Stayed out of this debate and have been impressed by the discussion from both sides, very thought provoking it is. On the topic of the collective amnesia that pervades the whole of the Labour party,movement and public in general it seems, it staggers me.
AND as for Ed Balls (the clue is in the name) I really do feel that I will have a full blown embolism the next time he appears on radio or TV. I am staying out of it for my health.
AND as for Ed Balls (the clue is in the name) I really do feel that I will have a full blown embolism the next time he appears on radio or TV. I am staying out of it for my health.
Carry on everyone.
Ha! Only him and Pardew have that effect on me. Glad I'm not alone!
its a choice between one party that has no bollox at all and one that talks total bollox
Labour landside win in next election ---which will prove once and for all you can not only con all the people all the time but they will pay for the pleasure of it.
Personally I am not particularly political but I am slightly puzzled by the Labour Parties bare faced cheek at critcising this Governements attempt at trying to reduce the budget deficit. Firstly I want to say that I don't think the coalition are doing a very good job either but in some aspects of their policy I think they are getting it right such as the capping of public sector salaries, after all I work in the private sectior and we have had little or no increases for the last 3-4 years, and tying welfare payments to the same level.
I watched Question time last night with John Prescott and I was wondering if he was actually part of the last Labout administration. This was a government that created the largest budget deficit in the world, sold all our gold reserves at the bottom of the market and presided over the destruction of our pension industry and with it took away thousands of peoples hard earned savings. They are like an arsonist who sets fire to a building and then complains that the fire brigade can't put the fire out. God help us if they can back in!
Top post that!
Didn't see question time but the UK didn't have the biggest deficit in Europe let alone the world! Before the last government stepped in to rescue the banks (and I hope you're not saying they should have let them fall over?!) the overall debt was a smaller % of GDP than when Labour took over in 1997 - see link below. Quite simply this government are using the deficit as a reason for pushing through their agenda.
When the stakes in the banks are sold then surely the position gets better even if they are sold for less cash than that injected
After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7?
I don't know whether Labour will get an absolute majority but it is very clear that they do NOT have a persuasive economic case at the moment. Given the botch up job on the last budget, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to put together a brief statement on the UK growing its way out of trouble and moving to a balanced budget that way?
when labour took power in 1997 the economic climate had already changed for the better and was showing rapid improvement, including annual deficit reductions, the following years showed significant further deficit reduction, not because of labour, but the policies in place when they took over, which to be fair to Blair and Brown, they stuck with for their first term, these conservative policies hugely reduced the deficit.
But the old labour ways soon creeped back in and the spending sprees that followed leave us where we are now. The debt and the deficit were already growing before the banking crisis, but the lax control of the city under Brown made the problem far worse than it needed to be.
After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7?
If he didn't know, he's incompetent.
If he did know, then he's a liar. By his own admission.
Labour in power made mistakes, that's for sure, but the question sticks out like dogs balls; if Labour were so bad then how come the Conservatives could not win a majority in 2010?
After Labour's period in exile between 1979-1997 they won a majority of 150 seats, the Tories, after 13 years out of power fell well short a majority in 2010, that poses big questions for the Tories.
Tories need to admit that Blair, like Thatcher before him, changed the UK electorate, hard to swallow but true.
Thatcher forced a new respect for private enterprise and Blair for state investment in public services.
when labour took power in 1997 the economic climate had already changed for the better and was showing rapid improvement, including annual deficit reductions, the following years showed significant further deficit reduction, not because of labour, but the policies in place when they took over, which to be fair to Blair and Brown, they stuck with for their first term, these conservative policies hugely reduced the deficit.
But the old labour ways soon creeped back in and the spending sprees that followed leave us where we are now. The debt and the deficit were already growing before the banking crisis, but the lax control of the city under Brown made the problem far worse than it needed to be.
At last!
Many have blamed the banks but pretty serious economists have pointed out problems were caused by lax regulation (not just London) all over the place together with credit rating agencies giving sub prime mortgage instruments AAA ratings... and the purchasers didn't look too closely under the bonnet.
Totally agree that Labour started spending too much without getting a return in terms of growth and productivity but to use this situation to reduce benefits is politically exploitative. And I am seriously confused as to why the Lib Dems are backing this.
Unfortunately because the 2007-9 crash happened on Labour's watch people like Prescott prefer to blame the banks instead of admitting that City contributions to the government were too valuable to interfere with... and perhaps putting some thought into what the regulatory regime should look like going forwards.
Meanwhile those 'orrible people in the EU have decided to have ONE eurozone regulator to supervise the top 200 banks - terrible idea!
The thing that gets to me is the inefficiencies in the system which if tidied up would save a considerable amount of money. For example, if a person claims housing benefits from what I understand they get the money then pays the local council a rent for the property (out of their benefits), they will also get a council tax benefit which again they must then pay to the council. The council then pays £000's a year in chasing this money, and if it isn't paid because the claimant has spent it on booze/drugs/fags then they have no legal ability to kick the claimant out of their house because of the crazy tenant/landlord rules.
I'm sure there are inefficiencies but this isn't one, yet. Currently, if someone rents from the council or a large housing association, and they get housing benefit, it is paid direct to the landlord. THere will only be significant arrears if they don't get it all paid or have had gaps in claiming housing benefit. It actually works quite well as far as I can see, the people who run up the huge arrears are those who are on and off benefit, and usually have other issues. LIkewise with council tax - if you qualify for full council tax benefit, the council send you a bill saying you don't have to pay any. They don't send you the money and hope you give it back to them, that would be very inefficient, and local councils have been under the cosh for so long they are actually quite efficient at some things. However, under Iain Duncan Smith's reforms, all this is going. In future housing benefit will only be paid direct to landlords in exceptional cases. This is part of his drive to get folks on benefit to take responsibility for themselves, but is likely to have the effect you've predicted. This does mean councils and housing associations will have to spend more time chasing rent (and in some cases the benefit cuts for large families mean they know they will not get it, as rent is likely to fall further down the list than food, electric etc.) In addition, I don't know where the govt think any new social housing is going to come from, as this measure will wreck the finances of a lot of Housing Associations. It's not true that they can't evict people either, all councils regularly do evict people for not paying their rent. What they can't do is kick out people who are vulnerable because they are mentally ill, disabled or are children, just for not paying their rent. The courts will insist that they take any reasonable agreement. As well as housing benefit, council tax benefit is being "localised", meaning everyone will have to pay something. So, someone one benefits will be expected to chip in a few quid a week out of their £72, and then the council will have to chase it when they don't or forget. I'm not sure this new Universal Credit system is meant to be simpler, but I think simpler is just a cover for "less money, more bureaucracy." I work in IT but support some of the systems used by councils. I had a meeting that involved a couple of council bods last year, I think it's fair to say they see Universal Credit as an unannounced cut, and its impact on their finances will be like the Poll tax was.
As far as I am aware housing benefit is paid direct to claimant.
It can be either. My sister is on housing benefit and she collected the money then paid the rent on - until she managed to spend two months rent and forgot to pay the rent then she requested that the council pay it directly to the landlord.
There used to be a problem with claiming this back though. I was advised years ago that if the money is paid directly to the Landlord and then it comes to light that the money shouldn't have been paid at all the Council claim it back from the Landlord. For this reason many Landlords prefer the tenant to claim the money and then pay it on. That way of the Council want it back they go after the tenant. Getting rent from a benefit claimer is virtually impossible as they will never have it.
It's an extremely complicated issue and so far it's been a very good debate from all sides of the political spectrum but, at the risk of taking the thread further away from the original subject, one thing that does get my goat is this constant reference to Labours investment in public services being the reason we are having to take steps like the 1% cap.
As someone who was educated in a, frankly rubbish, comprehensive and later worked in the public sector there is no doubt that under the Tories we had 18 years of chronic under investment in our public services that needed to be addressed.
Labour chose to do this through the continuation of PFI initiative, selling off our assests like the gold reserves, 3G, etc and borrowing shed loads while the going was good rather than raise it through tax hikes for obvious reasons i.e. they needed to get elected. In the meantime they were very happy to leave the lose regulation of the markets that the Tories had introduced as it was bringing in income and investment and Blair needed to be seen to be business friendly.
Events and hindsight has proven that this may not have been the best move of course but I'm damn sure that by the end of the last Labour government kids were not forced, as I was, to sit three or four to a textbook in a cold classroom containing several buckets because the local authority couldn't afford to repair the effing roof.
Of course they didn't get everything right and wasted a load of cash in doing so but my fear is that the investment that was needed to provide proper public services fit for the 21st century is now being quickly unwound.
As someone with friends who work both in the private and public sector(im neither) it does frustrate me to see the private sector people so often moaning about the public sector, as sure so many of them have not had wage increases but im guessing like most of my private sector friends you got nice bonus cheques for many years, where as despite the papers digging up certain management level public sector people's wage bracket and bonus payments, most are hard working people often working more hours then there paid and there average bonus payment being a thank you email from the bosses.
Apoligies if it seems like im slagging off private sector workers, as not my view as many are hard workers just like most public sector workers, just hate the reactionary nonsense so often repeated.
As someone with friends who work both in the private and public sector(im neither) it does frustrate me to see the private sector people so often moaning about the public sector, as sure so many of them have not had wage increases but im guessing like most of my private sector friends you got nice bonus cheques for many years, where as despite the papers digging up certain management level public sector people's wage bracket and bonus payments, most are hard working people often working more hours then there paid and there average bonus payment being a thank you email from the bosses.
Apoligies if it seems like im slagging off private sector workers, as not my view as many are hard workers just like most public sector workers, just hate the reactionary nonsense so often repeated.
Well Gretna you have a point except that not all private sector workers earn good salaries many are getting minimum wage or just a little better. In my industry plant workers have to make their wages up with overtime doing a dangerous and smelly job for nothing better than the national average. On the other hand I know very well a person who works for the NHS and treats the 6 weeks sick leave as "holiday" in the five years I have known her I cannot recall one week where she worked her full hours. You can agree or disagree as we do on this site but I can assure you if that was my companyhe would been out by now. By the way I love these discussions and it is good to hear all opinions whether you agree with them or not.
As someone with friends who work both in the private and public sector(im neither) it does frustrate me to see the private sector people so often moaning about the public sector, as sure so many of them have not had wage increases but im guessing like most of my private sector friends you got nice bonus cheques for many years, where as despite the papers digging up certain management level public sector people's wage bracket and bonus payments, most are hard working people often working more hours then there paid and there average bonus payment being a thank you email from the bosses.
Apoligies if it seems like im slagging off private sector workers, as not my view as many are hard workers just like most public sector workers, just hate the reactionary nonsense so often repeated.
Divide and rule...been going on for years.
Exactly as my Public sector friends now moan about the private sector in an almost retaliation style.
Sadly every goverment left or right all use the same tactic in times of difficulty and most people even smart sensible people fall right in to it.
I've never worked in the public sector, always been private sector or self employed, but I have never had a bonus in my life!
Rememeber me uncle telling me that all self employed blokes only work on a self employed basis because it was a massive tax fiddle, this from a fella who claims to have been employed by BT for 30 years, but only actually worked for 5 of them!
I should get him on this forum, he'd get on with alot of you famously... and he's Charlton!
Well Gretna you have a point except that not all private sector workers earn good salaries many are getting minimum wage or just a little better. In my industry plant workers have to make their wages up with overtime doing a dangerous and smelly job for nothing better than the national average. On the other hand I know very well a person who works for the NHS and treats the 6 weeks sick leave as "holiday" in the five years I have known her I cannot recall one week where she worked her full hours. You can agree or disagree as we do on this site but I can assure you if that was my companyhe would been out by now. By the way I love these discussions and it is good to hear all opinions whether you agree with them or not.
As I type this I can see someone in my office who has not had a days sick in over 20 years. My own record is pretty good itself actually but my sister who works for an well known American investment bank has an appaling sick record and barely completes a full week herself. This debate is not about public versus private sector and the point I'm making is only that it's all too easy to fall into the public sector = bad, private sector = good dogmatic view.
Well Gretna you have a point except that not all private sector workers earn good salaries many are getting minimum wage or just a little better. In my industry plant workers have to make their wages up with overtime doing a dangerous and smelly job for nothing better than the national average. On the other hand I know very well a person who works for the NHS and treats the 6 weeks sick leave as "holiday" in the five years I have known her I cannot recall one week where she worked her full hours. You can agree or disagree as we do on this site but I can assure you if that was my companyhe would been out by now. By the way I love these discussions and it is good to hear all opinions whether you agree with them or not.
As I type this I can see someone in my office who has not had a days sick in over 20 years. My own record is pretty good itself actually but my sister who works for an well known American investment bank has an appaling sick record and barely completes a full week herself. This debate is not about public versus private sector and the point I'm making is only that it's all too easy to fall into the public sector = bad, private sector = good dogmatic view.
Which is what i was trying to say in maybe not the best wording and i might be a little bias as all my private sector friends, from office worker type's to my brother in law who is a mechanic at a small garage, got bonus cheques this Christmas.
Well Gretna you have a point except that not all private sector workers earn good salaries many are getting minimum wage or just a little better. In my industry plant workers have to make their wages up with overtime doing a dangerous and smelly job for nothing better than the national average. On the other hand I know very well a person who works for the NHS and treats the 6 weeks sick leave as "holiday" in the five years I have known her I cannot recall one week where she worked her full hours. You can agree or disagree as we do on this site but I can assure you if that was my companyhe would been out by now. By the way I love these discussions and it is good to hear all opinions whether you agree with them or not.
As I type this I can see someone in my office who has not had a days sick in over 20 years. My own record is pretty good itself actually but my sister who works for an well known American investment bank has an appaling sick record and barely completes a full week herself. This debate is not about public versus private sector and the point I'm making is only that it's all too easy to fall into the public sector = bad, private sector = good dogmatic view.
Yeah, but private sector workers are miles better though aren't they.........
Look at us all arguing over who's getting the biggest scrap of poo they leave us.
Tha fact is most top MPs are millionares - the tory cabinet are ridiculously wealthy and all have vested interests.
The top 1000 earners have increased their wealth in the last 12 months by a 19bn while the economy is STILL shrinking and people are demonising people on benefits as 'lazy and scroungers,' whilst there have been tax cuts of 5% for the high-end earners.
Benefits in general. Who has the most generous? Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxembourg...one might take note it is their economies that are weathering the storm the best in the EU. Not Greece or Spain where benefits are cut after 1yr.
Cut paste from someone i know and i 100% agree:
And finally...its not about benefits/babies it's about housing as well. It's the flat/house which annoys people and that is because we have seen ridiculous house price inflation since 1990, again, not the fault of the poor/kids. And the Tories and their Liberal/Labour pals wouldn't touch it, tax breaks for buy to let landlords, near-unlimited rent increases, low stamp duty, money laundering by the international rich, its fucked the housing in the UK and people take it out on poor young women with babies...
Look at us all arguing over who's getting the biggest scrap of poo they leave us.
Tha fact is most top MPs are millionares - the tory cabinet are ridiculously wealthy and all have vested interests.
The top 1000 earners have increased their wealth in the last 12 months by a 19bn while the economy is STILL shrinking and people are demonising people on benefits as 'lazy and scroungers,' whilst there have been tax cuts of 5% for the high-end earners.
Benefits in general. Who has the most generous? Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxembourg...one might take note it is their economies that are weathering the storm the best in the EU. Not Greece or Spain where benefits are cut after 1yr.
Cut paste from someone i know and i 100% agree:
And finally...its not about benefits/babies it's about housing as well. It's the flat/house which annoys people and that is because we have seen ridiculous house price inflation since 1990, again, not the fault of the poor/kids. And the Tories and their Liberal/Labour pals wouldn't touch it, tax breaks for buy to let landlords, near-unlimited rent increases, low stamp duty, money laundering by the international rich, its fucked the housing in the UK and people take it out on poor young women with babies...
Crack on
Exactly.....it's why I never bother arguing about politics....unless they start slagging my mate Bob off.
Look at us all arguing over who's getting the biggest scrap of poo they leave us.
Tha fact is most top MPs are millionares - the tory cabinet are ridiculously wealthy and all have vested interests.
The top 1000 earners have increased their wealth in the last 12 months by a 19bn while the economy is STILL shrinking and people are demonising people on benefits as 'lazy and scroungers,' whilst there have been tax cuts of 5% for the high-end earners.
Benefits in general. Who has the most generous? Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxembourg...one might take note it is their economies that are weathering the storm the best in the EU. Not Greece or Spain where benefits are cut after 1yr.
Cut paste from someone i know and i 100% agree:
And finally...its not about benefits/babies it's about housing as well. It's the flat/house which annoys people and that is because we have seen ridiculous house price inflation since 1990, again, not the fault of the poor/kids. And the Tories and their Liberal/Labour pals wouldn't touch it, tax breaks for buy to let landlords, near-unlimited rent increases, low stamp duty, money laundering by the international rich, its fucked the housing in the UK and people take it out on poor young women with babies...
Crack on
Exactly.....it's why I never bother arguing about politics....unless they start slagging my mate Bob off.
Labour chose to do this through the continuation of PFI initiative, selling off our assests like the gold reserves, 3G, etc and borrowing shed loads while the going was good rather than raise it through tax hikes for obvious reasons i.e. they needed to get elected. In the meantime they were very happy to leave the lose regulation of the markets that the Tories had introduced as it was bringing in income and investment and Blair needed to be seen to be business friendly.
Just for the sake of clarity, the original Banking Act 1979 was, of course, brought in under Thatcher's Govt and did much to tighten, not loosen, banking regulation by the Bank Of England. This as a response to the 1970s secondry banking crisis. That regulation was tightened further when the act was replaced in 1987. The next change was the replacement of the '87 banking act by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and its raft of statutory instruments. That formalised the transition of regulation of banking from the BoE to the FSA. The creation of the FSA was, of course, pretty much the first thing the incoming Labour government did in 1997 - it took them less than three weeks to announce the change - so it was not exactly a considered decision in the light of all the complexities. The new law underpinning the regulation of banks (and now other financial institutions and markets) had - despite pleas made by the practitioners -some very odd omissions (like the lack of an actual definition of a bank and the removal of the illegality of using a banking name unless authorised) but had pretty much all the provisions that a regulator would need to run a tight ship. What did change, was that the FSA was told by its political masters - in particular Gordon Brown that they must run a "light touch" regulatory system. So the FsA was hindered in its use of its powers and was most certainly less robust than the BoE had been. The FSA was not allowed to run the system it should have done by Brown. It is thererfore both incorrect and unfair to say that Tories had introduced lose regulation when the blame falls squarely on the post-1997 government.
In terms of Labour's use of borrowed money, it is perhaps telling that during the 13 years of the Labour govt (in fact mostly only from 2000- 2010 - they behaved prudently , if I can use one of Gordon's favourite words, for the first three years of the administration) Labour created (at least) an extra 750,000 public sector jobs and that's where most of the dosh went. So, even after the current government's cull of maybe 600,000 public sector jobs, there are still more civil servants than there were in 1997.
Look at us all arguing over who's getting the biggest scrap of poo they leave us.
Tha fact is most top MPs are millionares - the tory cabinet are ridiculously wealthy and all have vested interests.
The top 1000 earners have increased their wealth in the last 12 months by a 19bn while the economy is STILL shrinking and people are demonising people on benefits as 'lazy and scroungers,' whilst there have been tax cuts of 5% for the high-end earners.
Benefits in general. Who has the most generous? Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxembourg...one might take note it is their economies that are weathering the storm the best in the EU. Not Greece or Spain where benefits are cut after 1yr.
Cut paste from someone i know and i 100% agree:
And finally...its not about benefits/babies it's about housing as well. It's the flat/house which annoys people and that is because we have seen ridiculous house price inflation since 1990, again, not the fault of the poor/kids. And the Tories and their Liberal/Labour pals wouldn't touch it, tax breaks for buy to let landlords, near-unlimited rent increases, low stamp duty, money laundering by the international rich, its fucked the housing in the UK and people take it out on poor young women with babies...
Crack on
Exactly.....it's why I never bother arguing about politics....unless they start slagging my mate Bob off.
Comments
AND as for Ed Balls (the clue is in the name) I really do feel that I will have a full blown embolism the next time he appears on radio or TV. I am staying out of it for my health.
Carry on everyone.
Labour landside win in next election ---which will prove once and for all you can not only con all the people all the time but they will pay for the pleasure of it.
i weep for poor old England.
When the stakes in the banks are sold then surely the position gets better even if they are sold for less cash than that injected
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html
After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7?
I don't know whether Labour will get an absolute majority but it is very clear that they do NOT have a persuasive economic case at the moment. Given the botch up job on the last budget, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to put together a brief statement on the UK growing its way out of trouble and moving to a balanced budget that way?
when labour took power in 1997 the economic climate had already changed for the better and was showing rapid improvement, including annual deficit reductions, the following years showed significant further deficit reduction, not because of labour, but the policies in place when they took over, which to be fair to Blair and Brown, they stuck with for their first term, these conservative policies hugely reduced the deficit.
But the old labour ways soon creeped back in and the spending sprees that followed leave us where we are now. The debt and the deficit were already growing before the banking crisis, but the lax control of the city under Brown made the problem far worse than it needed to be.
If he did know, then he's a liar. By his own admission.
After Labour's period in exile between 1979-1997 they won a majority of 150 seats, the Tories, after 13 years out of power fell well short a majority in 2010, that poses big questions for the Tories.
Tories need to admit that Blair, like Thatcher before him, changed the UK electorate, hard to swallow but true.
Thatcher forced a new respect for private enterprise and Blair for state investment in public services.
Many have blamed the banks but pretty serious economists have pointed out problems were caused by lax regulation (not just London) all over the place together with credit rating agencies giving sub prime mortgage instruments AAA ratings... and the purchasers didn't look too closely under the bonnet.
Totally agree that Labour started spending too much without getting a return in terms of growth and productivity but to use this situation to reduce benefits is politically exploitative. And I am seriously confused as to why the Lib Dems are backing this.
Unfortunately because the 2007-9 crash happened on Labour's watch people like Prescott prefer to blame the banks instead of admitting that City contributions to the government were too valuable to interfere with... and perhaps putting some thought into what the regulatory regime should look like going forwards.
Meanwhile those 'orrible people in the EU have decided to have ONE eurozone regulator to supervise the top 200 banks - terrible idea!
There used to be a problem with claiming this back though. I was advised years ago that if the money is paid directly to the Landlord and then it comes to light that the money shouldn't have been paid at all the Council claim it back from the Landlord. For this reason many Landlords prefer the tenant to claim the money and then pay it on. That way of the Council want it back they go after the tenant. Getting rent from a benefit claimer is virtually impossible as they will never have it.
As someone who was educated in a, frankly rubbish, comprehensive and later worked in the public sector there is no doubt that under the Tories we had 18 years of chronic under investment in our public services that needed to be addressed.
Labour chose to do this through the continuation of PFI initiative, selling off our assests like the gold reserves, 3G, etc and borrowing shed loads while the going was good rather than raise it through tax hikes for obvious reasons i.e. they needed to get elected. In the meantime they were very happy to leave the lose regulation of the markets that the Tories had introduced as it was bringing in income and investment and Blair needed to be seen to be business friendly.
Events and hindsight has proven that this may not have been the best move of course but I'm damn sure that by the end of the last Labour government kids were not forced, as I was, to sit three or four to a textbook in a cold classroom containing several buckets because the local authority couldn't afford to repair the effing roof.
Of course they didn't get everything right and wasted a load of cash in doing so but my fear is that the investment that was needed to provide proper public services fit for the 21st century is now being quickly unwound.
Right, got that of my chest, carry on everyone...
Apoligies if it seems like im slagging off private sector workers, as not my view as many are hard workers just like most public sector workers, just hate the reactionary nonsense so often repeated.
Sadly every goverment left or right all use the same tactic in times of difficulty and most people even smart sensible people fall right in to it.
Rememeber me uncle telling me that all self employed blokes only work on a self employed basis because it was a massive tax fiddle, this from a fella who claims to have been employed by BT for 30 years, but only actually worked for 5 of them!
I should get him on this forum, he'd get on with alot of you famously... and he's Charlton!
Tha fact is most top MPs are millionares - the tory cabinet are ridiculously wealthy and all have vested interests.
The top 1000 earners have increased their wealth in the last 12 months by a 19bn while the economy is STILL shrinking and people are demonising people on benefits as 'lazy and scroungers,' whilst there have been tax cuts of 5% for the high-end earners.
Benefits in general. Who has the most generous? Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxembourg...one might take note it is their economies that are weathering the storm the best in the EU. Not Greece or Spain where benefits are cut after 1yr.
Cut paste from someone i know and i 100% agree:
And finally...its not about benefits/babies it's about housing as well. It's the flat/house which annoys people and that is because we have seen ridiculous house price inflation since 1990, again, not the fault of the poor/kids. And the Tories and their Liberal/Labour pals wouldn't touch it, tax breaks for buy to let landlords, near-unlimited rent increases, low stamp duty, money laundering by the international rich, its fucked the housing in the UK and people take it out on poor young women with babies...
Crack on
The new law underpinning the regulation of banks (and now other financial institutions and markets) had - despite pleas made by the practitioners -some very odd omissions (like the lack of an actual definition of a bank and the removal of the illegality of using a banking name unless authorised) but had pretty much all the provisions that a regulator would need to run a tight ship. What did change, was that the FSA was told by its political masters - in particular Gordon Brown that they must run a "light touch" regulatory system. So the FsA was hindered in its use of its powers and was most certainly less robust than the BoE had been. The FSA was not allowed to run the system it should have done by Brown.
It is thererfore both incorrect and unfair to say that Tories had introduced lose regulation when the blame falls squarely on the post-1997 government.
In terms of Labour's use of borrowed money, it is perhaps telling that during the 13 years of the Labour govt (in fact mostly only from 2000- 2010 - they behaved prudently , if I can use one of Gordon's favourite words, for the first three years of the administration) Labour created (at least) an extra 750,000 public sector jobs and that's where most of the dosh went. So, even after the current government's cull of maybe 600,000 public sector jobs, there are still more civil servants than there were in 1997.