't imagine that going down very well with the public.

@Steve Tierney

Do you really think we have a socialist government? That's breathtakingly inaccurate.

It's barely social democratic. How can you have social democracy with an inequitous Thatcherite economy?

Thatcherism is dead because it offers no solution for the economic crisis.

Defenders of Mrs T say that she made people self-reliant and not on the state. Well, many people have simply become reliant on debt.

Basic, non-discretionary purchases like housing, public transport, electricity & gas, phone lines are very expensive. This has hit the less well-off very hard.

Throw into the mix easy availability of credit and Thatcherite view that debt is not only socially acceptable but should be encouraged, then it is not hard to see why this country is in the dog doo.

Demand now has to come from wages, not debt.

We need less shopping centres and more factories making high-tech equipment for export.

More teachers, fewer financial advisers. More engineers, fewer property developers.

This needs the state. If we leave industry to market forces, it will not grow sufficiently. Thatcherism is dead.

>>Do you really think we have a socialist government?
That's breathtakingly inaccurate.<<

That isn't what I said. Actually, its not even
particularly close to what I said.

>>Thatcherism is dead because it offers no solution for the economic crisis.<<

Why don't we find out about that? Lets have an "open article" here
debating the true nature of the crisis and the possible solutions to it.
Let's let everybody contribute and see what comes out.
Obviously, I disagree with you, but I'm happy to debate the issue
if you are.

>>Defenders of Mrs T say that she made people self-reliant and not on the state.
Well, many people have simply become reliant on debt.<<

True, though it wasn't Thatcherism that forced them to do that.
"Personal responsibility" means taking responsibility
for stupid mistakes you make... like borrowing too much...
That goes for individuals and ... ahem ... governments.
The answer to our current crisis is free-trade
and capitalism. Neither of these things have failed.
It is tampering and gerrymandering by governments
which have brought us to this disastrous impasse.

>>Throw into the mix easy availability of credit and
Thatcherite view that debt is not only socially acceptable
but should be encouraged, then it is not hard to see why
this country is in the dog doo.<<

Responsible lending enables responsible investment and
growth. Irresponsible borrowing (I put the blame on
the borrowers as much as the lenders, not something
which is currently popular opinion, but people can
be idiots) leads to disaster. Though you might like
to wish Margaret Thatcher espoused irresponsible
borrowing, she did not (in fact) do so to my knowledge.
It's easy to "blame" somebody you don't like. I suppose
I do it too, with Gordon Brown. The thing is, its
Gordon Brown who's been Chancellor, and then Prime
Minister, for the last decade or more. But perhaps
you'd prefer to forget that?

>>Demand now has to come from wages, not debt.<<

On this we mostly agree.

>>We need less shopping centres and more factories
making high-tech equipment for export.<<

Yes. We do. Absolutely.

>>More teachers, fewer financial advisers.
More engineers, fewer property developers.<<

We need to build an economy on Agriculture,
Engineering and Industry. But we can't ever do
so until we address the fundimental reason why
those sectors are dead. We can no longer compete
on the world stage because we have legislated our
way out of competition. There's just no
getting around it. Massive deregulation of
industry and the labour markets is what is needed.
And I do mean MASSIVE. And controversial.
I'll go no further. Some lefties here will get
very upset if I do.

>>This needs the state. If we leave industry to market forces,
it will not grow sufficiently. Thatcherism is dead. <<

Good god, no. The last thing it EVER needs is the State.
Market forces, not destroyed by state-run idiotic legislation,
will deliver the results we require. Thatcherism, or a refined
version of it, are needed more than ever.

But of course we'll never agree. How could we when we are
diametrically opposed? Still, i appreciate your taking the
time to propose your views and respect your position. Thanks!

If Thatcher thought deregulation of credit, privatization and deindustralization would bring about a thrifty nation of hard-working, hard-saving responsible citizens she was tragically misguided.

The fact is that privatization of housing, public services and deregulation of credit have brought about huge rises (particularly in housing) in the cost of living.

While clothing and other cheap Chinese-made goods have curbed some costs, wages were constrained by cheaper labour from overseas.

At the same time, cheap debt was pushed very hard. This pushed up prices further without having much effect on wages.

Regulating mortgages, credit cards and loans (another idea I've stolen from the French!) would create a more responsible attitude to debt and control house price inflation.

No one has said the market has failed. Far from it. It has brutally shown to work. The issue here is that free-market, Victorian-style laissez-faire economics is incompatible with human nature. Just like communism...

As for industry, well we need elements of French dirigisme that has produced EDF, Areva, Alstom and SNCF (TGV). You know, the type of companies now running a great chunk of British industry.

>>If Thatcher thought deregulation of credit, privatization and deindustralization would bring about a thrifty nation of hard-working, hard-saving responsible citizens she was tragically misguided.<<

I think that's a gross and misleading simplification. Privatisation
is the only way anything can ever get done cost-effectively and without
it we'd be in an even bigger hole. Deregulation of credit I have
no problem with, as long as both sides bear the risk. Thatcher never
espoused removing "all" rules from credit, only deregulation of
pointless rules. I happen to agree. Even though the bankers are
the current "everyone's favourite witch hunt" its a sign of the
nation's willingness to make everything "somebody else's fault"
that has put them there. If you take on a loan you can't afford
both sides have made a mistake. The bank, for making a loan
you couldn't afford and... no surprise really... you, for acceping
said loan. But its so easy to just blame everybody else.
Now what if the 'regulation' were something like: "If the
bank is shown to have made an irresponsible loan, then the
loan is immediately forgiven and the borrower's debt is
cancelled". If court's had that instruction I'm pretty sure
bank's would be a LOT more careful about who they loaned to.
No top-down control from lunatics like Gordon Brown, who
quite frankly shouldn't be in charge of a Jellied Eel Stand,
let alone the finances of a country.

>>The fact is that privatization of housing, public services
and deregulation of credit have brought about huge rises
(particularly in housing) in the cost of living.<<

That's just plain silly. A house costs what a house costs.
Somebody has to pay for it. If you are being subsidised by
the government then others are paying for it on your behalf
via their taxation. You know, in less 'enlightened' times,
taking money in this way was just called begging. Nobody
really wants to be a beggar. Encouraging people out of
dependency on the state and into personal responsibility
is a worthwhile goal. Margaret Thatcher's policy
to allow people to buy their council houses did more for the
redistribution of wealth than the Labour Party have ever
done with any of their policies.

>>While clothing and other cheap Chinese-made goods have curbed some costs,
wages were constrained by cheaper labour from overseas.<<

You're quite right that we have avoided a financial crisis much
earlier in two ways. (1) Cheap Imports (letting other countries
do the hard work for us) and (2) Borrowing. We have, essentially,
used a housing bubble to justify enormous amounts of borrowing, and
then 'pretended' that borrowing was realt wealth. of course, it wasnt.
It was just debt, payments deferred to tomorrow. But yesterday's
'tomorrow' is today, and here we are.

>>Regulating mortgages, credit cards and loans (another idea I've stolen from the French!) would create a more responsible attitude to debt and control house price inflation.<<

It would do nothing at all, because the main problem isn't the borrowing.
That's a symptom. It was a delaying tactic that Gordon Brown used
to create the 'golden years' and which allowed him to play 'economic
master who had abolished boom and bust' on the world stage. He's run out
of time now. We all have. The main problem we are facing is that
we are **No Longer Competitive** with the developing world. We make nothing
anybody wants, we import vastly too much, and we have sold our skills
and prowess down the river. You say that's because of Margaret
Thatcher. I say its because of a socialist agenda. It was not Margaret
Thatcher that introduced the Minimum Wage, or who crammed the mountains
of red tape down our business's throats, or who buried our industry
under mountains of taxation, employment obligation, health and safety
madness... I could go on.

>>No one has said the market has failed. Far from it. It has brutally shown to work. The issue here is that free-market, Victorian-style laissez-faire economics is incompatible with human nature. Just like communism...<<

That's an interesting comment that needs more debate. I'm not sure
I'd disagree with it as entirely as I do your other comments.
But I suspect I'd disagree with your suggestions as to how to
fix the failings.

Once again, I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way.
I very much value debate in all its forms and I find your comments
intelligent and well-put, even if I don't agree with them.

Thanks, Steve. It's good to have a civil online debate for once!

When you say Margaret Thatcher's council houses policy "did more for the redistribution of wealth than the Labour Party have ever done with any of their policies".

I can agree with that, but it seems to have transferred wealth from the young to the older, from generation to baby boomers. Thatcher's ban on letting councils use the money to rebuild engineered a boom and bust, that in the end has left the country worse off.

You say that we are no longer competitive, but is that surprising when Mrs T destroyed industry for political ends? Look at Germany, there are world's leading exporter, yet they have high wages and strong trade unions. They restructured, not destructed and compete on quality.

I like your idea about lenders taking the burden for bad loans. This happens in France. Isn't it a bit socialist though?!

>>Thanks, Steve. It's good to have a civil online debate for once!<<

I could not agree more. It's precisely why I come here, actually.
ConHome is great site, but talking to people who mostly agree with you
doesn't stretch the mind at all! And anybody who thinks 'one side has
ALL the answers' is a fool. There are clever ideas on both sides
of the political spectrum. I love the NHS too. I think its an
awesome achievement.

>>I can agree with that, but it seems to have transferred wealth from the young
to the older, from generation to baby boomers. Thatcher's ban on letting
councils use the money to rebuild engineered a boom and bust, that in
the end has left the country worse off.<<

The idea was, of course, once you get people out of the 'habit' of
social dependency on the state, investing in more social housing
to let them slip back into it isn't a good idea. I really don't
agree that it had anything to do with "boom and bust". Free Trade
runs in cycles and periods of boom and bust are pretty much a given.
Most good economists agree that and can give long boring lectures
on why that is.

What you *can* do is to try and save during the boom so that things
aren't so bad in the bust. What you can't do is spend everything
you have, and much more, while trying to pretend bust will never
happen again. Well, I suppose you CAN do that. But it leads to...
what we have now.

>>You say that we are no longer competitive,
but is that surprising when Mrs T destroyed
industry for political ends?<<

I just don't agree. It is left-leaning legislation which
has destroyed our competitiveness. I blame Trade Unions
for the majority of this. Thatcher stamped on the unions
because the unions were wildly out of control and systematically
destroying the country. It was necessary. That's not the
same as 'destroying' industry. Now don't get me wrong,
I think the unions remain both relevent and useful. Free speech
is vital and the unions make sure the 'little guy' is heard,
even if the government don't want to listen. But that's different
from some of the crazy ideas unions have often encouraged.

I should stress at this point that I dont believe *everything*
Margaret Thatcher did was right. How could it be? She's only
human. I just think, on balance, she was a major boon to the
country and averted some very dark times indeed. We need somebody
like that right now, actually. If anything, even darker times
are on their way.

>> Look at Germany, there are world's leading exporter, yet they
have high wages and strong trade unions. They restructured, not
destructed and compete on quality.<<

A very fair point.

Germany are different from us in many ways, but I do agree that
they have managed to survive despite the strong trade unions.
Im no expect on the German political scene, so I can't comment
on how that might be. I'll have a read up about it though,
in order that I have something to say next time somebody
brings it up. Let's not forget that Germany are in some trouble
too though. Its not like they've avoided the financial
crisis entirely. They've got their own debt mountain, unemployment
fears and 'fiscal stimulus' (I really hate that term. Its SO
misleading.)

>>I like your idea about lenders taking the burden for bad loans.
This happens in France. Isn't it a bit socialist though?!<<

Very few of us are "all right wing" or "all left wing" and the
few who are can generally be considered crazy, or dangerous,
or both. But this is an issue which somewhat straddles the
political landscape.

I don't think that lenders should
"take the burden of bad loans", but rather that they should
share the burden of determining safe risk. I don't enjoy
big banks being able to take decent folk's homes away.
There's really not much that is more soul-destroying for
people than that and it can lead to no good end. but neither
will I ever approve of the state, ANY state (including a Tory
one) getting into financial matters like this. My idea (and it
really is just an idea) seems to be a good middle ground
to encourage responsible lending, keep businesses honest,
keep the government out of it, and keep the homeowner
safe from the most awful consequences of bad lending.

Mr Tierney - the problem with selling off the council housing stock was that new dwellings were not built to replace the sold ones, and therefore there are now people who are unable even to get on to a waiting list in some area.

Even truer today is the fact that many people will never be able to afford to buy a home and more rented accomodation is desperately needed: please don't get onto the Iain Duncan-Smith line of thought: social housing equals "fecklessness" and 14 year old others, or dope fiends Duncan-Smith ought to be ashamed of himself for peddling grotesque images like this. Normal decent people live on council estates - people who work in low paid jobs (and what other sort will there be soon?).

I must confess I get a little angry when I read things like you have written here:

"The idea was, of course, once you get people out of the 'habit' of
social dependency on the state, investing in more social housing
to let them slip back into it isn't a good idea"


What a condescending and arrogant view, if you'll allow me to say so: it smacks of somebody living in Dorking in the 1950s.

Many "private" landlords are money grubbing and terrible landlords. Local authority housing is at least regulated. What do you suggest ;people living on minimum wage does? I am sure if they all took to the streets and sold the Big issue you would find that even more distasteful.

Mr Giles:

>>the problem with selling off the council housing stock was that
new dwellings were not built to replace the sold ones, and therefore
there are now people who are unable even to get on to a waiting list in some area.<<

Council houses should be for people in real trouble, as a temporary
stopover until they can afford to get a place of their own. Of course,
the housing price bubble and the credit crunch have made that very
difficult, but we could keep spinning the debate into ever larger
spheres without actually getting to any point, couldn't we?

You presume that social housing is "necessary", I suggest that we should aim for
everybody to be able to afford their own house, or rent (as they prefer.)
You will, of course, proceed to throw stories of poverty at me,
but then I will explain why the poverty is the fault of your "social
engineering" and interference with the free markets. It would
go on forever. We will never agree.

This is a classic left-right divide. You think
the government should provide everything, I think the government
should provide as little as possible. You call me 'arrogant' and
'nasty', I call you 'weak' and 'grasping'. None of its really
true. We just have different takes on how life should work.

>>Even truer today is the fact that many people will never be
able to afford to buy a home and more rented accomodation is
desperately needed: <<

There is an enormous amount of rented accomodation available,
and landlords and desperately dropping their rents to remain
competitive against their new rivals... repossessed homes and
those who bought beyond their paypacket and now can't pay the
mortgage. But even if we agreed what you say is true, there
are other solutions than "social housing", whose only consequence
is to create a permanent need to look to the state for the answers
to problems. People can be helped and encouraged to find
their answers in their own strengths. The purpose of
government should not be as provider, but as enabler.

>>please don't get onto the Iain Duncan-Smith line of thought:
social housing equals "fecklessness" and 14 year old others,
or dope fiends Duncan-Smith ought to be ashamed of himself for peddling
grotesque images like this. Normal decent people live on council
estates - people who work in low paid jobs (and what other sort will there be soon?)<<

You're both right. Normal decent people DO live on council estates.
Lots of my friends and family, in fact. So do all those types that IDS talks about.
Sticking your head in the sand wont make it go away.

>>I must confess I get a little angry when I read things
like you have written here:<<

Well, Im sorry if I made you angry. But to be honest
I get angry at the left's constant condescension of the
working class. Your presumption that people will always
'need' the state, that they can't aspire to be their
own person, to own their own property, to achieve their
dreams. Not everybody makes it, but everybody can aspire
to. Most people want to.

>>What a condescending and arrogant view, if you'll
allow me to say so: it smacks of somebody living in Dorking in the 1950s.<<

I find your view condescending and arrogant too. It smacks of
somebody who can't earn their own living and needs to leech
from society their whole life. But in saying that I'm making
presumptions about you which are unfair, because I don't know
you from Adam. Neither do you know me from Adam. I can assure you
I grew up working class, in a broken family, in a council house
AND in a mobile home. So please get off your high horse and
try actual debate rather than personal attacks. It doesn't
strengthen your argument, in actuality, it weakens it.

>>Many "private" landlords are money grubbing and terrible landlords.<<

Good god. You really do have issues don't you? Sure, SOME landlords
are the way you describe. But 'many'? Not really. They are just
in business like everybody else. Actually, the worst landlord I've
encountered is Her Majesty's Government, who can be absolute
assholes when the mood takes them. Private landlords seldom
penalise you for falling in love and having your lover move in...

>> Local authority housing is at least regulated.
What do you suggest ;people living on minimum wage does?<<

Just to really upset you, I don't support "minimum wage" either.
But that's a row for another time. But I dont mind fair legal
regulation, where its necessary. People are protected by
law in rent contracts, after all.

>>I am sure if they all took to the streets and sold the
Big issue you would find that even more distasteful. <<

I sold the big issue briefly, as a teenager, when I was
in a rebellious phase and living in a squat. I'm friendly
with our local homeless guy. We talk often when I walk the
dogs. It might surprise you to know he's a Tory.
You really need to get over yourself and your weird
stereotypes.

Mr Tierney You are priceless - I hope the National trust preserve you for all time, so let's get this clear: you don't support minimum wage? OK lets get rid of it: If we do, there will be people earning, perhaps £2 an hour. Now, how do you suggest they get the wherewithal to buy a house?. I certainly don't "leech" as you so quaintly put it, but I do have sympathy for people who are not lucky enough to be earning a big salary and cannot afford half a auarter of a million pounds to buy a house.

Your sink or swim attitude is reminicent of a former smoker who has given up and now preaches to everyone else. Perhaps you had some lucky breaks - others don't. Perhaps you need to spare a thought for others.

>>You are priceless - I hope the National trust preserve you for all time<<

Yeah. That would be neat!

>>so let's get this clear: you don't support minimum wage?
OK lets get rid of it: If we do, there will be people earning,
perhaps £2 an hour. Now, how do you suggest they get the
wherewithal to buy a house?. <<

Let me tell you what actually IS priceless.
I respond to everything you said, word for word, paragraph
by paragraph. Every challenge you make I attempt to
have an answer for. And the best you can do is take the
one thing that I said: "but that's a row for another time"
about and sling it, with a very weak throwing arm,
back at me? Jeez. I was hoping for intelligent debate,
but I get this.

The Minimum Wage is a different issue, which is way off-topic.
I'm happy to debate it. Hell, Im happy to debate ANYthing.
But in a blog like this we really need to try and stay to the
point to have any relevence. Im sure Minimum Wage will come up
some time and we can argue the hell out of it then. But trying
to sum the arguments up here is pointless. This is, after all,
a BIG debate. And its not *this* debate. It also requires some
knowledge of economics, mathematics and a little common sense.
Might I suggest you do a little reading for trying to tackle it?

>>I certainly don't "leech" as you so quaintly put it, <<

If you would take the time to read what I said, I didnt accuse
you of leeching. I responded to your silly snipe with
one of my own, then went on to explain why I had no right
to make that judgment about you. You might at least read
something if you're going to quote it.

>>but I do have sympathy for people who are not lucky
enough to be earning a big salary and cannot afford half
a auarter of a million pounds to buy a house.<<

Me too. We just have different ways of expressing our
sympathy. I'd like to help them do better, while
avoiding Housing Bubbles that create the situation. You'd
like to give them stuff and pretend the money to pay
for it can be magicked up from nowhere. My way teaches
personal responsibility and grants self-confidence, your
way teaches dependency and grants misery.

>>Your sink or swim attitude is reminicent of a former
smoker who has given up and now preaches to everyone else.
Perhaps you had some lucky breaks - others don't. <<

Once again you ignore everything I said, make no
response to any of my arguments, and choose to instead
try and turn the debate into a personal slur.
Its weak debate and weak reasoning.

>>Perhaps you need to spare a thought for others. <<

Perhaps you need to grow a pair and stop whining?

But that's probably a bit too harsh. I prefer not to
get personal in debate, but I'll respond in kind where
necessary.

Have a great day!

Could I just remind you Mr Tierney that even Conservative governments actually DID build council housing?

It is a shocking admission to make on a Labour site, but in fact, gthe major government actually built MORE social housing than NuLabour has, thus far, managed and he was only around for 7 years.

If there was no social housing there would be people living in hostels and on the streets (there are already, but the problem would be even greater). I can't say I find that a very pleasant thought and I sincerely hope we never have a Britain based on your ideas.

I really don't know what you have in mind to help people. perhaps like Thatcher, and to an extent Blair, you believe in the "trickle down" philosophy?

I don't think it worked but perhaps you don't agree?

... the £910 million of cuts...cutting 220,000 apprenticeship places for young people...

I may be the equivalent in some theoretical way but there is not a snowballs chance in hell of 220,000 apprenticeships being put in place should the cuts not be made.

An alternative but equally flawed line could be, that by making these cuts and reducing the burden of charges on Londoners 220,000 people who might have lost their jobs will not do so.

Boris Johnson's remit is to run London efficiently, and employment will flow from the benefits thereof.

We don't need cross party consensus. You are in government and Cameron is not. He is unable to thwart any proper plans you may wish to implement so I cannot see any justification for this cri de coeur. it's lonely at the top, isn't it. Stop blathering and do your job.

The 220,000 apprenticeships is just another pathetic attempt at spin in the 'schools n ospitals' manner.

£910 million of cuts to TWO departments is equivalent to 0.15% of the tax spend this government makes every year. The obscene amounts being spent by government now is a key reason for the need for fiscal stimulus. Here's one way to stimulate the economy, let the people who earn the money keep more of it.

The problem you have of course is that Alistair Darling has already announced cuts of his own. The Pre-Budget Report in the Autumn sliced £5bn out of the 2010-11 budget, and £7.5bn out the year after that (and there's a still a gaping great hole in the books even then). How come we don't hear about how many apprenticeship places that means scrapping? Or is it only a cut when the Conservatives plan it?

Ed,

You don't really say anything - you just string together repeatable glib phrases:

"global financial crisis"

...yes and the UK was at fault too.

"these difficult times"

... thanks for pointing that out - but 'desperate times' seems more apt.

"Only the British Conservatives oppose this action.

....the Tories seem to oppose headless chicken announcements and policies that are unaffordable. Also if we bail out companies with tax payers money, then the recipients should be made accountable. So yes - the Tories oppose - but for sensible reasons. Glib remarks "the Tories oppose" are just fatuous.

affecting every country in the world

... stating the obvious. When you say this it just sounds like you are trying to hide any issues that we should be facing up to and that were caused in the UK.

"real help to families"

.... like what? VAT cut? Ha! Lagging for lofts?!


I suggest that you grow a backbone quickly Mr Balls and say something of substance. Glib spin ain't ever gonna work.

There's far too much self-pitying doom and gloom around in Britain.

Labour members can take heart that their views on free market fundamentalism have been vindicated. Thatcherism has been utterly discredited - economically, socially and morally.

Sadly, New Labour carried the torch for Thatcherism, albeit with a belief that there is such a thing as society.

The tragedy is that Tony Blair's New Labour was so conscious of not being seen to roll back the frontiers of the market state that it neglected industry and finance.

It then over-compensated by eager intrusion in other areas such education, local government, policing, civil liberty and health.

It's not too late for Labour, but they will have to offer some brazenly populist policies to win a fourth term.

This means tax cuts for basic rate earners. I can't think of a better way than doing away with tax credits and lifting the personal allowance by several thousand pounds.

Longer term we need regulation on mortgages, credit cards and loans to curb inflation, not cheap labour from Eastern Europe.

We're all in this together and there's no quick fix. As someone else has said, this crisis is an opportunity to reshape Britain for the better.

Thatcherism is dead. Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice!

Such a massive minsunderstanding about the nature
of the problem we are facing is breathtaking.

Thatcherism is dead? I suspect that history will
tell the story very differently, once the current
sleight-of-hand and spin have faded into memory
and the facts are revealed.

What is 'dead' is the idea that closet-socialist
can run a democracy anywhere other than into
oblivion. Again.

Mr Probert, Thatcherism might be dead, but like the Merry Monarch it was a long time a-dying. Why? Because Blair put it on life support for a very long time. And there are still ministers who embrace it: John "Greed is Good" Hutton, James Purnell, whose "reforms" go even further than Thatcher in her wildest dreams, Gordon Brown and Mr mandelson hob-nobbing with the City: the automatic siding of the latter with Total over the workers, the union bashing.

Now things have turned bad for NL they try to airbrush the past, pretending they never liked this Thatcherism stuff in the first place. I fear it is too late: things, as they say, can only get bitter.

That's as good an analysis and forward thinking campaign as anything.

Labour have credibility and the urge to reach out. They can capitalise on this by morphing into a policy free zone and being populist. That sounds empty and shallow but carries the basic pitch of Labour and invites the sale.

A life lesson:

Shiguru Miyamoto is one of the worlds top game designers. His designs deliver the goods and Nintendo print money, but when he delivered an abstract and long keynote at the Tokyo Game Developer's Conference nearly everyone fell asleep.

Miyamoto's keynote was brilliant and I got every word of it but the majority of people's minds work differently. You can't hit them with big abstracts or too many details. They just switch off but if you aim for less and chum them along they absorb more and are more open to buying into it.

Cameron has been pulling this trick by peddling the one note message "change" and chumming anyone with a grievance. But we know the Tories are a lurch backwards and want to make you their bitch. Labour have a great message by selling success, confidence, and getting ahead of the recession curve. This is where the Tories message backfires on them. Change becomes death. Generosity becomes theft. The harder they push the quicker they unravel.

Pay no attention. I make it up as I go along. ;-)

Mortgaging our futures to simply give our banks our money is not, in any way a fiscal stimulus. Not a single penny is going to help small companies in fact, if anything, lending is being reduced (in the name of "sensible" lending). You sit in your expenses paid Ivory Towers and attempt to distract us with banking bonuses and preside over the wholesale destruction of our economy. How, in the name of sanity, can you say that the Tories do not understand when, it is patently clear that you have no idea? You and your kind have presided over an economic "miracle" that would have even made Mr Healey blush. We have an unsutainable public sector that, far from serving us, seeks to dominate us. Real taxation is greater than at any time in the history of this country, yet, the country, your government and many of our citizens are plain broke. We have a single bank that owes more that our entire GDP - most of it abroad. We have a health service that is worse than most third world countries - despite the money that is spent on it. We have virtually no manufacturing industry. Most of our untilities are forign owned. We have the highest energy costs in the civlised world. We have the worst care for our elderly. Our children are ferral, uneducated fools. We have a massive drug problem. I could go on but, if this is your definition of success then, I would hate to read what you class as a failure.

Let's get this straight.

Labour has been in power since 1997. It inherited an economy with the highest inward investment of the EU, the strongest and best provided pension funds in the EU, registering strong growth, low levels of national debt, falling unemployment, low inflation.

Even a budget surplus.

Households had one of the highest standards of living for over two generations, indebtedness was low, savings were high.

In 11 years, we have unemployment higher than when Labour took office, record levels of national borrowing are forecast (even after removing certain liabilities) we are already at record levels of debt. Our pension provision, private and public is one of the worst in the EU, growth is in a very sharp reverse and we will suffer the worst recession of the EU and G8.

Households have suffered declining living standards (in terms of disposable income) for the last 5 years, indebtedness is at an all time record.

Every single government budget deficit has been overshot for the last three years.

And Labour ignored that - and changed the golden rules to suit.

So do not pretend for one second you can blame anyone except yourselves and some greedy bankers who played to the rules of the game that Labour created.

Another thing, fiscal stimulus...

Sarko has rubbished Labour's VAT cut, so have German finance ministers.

In the US, they have tempered injections of capital with substantial direct tax cuts. Income tax cuts.

Not increases in NI, a tax on jobs that's certain.

Labour cut a indirect consumption tax when retailers are slashing prices by 25% or more.

All of Labour tax increases have been deferred - that is not a tax cut.

I think the Conservatives, commentators and the people at large understand perfectly the mess we are in.

A mess that will take a generation to put right.

Blaming America does not wash.

Brown changed the banking regulations - he was warned by the Opposition in the subsequent debate regarding the weak regulation of banking debt management.

He ignored it.

Then the IMF warned him repeatedly about the housing bubble and levels of government debt.

He ignored several warnings.

There was time, plenty of time to minimise the damage before it happened.

Instead, more taxes, more spending, more spending money this country didn't have.

Lastly cutting government spending.

Labour are planning to cut the growth in government spending for 2010-11 more than the Conservative's plan to cut the growth in spending.

So who is cutting more?

Labour spends £650bn a year and every £ is spent to maximise the value returned to the public?

When Alan Johnson can wave away in agreement that £9bn was wasted in NHS IT?

"So what." I hear you say.

Mark my words, Labour is facing electoral oblivion, for the mismanagement, incompetence, dishonesty but also that despite all the promises New Labour is just another tax and spend Labour administration.

Cameron can't do anything, it's utterly rhetorical. If he had all the wrong ideas - why has Labour stolen the best ones?

"Labour has been in power since 1997." - They inherited a country with broken public services, collapsing schools, and appalling social welfare. The entire global economy was doing well too (don't forget the Tories had recessions even when the rest of the world was doing fine!).

Even with the entire world economy in a bad position, the actions of Labour have meant that if we lose our jobs the state provides excellent services to help us get back into work. They are also funding thousands of projects to allow people to keep their jobs. If we had carried on in the Tory way of thinking, we wouldn't have any support, people would be losing their savings, we'd be even more reliant on the private sector, and more banks would be collapsing due to the Thatcherites deciding that its best to let the market take its course rather then actually helping people.

"Even a budget surplus." - Not surprising since they were letting schools and the NHS rot.

"Sarko has rubbished Labour's VAT cut" – He has since said that they “were working closely together and moving in the same direction” and praised him for “his key role”. France isn't exactly in a good position either, they have millions on strike. Over here the Tories tell people not to come into work when they're willing to, and then refuse to pay them!

"When Alan Johnson can wave away in agreement that £9bn was wasted in NHS IT?" - I have to agree with on that. The scale of IT projects need to be smaller.

Public debt in 1997 was 49% of GDP, and before the recession it was 43.8%. Every country in the world is going to have an increasing public debt for the next few years as governments are going to need to step in where the free market fails.

For a start, your borrowing figures are fallacious.

National debt was at 40% not 49% in 1997, it was under 30% prior to the early 1990s recession.

Now, after 11 years of Labour rule it stands at 55%

That's including liabilities such as PFI, including bank and rail nationalisations it's almost 100% GDP.

Include the public sector pensions deficits, it's near 150%.

So how is Labour's folly to be paid for?

There are two choices...

1. More taxes, economically, that will kill any kind of meaningful economic growth for three decades.

2. Grow the economy. How?

With an unproductive public sector that has -20% productivity, for every £ that is put in, 80p in value is generated.

Or free the private sector from the excessive taxes, that for every £ they invest generates £1.30 or more and then grow the economy and therefore grow tax revenues?

You criticise Thatcher but that's exactly what her administration did.

As for inheriting a country with broken public services, so that's why Blair and Brown stuck to the Conservative spending plans for two years after election?

As for public provision, no-one is arguing that social welfare is important.

However, the argument is, is it affordable?

Wouldn't it be better to create the jobs and wealth so fewer and fewer people need such provision?

When the government takes a £ from business, that's a £ that business cannot invest in creating jobs or keeping the workforce they already have. When government takes a £ out of a household, that's less consumer spending or less 'investment' in their home.

Taxes stifle growth, fact.

We need to be reliant on the private sector because that's where the wealth is generated, without it, no jobs and no social provision. The danger of this Labour government is that it systematically fails to realise there is an opportunity cost in taxation.

As for the banks, deposits would have been protected and those banks that were utterly irresponsible should have been allowed to fail. The loan books and assets would have found new and more responsible custodians.

Instead, we are stuck in the exact same position Japan got itself into in the late 1980s. I doubt, given the chance, they would repeat the same mistake.

The books in this banks should have been opened the extent of the problem revealed, that's exactly what the US has done, let the irresponsible banks fail, shore up the others.

Instead, Labour has saddled every child in this country with a debt to pay off before they even start their working life.

Instead, the wealth creating parts of the economy, the very engine room that generates the taxes for your 'thousands of projects to allow people to keep their jobs' isn't working as well as it could.

You have your priorities the wrong way round, everyone would love a fantastic social provision, it has to be paid for according to what we, as a country can afford. That means getting the private sector firing on all cylinders again. They generate the cash that drive the whole economy.

You cannot export jobseeker's allowance or training grants.

Any responsible household would tell you that you cut your cloth according to your means yet the public sector seems completely oblivious to this.

So is taking money from the lowest paid in more taxes really social justice?

Is creating 800,000 new jobs and seeing 700,000 of them go to economic migrants, is that social justice?

No, it is not.

That is the reality behind the asinine 'British jobs for British workers'.

Labour's economic choices have been to tax, spend, borrow, tax, spend, borrow in ever larger amounts.

And you simplified attitude to waste literally sums up why the public sector should make do with less for quite some time to come.

It's time to draw another failed Labour social experiment to a close.

“However, the argument is, is it affordable?” - I'd say that not doing anything is even less affordable. All industries are calling on the government for help and Labour are heeding that call.

“When government takes a £ out of a household, that's less consumer spending or less 'investment' in their home.” - But a £ extra investment in roads, policing, job centres and hundreds of other areas essential to a country but are liable to the 'free rider' syndrome.

“Taxes stifle growth, fact.” - Socially, environmentally, and economically uncontrolled growth has never been sustainable. You want the private sector to be made more free, yet you critise Gordon Brown for not intervening.

“We need to be reliant on the private sector because that's where the wealth is generated, without it, no jobs and no social provision. The danger of this Labour government is that it systematically fails to realise there is an opportunity cost in taxation.” - I admire your bravery of still supporting the free market when the root cause of everything that's collapsing is because the economy wasn't regulated enough.

“As for the banks, deposits would have been protected and those banks that were utterly irresponsible should have been allowed to fail. The loan books and assets would have found new and more responsible custodians.” - Causing thousands of job losses, therefore more people on benefits, less confidence in the banking industry and the market being allowed to fail. The government would have to have spent millions to protect all the deposits with zero chance of getting them back. Buying shares give the possibility of getting a least some of the money bank. The loans to Northern Rock are already getting rapidly repaid

“The books in this banks should have been opened the extent of the problem revealed, that's exactly what the US has done, let the irresponsible banks fail, shore up the others.” - In the great depression the US economy was in freefall. The government had tried doing nothing and hoping everything would eventually fix itself. That failed. Only massive government intervention helped. Obama has learnt that lesson and so should we.

In times like this, the public sector needs to get bigger as the private sector is getting smaller.

You have your priorities the wrong way round, everyone would love a fantastic social provision, it has to be paid for according to what we, as a country can afford. That means getting the private sector firing on all cylinders again. They generate the cash that drive the whole economy.

“That is the reality behind the asinine 'British jobs for British workers'”

Labour's economic choices have been to tax, spend, borrow, tax, spend, borrow in ever larger amounts.

“It's time to draw another failed Labour social experiment to a close.” - And who would you propose replace them?

We should be a country based on production not consumption. Its a real pity that Thatcher decided it would be much better if we all became more reliant on the financial money markets and stopped all the actual productive jobs.

Do you understand the reality of this global financial crisis?

Yes, I do.

And if you do, then why aren’t you backing our action to get us through these difficult times?

Because it's a load of ill-thought-out, knee-jerk, spasmodic throwing money around that has already been wasted and we're not even through the tunnel yet.

there is a strategic thought under it all Mr Crown.

Have you not figured it out yet. Back of the class room please. Thankyou.

Mr Crown,

would yu please demonstrate to the rest of the class that it is YOU and YOU ONLY who understands the depth of the current economic, financial and social storm that we are in.

please take your time.
thanks.

think to be out of step of the world is indeed ok - if Britain were indeed Great Britain. i.e it was the foremost power in the world.

Do the Tories need to realise that the rest of the world has now moved on,

or not.


In the longer term it is not going to matter. Would be nice if they had a bit of conscience though. They cannot control events or their resolution.

Their action may make the journey possibly a bit more rewarding and less problematic for the rest of us.

and by us, I mean the loyal citizens of this country.

Of course the Tories would play the 'do nothing' card. That's politics.

They just sit back and wait for the recession to deliver them victory in the General Election.

The trick is to rise above the Old Etonian junta's irresponsible (yet understandable) line and put their case to the country, not the shadow cabinet.

Really, Tim, do you think this "do nothing" nonsense actually
works? If we're going to debate, lets actually debate,
not throw easy 'soundbites' around. Your leader does that
and its hardly doing him any favours in the polls, is it?

The Tories aren't a 'do nothing' party, because if they were
then you wouldn't feel the need to keep grabbing their ideas
and rebranding them in red. The Tories agreed with the
Bank Bailout right alongside you (although I didn't, but Im
in the massive minority there). Conservatives just don't
think anything you've done since then makes any sense.
And that's because it doesn't make any sense. Its mind-boggling
madness on an epic scale. Although even that is preferrable
to 'Quantitative Easing'. Of course, true to irresponsible form,
Gordon's gone with that as well.

You do not cure borrowing with loads more borrowing.
My grandma knew that a few decades ago. And her
grandmother before her. And your own grandparents too
I suspect.

Even if you were following Lord Keynes to the letter (which you aren't)
there is more than one well-respected economist to ape.
Or, god forbid, you could talk to a few living economists.
And I don't mean the ones stuck so far up the Prime Minister's
behind that they can see his breakfast.

The government does not produce wealth. It only redistributes
wealth. If you borrow billions, you will have to pay Billions
back. Plus massive interest. And by "you", I do of course mean
"us". For years, and years, and years, and years. And its a gamble
too, because its based on the wistful idea that "we'll be back to
growth next year, or the year after, and then paying the mega-loans
will be easy."

But what if we aren't back to growth then, Tim?
Lots of people think we wont be. I'm one of them.
Then we'll be up to our necks in an endless depression,
unemployment sky high, the welfare state out of control
(even by Labour standards). And we'll have trillions of
pounds of loans to pay back too.

There's a word for that. Its called Bankruptcy.
Or, of you prefer, "the state of the country after
any extended period with Labour in power."

maturity demands a grown-up response.

The electorate sure will slap down those who are lacking.

You only want the Tories to agree with what your doing so you can partially blame them when it all goes wrong.

Many European leaders also disagree with your actions as well.

"Many European leaders also disagree with your actions as well. "



and that means what exactly? thanks in advance for a learned reply.

I f you can't work it out then you probably would not understand if i took the time to explain

and that is where we differ. Thanks.

"You only want the Tories to agree with what your doing so you can partially blame them when it all goes wrong."


oh dear. so little faith inhuman nature.

don't blame you though. But by your statement yu have demonstrated that yu live in the westminster bubble and not beyond. sad that(?)

I agree. There's too much depression and cynicism in politics. Funny, the people calling for "better" can't stop scraping the barrel. That's some irony.

Like who? Each country has their own local approach and the only whiner I remember was dismissed by their own leader as being too wrapped up in their own internal politics.

I just hold comments like this up as an example that kowtowing to the Tory gangstas just turns people into crack addled losers. That's pretty sad and not a path I'd recommend going down.

I've found the government's handling of this crisis to be quite masterful, and the support of our friends and allies in America and China is most welcome. I refuse to give in to despair and fear and believe we can use this crisis to build something even better. Yes, it hurts. Yes, it's strange. Yes, it's scary. But, it is an opportunity to building something new, more cohesive, and lasting. Far from being a disaster I say this is an opportunity to leave an eye watering legacy.

The Tories narrow minded and negative approach isn't just harming the collective global effort but is a form of self harm. Zen teaches that you are what you do, and as the Tories cling tighter and tighter to failed ways they're treading the path of destruction and self-destruction. America and China, or reality, doesn't care a wit for the ego of any man and the Tories are nothing special. They need to get this or history will just grind them into fine dust.

Nobody joins the Tories for their intellectual purity or compassion. They join because it symbolises power and greed but as the crisis has show us this is a road to nowhere. Ed Balls is eschewing the Tories bullying and nasty approach and cutting a figure like "Uncle Bob" in The Terminator. Dave and his crew need to get over themselves when Ed says "Take my hand if you want to live". Cuz, life is short and you can run out of road if you're not quick.

Take the deal, Dave.

>>I've found the government's handling of this crisis to be quite masterful, and the support of our friends and allies in America and China is most welcome. I refuse to give in to despair and fear and believe we can use this crisis to build something even better. Yes, it hurts. Yes, it's strange. Yes, it's scary. But, it is an opportunity to building something new, more cohesive, and lasting. Far from being a disaster I say this is an opportunity to leave an eye watering legacy.<<

That sounds so incredibly sinister! Are you an Evil Mastermind
with a tropical island lair, or something? I find it interesting that
you carefully avoiding actually *saying anything* about what exactly
your 'eye watering legacy' might be. I suspect that your "agenda"
will be another far-left wet dream. Charles, mate, your ideology doesn't
work. That's the reason your leaders were forced to put on their
adversaries clothes for a decade. Which would be fine if they'd had
the courage to actually put on their adversaries policies too. Or if
they'd even understood them.

>>The Tories narrow minded and negative approach isn't just harming
the collective global effort but is a form of self harm. <<

The Tories aren't in power, Charles. You (Labour) are. You have been for what
seems like an age! It is so typical that, even now,with several election
wins under your belts, you still want to try and pretend all that's gone
wrong is somebody else's fault. This is your doing. Everybody knows that.
And come the next election I very strongly suspect you are going to get
an object lesson in the consequences of this kind of failure.

>>Zen teaches that you are what you do, and as the Tories cling
tighter and tighter to failed ways they're treading the path of
destruction and self-destruction. <<

If 'Zen' teaches it, then it *must* be true!
Give me strength! What drivel.
The 'failed ways' are the ones which brought us to this
standpoint. They are Labour's ways because Labour have been in power
since before the Millenium.

>>Nobody joins the Tories for their intellectual purity or compassion.<<

I joined the Tories for their common sense, common decency and
because I believe in personal responsibility first and foremost.
If 'Intellectual purity' means learning all about 'Zen' so that you
can quote it in suitably pompous fashion then you
can keep it. If "Compassion" means forcing people to be dependent
on the hand of the state from cradle to grave so that you can
better control their every move then you can keep that too.

>>They join because it symbolises power and greed but as the
crisis has show us this is a road to nowhere. <<

This is your crisis, Charles. It has shown us that NuLabour,
like Old Labour in the 70's, is the road to economic ruin.
Once Labour, always Labour, it seems. Not that many of
us ever actually doubted that. But people gave you a fair
crack of the whip, hoping you'd wised up. You repaid them
by destroying their livelihoods and their children's futures.
Again.

>>Dave and his crew need to get over themselves when Ed says
"Take my hand if you want to live". Cuz, life is short and you can
run out of road if you're not quick.<<

I can't believe that you are quoting 'Ed Balls' of ALL people.
The only deal anybody would ever want to take from that non-entity
would be one which involved him going somewhere we wouldn't have to
hear or see him again. I'd pay good money for that.

>>Take the deal, Dave. <<

In order to be in a position to offer a deal, you'd need
to have something credible as a bargaining chip. Something
that wasn't economic ruin, a crumbling opinion poll rating,
an increasingly bleak political future. I admire your spirit,
Charles. But you're party is really going to get crushed
at the next election. And rightly so given the state things
have gotten into under your watch.

paragraph 1. How wonderful. A kindered spirit out there after all.

paragraph 2. how illuminating. I would add though that the Tories are very very special.

to themselves.
to themselves only.
How very narrow is their party/ I am now reminded of the only time Mr Cameron has connected. and that was at the Tory party when he made that famous hustings speech at the conference. He does not connect , at a personal level with the general public. Even Mr Brown connects more. Think Mr Cameron should consider his position - given that it is his younger sibling who will come out of all this smelling of roses - not that he talks any strategic sense, but simply because he is more human (looking),

sorry for the harsh words.
we do live in harsh times.


"Dave" will not take the deal.

He very sadly has turned out to be the De-Contamintor. and that only. I would buy Ken (Clarke) though. His star is still up.

People often don't change unless they have to. Labour has had its wake up call and the Tories are still due theirs. The Liberals, also.

"Get real" is the only show in town.

The bigger the required change the less understandably is the appeal of putting in the effort to change - for the better. and that is thepurpose of a crisis. to get us over our hangup. whether it is temporary or permanent depends on the individual.


but societies never learn.
and that is the reason for a recurrance of crisises. after a really big one, - as the one we are in now, which requires a fundamental shift.
.
the subsequent crisis are never of the same magnitude.

Mr Hardwige wrote: ""Get real" is the only show in town. "

What a pity that you don't take your own advice - your several posts in this thfread show you to be some sort of PollyAna. Having been Chancellor for 10 years an POM for 2, Brown has to shoulder some responsibility for the mess we are now in.

As for the LibDems "getting real" I think you'll find Vince Cable has a higher sense of reality than Mr Brown - he was prediciting the banking crisis long before it happened.

I had to laigh at something you said in an earlier post:

"I've found the government's handling of this crisis to be quite masterful, "


Yes, Mr Hardwige. If you say so.....

Look! Over there! A Tory!


For goodness sake Ed, you're in charge mate, YOU do something. You are blessed with the weakest opposition ever and you still can only manage glib inanities, why do you need a consensus? Are you not sure you know what you're doing? How are the tories going to cut public spending, its not like they're in power is it?

"Are you not sure you know what you're doing"


and you do. pray explain.

ed your in charge,so raise the school leaving age to 18,send school leavers to afghanistan,that way we dont have to pay for our youths causing trouble on our streets.

given that society needs a structural change. Please let us have yr thoughts. Many thanks.