You keep quoting that as if it's a good thing. In a democracy it is surely a very bad thing that one party is being bankrolled by a single individual while the other parties are skint.

 

Exactly... until this Ashcroft affair, I'd never realised how essential it is to have state funding of political parties. But now it's obvious. As Ashcroft has himself admitted, had he not pumped money into key marginals (where the swing to the Tories was generally much higher than elsewhere), Labour would probably have got the most seats in the election, and may even have retained their majority. It's a sad indictment on British democracy that the direction of our country literally hinged on one man's wealth... although with that said, it's also an indication of just how unelectable the conservative brand now is - even when up against a party who'd been in government for 13 years, who'd presided over a recession and who had a poor communicator in charge, the Tories STILL couldn't get a majority DESPITE being bankrolled by a multi-millionaire.

You keep quoting that as if it's a good thing. In a democracy it is surely a very bad thing that one party is being bankrolled by a single individual while the other parties are skint.

That's not what you said in another thread. The person who started the thread is right about Cameron being an embarrassment though. Only in the last few weeks he has said that we were junior partners to the Americans before they even entered WWII and that Iran has nuclear weapons.

 

I didn't say it was a good thing I was giving the OP a reality check, it was the 2nd post he had made where he had not checked his facts (milk being the other)

Labour have always been the party of the working class and the Tories have always been the party of the rich, Labour totally betrayed their roots whereas the Tories have never pretended to be the champions of the working class

Why would anyone normal choose to support a party of the rich??? :puke2:

 

 

I didn't say it was a good thing I was giving the OP a reality check, it was the 2nd post he had made where he had not checked his facts (milk being the other)

I don't like your tone pal! :angry:

We need "Nu Labor" back like a hole in the head frankly, but, the ConDems have absolutely failed and betrayed the ordinary workers of this country, yes....

 

I think it's time to call a Revolution personally tbh....

 

 

Are you going to start one then Craig?

Why would anyone normal choose to support a party of the rich??? :puke2:

 

I'd re-phrase that personally, to ask "why would any working or lower-class person support the party of the rich?"... Simple, they're buying into the propaganda of the Murdoch press... It really IS the 1980s all over again.....

 

 

Why would anyone normal choose to support a party of the rich??? :puke2:

I don't like your tone pal! :angry:

That's just his way I'm afraid.

We need "Nu Labor" back like a hole in the head frankly, but, the ConDems have absolutely failed and betrayed the ordinary workers of this country, yes....

 

I think it's time to call a Revolution personally tbh....

 

The betrayal of the ordinary workers was by bailing out the banks. A betrayal I seem to recall you supported. A double-dip recession is now almost inevitable.

The betrayal of the ordinary workers was by bailing out the banks. A betrayal I seem to recall you supported. A double-dip recession is now almost inevitable.

 

Actually, I didn't, at least certainly not the way it was done.... I was actually opposed to bailing out the banks in the form it was done, as it meant the likes of Fred the Shred were still getting paid their bonuses and pensions, which I thought was morally wrong, Mushy thought I was a nutter for advocating letting RBS go to the wall.... :lol:

 

Any bail-out of the banks SHOULD have come with very strong pre-conditions (including an end to all bonuses, huge pay cuts for the bosses, and a huge levy on bank profits so they could pay back any bail out money, and certainly no "golden parachutes"...), this didn't happen...

 

 

Actually, I didn't, at least certainly not the way it was done.... I was actually opposed to bailing out the banks in the form it was done, as it meant the likes of Fred the Shred were still getting paid their bonuses and pensions, which I thought was morally wrong, Mushy thought I was a nutter for advocating letting RBS go to the wall.... :lol:

 

Any bail-out of the banks SHOULD have come with very strong pre-conditions (including an end to all bonuses, huge pay cuts for the bosses, and a huge levy on bank profits so they could pay back any bail out money, and certainly no "golden parachutes"...), this didn't happen...

 

 

Bail-out conditions or not, you are supporting the bailout the payout of money that the country does not have. To burden the economy with generations of debt and then moan that it effects workers is silly.

Would you go to a restaurant eat a meal then moan when you get a bill before leaving? No, you realise the effect of your actions. It's time to take responsibility.

The government couldn't possibly allow a major High Street bank go to the wall. Can you imagine what would have happened if people had gone to the cash machine on that Monday morning only to receive the message "Sorry, we've got no money"? I agree that the conditions should have been tougher but it really came down to brinksmanship. A deal had to be done and both sides held out for the best deal they could get.

 

That said, a windfall tax on the huge profits announced last week and further taxes on bonuses would be perfectly fair. The government should be looking to get as much of their/our money back as possible.

They may have introduced a "mimimal wage" (as I call it), but it's a joke, and it doesn't measure up to other minimum wage policies in the EU... All it's really done is to ensure that large companies continue to pay a pretty sh"t wage to their employees and get away with it because they are complying with the letter of the law... Couple that with the cost of living in places like London, the South East, and other major cities such as Manchester and Edinburgh, and it's an even bigger joke...

 

It's not even properly enforced, I could take you to businesses in London which pay immigrant workers lower than minimum wage....

Even so, at least it made a difference. Take before 1997 when you'd have loads of people working for £1 an hour because that was all there was...

Would you go to a restaurant eat a meal then moan when you get a bill before leaving? No, you realise the effect of your actions. It's time to take responsibility.

 

This is an absurd fallacy from the right-wing that we keep hearing. A country's economy is not like running a household or a restaurant bill; borrowing to finance spending has always been a part of capitalist government. We've run a budget deficit nearly every year since WW2, and we didn't all drown in debt before. People keep saying we need to do this "so the younger generation don't have to pay off the debt for years to come" - actually, as a 19-year-old, I'd much rather have a good prospect of getting a job when I leave University even if it means I have to pay a bit more in tax over the years, instead of not having any real prospects of getting a job but having the wondrous consolation that the national budget is running a surplus (the benefits of which will go to the Lord Ashcrofts and Fred Goodwins of the country). And almost every other young person agrees - that's why the vast majority of us voted for the Lib Dems or Labour in May, because they wouldn't slash spending and thus jobs (or, atleast, in the case of the Lib Dems, we THOUGHT that).

Edited August 11, 201014 yr by Danny

Labour gave essential help to the poorest with measures like the minimum wage, tax credits, improvements to health and education and help for single mothers - most of which the Tories bitterly opposed and much of which they're trying to roll back now. But you're right that Labour didn't do enough - which is why it's essential they don't elect the Blairite David Miliband, who would keep the party in the ridiculous safe zone they've established, too timid to make the wealthiest pay for the crisis they created. Ed Miliband as leader with Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor and Diane Abbott having a position in the Shadow Cabinet (perhaps Work/Pensions Secretary) sounds good to me.

When I saw David Miliband I did actually ask him about how he planned on keeping corporate greed in check and going against the rising inequalities of the New Labour era, and he did have some interesting ideas, such as making it compulsory to have a standard employee representative at meetings which decide on the wages of those at the top of the company along with their bonuses, and requiring that they agree to those measures. I can see flaws in it, but it's an interesting proposal which would work well as a base - although I'm not really sure how much of that David was just saying as a soothing tactic, given he's getting all the same donors as Blair did...

Why would anyone normal choose to support a party of the rich??? :puke2:

I don't like your tone pal! :angry:

 

I am guessing from your posting style that you are 13-14, while I welcome the fact that someone so young is taking an interest in politics I do think that posting a thread with 3 day old news that has long since been dismissed is sloppy and careless in the sense that you did not check the news sites to see if that article was still fresh, likewise you made a glib statement about the election without having done any research.

 

While your contributions are of course welcome you do need to do your research to avoid looking stupid in future

The government couldn't possibly allow a major High Street bank go to the wall. Can you imagine what would have happened if people had gone to the cash machine on that Monday morning only to receive the message "Sorry, we've got no money"? I agree that the conditions should have been tougher but it really came down to brinksmanship. A deal had to be done and both sides held out for the best deal they could get.

 

That said, a windfall tax on the huge profits announced last week and further taxes on bonuses would be perfectly fair. The government should be looking to get as much of their/our money back as possible.

Of course they could and they should of. Banks go bust in other countries in the world. It's nothing major in fact. The accounts are guaranteed by the government to the value of around £50K, so the government just has to pay out a bit of money to those who's bank went bust. Other banks would of taken on the accounts and it would of rolled on nicely. It would of been far cheaper and any mess would of been cleaned up in a matter of months.

The government couldn't possibly allow a major High Street bank go to the wall. Can you imagine what would have happened if people had gone to the cash machine on that Monday morning only to receive the message "Sorry, we've got no money"? I agree that the conditions should have been tougher but it really came down to brinksmanship. A deal had to be done and both sides held out for the best deal they could get.

 

That said, a windfall tax on the huge profits announced last week and further taxes on bonuses would be perfectly fair. The government should be looking to get as much of their/our money back as possible.

 

Agree with the first bit, a bank collapse especially a high profile one would have lead to riots in the streets from savers and account holders, a complete collapse in the stock market and a run on the pound that would make black wednesday seem like nothing and mass panic in the streets as savers in other banks withdraw all their money for fear of same happening to their bank. Letting a bank die was a non starter.

Of course they could and they should of. Banks go bust in other countries in the world. It's nothing major in fact. The accounts are guaranteed by the government to the value of around £50K, so the government just has to pay out a bit of money to those who's bank went bust. Other banks would of taken on the accounts and it would of rolled on nicely. It would of been far cheaper and any mess would of been cleaned up in a matter of months.

And those who have more than £50K in there...? And it's not an instant process, they have to check the accounts and everything - in the meanwhile the whole country's started rioting.

Of course they could and they should of. Banks go bust in other countries in the world. It's nothing major in fact. The accounts are guaranteed by the government to the value of around £50K, so the government just has to pay out a bit of money to those who's bank went bust. Other banks would of taken on the accounts and it would of rolled on nicely. It would of been far cheaper and any mess would of been cleaned up in a matter of months.

 

Um, were you even ALIVE in 2008? Have you forgotten the HUGE blow to the system it was when Lehman Bros went bankrupt? If just one investment bank going under caused that much damage, how do you think the system could've coped with all of them going under (as would've happened if governments right around the world hadn't stepped in)?

 

Labour have to take some of the responsibility for the banks getting into the position where they needed to be bailed out, but in the circumstances, bailing them out was the ONLY option, unless you seriously think the entire global capitalist system should've been completely dismantled and that we should've started from scratch with a new system. I mean, even the Tories supported the banking bail-out, even if they (irrationally) opposed the subsequent economic stimulus...

Um, were you even ALIVE in 2008? Have you forgotten the HUGE blow to the system it was when Lehman Bros went bankrupt? If just one investment bank going under caused that much damage, how do you think the system could've coped with all of them going under (as would've happened if governments right around the world hadn't stepped in)?

 

Labour have to take some of the responsibility for the banks getting into the position where they needed to be bailed out, but in the circumstances, bailing them out was the ONLY option, unless you seriously think the entire global capitalist system should've been completely dismantled and that we should've started from scratch with a new system. I mean, even the Tories supported the banking bail-out, even if they (irrationally) opposed the subsequent economic stimulus...

 

I was opposed to it too, it was pointless, waste of time, did nothing

 

2.5% cut in VAT meant someone saving £25 off a £1000 plasma tv, if someone has £1000 to spend on a tv then £25 off the asking price isn't going to be a deal breaker.

 

What we should have done is what the Australians did and give cash to everyone (think it was about £250 each) to spend in the High St's to keep the retail market strong, thanks to that Australia wethered the storm recession wise, we should have done that here instead of a pointless gimmick like a VAT cut.

 

I was opposed to the stimulus because it was the wrong type.

 

This is an absurd fallacy from the right-wing that we keep hearing. A country's economy is not like running a household or a restaurant bill; borrowing to finance spending has always been a part of capitalist government. We've run a budget deficit nearly every year since WW2, and we didn't all drown in debt before. People keep saying we need to do this "so the younger generation don't have to pay off the debt for years to come" - actually, as a 19-year-old, I'd much rather have a good prospect of getting a job when I leave University even if it means I have to pay a bit more in tax over the years, instead of not having any real prospects of getting a job but having the wondrous consolation that the national budget is running a surplus (the benefits of which will go to the Lord Ashcrofts and Fred Goodwins of the country). And almost every other young person agrees - that's why the vast majority of us voted for the Lib Dems or Labour in May, because they wouldn't slash spending and thus jobs (or, atleast, in the case of the Lib Dems, we THOUGHT that).

Sadly you live in cloud cuckoo land. Labour would never have given you a job, there austerity plans would of been just as severe just with different timing. Politicians gave there power away to the economic markets, that is not something that can be reversed by short term politicial means from any politican party.

 

Also sorry to tell you but whoever has given you the idea of go to University get good grades and then get a good job was passing on a lie. What you require from education is the ability to create your own wealth - if you haven't got that then your education has been lacking. Create your own wealth not rely on handouts of others.