Inequality in Britain

[DJKillaQueen]

Public spending was not the cause of the financial crash.....that singularly belongs to the banks and housing markets.

[????]

er. no. How about cheap money, global capitalism, China, etc...you have a very simplistic take on economics. Capitalism is inherently prone to busts (ironically an old Socialist like Gordon seemed to have failed to pick this up)and the current one has bee particulalry nasty because of a surplus of cash from China, loose credit and low interest rates post the Dotcom crash (for fears that'd spark a global recession...they just put it off), the creation of 'clever' speculative products around debt, shares, insurance, which modern technology and global markets has allowed to accelerate massively - partly because the Democrats and Labour loosened the restrictions on banks - and so make any flaws in the models behind them accelerate massively, a HUGE assett boom and massively high gearing on the part of Individuals (largely spent on their houses) corporations (often using their own propert assets) largely spent to buy other companies (see Icelandic companies and banks as a fine example) and GOVERNMENTS (yes that's Brown) to build nice stuff or give jobs to voters. When it crashed and asset values fell GULP. It still beats any other system which tend to deliver no growth but at leeast has everyone equal as they queue for their potatos, but to say it's singularly the banks and housing market is a pile of horsesh1t. Still at least Gordon put plenty aside for a rainy day....oh, hang on a minute. He's as culpubale as banks, consumers, us all. Good times gone, reality check for us all...but keep blaming the bankers if it makes you feel better, certainly seems to work on Talkradio and with cab drivers.

[DJKillaQueen]

Ooh you are way off historically?

Who made cheap money available? Who deregulated the markets (I think you'll find it was a Conservative government in this country)? Labour just continued what Thatcher started - only they didn't starve public services and the poor like Thatcher did.

Historically busts only happen in certain conditions....like those that led up to the 1930's Wall Street crash. People get greedy and take bigger risks thinking they are cleverer than the system. The reaction by the governments of the time was to introduce regulation to prevent the same happening again (that's where banking regualtion was born). It worked perfectly well for 50 years until we started deregulating those regulations. Result? Three crashes in three decades. I think that says a lot.

And yes Brown was as blinkered as Thatcher before him and as Cameron will be after. Until governments start laying blame where it really lies (and compromising the greed of their rich friends) we have no hope of restoring long term sustainable stability.

And yes we can blame the banks - because they designed the risky products...we can blame both Labour and Conservative governemnts because they allowed them to do it. We can blame the greed of those at the top who put maximised profit before sane economics.

And yet it's those who benefitted not one jot from any of it that will pay the most.

[????]

er, China's spare cash and globally lower interest rates post the dot com made cheap money...we are but a small cog in global markets and they are a good thing. Banks were freed from constrints on whether they retail or investment by the Democrats and then Labour.

Almost everyone benefited or are you now saying public services didn't improve under Labour spending funded by tax revenues and cheap money as a result of the boom? Seriously, stop reading the Guardian for your economics.

[DJKillaQueen]

That is not the sole cause quids. You are trying to blame the chinese and internet investment for the entire failure of our country (amongst others) to develop a stable economy over the past thirty years. The banks gave credit to people who couldn't afford it (be it credit cards or mortgages) and were perfectly happy for them to pay the interest only...did the chinese make them do that? Banks care only about their profits...they don't care about the long term financial well being of any individual - only how much money they can make.

I totally agree we were part of a global movement. But please at least acknowledge that it was a wheel we jumped onto under a conservative government. Have you forgotten Black Monday (or was it a Wednesday?) and Nigel Lawson? Nothing Labour or democrat about him!

As for who benefitted...the Thatcher government starved public services and p*ssed on the poor - you can't deny that either - Labour followed by reinvesting and yes we are all better off for that. So what does that tell you?.....Labour traditionally work for more people than the conservatives (even I don't totally believe that but the point is made).

Thatcherite conservatism destroyed whole communities of people - Cameron is about to do his own version by adding at least half a million to the ranks of the unemployed - some estimate it might be as much as 1.3 million. Both Labour and Conservative governments have failed to produce enough growth in public sector jobs.

And it's not a debate about Labour or Conservative anyway. It's a question of balanced economics and morality (irregardless of who holds power). A fair and balanced economy is healthier than the lopsided top heavy economy we have had for the last 25 years. All governments have been guilty of building and maintaining that unbalanced and fragile economy and of ignoring the advice of extremely intelligent and independent economists along the way.

They all have to come back down to earth and start wroking for the good of ALL of us (and for the long term) instead of short term boom for the privilieged and lucky few. We are one of the least productive countries in Europe - well no wonder when so many people feel disinfranchised?

Btw I don't read the Guardian.

Oooh and forgot to say that it may well be that cheap international credit allowed Labour to fund some of it's public service programmes, but even that says something unhealthy about this country - that for all the wealth in it - we can't fund essential public services from our own GDP and economy. Is there a case for saying that income tax needs to rise?

[????]

Real and share of state spending increased under Thatcher for starters but I'll try and get back later with some more positive and nmeasured contributions. I hated her at the time and never voted for her but with and hand on heart would our economy (not neccessarily our society) have really been better without her. I think we'd have gone down the toilet to be honest. I expect a load of sentimentality back shortly and the butchering of what were either completley uneconomicly sustainable practices - ie most trade Union policy at the time; - the harsh removal of redundant industries (old style docks such as in your own manor and of course the destruction of terrible old, dangerous and unplaesant industries such as old style deep cast mining caused enormous hardship as well as destroying closeknit communities and ill preparing them for change, so there were horrible mistakes... but still the ranting, sentimental, rhetoric of *sighs*, I can find no better word for it. much of'the left' does make me wonder wether people can remember just what a toilet the UK was in say 1979 and what direction it was heading? I think Boys from the BlackStuff and all those northern mining films have a lot to answer for ;-)

[Ladymuck]

I think that change is always going to be difficult, most and foremost because (no matter how much they may sound off about fairness/equality yada yada yada) there will always be those whose priority is to maintain their own privileged position even though it is as clear as day that to continue to do so would would be detrimental to many many people (and possibly the country as a whole).

Sorry to interrupt DJKQ/Quids, but I just had to get that off my chest LOL! Do continue!

[DJKillaQueen]

I know what you are saying quids and there's truth in it...but it's a little more complicated than I can get into just as I'm about to hit the pub....lol.....but I will come back to you later....because things like the docks and shipping (which was booming post-war as we were rebuilding many of the world's lost shipping).... actually were damaged in the late 50's by a different British problem of not thinking ahead and bringing in change - which of course we know was something also prevented by some unions. And then there's lack of investment in replacing those lost industries and jobs with other industry - that's where I think Thatcher went fundementally wrong imo...but again it's a more complex discussion to be had.

Just hold off on the stella though....lol....we know what happens late on a Friday night...and I'm coming back from the pub too LOL

LadyMuck you are right but it doesn't mean we can't try and get through to them :)

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

--------------------------------------------------

> LadyMuck you are right but it doesn't mean we

> can't try and get through to them :)

Oh I know - boy do I know...as old Winston said...WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER!

[david_carnell]

Bought this book at the weekend, which appears to have become a clarion call on the left recently.

Based on thirty years of research, it claims that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are substantially worse in more unequal rich countries.

It doesn't appear to be perfect according to online critiques but I shall update more once I've finished it.

Oh, and a quick applause for the Review bookshop for having it in stock.

[MitchK]

Agreed. In the Soviet Union, where my wife grew up, physical health was very good, drug abuse low, education excellent, obesity rates were much better than the UK has now, trust and community life were good. Violence was pretty rare, as were teenage pregnancies. Social mobility was good too as long as you joined the party.

So, bring back the hammer and sickle I say. As long as I can be head of the KGB.

[Ladymuck]

LOL!!!

MitchK, dear Comrade, you never cease to raise a laugh out of me (whether that is your intention or not)! Anyway, I have now also ordered you a smart new hat to match your recently acquired T-shirt. So now that you are suitably attired, I wonder if you would do me the honour of joining me in a little sing-song.

*stands up and clears throat*

The people's flag is deepest red,

It shrouded oft our martyred dead,

And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,

Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. (chorus)

Within its shade we live and die,

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

We'll keep the red flag flying here.

Look round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,

The sturdy German chants its praise,

In Moscow's vaults its hymns were sung

Chicago swells the surging throng.

It waved above our infant might,

When all ahead seemed dark as night;

It witnessed many a deed and vow,

We must not change its colour now.

It well recalls the triumphs past,

It gives the hope of peace at last;

The banner bright, the symbol plain,

Of human right and human gain.

It suits today the weak and base,

Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place

To cringe before the rich man's frown,

And haul the sacred emblem down.

With head uncovered swear we all

To bear it onward till we fall;

Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,

This song shall be our parting hymn.

[Ladymuck]

DC, I would be very interested in hearing your views on the book. I have come across some of its content (much of which I completely agree with BTW) via various lectures/articles etc., though I have never read the book itself.

You might be interested in this website.

[The Chair]

MitchK, LadyM

Could we try and stay within the boundaries of normal debate please and refrain from anthems of any sort.

Much appreciated.

The Chair.

[Ladymuck]

Of course, sorry Chair.:-$

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL...this thread suddenly got very surreal.....

[Ladymuck]

Yes, one minute it was about The Iron Lady, and within the blink of an eye we'd jumped to the Iron Curtain.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah that's because I didn't come back to quids on the Iron Lady and the unions and so on...but I drank too much over the weekend lol

[Ladymuck]

Well, actually, I was waiting for Quids to return vis a vis The Milk Snatcher.

Funny that milk snatching is back in the news though.

[DJKillaQueen]

Cameron came out to say it won't now be scrapped. I also see that Clegg is in trouble according to yesterday's polls as well. His seat is in Sheffield and voters are furious he didn't oppose the scrapping of the grant to Sheffield Forgemasters. I know why he didn't speak up, because he's a Lib Dem and anti-nuclear but the loss to Sheffield (3000 new jobs) and to the country (as Sheffield would have been only one of TWO plants in the world making these parts - now all the orders will go to the one plant in Japan) could actually cost him his seat at the next general election. Damn right too.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cameron came out to say it won't now be scrapped.

Yes I know. I laughed when I saw the U-turn (again reminded me of the original Milk Snatcher's "this Lady is not for turning" comment all those years ago). What were the coalition thinking of? Still, the press had a field day...he he

[DJKillaQueen]

Add to that his recent gaffes internationally (junior partner in 1940 even though Pearl Harbour hadn't yet happened and criticising Pakistan whilst in India and then saying Iran had a nuclear weapon pmsl).......he's shaping up to be the Prince Phillip of politics nicely.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Add to that his recent gaffes...

Gaffes? Or Freudian Slips? hmmmmmmm

[DJKillaQueen]

I just think he doesn't think things through properly before speaking. He's not the first president/ prime minister to make such faux pas after all and no doubt he won't be the last.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think he doesn't think things through

> properly before speaking.

Either that or he needs to go back to school in respect of history and politics. Apparently he gained a "first" in Politics at Oxford.:-S

Just goes to show...