[Closed] Harriet Harman might not be that bad after all.

I'll say it again, all that labour would have done is to increase the tax burden on the likes of myself to pay for the over bloated and socially skewed ideals that they have and i and others like me said 'No thanks, you had your chance, time for someone else'

fwiw i grew up on a 'sink' estate, as were all my family, but wasn't given enough on a plate to make me think that i needed to better myself.

LOL, junkyard, i never said we should not look after others, read my posts. Am i a IT type, dandy horse owner? no, i work hard, have 2 jobs, dont claim any benefits, not much disposable income etc so hardly looking out for number one.

I agrre we should always help the needy, but it is time that more of the social fabric (of all classes) of this country took responsibilty for their own lives, that is all.

Si

Yes I would like fair for all and our society is not - and is getting worse. Tory policy will increase the inequality of opportunity

Our pension and benefit levels are amongst the lowest in Europe, our healthcare and schools are underfunded. At the same time some people take billions out of the economy to fulfil their own greed.

We reamina a low tax low spending economy. I would like to spend a bit more to have better services and reduce poverty

Just where are the millions out of work supposed to get jobs from? Where are these jobs? In jepardy whereever that is?

Si - Id give up arguing with the likes of TJ and Junkyard.

The left are fuming at their political impotence and irrelevance right now. Tribal ideological hatred of all that is not "labour" spills out into the patronising comments and generalisations you get above.

Do you really think that hard work alone counts for the differing success rates in these socio economic groups?

of course not, now you are being daft to prove a point. I wasn't pointing the finger at one social class, neh mind we just go around in circles 🙂

Stoner - no matter how many times you are told you like to forget that

[u][b]I AM NOT A LABOUR SUPPORTER[/b][/u]

?as for your ill thought out generalisations - nice. I do like the attacking of the people 'cos you can find no flaw in their argument

Well guess what, not EVERYONE can afford to buy the things they want, especially those people who don't have the money, but Labour made everyone feel that it was a god given right for people to demand what they wanted and get into debt so that soceity was 'fair' and now we are suffering for it.

I'm no fan of the Labour party - haven't been since John Smith died - but trying to pin the turn to a more acquisitive society on the Labour government post 1997 is simply ignoring the realities of British social history. If you read the Borrie Report, published in 1994, you'll find they were already talking about the need to give people [i]"a hand up, not a hand out"[/i] in the light of the creation of a dependency culture on Britain's sink estates.

The irony of the current situation is that people seem to have forgotten that nuLabour's chief critics in 1997 were the on the left of the Labour party, and their concern was that Tony Blair and his supporters were too accepting of the 'new economic realities' in the aftermath of Thatcherite reforms. The reality is your not 'suffering' because Labour increased spending to the NHS, your suffering because they failed to closely regulate the financial markets that, up until the big bust, were like the goose that laid the golden egg. Again, it's now a matter of historical record that Margaret Thatcher's vision for the British economy was that it would become a financial powerhouse, based around the city of London. In that respect, she succeeded, and Blair and Brown were careful to pamper their inheritance, right up until it went [i]'pop[/i]'.

Oh, and just for the record, I grew up on a council housing estate as well. Nearly all the people who lived around us were employed, and they were socially conservative people who had considerable civic pride. If you want to understand the reason why that same area is now littered with people subsisting on benefits, with degrading housing stock and massive social problems, you'll need to look a little further back than changes to the benefit system over the last 10 years or so.

[i] “We are in the grip of the post-modern vagabond. We have expensively constructed slums full of layabouts and sluts whose progeny are two-legged beasts. We cannot cure this by family, religion and self-help. So we will have to rely on oppression”[/i]

I have the above quote tucked away in a file of snippets from the 80s an 90s when I was studying sociology. It's from Bruce Anderson, who was an advisor to the Conservative Government - perhaps it helps to explain why we have so many people amongst the poor in Britain who have a deeply ingrained belief they are a useless waste of space. Every week, they get living proof of that when they go to collect their benefit cheque.

If you want these people to be productive members of society, you're going to have to do a lot more that simply point them at a job vacancy. You need to spend long hours rebuilding their self-belief, self-confidence and, ultimately, their view of the world and their place in it. Failing that, you can cut their benefits and then complain to your resident's association when they rob your house to make ends meet. Of course, it won't help that government cuts mean that there will be fewer police employed, so you'll have to live with the fact that crime will rise and you're less likely to see anyone from the police station arrive for hours to deal with a minor crime like your house being trashed.

Si - Id give up arguing with the likes of TJ and Junkyard.

Good advice. Especially as they're talking sense, not shite based on reading some crap bit of 'journalism' in the right-wing press...

[b]IMO[/b] the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining

Opinion based on what evidence? Granted there's always room for improvement, but statements like that just prove TJ right, actually.

The left are fuming at their political impotence and irrelevance right now.

Real left-wing ideology will become far more popular in the next few years, as it becomes obvious that the only real way to sort out the abject mess the Tories have created is a good old fashioned bit of Socialism (Elfinism, ideally).People in Britain need to wake up and realise this isn't the global economic superpower it once was, and stop trying to play silly games. 6th largest by GDP, 19th by income per capita. How shit is that?? 3rd biggest spender on guns and bombs. Ridiculous. The distribution of wealth in Britain is unfair and doesn't reflect the efforts of the majority of people. Time to put a stop to that. Scrap the ****ing monarchy, as it serves little purpose other than to perpetuate the myth of social class, re-nationalise all those industries which used to benefit the state as a whole, not just shareholders, and even up the playing field a bit.

The real fear of the Tories, is that one day the Oiks may get too powerful, hence the regular attempts by Tory governments to put pressure on the 'lower classes', keep them in their place. They really don't want to give up their fragile grip on power.

What people like Stoner are most scared of, is that people like me might end up living next door to them... 😉

Opinion based on what evidence? Granted there's always room for improvement, but statements like that just prove TJ right, actually.

No it's ok. Just try to provide evidence to back up your wild claims, or else you'll look a bit silly. 😉

IMO the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining, what's the issue with that?

Oh - I missed that one. Simply wrong in fact. The NHS is cheap. we pay much less for our healthcare than other countries #and for this we get a high quality comprehensive service. Management costs are low.

What knowledge do you have that means you can say this? Ever worked in teh NHS? yes there is waste but it is a tiny amount.

Well, i have been proved wrong, so I'll sit back and watch the country implode and suffer 😉

Tribal ideological hatred of all that is not "labour" spills out into the patronising comments and generalisations you get above

Am i a IT type, dandy horse owner?

Wow if Only I could have worked this out from your log on name

Do you know what else i do for a living?

Si, you're an IT type, are you not?

Do you know what else i do for a living?

Cymbal manufacturer?
New Age Healer?
Rubber grommet tester?
Rice farmer?

Ooh I don't know I give up...

How many others escaped this estate? ...were they all just lazy? Next you will be telling me that all Etonian educated children of millionairres are talented rather than lucky. Do you really think that hard work alone counts for the differing success rates in these socio economic groups?

I agree they are lucky, they are brought up with an expectation and the support to enable them to do well within the construct of our education system. Poverty of ambition is real poverty in modern Britain. A country with no jobs yet expands to take on at it's peak 1 million working eastern europeans and still had 600,000 vacancies advertised.

The real fear of the Tories, is that one day the Oiks may get too powerful, hence the regular attempts by Tory governments to put pressure on the 'lower classes', keep them in their place.

was Norman Tebbit's dad an oik?

IMO the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining, what's the issue with that?

Oh - I missed that one. Simply wrong in fact. The NHS is cheap. we pay much less for our healthcare than other countries #and for this we get a high quality comprehensive service. Management costs are low.

I in part agree, the NHS is compatively cheap

I would debate the "high quality comprehensive service" bit, I think there are examples of very good practice and lots of very poor. North Staffordshire hospital anyone?

The NHS is obviously a very large complex organisation but I would argue that anyone that argues that it is the best it can be hasn't experienced it enough from the patients perspective

re-nationalise all those industries which used to benefit the state as a whole,

But some of the current models have failed due to poor regulation and political tampering

gas/ electric is a failed market, needs the number of players increasing

water, is essentially a environmental tax, privatisation was done to take the massive investment costs required off the governments balance sheet. compulsory metering should be introduced across the board coupled with proper social tariffs

telecoms, plenty of competition, market working

post office; very good arguments for investing in what actually works, but then my regular postie is great, universal service should be maintained. Management and unions should have heads knocked together and be told to grow up

etc etc

Perhaps its that I prefer a society that is fair for all, where there is equality of opportunity, where there are good public services. Where pensioners don't live in poverty, where there are not sink estates full of people with no hope, with low crime, with good standard of living for all.

Sounds great. It'll cost money, of course. I believe the Coalition plans to rebuild/restructure the economy will give the UK the economic growth necessary to provide the government with sufficient income to support these aims.

Article loosely in line with the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/27/george-osborne-antidote-to-beveridge

Markie - or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

That article is a load of pish that has time and time again been proven to be false. For the private sector to create jobs at the rate Osbourne predicts is unprecedented. It simply will not happen. Instead what most economists believe will happen is that demand will fall and there will be a decrease in jobs in the private sector along with a decrease in tax revenues. Double dip recession anyone? An extra million on the dole queues in a year

Instead what most economists believe will happen is that demand will fall and there will be a decrease in jobs in the private sector along with a decrease in tax revenues. Double dip recession anyone? An extra million on the dole queues in a year

From what I've seen, economists are pretty mixed in their support. As for the double-dip, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9338752 ]fears of that are receding[/url], thankfully. Unemployment is currently somewhere around 2.45 million, I can't recall seeing any forecasts above 3million, and sincerely hope that towards 3.4 is not where we're headed.

On the tax front, I'd always thought the UK and Germany were broadly in line with one another, but have no recollection of why I think that - and that 'understanding' will be pre-recession and associated growth plans too.

Brief aside, I didn't mean for my 'sounds great' to appear at all sarky, As regards those ideals (and probably others), I'd see our disagreement as one of means, not ends.

Markie -0 the cuts will directly put half a million out of employment and another half million will go from the private sector as a result of drop in demand directly or indirectly. That is whjat most economists believe.

Germany taxes small amount more than the UK - then you pay for some of your healthcare on top of taxation not out of it. a good few % of gdp more if you compare like with like

which one is correct?

or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

or

Germany taxes small amount more than the UK - then you pay for some of your healthcare on top of taxation not out of it. a good few % of gdp more if you compare like with like

?

Hey TJ. Are the 500,000 public sector jobs you're referring to the ones highlighted in the 'leaked photo' Danny Alexander thing? I had understood that that covered all public sector jobs that would be lost over the next 4/5 years, including those through retirement and natural turnover, as well as 'Coalition plans' redundancies. I can't recall having seen private sector forecasts - given the amount of stats around at the moment that may be wood for trees, though.

gas/ electric is a failed market, needs the number of players increasing

actually, at least as far as Scotland is concerned, electricity generation capability far exceeds demand and, at the time of privatisation, Scottish Power were forced into a pricing structure that kept prices in Scotland artificially high so as to make the southern electricity sell-off more appealing to investors. If they'd left well alone in Scotland, electricity generation would have been a net income for the treasury.

I believe I'm right in saying that the Post Office used to be a net income as well - it's only been losing money hand over fist since it was privatised?

Railways is a bit more complex - clearly a long way from ever being a net income, but I wonder if all the folks in the south of England would be happy to wind back the clock and keep paying for a coherent functioning rail service?

As for water - meter away in England, as long as they keep their hands off Scottish Water!

si_progressivebikes - Member

I'll say it again, all that labour would have done is to increase the tax burden on the likes of myself to pay for the over bloated and socially skewed ideals that they have

.
The tax burden did indeed rise under New Labour - in 2009 (in the midst of an international banking crises) it reached 38.4% of GDP.

However, the Tories have raised the UK tax burden even higher than that.

In 1982/83 after the Tories had been in power for almost a whole term (and there was no international banking crises) it hit 38.9% of GDP......the highest ever in history.

The Tories are not the party of low-taxation. Their economic policies which inevitably lead to millions more unemployed, guarantees that. They simply shift the tax burden away from the rich and onto the poor.
.

si_progressivebikes - Member

One other thing, if the tories wanted more than one term in power what would be the worst thing they could do, create mass unemployment and generally ruin the country? That would work well eh when it comes to voting next time?

.
Well on the face of it, you appear to be making an excellent point.

However, you are ignoring the Tories unique trump card. Which like a magic wand, they can wave around and it will instantly solve that little problem.

The trump card is of course [b]TINA[/b]......There Is No Alternative.

Thatcher discovered the awesome power of [b]TINA[/b]. After all, how else do you think she managed to win the 1983 general election even though she had more than doubled unemployment, increased public spending, and increased the tax burden to new historical levels ?

As you quite rightly point out, it would make no sense.

The British people got shafted because they believed the lie "There Is No Alternative"......... well some did at anyway.

Today the same lie, with help from their media baron chums, is being repeated. And they will probably get away with it again, not least, because the Labour Party is too spineless and too scared to take on the likes of the Daily Mail and News International, and say there is [i]actually[/i] an alternative.

The Tories have always been fabulously successful in creating myths. Who would have thought back in 2008 in the days of the Credit Crunch, as we witnessed the global devastation caused by unregulated free-market financial institutions, that two years later the Tories would manage to convince a sizeable minority of the electorate, that the mess Britain is in today has nothing at all to do with greedy incompetent bankers eh ?

Even I didn't see that coming.

The Tories have always been fabulously successful in creating myths..................................

the Tories would[have] manage[d] to convince a sizeable minority of the electorate, that the mess Britain is in today has nothing at all to do with greedy incompetent bankers

What is really disturbing is the readiness with which pepole are venting their hatred and anger and apportioning blame towards those on benefits, after it must be said, constant prompting by the govt and their press. I hear it every day at work, "dole scum" seems to be the stock phrase for someone out of work. Sad thing is, these are people not far above minimum wage. They're just too full of hate and lies to realise that they're the ones being shafted.

I've just copied and pasted a passage from a small rant I had at someone on this very subject t'other day.

[i]"The public sector, although vital, is an inefficiency (does not add to wealth, it simply facilitates it) and its cost must be less than that of the aggregated output (i.e. exports) minus aggregated inputs (imports). Western Europe increased per capita productivity in the early 19th century, which developed the wealth gap between east/west. The productivity per capita ratio stood at about 7:1 at the beginning of the 20th century, but has dropped to around 3.5:1 as efficient working practices have been adopted in the east, and inefficient behaviour has taken hold in the west. THE ONLY WAY we can begin to prosper again as a country, is for everyone to work towards increasing national output. We've rested on laurels (and north sea oil) for too long, and the rest of the world has caught up; playtime is over."[/i]

I'm sick of hearing the same old commie shit being spouted by TJ and the likes. It comes right back to Union attitudes; I speak with factory workers and they're still trying to decrease their personal productivity, so they get more overtime hours and become wealthier in the short term. But the company is failing to prosper, losing contracts and laying people off. But that is 'the Man's' fault, not theirs.

I've heard say that 'the best public sector workers will jump ship before the cuts' and I sincerely hope they do. They can be subsequently employed in useful, productive roles which will contribute to the country's wealth, and in turn facilitate [b]resumed growth in both the private and public sectors.[/b] Anyone who doesn't get that is a ****ing moron, and I hope they do not work in a position where their views will lead to further destruction of our country's health and wealth.

[/rant over]

P.S. TJ, Junkyard et al.

I appreciate your sentiment, a fairer share for all is a noble ideal. But anyone who thinks that by speading the 'fat' of the rich down through society would enable the entire population to live like lords is clearly burying their head in the sand. Belt tightening and hard graft (industrial revolution) got us where we are (reduced poverty, better health), is getting the far east into a much better position more recently (again, increased health, reduced poverty), but sitting back now is only going to harm us all.

Where on earth do you get that stuff in italics from. Try telling that to Germany. They have a state sector similar size to ours and seem fairly prosperous.

There is plenty of wealth to go around if a small group with teh power did not take an enormous share.

The public sector, although vital, is an inefficiency (does not add to wealth, it simply facilitates it)

I appreciate your sentiment, a fairer share for all is a noble ideal. But anyone who thinks that by speading the 'fat' of the rich down through society would enable the entire population to live like lords is clearly burying their head in the sand.

Anyone who doesn't get that is a **** moron

of course they would not but no one would die from poverty [dirty water, no food, lack of health care etc] that is the point of sharing it around

Worked well in Russia, didn't it. Oh, hang on....

I'm sick of hearing the same old commie shit being spouted by TJ and the likes.

That's the way your hardcore commie works benkitcher.......wears you down and saps your vital energy.

I first became aware of this international Communist plot during a particularly strenuous bout of physical lovemaking. A profound sense of fatigue overwhelmed me, followed by a feeling of emptiness. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of life essence.

I then recalled I had previously been reading several of TJs posts. The anxiety this caused had effected the delicate balance of my precious bodily fluids - without my knowledge.

I can assure you benkitcher, it has not recurred. But that's how your hardcore commie works..........by interfering with your precious bodily fluids. Without your knowledge.

Don't put up with it benkitcher.

And don't deny a woman your essence.

Belt tightening and hard graft (industrial revolution) got us where we are

Industrial revolution. Didn't the money for that come from the wealth produced by the slave trade?

Where on earth do you get that stuff in italics from.

[url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830435 ]Review of the Cobb Douglas function [/url]

As Written by Paul Douglas himself in 1976. The Cobb-Douglas function was first presented in 1928 in their seminal paper "A theory of production" and has gained universal acceptance as a firm or aggregate measure of productivity since. Have a look at Google Scholar and see how many results you get for Cobb Douglas. The paper above gives an excellent overview of the continental productivity growth and proffers some explanation as to why.

Significant expenditure in public services is an effect of prosperity, not a cause, and we are not prosperous enough to afford that luxury currently.

There is plenty of wealth to go around if a small group with teh power did not take an enormous share.

So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation. Its success however has lead to such behemoth institutions, the guys on the bottom rungs can only speculate wildly about what the men at the top do and intend to do and so ridiculous, unsubstantiable suspicion grows.

Opening your eyes and learning will lead to all this making more sense, and you sounding like less of a fool.

Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept

Ha ha! I've read some bollocks on here, but that is right up there with the very hairiest, sweatiest, greasiest and smelliest! 😆

Capitalism is ultimately about profit. Anything else is merely a diluted version.

Worked well in Russia, didn't it. Oh, hang on....

I really wish I could put money on the likelihood of Flashy coming up with shite like this, whenever there's any discussion of economics on here. I'd be a fair few quid up by now.

The answer lies somewhere between a rock and a hard place. Elements of Capitalism, but tempered by Socialist ideology. The idea that a nation cannot prosper with [i]any[/i] notion of Socialist ideology shaping the state and economy is simply ignorant and deluded.

[img] ?w=350&h=513[/img]

New Labour.

🙁

So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation.

this is pish of the highest type. Of all the stupid things I have read on here that takes the biscuit.

Capitalism is about concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. The trickle down effect is widely discredited. As for socal mobility - it is activly discouraged by a pure capitalist model. Fortunatly we have a mixed model

Having a quick glance at the The Cobb-Douglas function which I have never heard before it is widely discredited and analysed as having flaws and it appears to say nothing about he size of the welfare state we can afford.

When such a small % of the country controls such a large % of teh wealth a small amount of redistribution can lead to major increases in living standards for the poor

The top 1% of the population control 21% of the wealth the top 10% 50% of the wealth.

So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation.

And in next week's edition of Singletrackworld, we explain how to nail jelly to the ceiling.

Tell me, TJ, is there anything in your mud hut made by any brand considered as "capitalist"? I assume so. Or do you do all your shopping at some ethnic-tofu-knitting commune powered by fermented mung beans?

Yes industry does not require well educated healthy individuals with public health facilties and roads to get them to work. Remove all this and honestly wealth would not be affected. Good point.

You're right. But proportionality has been lost somewhere. Business rates and corporation should go toward maintaining those facilities (assuming they're paid- another argument) but currently we spend too much and take too little. To redress we should be promoting growth and fair taxation, not taxation to death.

Also, be careful with my use of 'inefficiency'. I don't mean the public sector is inefficient, quite the contrary in fact. They do very with with meagre resource, but they do not have any saleable competency which contributes directly to the countries wealth. Its an overhead which has been growing just a little to fast of late.

out of interest do you blame the private sector bankers and the market for the current worldwide economic situation or just an inefficient public sector?

Neither. Its natural (since we're a product of nature, and the oscillations about the mean are the product of ourselves). Both banks and government should be as well placed to limit damage during the lean as they are to harvest rewards when profits are lush, but I don't know how to make that culture change.

Industrial revolution. Didn't the money for that come from the wealth produced by the slave trade?

The slave trade provided the leverage in terms of low cost resource to grow businesses above their natural rate. Its the same as farming work out now to take advantage of lower labour rates, just a little less politically correct.

Its terrible to think of the injustice served to those people who were enslaved, and thankfully the world is a fairer place now. Still not entirely fair granted, but in the past 2-300 years the rate of acceleration toward better education, longer life and social justice has exploded. From our tiny, 75yr long point of view we see nothing has changed, but the reality is 300 years ago the world was a much less pleasant place to live for a much larger percentage of the population. It really annoys me when people try to stand in the way of progression because we're getting so close to achieving a Utopian society for all, another 100 years is all it might take.

we're getting so close to achieving a Utopian society for all, another 100 years is all it might take.

😆

CFH - more ridiculousness from you

Tandemjeremy
Fortunatly we have a mixed model

When board member's can award themselves multimillion pound bonuses while the workforce get no rise. when 1% of the population control 21% of the wealth, when a privatised bank shares several billions in bonuses amongst a couple of hundred people then I would like our economy to be a bit more mixed

😆 @ Cobb Douglas being discredited. Discussed for sure, because of its widespread use. Much like gravity, reproduction and death; mature subjects that still offer cause for academic conversation.

Trailmonkey, TJ, tell me how may socialist systems have benefited the entire human race in the same way I mentioned in the last past of the previous page?

None. They've all failed. Pedalling the 'fair for all, peace and love' balls is lovely and makes you seem like real care bears (I bet somewhere along the line its even bagged you a hairy arm-pitted smelly hippy chick or two). But the reality is, capitalism has fuelled enormous growth and development for the entire human race. Get over it, and start making a contribution.

Anyway, I'm going to stop posting here now. The adverts on the right (Halfords, Facebook, Apple etc.) are causing me spend money which is in turn powering servers, making rich richer, poor poorer, warming the planet, cooling the planet, killing children, flooding, melting ice caps, desertification, stopping the Gulf stream, and increasing horse fly rape simultaneously. I'm glad you hippies convinced me as such, and also hope you stop posting for the same reasons (although I doubt you will, because its fine for lefties to be enormous hypocrites, right?).

So where would you be without education? Healthcare? Roads? Policing? all paid for out of taxation. Socialism has not failed in the social democratic model - it has given us such boons as universal healthcare, universal education and so on.

A mixed economy is what we need with redistribution from the greedy to the needy.

You completely fail to make the case BTW for the state sector being to big - you merely assert it is without rationale. Germany seems to manage to have a large state sector with higher taxation than us.

Like all lassie faire capitalists you actually have no argument that stands up so spend you time attacking and ridiculing those who point out the fallacies in your arguments. A classic example of the poverty of your thought in your postings here. Calling me a hypocrite. I hope you are never old and ill and needing care. 'cos that is what I do and what your precious capitalism can never do - provide universal care for the old ill and needy. have

Why this benkitcher he talk nonsense? Is rubbish...

Anyway, I'm going to stop posting here now

Ah, come back please, we were having a right laugh! 😀

in your world I shouldlive in a mud hut to not be a hypocrite Presumably you should live in a world free of state provision to also not be a hypocrit ? It is a stupid argument given we live in a mixed economy and can be used either way. As for your utopian view that

Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit

Philanthropy is the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind.

Tell me, TJ, is there anything in your mud hut made by any brand considered as "capitalist"? I assume so. Or do you do all your shopping at some ethnic-tofu-knitting commune powered by fermented mung beans?

Oh dear he's go out of his bed again...

Nurse!

Yes, I'm afraid he's soiled himself. 🙁

Elf - I told you not to bother me unless it was important! I'll just get another pad for him. I am a national elf service nurse so he can fit it himself - after all these capitalists want to stand on their own two feet

Does that mean its the trickle down theory?

[img] [/img]

Ah, come back please, we were having a right laugh!

Oh **** it you're right, this is fun.

lassie faire capitalists

[img] [/img]

Oh! [i]Laissez-faire.[/i] Gotcha 😉

Ok TJ, the OECD says total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP for Germany in 2008 was 36.2% and put Britain at 36.6%. The International Monetary fund put PPP corrected GDP per cap. dead level for the UK and Germany. So we're very equal you're right, [b]right up until you see that we've 3x the state deby of Germany and have a deficit twice as large[/b]. We're keeping up with the Jones by maxing out our credit cards and buying our 42" LCD health service at Brighthouse. We're just not being productive enough, plain and simple.

How do you propose we continue funding all these services without making some cuts and trying to increase our exports? Really?

And before you go playing Robin Hood with the redistribution of wealth bollocks again, take a look at the 2009 CIA GINI co-efficient data below. We're very much one of the World leaders in terms of maintaining a relatively small income gap (conceded, Germany have us pipped).

[img] [/img]

Look, I think insinuating that you three live in mud huts is about as realistic as saying I think private health care is a winner. CFH is right, we do currently have a mixed model which is working very very well, and our argument concerns the fringes of the system which perfect it. The NHS, educational system, emergency services etc. are all things we should be proud of and pleased to have, but we cannot maintain them if we continue to increase our debt and deficit. We HAVE TO increase our productivity as country, put emphasis on economic and private sector growth whilst obviously trying to protect those valuable services.

To that end, and just to re-emphasise, [b]how do [i]you[/i] propose we close the ever increasing trade deficit whilst maintaining pre-2010 expenditure?[/b]

No one is arguing that we must not go for growth - merely stating the obvious fact that putting another million on the dole queue will not do this. The answer is to increase revenue not decrease spending. Stop wasting enormous sums on failed privatisation projects. Make the rich pay their fair share of tax

Germany - remember they pay for a large part of their healthcare on top of the tax take so if you compare like with like they are considerably higher taxation.

Yes we need to produce more and export more. The main enemy of this has been the pound that has been overvalued for decades along with the scorched earth policy of Thatcher governments who destroyed our manufacturing base and wasted the north sea oil money on paying for the millions out of work.

From where we are now? We need policies to give us the well trained workforce. We need to stimulate demand. weo not get this from massive cuts in spending - the opposite will happen. We need a government prepared to go for growth with policies to do so. Growth under Labour was higher than under the tories, unemployment lower. this has been the pattern for decades. Osbournes policies will reduce demand and growth and increase unemployment

the obvious fact that putting another million on the dole queue will not do this

Can you provide any links to where this is being discussed, it's not a number I can find.

Make the rich pay their fair share of tax

We have a 50% top rate, is that not enough? Germany's highest tax band is 45% (although haven't looked at comparative take home of people on say £200,000+).

Its there if you want to see it. At least a million more unemployed as a result of these economically illterate cuts. There is broad agreement amongst economists on this. Some are more optomistic that others about the amount of new jobs that will be created but the tory prediction is for employmnet rises at a rate that has never ever happened in teh UK

Research by the accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers today shows spending cuts due to be announced later this month will trigger a wave of redundancies in public service organisations and the private sector businesses that rely on contracts in the state sector.

Nearly 1 million could face unemployment due to public sector cuts, the report said.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has calculated that the impact of the government's spending cuts, and the imminent rise in VAT, on the nation's workforce will be greater than officially estimated. Research by CIPD has found that around 900,000 jobs will be lost from the private sector, with another 725,000 jobs expected to be cut across the public sector.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/02/one-point-six-million-jobs-cuts

Government spending cuts will push UK unemployment up from 2.5m to almost 3m, a report has warned. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) also said that there was little prospect of real wage growth until at least 2015.

The body's chief economic adviser, John Philpott said unemployment would rise to 2.95m in the second half of 2012, and remain close to that level until 2015.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/06/unemployment-spending-2015

And before you go playing Robin Hood with the redistribution of wealth bollocks again

We have a 50% top rate, is that not enough?

We're very much one of the World leaders in terms of maintaining a relatively small income gap

Its there if you want to see it. At least a million more unemployed as a result of these economically illterate cuts.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has calculated that the impact of the government's spending cuts, and the imminent rise in VAT, on the nation's workforce will be greater than officially estimated. Research by CIPD has found that around 900,000 jobs will be lost from the private sector, with another 725,000 jobs expected to be cut across the public sector.

Government spending cuts will push UK unemployment up from 2.5m to almost 3m, a report has warned. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) also said that there was little prospect of real wage growth until at least 2015.

The body's chief economic adviser, John Philpott said unemployment would rise to 2.95m in the second half of 2012, and remain close to that level until 2015.

Thanks for the links (quotes nested just to make this post clearer). Based on the above, perhaps we're just debating definitions. Yes, there are predicted job losses of one million plus, but in each case total unemployment is expected to rise by around half that as economic growth creates jobs. An extra half million out of work is a huge number, but no-one is saying 'at least a million more unemployed'.

The [url= http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Media-Library/Sectoral-and-regional-impact-of-the-fiscal-squeeze-Full-report-70a.aspx ]PwC report[/url] even seems to offer the possibility that joblessness may fall over the period - though they are by no means clear and a table of forecast unemployment would have been useful.

Almost half a million private sector jobs could be lost as a result – as great an impact as on the public sector – with nearly a million job losses in total,although this could be mitigated by increased labour market flexibility on wages and hours worked, which was a feature of the 2008-9 recession. On the other hand, evidence from the 1993-99 fiscal consolidation showed a net rise of around 1.2 million in private sector employment during those years.

For sure,the situation we're in is horrendous. Will economic growth be able to pull us out of the slump even without public sector spending increasing at the rate it has done over the past few years? I both hope and believe so.

Now who do you think has the greater need ? The mulit millionaire who needs another yacht or poor people?

Yes, the poor person has a greater need of 'extra' money than does Rooney (or any other person with that level of wealth - or even of lesser wealth), but probably a lot of stretched 'middle class' families do to. What is the state to do? Provide equality of opportunity (and what this is is of course open to debate)? Certainly. Provide a minimum standard of living, not just existing (this covering NHS, police, social care, etc - with overlap with equality of opportunity provision - and also open to definitional debate)? Certainly. Redistribute wealth by taking more than 50% of someone's income? Well, without having thought on it, that just seems wrong to me, a line crossed.

Regarding income distribution, where are people getting the figures from? I couldn't find any that were even reasonably up to date.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

Would not class it as brilliant but it is OK. Given authors it is not the most neutral thing you will ever read nor as bad as you may suspect/fear.

Thanks for link Junkyard (must admit to a slightly surprised look as the screen loaded!), an incredible amount of information.

Also, whatever our disagreements on UK policy, how scary is America right now? Loosely following [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/02/us-election-day-2010-live-updates ]the Guardian liveblog[/url] and googling some of the candidates to see their views... [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle#Positions ]Sharron Angle[/url] >.< ?!

American politicians - what gets me is how thick they can be and what stupid positions they can take. Palin was just incredible

Would not class it as brilliant but it is OK. Given authors it is not the most neutral thing you will ever read nor as bad as you may suspect/fear.

Yip, just to clarify for anyone who doesn't ant to follow the link, we're 92/134 where 134 is the BEST scenario (Sweden, who'd a guessed?!). I can't be arsed to work out the percentiles on that data, but we're up there in the .25-.35 index rating (just) which is keeping fine company.

TJ as you say, growth is required and making people jobless, on the face of it, isn't going to make that happen. The loss of '1 million' jobs is indeed a frightening proposition, and I can't begin to understand the stress people with families and houses which need paying for will go through when losing their jobs. But I do not for one moment believe the overall unemployed figure will rise by that much; as we established, these people are good workers, used to working with tight budgets and they will find their vocations in the private sector. Its uncomfortable but true.

Once the boat has stopped rocking, hopefully we'll be able to return to proportionate growth and improvement in public services.

Weren't you arguing capitalism was philanthropic? Surely it is in the greater good that we all eat, have clean water etc Why has your super system not delivered this?

Junkyard, just to address this separately, my 'super system' has been doing this for some time now.

The outstanding and most recent example of the benefit to human kind of capitalism is China. Don't get me wrong, its no Nirvana, but take a look at the number of people living below the $1/day threshold since China's emergence as an industrial power. Between 1970 and 2006, the number of people in south Asia living on less than $1/day (in PPP adjusted dollars) fell by 86%. A turnaround of that magnitude in that time scale is nothing short of miraculous, and you hope for the people of southern and eastern Asia the growth and transformations continue to enable people to increase their living standards at such an incredible rate. You also hope that Africa will soon start to get its act together and join in 😐

I don't mean to make any of this personal chaps, it just riles me when people won't see that capitalism has been an enormous enabler for the human race over the past few hundred years. Its a great means of organising and incentivising our efforts as a race to better ourselves. Inequalities are a problem, they cause jealously and hinder productivity, though I believe personal gain should be allowed but controlled and made transparent. I think we're converging on that point all the time and the current direction of our efforts is positive and constructive.

All in, glass half full. Carry on!

TJ as you say, growth is required and making people jobless, on the face of it, isn't going to make that happen. The loss of '1 million' jobs is indeed a frightening proposition,.......... But I do not for one moment believe the overall unemployed figure will rise by that much; as we established, these people are good workers, used to working with tight budgets and they will find their vocations in the private sector. Its uncomfortable but true.

For this to happen jobs will have to be created at a rate unprecedented in peacetime - not just not just a bit more than a lot more

the [i]net rise[/i] in unemployment will be a million is my bet. Far more than a million will lose their jobs. Far less jobs will be created than the tories think

We will revisit this I am sure - but when the disaster unfolds in a years time I will say "told you so" - or happily eat my hat 🙂

getting back to the original post

TandemJeremy - Member
American politicians - what gets me is how thick they can be and what stupid positions they can take. Palin was just incredible

sounds like Harriet would fit right in...

We will revisit this I am sure - but when the disaster unfolds in a years time I will say "told you so" - or happily eat my hat

I want to see the hat. Please upload a picture.

To confirm your "disaster" is

the [b]net rise in unemployment will be a million is my bet[/b]. Far more than a million will lose their jobs. Far less jobs will be created than the tories think

Will you film the eating and upload on Youtube?

Im sure you will remember for me.

But I do not for one moment believe the overall unemployed figure will rise by that much;

Right, so if the real figure is only a tenth of that, then we're only talking about 100,000 redundancies - perfectly acceptable.

Once the boat has stopped rocking

Here's the news, the boat is still rocking from the last time your lot decided that mass unemployment was the acceptable price to pay for recovery. I just love the irony of Tory MP's bemoaning the rise of benefit culture when it was their predecessors' policies that instigated the benefit dependancy that exists today.

Inequalities are a problem, they cause jealously and hinder productivity,

I must agree, it's hard to be productive when you're poorly educated, hungry, disillusioned, alienated, victimised, brutalised and marginalised and you'd probably be jealous of those that aren't.

I'm still not sure to make out if you're a harmless but effective troll, or genuinely but massively naive.

I want to see the hat. Please upload a picture.

Will you film the eating and upload on Youtube?

It will cause rotational injury. And possibly wind.

Trailmonkey;

You know, you typify what's wrong with the average voter. You have NO IDEA how to form an opinion of your own or an argument to support it; you just cling to your titbits of cynicism (taken from whichever side of the fence your contemporaries tell you to) and regurgitate them with an arrogance so as to suggest you've conjured them in your own feeble mind.

TJ and Junkyard have provided some quality conversation points in this thread, and supported them with data and perspective which has been fun to consider and counter (after all, all we're here to do is chew the fat). But you're just a [i]bigot[/i] churning out the same tired old crap, and I refuse to lower my conversational standards to your remedial level. You're an embarrassment to your argument.

TJ; Can you make it a top hat please? Eating a capitalist icon would be a sweet irony 😆

TandemJeremy - Member
Im sure you will remember for me.

but to ensure that for you we get it right, from the ONS

[i]Labour market statistics
October 2010
Date: 13 October 2010
Coverage: United Kingdom Theme: Labour Market
For June to August 2010:
The employment rate was 70.7 per cent and there were 29.16 million employed people.
The unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent and there were 2.45 million unemployed people.[/i]

can we review the statistics on the 19th Oct 2011, for your prediction to be correct >3.45 million unemployed people

I am keen to clarify your statement and would like to ensure that everyone understands that you absolutely 100% believe in everything you say (and what exactly you are saying).

I'm happy to put up a half decent bottle of singe malt to aid the wake for all the jobs lost should you be right on the folowing conditions:

1. we get to see the hat (in the next couple of days, the hat to be a real one that would fit your head) you will eat if wrong
2. you video the eating and post it on Youtube

see you next year

might take more than a year for the whole one million extra unemployed Remind me in a year.

Yip, just to clarify for anyone who doesn't ant to follow the link, we're 92/134 where 134 is the BEST

A turnaround of that magnitude in that time scale is nothing short of miraculous

'm still not sure to make out if you're a harmless but effective troll, or genuinely but massively naive

Angle believes that the U.S. should withdraw from the United Nations, saying it is a bastion of liberal ideology and "the umpire on fraudulent science such as global warming."[70]

TandemJeremy - Member
might take more than a year for the whole one million extra unemployed Remind me in a year.

don't doubt yourself, you were so adamant!

TandemJeremy - Member
Its there if you want to see it. At least a million more unemployed as a result of these economically illterate cuts.

TandemJeremy - Member

TJ as you say, growth is required and making people jobless, on the face of it, isn't going to make that happen. The loss of '1 million' jobs is indeed a frightening proposition,.......... But I do not for one moment believe the overall unemployed figure will rise by that much; as we established, these people are good workers, used to working with tight budgets and they will find their vocations in the private sector. Its uncomfortable but true.

For this to happen jobs will have to be created at a rate unprecedented in peacetime - not just not just a bit more than a lot more

the net rise in unemployment will be a million is my bet. Far more than a million will lose their jobs. Far less jobs will be created than the tories think

We will revisit this I am sure - but when the disaster unfolds in a years time I will say "told you so" - or happily eat my hat

TandemJeremy - Member
Markie - or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

That article is a load of pish that has time and time again been proven to be false. For the private sector to create jobs at the rate Osbourne predicts is unprecedented. It simply will not happen. Instead what most economists believe will happen is that demand will fall and there will be a decrease in jobs in the private sector along with a decrease in tax revenues. [b]Double dip recession anyone? An extra million on the dole queues in a year[/b]

it's not like you to back down on an important issue of principle

Hardly an issue of principle is it 🙂

I am wondering which hat. I am rather fond of my fedora - although being felt its probably the most digestible. Synthetic wool beanie might be rather unpleasant.

However the one thing you have missed is I did not say in those bits you quote "" a year" for the unemployment to rise by a million. However it will be clear to all that the policies are a disaster in a year - thats what I actually post.

Edit - bollx you edited and found it 🙂

have we cleared up the German tax issue yet? I want to now whether I made a mistake dumping the German girlfriend 20 years ago

Germany - remember they pay for a large part of their healthcare on top of the tax take so if you compare like with like they are considerably higher taxation.

or

or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

or

Germany taxes small amount more than the UK - then you pay for some of your healthcare on top of taxation not out of it. a good few % of gdp more if you compare like with like

TandemJeremy - Member
Hardly an issue of principle is it

from your use of language I thought it was 😉

however before I get accused of being an "intellectual coward" again I'll stop pressing on the issue (and German tax rates)

I don't mean to make any of this personal chaps, it just riles me when people won't see that capitalism has been an enormous enabler for the human race over the past few hundred years.

Indeed, but it has taken socialism to make it relatively friendly for people.

Remind me in a year. it will be interesting to see. "[i]clearly a disaster (the cuts) and massive increase in unemployment - many hundreds of thousands[/i]" Quote that at me in a years time.

Sloppy language from me on the german tax rates

it's not like you to back down on an important issue of principle

He said, as you quoted : [i]"the net rise in unemployment will be a million is my bet"[/i]

Do you understand what "is my bet" means ? It suggests an inclination to believe, not a cast-iron certainty.

Unemployment will not be 3.45 million this time next year. It might well be well over 3 million though, whilst continuing to increase - the cuts will continue for several years. After all Tory (less draconian) government policies have pushed it above 3 million before.

But shame on you big_n_daft, if you think that if unemployment has increased by perhaps half a million in the next 12 months, it is somehow something to celebrate and a "victory" for you.

you are aiming very low indeed if you think it is miracolous that people now earn a dollar a day

Sorry Junkyard, the (as of 2008) revised figure of $1.25 for 'poverty threshold' would be more appropriate, you're right.

I find it absolutely astounding however that such development is sneered at by you guys? Tell me, by what mechanism would you achieve such benefit? When will you achieve this? Which aid efforts could you refer me to which have achieved such a widespread and crucially stable positive effect?

I fully stand by my rant at trailmonkey. Look at that last post. Its pure working-mens-club propaganda, just pathetic. (though that's not to say you don't get the same from the other side, its just emotive guff which could just as easily be found on any page of the Mail and which I have no interest in discussing).

But shame on you big_n_daft, if you think that if unemployment has increased by perhaps half a million in the next 12 months, it is somehow something to celebrate and a "victory" for you.

no victory in it for me, please provide suitable quotes demonstrating how I rejoice at increases in unemployment. TBH If you aren't prepared to stand beside your hyperbole that's for the individual to reconcile with themselves.

as usual you can selectively quote

He said, as you quoted : "the net rise in unemployment will be a million is my bet"

or use my preferred method of a more expansive quote

For this to happen jobs will have to be created at a rate unprecedented in peacetime - not just not just a bit more than a lot more

[b]the net rise in unemployment will be a million is my bet. Far more than a million will lose their jobs. Far less jobs will be created than the tories think[/b]

We will revisit this I am sure - but when the disaster unfolds in a years time I will say "told you so" - or happily eat my hat

whichever you feel more comfortable with 😉

Tell me, by what mechanism would you achieve such benefit?

If we divided the wealth ]or income lets not get technical here] a lot of people would clearly be much better off.

You did not answer whether we got more than them from the "beneift" did you?

Its pure working-mens-club propaganda, just pathetic. (though that's not to say you don't get the same from the other side, its just emotive guff

please provide suitable quotes demonstrating how I rejoice

You are clearly relishing at the thought of proving TJ wrong. So if it is not [i]precisely[/i] the figure he gave you will presumably be very pleased.

[b][i]"as usual you can selectively quote..........or use my preferred method of a more expansive quote"[/i][/b]

I used [i]your[/i] quote. If it wasn't you [i]preferred[/i] quote why did you use it ?

I actually quite agree with TJ, .... if this government is given a full term, then it is very possible that they will increase unemployment by a million. After all, the last time the Tories came to power they increased unemployment by 1.5 million in their first term.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong though.

You did not answer whether we got more than them from the "beneift" did you?

We'll have leveraged more from the deal than they did without a doubt, but through their own tenacity the wealth gap between us and China, and the internal wealth gap in China has decreased.

From [url= http://www.nber.org/papers/w15433.pdf ]here[/url];

[i]We find that various measures of global inequality have declined (in the period 1970-2006) substantially and measures of global welfare increased by somewhere between 128% and 145%[/i]

(EDIT; I should qualify, if you read into the report you'll find growth is centred in China, and Africa has actually detrimentally effected the figures)

I hear ya when you say redistribution of wealth would fix a lot of ills, but really, who's going to go for that? Certainly not the chaps with the power to action it! Its a romantic notion, but what have you (and countless others) done apart from sit on the net and profess it to make it happen? Nothing, because you know it never will.

You must have missed my point that the capitalist structure (which provides for and can be synchronous with a socialist element) [i]structures and incentivises labour force[/i] to create growth. There will be some doing better than others, and there has to be one bugger at the top too. But personal progression up that structure is almost a given, and those incremental rewards and victories for the individual are what we live for.

[b]REAL[/b], tangible benefit for people in Asia is the example I give, and it trumps your idealogical notion every single day as a viable method for increasing human well-being internationally and domestically.