Remember when Lehman Brothers Bank collapsed? Gordon Brown bailed out the banks because this is what he was scared of - "If the banks are shutting their doors, and the cash points aren't working, and people go to Tesco and their cards aren't being accepted, the whole thing will just explode. "If you can't buy food or petrol or medicine for your kids, people will just start breaking the windows and helping themselves. "And as soon as people see that on TV, that's the end, because everyone will think that's OK now, that's just what we all have to do. It'll be anarchy. That's what could happen tomorrow." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 31362.html However it was only a stop gap because now we are seeing a Sovereign Debt crisis. All these Austerity measures are hurting the average man financially but we aren't even halting the deficit, never mind actually paying off any Government debt! So if governments were the last resort to save the system what will happen when they eventually go bust and this whole global ponzi scheme collapses?

Remember when Lehman Brothers Bank collapsed? Gordon Brown bailed out the banks because this is what he was scared of - "If the banks are shutting their doors, and the cash points aren't working, and people go to Tesco and their cards aren't being accepted, the whole thing will just explode. "If you can't buy food or petrol or medicine for your kids, people will just start breaking the windows and helping themselves. "And as soon as people see that on TV, that's the end, because everyone will think that's OK now, that's just what we all have to do. It'll be anarchy. That's what could happen tomorrow." www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 31362.html However it was only a stop gap because now we are seeing a Sovereign Debt crisis. All these Austerity measures are hurting the average man financially but we aren't even halting the deficit, never mind actually paying off any Government debt! So if governments were the last resort to save the system what will happen when they eventually go bust and this whole global ponzi scheme collapses?

The answer is very simple.

All the Tory/right wing apologists will blame EVERYONE except themselves. They will continue their selfish, me, me, me , nasty inhumane attitude towards anyone who has a conscience.

Should anyone have the temerity to do anything about it they will be castigated as communists/leftists/socialists/feckless/lazy et people who don't deserve anything because they want it all for themselves.

They may let you work for them (to make them rich) but you may have to work for nothing, get a zero hours contract and be downright grateful that you have that but also with the proviso that should it go wrong then it will be absolutely your fault and they have no responsibility at all but the rewards still belong to them.

One thing to brighten the day though, Should the whole edifice collapse the people at the "top" will suffer first. They have no life skills or know how to survive in ever changing situations. The people at the bottom do and a big house, Rolls Royce, and yacht are no good if you have a hungry stomach and
are clueless on how to do things you always needed the "little" people to do.

The Tories/Lib Dems will still blame Labour, it will never be their fault.

I didn't see Blair or Brown accepting anything as their fault either - and Balls and Cooper live in a bubble that excludes any errors that happened under their watch.

WMD - it wasn't Blair's fault that we invaded a country on the back of dodgy data? The banking crisis in the UK had nothing to do with lax regulation under Brown etc

Which had nothing to do with continuing the policies and economic philosophy unleashed most strongly in this country by Margaret Thatcher.

It's darkly funny to see some on the right complaining about a government reducing regulation. Usually, they're crying out for ever more deregulation.

“[iI fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult.

“This is exactly the wrong direction in which Europe should be heading and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London.”[/i

I'd like to play a little game, who can guess which politician said this and when?

In answer to the question alot of people will die as the food distrbution system, etc, etc is too fragile. The streets will not be safe and contrrolled by gangleaders. The army will be set on the population to try to restore order.If the army can't be paid then mayhem will continue. The wealthy will scarper. The rest will live in hell.

I think the political blame game and points scoring will mean nothing to those badly affected on the street.

But it seems that's all people can focus on here. Perhaps that tells us something.

That's great. Do you have anything constructive to add. Or are you just using this thread as an anti-Tory rant?

Not at all - all I am saying is politicians of any persuasion will never accept that they get anything wrong - it is never their fault, that is their stock in trade.

I agree Major and co could have done more but so could Brown who was even worse at get cosy with the rich. An example of which was illustrated only two weeks ago. Vodafone sold a huge interest in an American telecoms company, the profits for which would not be taxed if they were within the UK tax system - why because Gordon Brown changed the rules to make one off profits from disposals exempt!!

I see you omitted to comment on the WMD stuff!! - this is exactly what I mean when I say you are selective about you quote on.

Simples,

I'll buy a pig and some chickens and grow stuff in my garden, the rest of you can go f*** yourselves.

I raised this around (IIRC) two to three months ago, starting a thread asking if a problem with our political/public discourse is not that many people see things so tribally, with the determination of slapping labels on everything they don't like, whether those labels are remotely accurate or not.

As I've consistently pointed out for years (yes, boring, but consistent) successive governments have followed an almost identical economic path for 30 years plus. At the heart of that has been ongoing deregulation and privatisation.

Now only a political imbecile would pretend that these were being key left-wing policies, yet much of the bleating you see here (and elsewhere) is precisely that the Blair/Brown administrations were left wing/socialist – even communist, FFS.

Equally, the Tory Party is not following much of the ideas of rather more old-fashioned Conservatism: even Harold McMillan bemoaned Thatcher's privatisation policies (actually, an attitude increasingly visible in the [iTelegraph[/i forums now).

The reality is that successive governments, particularly for the last 30 years, have kowtowed to big business and big finance, and they are who the country is now, in effect, run for. So if we want a label, I suggest (again) a supranational corporatocracy. This is what, for instance (as is being discussed in other threads), so wants a low-wage, casualised workforce, because it will benefit, although no national economy will.

Unfortunately, our political/public discourse has been dumbed down over the last three decades; we have a mainstream news media that, by and large, operates not to inform the public but to push the agendas of proprietors, yet many people take what they produce as gospel – perhaps either because they lack the critical facilities or simply because it suits them better as it fits in with their preconceived tribal ideas.

Equally, the 'blame game' is convenient if one wishes to avoid the economic realities of what ideology is actually behind what has happened. Which suits plenty of people. And indeed, the increasing virulence and stupidity of it also reflects some of what has been seen increasingly in the US from right-wingers over there.

And it will be difficult to move forward without a coherent understanding of what did happen, so actually trying to analyse the ideology etc has value. If you don't do that, how do you know what to avoid?

That's particularly relevant since history shows that trickle down (neo-liberalism) has been tried before – and failed before (including, but not limited to, the US in the 1890s under the name 'horse and sparrow theory', where it helped to create the Panic of 1896).

One problem is that some (note that word) on the right (neo-liberalism is not a left-wing ideology, even if it isn't a conservative ideology either) do not want such an analysis – because they want to go further with deregulation and privitisation and reducing support for the less well off etc etc.

So of course they're going to scream blue murder that it was all public spending etc etc etc. After all, when the facts are dead against you, what can you do but try to shout ever louder?

Also, I've asked twice (IIRC) within different threads about questions raised by [iThe Spirit Level[/i, which illustrates, on the basis of extensive research, that societies where there is a lower income gap (not a non-existent one but a lower one) are better societies [ufor all[/u. That includes having better outcomes on addiction, on crime, on education (even for those at the very top, who one would assume would be immune to anything happening below), health etc.

I've asked how, if the book's findings are correct, we deal with that. And also, if the book is factually incorrect, for the facts that show it to be incorrect. I do not recall a single response to that, yet it's at the heart of much of what is being discussed even here – with people claiming, for instance, that 'fairer societies' don't work, and then actually ignoring factual examples of where they do.



As I've said for some time, we've had a continuation of a core economic approach for 30 plus years. My problem, in this context, is where some people claim/pretend that the problems that caused the crisis in 2008 were only contributed to, in terms of government, by a single government. That's patently false, as we're agreeing, in effect.



On WMD, I failed to see the connection. But since you raise it again, my own, long-term view (I was opposed to the invasion well before it occurred) was that the so-called evidence for WMD, and for their use (45 minutes etc) was always extremely dubious.

But then again, I've also said for many years that Blair – and Dubya – should be in the dock in the Hague.

That has to be one of the fastest shoehorns of Margaret Thatcher into a thread. Nice one baby

You repeat the same thing over & over.

The same path hasn't been followed by successive governments.

Quick question, is building a large state, tax and spend policy a left wing ideology?

McBride & Campbell certainly did a great job of selling Labour ideology to a lot of voters. One of the greatest long cons ever played out.

Those responsible need a good kicking. However, I'm not one of those who works in the political/lobbying sphere to earn a living, so have no financial interest in playing the blame game.

These austere times are not as austere as the spin 'tells' us. Just wait until interest rates start to rise, then you'll see the struggles really start when those 100% mortgages are defaulted on.....

The question was about what would happen if the debt crisis reached end game. It had nothing to do with petty party politics.

Contribute or go like all your previous identities, your choice.

Well you are clearly a clueless individual if that is what you think.



As is illustrated by the above question as you clearly wish to imply that is what Labour did for its 13 years in office in the last 30 years. If you look the actual data you will find a different picture. The governments tax take was at its highest between 1981 and 1984 (37.6% of GDP both years) which was coincidentally when we also spent the most (48.1% and 47.5% of GDP). The biggest gap was in 1992 with the tax take down to 32.4% and spending at 43.7% which is not surprising as that followed a recession and blow me down, the Tory government [uincreased spending[/u to help bail us out of recession.

At no time during Labour's period in office prior to the crash in 2008 did taxation ever reach the levels seen in 1981 and 1984 and neither did spending. Spending didn't even reach that kind of level level until 2009-10 (47.7%) as Labour did what the Tories did in 1992, increased spending at the time of a recession which also delivered more growth than Osborne has managed since.

Furthermore the gap between spending an the tax take was consistently less under Labour than under the previous Tory administration bar a brief period at the end of the 80's.

The bottom line is if you go back as far as 1963 you will find only one period where we had a surplus. That was under Labour in the early 2000's. For the rest of the time the tax take has been remarkably similar usually taking a dip in recessions but as said never more under labour than the previous Tory administrations. Spending has varied to a greater extent generally regardless of who was in power but was actually highest under the Tories.

It may be a left wing ideology to tax and spend but its quite clear Labour when in office for 13 years taxed no more and spent no more than previous Tory governments, often less.

Well here are a couple of links from rather different sources that explain why running a deficit, permanently, isn't a bad thing.

[urlhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/[/url

[urlhttp://www.social-europe.eu/2010/08/running-a-permanent-fiscal-deficit/[/url

The first one gives a very simplistic view of the economics but is useful in illustrating the point of the effect spending v austerity.

The second is a more sophisticated look at why running a deficit, permanently, is normal (it's what we in the UK have done for literally decades under all governments).

The interesting question is what is our current government up to baring the above in mind? Is it trying to balance the books and in so doing is making everyone (well the majority) worse off when it should be doing things differently?

The idea 0.7% growth vindicates the austerity approach doesn't wash with me. It seems we have had a period where government borrowing was very cheap so had it borrowed for growth promoting investment then as mentioned by the second article the debt becomes self financing. Unfortunately the government has been borrowing at very high levels not to invest but to fund austerity and now the interest rates are increasing the cost of government borrowing is going up. To borrow at the levels it does [inot[/i for investment purposes is madness.

Spot on.
Debt is rising fast with no investment, no stimulus, no extra jobs, no growth, absolutely nothing to show for it.
But still they bang on about borrowing being bad, despite increasing it vastly.

Apparently it's OK to borrow and increase debt to fund austerity but not OK to borrow, say, the same amount to boost the economy.

And still the deficit is slow to come down.
Three years ago, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2015.
Two years ago, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2016.
Last year, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2017.
Now, they are going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2018.

Is it working?

I think the penny has just dropped...

Isn't the owner of Wonga one of the major contributors to the Conservative Party ?

Surely they wouldn't take borrowing advice from them would they ?

Adrian Beecroft is a venture capitalist whose business links include Wonga. He is a donor to the Conservative Party – as are the direct owners of Wonga. Beecroft has coughed up around £500,000 – and got to pen a policy document. In essence, calling for it to be made easier to sack people: he claimed that 'a few' people getting sacked simply because their bosses didn't like them would be a price worth paying for 'economic growth'.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-adrian-beecroft-made-a-career-out-of-cutting-jobs-7789303.htmlArticle here about how he has been involved himself in sacking people.[/url Which has obviously done the economy proud.

Exactly. There's good borrowing and bad borrowing.