I tried to find the NuLab approach and only managed to find the following:-

"When growth is secured, we will halve the deficit over four years and we will do it fairly."

Couldn't find any more info on how that fairness will manifest itself, can you help out here TJ ?

Er, I never said I 'support' UKIP.

You said, quote :

"Here's an extract from UKIP's budget manifesto. I'd vote for them if it wasn't just another wasted vote towards Labour getting back in:"

So you would vote for them, if it wasn't just another wasted vote towards Labour getting back in ?

To me, and I'm sure most other people who have a basic understanding of the English language, that says that you support UKIP, despite the fact that you might not actually vote them.

.

I never said that either.

Again, you appear to have forgotten what you have said. Quote :

"but that's how a free market should work, which flushes out malinvestment and teaches people not to buy into bubbles."

So was nothing wrong then, and it "teaches people".

According to you when the property bubble burst in the early nineties, unlike now, it wasn't the fault of the government …..it was, quote : "how a free market should work"

Now however when the bubble bursts, it's all the fault of the government. Until presumably, when Tories get in. Then once again, it will be simply the free-market doing what it should be doing.

Can you spot the nonsense in all of that ?

And of course you have very conveniently forgotten to mention that the culture of very easy and risky credit, was brought in by the Tories – when they scrapped the previous Labour government's credit controls.

OK, assuming I'm going to vote at all, I have to pick someone. But I don't want any of them. I have to grudgingly vote for one though. I suppose you'd have to say in that case that literally I support whoever I vote for. Semantics really.

Now however when the bubble bursts, it's all the fault of the government. Until presumably, when Tories get in. Then once again, it will be simply the free-market doing what it should be doing.

No, I'm saying that the government are now doing everything they possibly can, throwing good money after bad (including my taxes and trying to inflate away savings) at the market in an attempt to stop the market correcting

I'd love to think the Tories would do the same as they did in the 90's and let it correct and get it out of the way so we can start to recover, but I don't believe they will. It'll be death by a thousand cuts, following the Japanese model for the next 10+ years.

As I said before, I'm no fan of the Tories, I've not 'conveniently forgotten' their part in all this.

OK all apart from the crap what are you all going to vote for!!!

Biscuit Powered – some reasonable arguments in there.

But what on earth gives you the idea that any other party would have done better?

My point is that so much goes on behind the scenes that you really can't make any kind of judgement on politicians. Most politicians genuinely are not stupid in my opinion. I am quite sure that when they do these things that look daft there must surely be reasons that we aren't aware of.

A radio programme I once heard made an interesting analogy for politics. It said, imagine being in a pub with two women. They ask you 'which one of us is most beautiful?' You'd find yourself a bit stuck; there's no winning that one.

So basically any politician is in a no-win situation. This is why we waste so much effort slagging them off viciously when it's never going to change anything. No-one is ever good at politics.

grantway – Member
OK all apart from the crap what are you all going to vote for!!!

I'd prefer to vote SNP, but can't see them swinging this seat. I might, therefore, vote for the Tories as there is a reasonable chance they could win the seat I'm in and the more Tories there are, the better the chance of Scottish Independence.

I'm saying that the government are now doing everything they possibly can,

throwing good money after bad at the market in an attempt to stop the market correcting

So you would have done nothing then ?

An option which was completely unacceptable to the utterly committed free-market, neo-liberal, 'laissez faire', conservatives of the Bush administration ?

Well certainly sitting back and watching the inevitable collapse of the finance sector and it's catastrophic consequences for the whole economy, was an option. And one which would have laid the foundations for revolutionary change. But if your first priority is to protect and defend the capitalist system, then this was not an option.

The global financial crises of the last couple years was not simply as a result of the bubble bursting due to over inflated property prices, it's primary cause was the failure of unregulated lenders.

So the "doing nothing" option would not have simply left people with negative equity (if they were lucky) or homeless (if they less lucky) or jobless if they worked in any sector touched by that "economic indicator" the construction industry, it would have precipitated the collapse of the finance sector.

Consequently, I can't help imagining that many people are rather happy that it was Alistair Darling who was chancellor at the time, and not you or any of your mates in UKIP.

Certainly the dramatic turn around in the fortunes of New Labour in the opinion polls since the shit first hit the fan, would appear to back that up.

Well certainly sitting back and watching the inevitable collapse of the finance sector and it's catastrophic consequences for the whole economy, was an option. And one which would have laid the foundations for revolutionary change. But if your first priority is to protect and defend the capitalist system, then this was not an option.

Capitalists only want us and themselves to play by their rules when the going is good.

LOL, listen to you two!

The whole reason we are where we are was because it was laissez faire anything goes free market on the way up! Lending to anything that moves. As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem that came from America, America did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans for every man and his dog.

Gordon Brown was so very proud of his 'light touch' regulation (and I use the word regulation in the loosest possible sense). Just have a look at his Mansion House speeches where he applauds the financial risk takers FFS!

Now on the way down the free market ideology is out the window and massive government intervention and market distortion is the name of the game! Which way do you want it?

As for the catastrophic financial apocalypse if banks were allowed to bust… the bankers told us this would happen if Lehmans were allowed to go down. It went down and the world kept turning.

As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem that came from America, America did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans for every man and his dog.

You really don't understand how a global economic system works do you?

Gordon Brown was so very proud of his 'light touch' regulation (and I use the word regulation in the loosest possible sense). Just have a look at his Mansion House speeches where he applauds the financial risk takers FFS!

Light touch regulation inherited from the Tories. How do you think Labour won the Election in 97? By being old Labour? This is not trying to blame the Tories as such, merely pointing out how money/self obsessed the electorate had become.

Now on the way down the free market ideology is out the window and massive government intervention and market distortion is the name of the game! Which way do you want it?

That should be which way does the free market want it? Here's a clue: Completely free with "light touch regulation" when the going is good and get the Governments of this World to intervene when the sh*t hits the fan.

As for the catastrophic financial apocalypse if banks were allowed to bust… the bankers told us this would happen if Lehmans were allowed to go down. It went down and the world kept turning.

You're not very good at this are you? Did you see the damage done when Lehman was allowed to go to the wall? Personally, I would have let more of them go to the wall, I don't like it when capitalists change their own rules when it comes to state intervention.

I wanted tough regulation of these institutions before the recession, what we are going to get in terms of regulation now doesn't come anywhere near. Have you noticed that the main parties are talking about cutting the deficit and very little being spoken about proper regulation to try and prevent this happening again?

I'm sure the backers of both parties have been "whispering" in their ears making sure nothing too draconian gets introduced.

listen to you two!

But if only you would 😕

" As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem that came from America, America did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans for every man and his dog."

Right Biscuit…….having read that I have come to the conclusion that one of us must be an idiot.

And from where I'm standing right now, I'm sorry to say ……it's not looking good for you mate 😐

America might well not have forced Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans to every man and his dog. But, I feel fairly confident that Gordon Brown didn't either.

Northern Rock was not a government owned company. It did whatever it damn well wanted to do. And it was perfectly free to offer 125% mortgages and self cert liar loans to every man and his dog, if it so wished. Without any risk at all of government interference – something which you purport to oppose.

Now many people, including me, feel that it is both fair and right, to criticise Gordon Brown for his blind faith in the deregulated free-market. But you are hardly in that position yourself, since you also share in this absurd blind faith in the deregulated free-market.

Yes, Gordon Brown lost his bottle and when the shit hit the fan and decided that government intervention was the only acceptable solution. And yes, I can well understand how someone like you might strongly disprove of that. But you are hardly in a position to criticise him for the way the market behaved before he decided to intervene.

Of course it's very easy for you to criticise Gordon Brown for losing his bottle and intervening. And you can make all sorts of wild and ludicrous claims that the market would simply have "corrected" itself, and everything would have ended up smelling of roses. But you weren't Prime Minister at the time………talking is so cheap – isn't it ?

I have already pointed out that even the rabid free-marketeers of the Bush administration, instantly dismissed the "doing nothing" option.

"As much as Gordon would have you believe it's a 'global' problem……."

You might well wrap up global in apostrophes to suggest that the global aspect of the crises is a myth, a lie, …… whatever. But facts are facts, however inconvenient they might be to your personal prejudices. The financial crisis which hit the world in 2007 was a global one.

And it's worth remembering that countries such as Iceland and Greece which today find themselves up shit creek without a paddle, had conservative governments at the time ………conservative governments which were utterly committed to free-market, neo-liberal, laissez-faire economics.