Labour Party Conference

[ducati]

Anyone watching and getting the impression we are seeing the return of the left in a big way.

De-incentivising graduates by charging more fees to higher earners to subsidise lower earners, was one that particularly caught my eye.

[John Little]

On the other hand it could be thought that there has been rather too much of a swing to the right these last several months.

Swingeing cuts mean less wage earners, less tax payers and more people on benefits. This does not make for growth in an economy - quite the reverse.

So a swing leftwards might not be a bad idea - we need centre politics, and not one or the other; consensus, not imposition.

As to students, one could think that they are dis-incentivised already by things called tuition fees, which you do not have in Scotland I believe. I know several people who have decided not to go to uni for this reason.

[ducati]

On the other hand it could be thought that there has been rather too much of a swing to the right these last several months.

Swingeing cuts mean less wage earners, less tax payers and more people on benefits. This does not make for growth in an economy - quite the reverse.

So a swing leftwards might not be a bad idea - we need centre politics, and not one or the other; consensus, not imposition.

As to students, one could think that they are dis-incentivised already by things called tuition fees, which you do not have in Scotland I believe. I know several people who have decided not to go to uni for this reason.

As to tuition fees, anyone who would go to Uni if I was paying for it, but not if they were, has made the right decision IMO.

The problem with concensus is no one votes for anything that will detrementally effect them. So you get the status quo (great band) and the circling around the plughole continues to it's inevitable conclusion.:lol:

[John Little]

A society gets what it pays for. A society wants highly qualified experts in all fields then it pays for them.

The individual pays in not entering the world of work as early as those who do not, and in the time they invest in study. It's a partnership that pays off both - society gets the skills it needs, and the graduates get the higher pay.

Unl;ess you re a graduate in a poor nation - for then you come to the UK to work in our hospitals...

Consensus does not mean that you agree with what is being done. It simply means that you are in favour of doing that which brings the best effects- even if you do not like them.

But do not worry - I do not think I will be voting Labour. They are led by a man who would stab his own brother in the back if he had to, in order to further his ambitions.

There is something rotten in that.

[ducati]

A society gets what it pays for. A society wants highly qualified experts in all fields then it pays for them.

The individual pays in not entering the world of work as early as those who do not, and in the time they invest in study. It's a partnership that pays off both - society gets the skills it needs, and the graduates get the higher pay.

Unl;ess you re a graduate in a poor nation - for then you come to the UK to work in our hospitals...

Consensus does not mean that you agree with what is being done. It simply means that you are in favour of doing that which brings the best effects- even if you do not like them.

But do not worry - I do not think I will be voting Labour. They are led by a man who would stab his own brother in the back if he had to, in order to further his ambitions.

There is something rotten in that.

You've run out of people to vote for! Unless....the raving looney party, or UKIP as they like to be known as. :eek:

[John Little]

I agree.

I have run out of people to vote for.

I think that most people have too.

So next time round, if I vote at all, ideology is not where it's at. It will be down to issues and manifestos.


Unless of course Alex Salmond wished to be PM of the UK and the SNP stands in English constituencies. We'd probably all vote SNP....

[ducati]

I agree.

I have run out of people to vote for.

I think that most people have too.

So next time round, if I vote at all, ideology is not where it's at. It will be down to issues and manifestos.


Unless of course Alex Salmond wished to be PM of the UK and the SNP stands in English constituencies. We'd probably all vote SNP....

Blimey I hope not. Scotland will be brought to it's knees by the Jam Today Party, the rest of the UK really doesn't need that.

[John Little]

You don't like jam then?

[ducati]

You don't like jam then?

Not when I have to mortgage the future to pay for it!

[John Little]

But that is what Capitalism is all about.

Speculating to accumulate is where it's at!

What are you? Some sort of Nihilist? :)

[tonkatojo]

You've run out of people to vote for! Unless....the raving looney party, or UKIP as they like to be known as. :eek:

It would be a good idea to vote for a party that speaks the truth and does what they were elected for abiding by pledges and manifesto's, not a party (s) that say one or many things but get side tracked with the smell of power and the glory that comes with it and damn all they were once for. Give Salmond and his SNP their dues they do try and do what they say, well almost, as much as I dislike the man. Not like the current Westminster crud.

[ducati]

As to students, one could think that they are dis-incentivised already by things called tuition fees, which you do not have in Scotland I believe.

It's interesting that in Scotland at the moment, there are a number of merger proposals on the go between various colleges and Universities, at the behest of the Scottish Funding Council.

Any connection do you think?

[John Little]

Possibly - rationalisation is often a sensible thing to do even without a recession.

And there is a hidden agenda as so often in a 'democracy'. Whilst giving the appearance of choice and encouragement of social mobility, the agenda on social engineering is actually to force rationalisation and closure of some institutions on fiscal grounds. The blame for this can be placed onto the Universities for charging too much and not supplying enough places- so profligate they are.

You also get to tear strips off them for not allowing enough places for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Whatever they do, they lose.

This will be achieved to the wild applause of the mass of tax payers who, whilst liking the idea of 'choice', do not wish to actually pay for it.

And there are too many universities anyway;but they cannot say to the degree-addicted public that their son or daughter will not get the chance to go to uni. That would not be palatable politically.

So they blame market forces.

Whilst controlling the market and setting the tariffs.

And by setting up a contradiction between the need and desire to provide further education, and the need to save money, they create confusion and dispel opposition.

Neat.

We have some very clever people in our Civil Service.

[weezer 316]

It would be a good idea to vote for a party that speaks the truth and does what they were elected for abiding by pledges and manifesto's, not a party (s) that say one or many things but get side tracked with the smell of power and the glory that comes with it and damn all they were once for. Give Salmond and his SNP their dues they do try and do what they say, well almost, as much as I dislike the man. Not like the current Westminster crud.

No independence referendum (promised for 2010)
Class size targets missed by miles
Home insulation scheme to take 100 years to finish
£2000 grant for all first time buyers not implemented
1000 extra police missed
Edinburgh tram fiasco


If the reason you voted for them was as you stated then I think your a sucker. You vote for the party that actually has plans and ideas to meet the challenges facing the country at that time. Clearly the SNP dont, same as labour. No plan for the deficit never mind the monumental debt to name but one problem.

I think the snp have just shut their eyed and went la-la-la to it all actually.

[tonkatojo]

No independence referendum (promised for 2010)
Class size targets missed by miles
Home insulation scheme to take 100 years to finish
£2000 grant for all first time buyers not implemented
1000 extra police missed
Edinburgh tram fiasco


If the reason you voted for them was as you stated then I think your a sucker. You vote for the party that actually has plans and ideas to meet the challenges facing the country at that time. Clearly the SNP dont, same as labour. No plan for the deficit never mind the monumental debt to name but one problem.

I think the snp have just shut their eyed and went la-la-la to it all actually.



In your honest opinion I suppose.
In mine you should read it properly, I never said everything, and I didn't vote for them or the dems I couldn't I wasn't resident but that is by the by. I stand by what I said about getting elected on false promises and pledges. I notice the "your to blame" for the world crisis has Gone a bit stale/cold perhaps that was a load of cods wollop as well as the false pledges, mind you st george is finally getting it, the economy is crap, but thats Labours fault isn't it.

[weezer 316]

The conomy aint great because the housing bubble burst. Its also crap becuase the govt has to make cuts because its been spending to much for years. First one labours fault, second one partly labours fault. The great biritsh public (blameless in all of this you know) voted for a party that openly said it was gong to spend hundreds of billions that we didnt have, an had no plan for when to pay it back. And they did it twice.

[John Little]

Or an alternative view from American comedian Bill Maher;

"You have to pay your taxes next week, and General Electric doesn't (http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/25/6346464-lawrence-rewrites-ges-tax-return). That's right, GE, America's largest corporation, employs 975 people just to work on their taxes, which, it turns out, is a really great way to handle your taxes. Way better than what you have, a Vietnamese guy at the H&R Block who's using an abacus. Yeah, GE paid no taxes on $14 billion in profit.

Why aren't people mad at them?

If I had to pick a phrase that encapsulates the American economy in the last decade, it surely would be, "I've already got your money, dude."

There's a law now forbidding credit card companies from screwing you with fine print and sudden unjustified rate hikes. To which the credit card company said, "I already got your money, dude."

Or maybe you lost your job in a recession caused by already rich people who bundled horseshit loans, and then took "too big to fail" pity money from Uncle Sam. "Already got your money, dude."

Americans need to have a Detroit moment where they realize they're pooling their money, and wasting it on the richest guy in the room.

The richest 1% hoard an obscene amount of the wealth, while the average American has to save up to eat at Red Lobster on his birthday.


Wake up! "

The whole thing is on Youtube but he swears a bit so I can't put it on here.

It starts "This is ................. and I want my money back"

[weezer 316]

Bill maher is excellent! His film religelous is fantastic too. Makes some great points on a lot of things.

But....You cant compare America to here to much. They have an extreme form of capitalism that simply wouldn't wash here and doesn't work in the 21st century. And stop blaming banks for bad loans. They are equally as guilty as the people who took out loans they knew they really count afford

Bare in mind, we dont have absurd things like tax breaks for corporate jets, and their top rate income tax bracket is around 35%! Ours is rightly higher, and so should theirs be. And also, alot of states dont even have a sales tax in place! Plus they have spiraling costs for an extremely unhealthy population.....I could go on and on.

And without trying to sound like a broken record, we need to balance the budget here and start paying back the money we owe. that involves either cuts or raising of all taxes. And people in this country want their cake but to not have to pay for it.

[John Little]

'...And stop blaming banks for bad loans. They are equally as guilty as the people who took out loans they knew they really count afford.."

But Weezer - that was not me.

All I have is a decreasing mortgage and apart from that I owe no-one a bean.

Did you take out loans you could not afford?

As to corporations dodging tax - Vodafone did it - how many others?

And can we really divorce what is happening here from what is happening there?

I am not arguing that we do not need to be more careful or not to pay back debt.
But there is a scale and pace which has a balance to it through which our economy may grow.

Cut too much and too quickly then growth stops and the economy shrinks.

And that is why I think the Tories are taking quite a gamble with peoples' jobs, houses and lives.

Tax payers in a recession are more desirable than an increasing number or benefit recipients. That too has to be paid for.

[weezer 316]

I too only have a mortgage, 18 years left on it and I am only 27. I can cerainly afford it (I wouldnt have taken it out if I coudnt) but plenty of people did and that cause the credit crisis.

On the issue of divorcing the USA and the UK, clearly the credit crunch started in the states and spread. As for the actions taken to remedy it, you can clearly see we are two different animals. The UK has at least done something and is continuing to do something. The US has done all and has no hope of because their republicans are crazy and Obama cant get tax rises through.

What would you suggest then as to the pace of cutbacks? You are aware I am sure Labours idea at the last election was "keep borrowing, we will slow down in a bit" which frankly is absurd. The tories at least had a plan and point to implement. Surely you an see that the longer you leave it before making cutback or the smaller they are, the longer the pain and the longer it takes to pay back what you owe?

[John Little]

I think it's a question of pace, and, as you say, pain.

The coalition is going for pain - a lot of it now.

Of the options I would rather have it over a longer period. I also think that there would be a lot less pain if we did "borrow" from the notional world market because if we use it well then growth will limit the pain.

So although I have never in life voted Labour, I lean more to their position than Cameron's.

As FDR told Harry Hopkins about the New Deal' 'People don't eat in the long run - they eat every day'. Hopkins wanted to do what Cameron is doing - Roosevelt wanted more government spending.

I think it's more humane to cut slowly and borrow to spend judiciously on recovery. And that does not mean giving it to bankers or the rich in tax break for corporations. It means encouraging manufacturing, apprenticeships and tapping this country's best resource - its people. Instead of sidelining them into dole queues - which gets nobody anywhere.

And yes - the Republicans are stark staring bonkers.

[ducati]

It means encouraging manufacturing, apprenticeships and tapping this country's best resource - its people. Instead of sidelining them into dole queues - which gets nobody anywhere.



But John, that is what the govenment are doing, Training, Apprenticships, Special Development areas. But these things take time to start to work. As I understand it, without reducing the deficit fast (and its not that fast, it went up in August) We risk being downgraded from our AAA credit rating. If that happens, then the interest we pay on all the billions we already owe goes up significantly, putting us in real danger of getting in the position where there is no hope of ever paying off the debt, then the credit rating goes down again, and it gets more expensive, and so on, you end up with generations of austerity and risk the kind of spiral that Greece is suffering now. I don't understand how the opposition don't understand this, in fact they do, that's why they are content in opposition.

Countries like Greece have had it. There will be bloody revolution before long, I'd bet my house on it. (Mind you the bank would be furious).

[crayola]

It's a year down the line and if We have to have a Miliband I still think Labour chose the wrong one. Ed doesn't have electable tattooed on his forehead like Blair and Cameron did. There's no point in reducing spending if the country is stagnating. The government has backed itself into a corner from which it can't escape without losing face. I see no light at the end of the tunnel and I'm planning to stay in space until a faint glimmer returns. Time for a poll?

[John Little]

I think rather too much is being made of our 'triple A credit rating' - a concept which few had heard of before this recession started.

I do not think that an economy with a firm plan for growth would be downgraded. As Weezer has pointed out, Obama has been unable to do what he wanted to in raising US taxes because of the Republicans. And tax breaks there go to the wrong places.

Your emphasis on a stable economy is understandable, but it has to be balanced with the welfare of the people- because that is what government is about - or should be.

So yes - rationalise government spending by all means but do not cut for the sake of cutting.

You know in 1932 Hoover was putting money into work schemes and job creation. Exactly what FDR did in 1933.
But Hoover was timid and did not want to spend too much money.
Roosevelt was not timid and used the money to put folk back to work- as he said, any sort of work that puts money where it belongs - in peoples' pockets.

Because there it is productive, and much more productive if it is in return for work, because earners have a stake in society, whereas recipients of dole do not.

So to me it's a question of scale.

This country has worked its way out of Austerity before; and we are not Greece.

[ducati]

Too much? The difference between 1 grade point would be extra cost for nothing, running into 100s of millions a year. Surely this would be better spent on..........insert whatever you're complaining about being cut.