Tories bash the rich
George Osborne's speech to the Conservative Party conference contained a striking number of eye-catching proposals.
What he appeared in the round to be proposing was a programme of national sacrifice to reduce debt and create a culture of saving.
I will leave to Stephanie Flanders and Nick Robinson the analysis of his policies to reduce public sector borrowing and cut government expenditure.
But Osborne's remarks will reverberate through the public sector and the private sector.
In particular, he's made it difficult for anyone at the top of the income ladder in any part of the economy to be awarded a big pay rise in the next year or two.
A Tory government would cut the pay of ministers by 5% next year and then freeze it for the rest of the Parliament.
And anyone "who wishes to pay a public servant more than the prime minister will have to put it before the chancellor".
In theory that implies there'll be big pay cuts for senior directors of the Bank of England (including the governor), the chief executive and others at Royal Mail, the head of Network Rail and a fair number of BBC executives, among others (unless the salaries of the incumbents are grandfathered*).
As for the banks, the shadow chancellor gave them an unambiguous warning that unless they voluntarily reduce bonus payments, he would take steps to curb their take-home pay, including "through the tax system".
In other words, they must either resist the temptation to use any of the state support they've received to enrich their staff or he'll introduce a special, punitive tax on bonuses.
Then there was big stuff on pensions.
He announced a longer-term aim - which won't be implemented in the next Parliament - to restore the ability of pension funds to claim back the tax deducted on dividends (the famous dividend tax credits for pension funds that were abolished by Gordon Brown in 1997).
And he said that no public servant would henceforth be able to draw a pension in retirement of more than £50,000 a year (although existing pension entitlements would be protected).
Finally, he said that because he would force a pay freeze on all public servants earning over £18,000 a year, he could not "even think of abolishing" the new 50p top rate of tax being introduced by the government - though he did not want it to be a "permanent feature" of the tax system.
For the better off Osborne was saying no jam today and maybe - just maybe - there'll be a bit of marmalade for breakfast in a few years.
Update 1336: I've now checked the fine print of Mr Osborne's speech, so here's a bit more detail.
The current governor of the Bank of England and today's chief executive of Royal Mail can breathe easy. George Osborne, if he becomes chancellor, won't be cutting their pay.
Those in public sector jobs already being paid more than the prime minister will have their remuneration grandfathered; they won't be forced to take a pay cut.
But if the Tories are elected, no new appointee to a public sector job would be paid more than the prime minister without the explicit approval of the chancellor - which Osborne implied he would withhold.
Two other things.
The £50,000 ceiling on public sector pensions would apply to all existing members of public sector schemes, not just to future entrants (although those lucky enough to have already earned an entitlement greater than £50,000 will keep what they've accrued).
And Osborne doesn't yet know how or when he'll give pension funds back the cash flow they lost when the dividend tax credit was abolished - but he's signalling that he'll find a way.
Update 15:15: Two further points.
First, it is significant that the most draconian of Mr Osborne's plutocrat-bashing ideas - viz a possible tax on bonuses and a slash-and-burn approach to top public servants' pay - are not firm pledges.
Both, really, are threats to banks and public-sector organisations to show some sensitivity to the public mood on pay, or face a potentially savage lop from Mr Osborne when he's at No 11.
And who can be sure whether he would really be in scything mood, if he became chancellor.
That said, he certainly seems keener to scythe than members of the current government.
Second, he has created something of a recruitment nightmare for local authorities, the BBC, the Royal Mail, the Bank of England, UKFI, the Financial Services Authority, assorted competition authorities and utility regulators, Channel 4, Network Rail, and so on.
They all pay their top people more than the prime minister earns.
So what do they do if they want to recruit someone at a senior level in the coming few months, before the general election?
Do they ignore the revealed wishes of the party that polls suggest will form the next government and pay the successful candidate more than the PM's earnings - and risk alienating future ministers?
Or do they pay what George Osborne has signalled as the new maximum - viz £197,689 (actually presumably it's a bit less than that, since the Tories would impose a pay cut on all ministers)?
But if a newly recruited boss of Royal Mail, or the BBC or the Bank of England were paid less than £200,000 a year, surely all his or her more junior colleagues would also have to see their pay slashed?
It has the potential to create something of a farce - which will be hilariously funny for millions of citizens and very painful for the relevant institutions.
PS. And what about Lord Turner of the Financial Services Authority, who is expected to move to the Bank of England to become a deputy governor as and when the Tories break up the FSA and move the banking supervision bit to the Bank of England?
Would he be expected to take a pay cut of more than 50 %?
* Some people have been in touch to ask what "grandfathered" means. In the words of the OED it is "To exempt from new legislation or regulations, usually because of some prior condition of previously existing privilege." I am using it to mean that individuals currently in post will have their salaries protected, though their successors wouldn't have that protection.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Tories save it, Labour spend it...and in the long run the majority are kept reasonably happy. Seems a pretty acceptable way of governing a country of 65 million people, most of whom refuse to see past their own lifetimes as far as consequences go.
It's been a pretty flush few years with a lot of people making easy money off the back of property price rises - it's about time we had a few years of pinching. I'm sure somebody famous once said, "Life finds balance."
Complain about this comment
at last a politician telling it like it is...we have been conned by this government for so long we can hardly believe it when someone tells the truth....!
Complain about this comment
Still tinkering around the edges. The Tories really are a left wing party.
End income tax
End minimum wage
Slash public spending
Empower local authorities to raise their own money and provide services
End illegal wars and bring troops home
End public sector final salary pensions
Ens all quangos
We will never have proper emplyment until we have a dynamic ecomony
Complain about this comment
Laugh... i nearly voted Tory.
Complain about this comment
It makes no difference what Georgie say's we all know what he means. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Half of the stuff he says he wants to implement will be thrown out of court by any decent judge. It's all poppycock.
Only yesterday the Tories were banging on about getting folk who are sick back to work, just where all these jobs are coming form nobody knows. Never mind though, George, David and chums will all be OK they all have friends that have friends that will make sure they and their families have a nice high paid job.
I am one of milions who has worked hard Six days a week 10 hours a day) for 20 years, have a degree and yet I still can't dream of earning half of the salary of the average Tory banker. It's all a load of hot air, Gerogie will not implement this, he will cut spending on Health and Education and then in few year sthe voters will see the long waiting lists and the schools failing down and vote Labour who will then spend to put it right.
Complain about this comment
Why am I being asked to sacrifice anything? I've done NOTHING WRONG!!! I wasn't at THEIR PARTY !!!
Complain about this comment
More about a politician telling it how he wished it was, how can somebody be so boring and expect to be voted for. Nevermind I look forward to watching the wealth being pushed further up the tree under the tories with of course the failled theory of trickle down making us all rich again. Osbourne had the cheek to call them "Modern Conservatives" no wonder he looked a bit unsteady, spinning at that speed.
Complain about this comment
I've never been a huge fan of George Osborne and he's certainly been in for a bit of a media monstering of late (all those slightly dark photos taken from below, eyes staring etc) but I thought that he did a tolerable job today. He seems to have sidestepped the cynical 50p tax trap left by Alastair Darling and rightly avoided anything that smacked of penalising the lowest paid.
It's a relief to hear a politician tell it reasonably straight about the economy and the need to address the deficit. It was a welcome change from Gordon Brown's speech last week in which he hinted at a new austerity that will be delivered in the form of yet more spending initiatives! It increasingly looks as if the election campaign this time around will be between the fantasists and the realists and no amount of posturing from from reheated class warriors is going to change that
It looked and sounded good. "Modern Conservatism" as he chimed regularly, sounds like it might go some way way towards squaring the endless circle between encouraging the personal enterprise that we need whilst at the same time protecting the vulnerable and the least able in society. The trouble was that there didn't seem to be very many "modern Conservative" faces smiling up at him from the audience.
Complain about this comment
The idea that this bloke is "telling it like it is" makes me laugh. A lot.
Anyone earning over 18k will have their pay frozen. Not exactly a step towards closing the gap towards a fairer UK.
Anyone living on a household income of less than the cost of living will still be measured for tax credits just like those earning up to £50k. Again, this is disgraceful in a so-called civilised society.
All children will earn their parents Family Allowance per head. Whether you are desperate for this cash to feed and cloth your off-spring, whether you are on the look out for a new handbag, or whether you just hope to spot a bargain at the local antique shop it makes no difference.
The country is patently obviously at the early stages of a bounce back. Everything is cyclic. It makes not a jot of difference which party was in power during the crash. The reality is that the fairest party should hold sway over parliament. Labour's social policy is not good enough, but compared to the Tories they are modern-day saints.
Complain about this comment
This is a fair attempt at tweaking by Osborne's advisers (how many of these points do you think were the ideas of George "Maths GCSE" Osborne?).
But the fact remains Osborne got the big call of the century wrong. When the crisis hit, Osborne said we shouldn't intervene, whereas Gordon Brown led the world on a Keynesian crusade which has saved us from the abyss. I know who I would prefer in charge of Britain's finances.
Complain about this comment
Whenever now I read and listen to Labour and Tory talks and speeches, I have this image of four people deep in discussion in Corfu. I cannot take it seriously now. It is all acting, probably directed from Corfu, Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, ... This must have going on in the dark background for decades and generations.
All good entertaining soap.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As an employee of private-sector companies who has had great performance reviews but only only seen a 4% pay rise over the past 5 years, its about time the public sector fell in to line.
Complain about this comment
Its all just tinkering about around the edges. He appears to just be jumping on any old bandwagon.
If they get in the word will be, as Boris Johnston says, 'aspirational promises'.
Boris leading from the front!
Complain about this comment
Bye bye US dollar.
Complain about this comment
The Stock market took more off my pension in one day than G.Brown's so called pension raid took in 10 years. Then I had a decent pension, now I have to keep working!
As for the salary and pension controls, when you are heir to a substantial fortune (Osborne) and report to a boss (Cameron) worth an estimated £30m, who needs to worry about a salary or pension!
The old saying about peanuts and monkeys springs to mind-do we really want the less able, or only the well heeled, in charge of our public services? Isn't it the case that the P.M's salary is pathetically low, whomsoever occupies the post, or again is it just for the well heeled?
Complain about this comment
I don't think I shall bother to vote. I have no doubt that the Tories will not see fit to punish those who caused the crisis. Weasel words will ensure the bankers laugh all their way to the bank to stash their rapidly depreciating bonuses.
All the politicians seem to be gunning for those who have been responsible. They are going to cut the pay of hard working people to pay for the profligate lifestyle of the rich. Savers pay for those who have been living on the hog for a decade. Pensioners lose their pensions with no time to plan for retirement.
As for the £8000 care home insurance (£16000 for a couple), I wondered when the politicians would want to get their dirty hands on people's lump sums. The lump sums are supposed to be there to cover the shortfall in company pensions (even index linked ones), as there is always a difference between a pensioner's inflation and that of RPI. To put this emotional blackmail on people's backs and make them feel they are letting down their children is immoral. And in any case there is no guarantee of entitlement and you can be sure they will want top ups.
I will have nothing to do with insurance companies after a certain company which I had better not name conned me into buying a pension from them. Luckily I got out after paying out only two and a half thousand pounds. I would have made more in compound interest in the bank and the worst thing is that annuity payments are practically worthless years down the line especially as the discounts used to calculate net present value would have to be enormous when hyperinflation begins.
The only thing I am left to ponder on now is - have I been stupid to avoid debt? Debt is good in Britain today - ask any celebrity obsessed person in a 4 x 4. People are still buying things they can't afford and I am going to have to pay for it. So should I start piling debt onto my credit card? Advice from all would be welcome!
Complain about this comment
"Those in public sector jobs already being paid more than the prime minister will have their remuneration grandfathered; they won't be forced to take a pay cut."
Power is its own reward, often more attractive than money.
What's wrong with getting paid no more the the PM?
Is money everything and all powerful?
Complain about this comment
George Osborne oracle of truth?! that's a good one.
Excuse me while i laugh so much my sides hurt
Complain about this comment
Tories bash the rich? I doubt it.
Cameron and chums just don't seem like the self-flagellation types to me.
Maybe you should tug on the other one. I do believe it has bells on it.
Complain about this comment
3. At 1:42pm on 06 Oct 2009, truths33k3r wrote:
"End income tax
End minimum wage
Slash public spending
Empower local authorities to raise their own money and provide services
End illegal wars and bring troops home
End public sector final salary pensions
Ens all quangos"
....and the result of these will take us right into depression. It's too simple to cut public spending and expect the Economy to reboot itself - what do you think will happen to the construction industry when Government spending is slashed?
What about the pharmacutical industry when the NHS spending is halved?
What about the all the industries who are only surviving at the moment due to government projects - since private lending and projects are all on hold?
A lot of the areas you mentioned are simply red herrings thrown out by the opposition. You could rid us of every quango in the country (and I wouldn't object to that) - but unfortunately the savings will make a tiny indent into the deficit.
The problem is we're in so deep that we can't do what you suggest (even the sensible ones) - if we pull out of the war in Afghanistan now then the defence industry will immediately make job cuts - thereby adding to the demise of the Economy.
Heads we loose, tails we loose.
Complain about this comment
"gavinthegromit: When the crisis hit, Osborne said we shouldn't intervene, whereas Gordon Brown led the world on a Keynesian crusade which has saved us from the abyss."
I don't agree, how have we been saved from the abyss? The abyss is still there, deeper than ever. In fact by any metric you choose to consider we are in a worse place now than we were in 2007. The debt is bigger, our future liabilities more onerous, our national natural resources and value-add output are lower... We have temporally dodged the built, but only by an illusionary confidence trick. Low interest rates cannot last. When the crash eventually comes it will be harder and deeper than it would have been in 2009, thanks to Brown's interventions.
Complain about this comment
Hi Robert,
An interesting article, especially as I've just read this QFinance article
on the common sense approach of linking bonuses and performance. http://www.qfinance.com/corporate-governance-best-practice/executive-rewards-ensuring-that-financial-rewards-match-perform?full
I'd be interested in your thoughts...
Complain about this comment
#13
Be careful what you wish for! I don't know what happened in other parts of the public sector, but certainly Civil Service pay used to be adjusted on the basis of fair comparisons with comparable jobs in the private sector.
The system was scrapped because it produced answers the politicians did not want to hear.
Complain about this comment
#3. truths33k3r wrote:
"Still tinkering around the edges. The Tories really are a left wing party.
End income tax
End minimum wage"
I am extremely thankful that your views are those of an extreme minority, and that this country will never have to suffer an administration as cruel and as brutal as the one you would like to see.
Complain about this comment
Ah but will they actually Tax the Financiers who have been helping themselves to Britains wealth ?
Complain about this comment
Which ever Gov't gets in they must honour the deals with the Public Sector.
Privatising every Public Service will lead to the Tax Payer paying far more for less of a service.
The Private provider charges a Profit on all it does, thus diverting resources away from the Public Service.
Complain about this comment
Come on Robert, the marxist in you is just itching to get out along with the many comments on here about how awful and rich tories are.
less on the reality of how to fix a structural deficit of £90 billion. To fill the hole would be to say, close the NHS. it is a big ask, at least the Tories and Lib Dems too are saying things along the right lines.
Labour are trying to set the economic conditions up for the Tories to fail; I happen to think they may well succeed. Cameron might well be an Obama, overwhelmed by the disaster created before he took the job.
Complain about this comment
All Parties intend to make it cheaper to fire or make redundant Public servants.
Apparently they reckon they will be able to save five hundred million pounds in redundancy payments by tearing up the long standing agreements, without negotiation, over the next few years. That is a lot of ordinary workers on the dole, and not providing Services.
This is a terribly dishonourable thing to do, and bearing in mind just how much Tax Payer cash they have used in order to enable the Banks to carry on and carry on paying huge annual bonuses (far greater than any public servants redundancy payment), it is an outrage.
Never mind the Private sector will exploit the British taxpayer and the services will decline.
Complain about this comment
He will not touch the 50% tax band
A man more interested in good headlines than good economics - somewhat worrying for a would be chancellor.
I suggest he does some analysis. If the net effect of 50% tax rate is to reduce the actual revenue received by govt after taking into account increased costs of collection then the 50% tax band is a political stunt not a sensible economic policy.
Bear in mind that once you factor in NICs and the changes to pension contribution the actual tax take is about 60% not 50% for the high net worths. A little history lesson is in order for George. When income tax was last at 60% and was reduced to 40% (by a tory govt) actual revenue received from the rich went up both in absolute amounts and as a percentage of GDP. It is therefore highly likely that if you reverse the tax rise then actual tax raised will revert back - ie you will end up with even less money to spend.
I know people will moan about tax avoidance - but tax avoidance is legal (tax evasion is fraud), it is not the taxpayers fault that HMRC and govt have made things so complex that there are loopholes. And before anyone starts on it is only for the rich, anyone who has ever taken the ferry or Chunnel to Calais to stock up on cheap booze is taking part in a tax avoidance arrangement.
The simple truth is that high tax rates not only do not raise the level of income that HMRC expects but it is also encourages everyone below the top rate tax band, but who think they will be at the top rate band in the next few years, to look at tax minimisation techniques. So not only will the 50% tax band not raise the levels HMRC think but there will also be a reduction in the amount raised on the 40% band.
The problem is that govt (and us the electorate) get fixated about the fairness of progressive taxation and forget that the purpose of tax is to raise revenue to allow govt to implement its policies, be they social fairness policies or anything else. Long term we are going to have to radically simplify the tax system, whether that will result in a flat rate tax or 2 bands at say 20% and 30% (20% at say half national average wage and 30% at double national average wage) couple with much higher VAT I have no idea but I do know that the current system of taxation is completely broken
It is over-exploited by the rich and their advisors who might as well because the HMRC actions are, if anything, even worse.
Complain about this comment
I see none of this as being about the real problem.Certainly it would be justice to stop clamping and reign in tyrannical councils on a dustbin fine power trip but the real problem is the future cost of energy. This will affect every plan made by any Political party. It is almost certain that as the Global Economy revives energy prices will rocket-partly because of increased demand by China and India but also because resources are dwindling.There is also the problem of much of the energy being in the hands of volatile regimes. I think Oil will again rise to $200 a barrel(A barrel is 159 litres)and Gas will follow.I suspect that this is a price that the UK cannot afford to pay without massive cuts in every public service. The old answer would have been to use coal but environment concerns obviate this.We cannot introduce Green energy in time-it is possible to quickly build Gas power and we will be forced to this but it will be at massive import cost to the Nation. Nuclear seems to be the only answer to having our own energy.I like wind power,I find the windmills elegant to look at but sadly the cost of the subsidy for windmills looks to be far larger than the subsidy for total Nuclear clean up.Long term nasty waste(1000 year storage) from 100 years of total Nuclear power might occupy about half a square kilometre.Short term waste is OK after about 40years. But no Nuclear can be on line in time to stop the lights going out so we are preprogrammed to gas for at least 25 years and this is what they mean by failing to fix the roof while the sun shone.
Complain about this comment
You all need to take heed of JavaMan1984 @ 6
Ask your MP why you should be paying for the excesses of the banks? Did you profit? Do you have 4 houses around the world? etc.
Robert is complicit in this conspiracy (as are the BBC) - they've all moved on from the question of who should pay - and completely ignored the non-response of why should we pay?
If you want to be a mug - fine, but don't come crying to me about 'high taxes' and 'long waiting lists' and 'not had a job for months' and 'education cuts' afterwards because I shall have no sympathy.
Let me make it clear to you all - because the BBC is in dereliction of it's duty in reporting the truth.
The profits that funded the bonuses, the profits and the boom were all an advance payment made from our account to the bankers in the expectation of the Economy growing.
Now that it's not come to fruition the question is why are we letting them get away with it.
It's no good the Government promising they will manage the account better in the future - what about now?
Lets make it nice and simple. Each year we expect to earn an amount of cash as UK PLC. Next year we will be working for 75% of the time for nothing
If this were your personal situation you would be very worried. People who lent you money would be very worried, and yet we're being told all the time that everything is in hand.
Ever seen someone go bust? Well then you'll know that they won't conceed defeat until the last breath is extinguished - and that's exactly what our Government is doing.
....and as for the Tories - well it makes no difference, other than they will bring the depression on faster with their public spending cuts and are more likely to tip the country into civil unrest.
Complain about this comment
Public sector pay freeze - long overdue, should have happened to them 18 months ago like everyone else, instead it will not kick in until 2011. Upshot, the public sector will effectively have been insulated from the entire duration of the recession.
Meanwhile the rapidly diminshing number for entreprenuers and wealth-creators who pay for it all will have quietly got smaller....until they are ultimately squeezed out of existance by punative taxes and Gordon's red tape mountain...a lamentable state of affairs all round.
Complain about this comment
10. At 2:03pm on 06 Oct 2009, gavinthegromit
Whilst I agree with your sentiments on George - I don't with your analysis on Brown.
The only difference between Osborne and Brown is depression now, or depression later.
Get used to seeing headlines like this over the next year or so - maybe then you'll realise that you cannot pop a 10 year bubble and the effect is over in 10 months!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8292958.stm
Complain about this comment
13. At 2:20pm on 06 Oct 2009, supersh wrote:
"As an employee of private-sector companies who has had great performance reviews but only only seen a 4% pay rise over the past 5 years, its about time the public sector fell in to line."
You just need to get used to working in the private sector mate - I have never had a bad performance review and very rarely earned a pay rise (except when presenting a counter offer from elsewhere on the table)
Why should the public sector pay for your bad decision making? You could have joined the public sector - so why not?
Ah ha - attracted by the 'better salaries' on offer in the private sector were you? Well, well, you can't have it both ways unless you are supremely selfish.
(and no, I don't work in the public sector and never have)
Complain about this comment
Don't give us that Mr Peston...!
The tories will NEVER 'bash the rich' bacause it 's not in there
interest to bash themselves, is it...
Be rational now...!
Complain about this comment
People have forgotten the real cause of the Gov't debt.
The Gov't has bailed out the Banks who bought securitised debt which was mis rated, (and misrepresented), loans sold by Salesmen on commission.
The Bond traders made their bonuses by selling this dangerous stuff to unsuspecting, perhaps naive organisations.
The Public Sector is not responsible for this Debt.
The Bankers are. Not some of them. All of them.
Each and every bank was or indeed still is involved in securitised mortgage and carloan debt.
And indeed they are still pushing spreadbetting and shortselling. Just look at most finance sites and the pushy adverts are there.
There has in effect been no change.
Until spreadbetting ,securitisation of loans and shortselling etc are dealt with (ie stopped) the Market and the economy will continue to bear the seeds of its own destruction.
Of course the Poor are now being asked to keep the Party going for the Bankers.
And through the Tax system, and printing money, in effect that has happened.
Now all talk is of taking away such Public services as the Taxpayers have left.
If they get Privatised then we will see the Profits made from provision of basic human services going abroad to offshore Tax Havens etc.
Ask your MP where he or she stands and if he or she is a Director in any of the Firms that may become the Owners of our Public Services....
Wow, I got through that post without mentioning Serco once, ooops !
Complain about this comment
My, my... Charlie Whelan is certainly keeping his army of Shakespeare typing monkeys busy today isnt he? Not just Nicks blog, but Robert's as well!
Complain about this comment
21, writings.....
I agree, but what can we do?
Complain about this comment
26. At 3:10pm on 06 Oct 2009, supercalmdown wrote:
"Ah but will they actually Tax the Financiers who have been helping themselves to Britains wealth ?"
They can't - you know it, I know it and they know it.
Unfortunately the rich can simply set up elsewhere - or pay someone to hide their money for them. Any politician who claims they can is a LIAR.
There's been no story on it but the BBC 'employs' staff who use tax vehicles in a manner to avoid tax - as does the city. This is because they are complicit in the task of keeping it all under wraps.
Politicans are the same, when they quit politics they want to exploit those loopholes themselves - they don't want to close them before retirement.
This is what happens when your whole society is based on selfishness and greed. Everyone working for their own interests will ensure the mutual destruction of us all.
Complain about this comment
Once again the same old Tory clap trap - we'll say anything to get in and then change our minds as we will then be able to look after ourselves. Such a shame that the likes of Robert Preston is allowed to continuall give a party political broadcast on behalf of them and by paid by tax payers to do so. Where is the non bias of the BBC?
Complain about this comment
29,
It’s rather refreshing watching some public sector ‘employees’ squirm! Your day’s of jobs for life, pensions on the back of real wealth generators and finally actually having to work like a dog (and get treated like a t.urd) for a living bring a wry smile to my face!!!
Welcome to the REAL world!
Complain about this comment
I tend to agree with writings on these points.
1. Massive job cuts in the public sector will not help anyone.
2. The Tories will probably make things much worse.
I don’t trust the tories and never will, I cannot forgive their last stint in power when they robbed my parents blind through THEIR STEALTH TAX.
INTEREST RATES, when they put them up (and they will), be afraid, very afraid!!!
Complain about this comment
Post 12. Option 3 is a hung parliament with Saint Vincent of Cable as Chancellor with Osborne offered another top role.
Imagine the scene the Tories 10 seats short of the majority with the Libs with say 50 seats. Give Vince the Treasury and another Liberal the Environment could or would Nick Clegg turn that down?
Complain about this comment
37, SuperCalmDown
People have forgotten the real cause of the Gov't debt.
The Gov't has bailed out the Banks who bought securitised debt which was mis rated, (and misrepresented), loans sold by Salesmen on commission.
This is only part of the reason, It was Gordon’s de regulation of the banks which allowed them to borrow cheap cash from oversea’s and the subsequent withdrawal of that oversea’s investment that caused the gaping hole in our banks ‘balance’ sheets.
‘The Public Sector is not responsible for this Debt.’
Factually incorrect! See the point above, your master was soley responsible for the mess and now you may pay for it with your job.
Complain about this comment
We have to come to terms with how desperately ill the UK's economy is. We depend on foreign sources of finance to fund our debt. The Conservatives recognise this and are working to improve our credibility so that lines of credit remain open and relatively affordable. Let no one be in any doubt: where Argentina went, so might the UK. It could happen and our national decline which began in the late 19th century will go into free-fall.
As James Dyson said yesterday, we must begin to distinguish between making money and making wealth. We have a very long way to go and the rise to pre-eminence of China, which we have helped to fund, will not make it any easier.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Justin150
"And before anyone starts on it is only for the rich, anyone who has ever taken the ferry or Chunnel to Calais to stock up on cheap booze is taking part in a tax avoidance arrangement."
Yeah, but it's all about degrees isn't it? What if I told you that a tax advisor can reduce your income tax burden to 22% on 150k a year - and the 22% includes the 7k fee required to pay for the service.
I can categorically and with total certainty tell you this is true and happening now. the 7k fee prevents this measure being suitable for all tax payers - and the HMRC know this loophole exists but refuses to do anything about it.
Footballers, entertainers, BBC newsreaders, City contractors are all exploiting this loophole to it's fullest.
Saving duty on a trip to France is insignificant compared to the avoidance going on with income tax.
The majority of the country is being taken for mugs - I just hope they wake up to see it this time around.
Complain about this comment
In the late 90's Gordon Brown said that the last thing to do when in a recession was to spend your way out of it and those who did were idiots. Now he says that those who opposed spending to get out of the recession are the idiots.
Keynes did advocate the spend way but NOT if you were already heavily in debt.
Still, now you see it, now you don't
Complain about this comment
Ken Clark was doing well until he mentioned privatising the Post Office. Silly boy...
Complain about this comment
33. At 3:24pm on 06 Oct 2009, houseflogger wrote:
"Meanwhile the rapidly diminshing number for entreprenuers and wealth-creators who pay for it all will have quietly got smaller....until they are ultimately squeezed out of existance by punative taxes and Gordon's red tape mountain...a lamentable state of affairs all round."
...don't you mean wealth redistributers because unless you know of entrepenuers who have worked out how to grow money on trees - this is all they are doing.
They take profits from one area and redistribute it in another, sometimes this is an efficient use of capital and sometimes it's not.
They do not create wealth - that's what they tell saps like you in order you keep admiring them as you clearly do.
This is what is comes down to - the distribution of resources. Nothing more and nothing less.
The Government tried to do it - and failed with it's pseudo-socialist efforts, the markets tried to do it and it works well....until it doesn't - like right now.
....it's time to find another way of distributing resources or we will end up wasting the little we have.
Complain about this comment
Hi Javaman1984, I thought Gordie invented the stealth tax! Which was the Tory one that robbed your parents blind but not mine?
Complain about this comment
21 - Writings the Government say quangos cost £36Bn, Money Week estimate is £60Bn per annum. The illegal wars cannot be justified on employment grounds.
25 - yes, individual liberty is a minority view.
Complain about this comment
37. At 3:34pm on 06 Oct 2009, supercalmdown wrote:
"People have forgotten the real cause of the Gov't debt."
I haven't, and every day I remind people what caused it (as you pointed out).
The politicans are clearly kicking that discussion into touch because if the public dwell on it then they will begin to get angry.
The next person I meet at the bus stop who says 'we should cut public services to pay for the public deficit' I shall promptly mug them of all their posessions and then ask the others at the bus stop to pay to replace them.
...lets see how reasonable they think that is then.
(p.s. I am not condoning mugging - it's a hypothetical situation BBC - I hope you can understand a concept like that seeing as you report them daily!!)
Complain about this comment
40: 'This is what happens when your whole society is based on selfishness and greed. Everyone working for their own interests will ensure the mutual destruction of us all.'
I know people are fundamentally selfish,(I'm partial to a Business Lunch myself), but is Society or in fact Humanity doomed from the outset ?
It is always difficult to get large numbers of people to co operate and to share, but on the other hand I can appreciate why people enjoy owning things.
However, peoples greed does seem to know no bounds. Give a so called entrepreneuer a good business, and he'll squeeze every last penny out of it to try to have a bigger business.
All so as to own a bigger House , a better car, or yet another house, yet another car, a yacht or why not , luxury mega cruiser and his own island !
At some point you have to question the Sanity of the individual who has such a deep hole in their being that only more and more objects will provide them with temporary relief from their emptiness.
I understand the urge for freedom, and the urge to travel in style etc. But there must be a point at which a normal person has every material comfort, any extra is just, well weird !
And I think I know weird !
Complain about this comment
39. At 3:35pm on 06 Oct 2009, JavaMan1984 wrote:
21, writings.....
I agree, but what can we do?
Never let them forget
The politicans and journalists will continue to try to move the discussion on. It's our collective reponsibility to keep bringing the subject back to "why should we"
Once the country realises things are not going to get better then we can take our message straight to Government. Starving and jobless people are not rational subjects and this is a lesson no modern UK Government has experience in.
At the moment we simply wait for the world to catch up and realise we've not even got started yet....
Complain about this comment
tories bash the rich at the same time as cutting benefits, sounds like any new tory government will try to be neu labour and as voters we know what a mess they have made of our economy.
sadly looking at the present crop of mp's and mp wannabe's it looks like this country is in serious trouble.
Complain about this comment
Strikes anyone?
Just wait till after the election. You will have plenty.
No one likes nasty medicine, especially the union bosses.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is basically a dead duck, but I must admit, the the Tories are looking 'dafter by the day'
You know if they get rid of Brown, Labour could still win another term.
Complain about this comment
For all those thinking of voting Tory - can you remember what we had last time they were 'managing us through a recession'?
Well in case you missed it here are the highlights.
Interest rates @ 15%
Mortgage payments taking up 75% of monthly earnings
3 million unemployed (not counting all those moved to disability benefit)
A poll tax - i.e. a tax on voting.
A lost generation
An NHS near collapse
Widening gap in the distribution of wealth
Sleazey ministers who spent more time in womens beds than doing their jobs
David Mellor
Anyone who wants to go back to that must be mad.
However in perverse way I actually want the Tories to get in because it makes social revolution more likely than under a Labour government as their cuts and consequentially their reduction of liberty is likely to bring out all the marginals into the revolutionary arena.
Complain about this comment
With a Conservative Win we will end up reliving in a Nightmare World of Ground-Hog Day, wishing every time we wake up that we could return to standing back at the Ballot - Box and realising that we have only been enduring and wrongly beleiving Tory Sound-Bites that are ALL Un-tested.
Complain about this comment
A lot of these comments are well- argued and relevant. Obviously written by educated commentators. But what amaze me are the vast number of spelling errors - often in very simple words.
Complain about this comment
Slightly off topic, but, Writingsonthewall, whilst I do enjoy reading your two pennies worth (with the hints of sarcasm and large doses of pessimism), I am curious to know what you did with your life before this financial meltdown occurred, and how have you not been sacked for not doing anything except writing on blogs?
Complain about this comment
52,
I am simply alluding to the fact that they are both essentially the same, I hate the current government with a passion. Leaving the financials aside, their inept social engineering policies should warrant the boot alone!
That said, I remember the Tories, they were absolutely useless – They totally p****d all over the poor and were PROUD of it.
Complain about this comment
47. At 4:10pm on 06 Oct 2009, CaledonianComment wrote:
"The 200 grand a year Chief Execs, the "Diversity Officers", the "Lesbian Creche Co-Ordinators", the "Inclusivity Monitors", the "Ethnic Transexual Social Workers" - it's that crowd of no-goods that needs removed - and nobody would miss them at all. "
name some and I shall make sure they're sacked tomorrow. However you will struggle as these people are myths introduced by Tory propoganda to highlight waste. Even where they do exist you could cut all of them and it won't make a pebble in the ocean's difference.
Did you know the Tories invented the QUANGO? it may have been expanded by Labour, but the invention was a Blue one I can assure you.
Maybe you should highlight the chief executive pay of local Government - and which CE is paid the most inthe country?
Ah well I can tell you it's Mr Gerald Jones of the flagship Wandsworth Tory borough council.
Is that the model the Tories will be following?
BTW just to comment on your 'headline' story today - I am already one step ahead of you. As a man who knows a few 'never had a jobbers' I know where all those incapacity migrants are heading....
Mental health - apparently if you get registered under the MH act you get more money than dole and the checks are less stringent. Expect a dramatic rise in this area as they incapacities get moved on.
The claims of reducing the dole queue are the same as they were in the 80's - simply moving them where the public can't see them for a while so the employed don't feel like they're carrying 3 people on their backs - because then the working person might actually start questioning what it's all for....
Complain about this comment
58, regarding strikes....
A friend of mines works at BP, the beginning of November will be interesting. National 1 week at a time strikes over pay cuts and pensions......
Complain about this comment
50. At 4:19pm on 06 Oct 2009, Wee-Scamp wrote:
"Ken Clark was doing well until he mentioned privatising the Post Office. Silly boy... "
....or Europe...
Complain about this comment
52. At 4:22pm on 06 Oct 2009, euforever wrote:
"Hi Javaman1984, I thought Gordie invented the stealth tax! Which was the Tory one that robbed your parents blind but not mine?"
errrrr VAT introduce in April 1973 under Ted Heaths Government perhaps? - The original stealth tax.
Complain about this comment
Were not these the same people who told us that these executives were worth their inflated salaries because they were the best and would go elsewhere if they were not rewarded sufficiently? So is it Mr Osborne's intention to talent strip the Civil and public Services, and how will that sit with his public school chummies who fill the majority of these posts? Or is it just election manifesto smoke screen again?
Taxing executives whose money payments are direct to a tax haven seems difficult without drastic re-drafting of existing tax loopholes. While "grandfathering" would appear to be a get out clause for anybody with a lawyer and accountant in tow.
Closer analysis of figures given by recent Tory proposals reveals much of their intended benefit. For example the proposal for funding residential care for the elderly. Proposed is that ALL 65 year olds pay £8,000 for life-time insurance against cost of care. With the present 9,920,000 65+ population that would provide an income of £15.872bn. However, the cost for the projected 20% take-up of 2 years care @ £52,000 would require £103.168bn - a black hole of £87.296bn. By 2033, with projected 65+ population of 14,260,000 income would grow to £22.816bn but costs grow to £148.304bn an even bigger black hole of £125.488bn. Solution given is that insurance companies (let's say Equitable Life) would manage the finances at no cost to the taxpayer, doh, the 65+ taxpayer would need to pay £16,800 to cover the cost, plus an administration fee usually 14-20% on top, making some £20,000. There goes the lump sum for most lucky enough to get one, or a great reduction in the annuity fund managed by - you guessed it Equitable Life.
Real Tory proposal is that to avoid the 0.045% of present 65+ population who have had to sell their property to fund residential care a liability will be placed upon ALL 65+ of about £20,000 on the 1 in 5 chance that they will need residential care.
In all of this I have not even considered the misconception that individuals need only two years care (maybe Mr Osborne envisages grweater use of Dignitas in the future), or the Statistics Offices' projection concerning life expectancy increases.
Well we can surely trust these people with our economic future when they promise actions that they know they cannot successfully perform, while blatantly taxing the 65+ community to save the smallest proportion of society again. I know where my vote will go.
By the way, did you know that Lord Ashcroft owns the PoliticsHome.com polling web-site usede by many newspapers to reflect public opinion- interesting that it is the same person funding the Conservatives in marginal seats. Maybe your colleagues Stephanie Flanders and Nick Robinson could blogg on that - reminds me of the Peter Cook movie "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer".
Complain about this comment
I am self-employed and have seen my income fall by over 80% in the last 2 year due to Labour's recession.
I would have loved a 5% pay cut from my 2007 level income!
It's time the public sector shared the pain.......but the things is George hasn't gone far enough!
It's economically timid but poltically wise.
I say tell em it's a 5% cut, get their vote and then slash it 20%!
That will get the nations budget in order........how do I know?
Well it's happened to me. When you're income goes down the words thrift and save come well and truly into play!
Complain about this comment
53. At 4:22pm on 06 Oct 2009, truths33k3r wrote:
21 - Writings the Government say quangos cost £36Bn, Money Week estimate is £60Bn per annum. The illegal wars cannot be justified on employment grounds.
WOW says: Illegal wars cannot be justified on any grounds - that's why they're illegal. I was merely pointing out that our exit out of the mire, is through the mire!
25 - yes, individual liberty is a minority view.
WOW says: Yes, but individual liberty comes at a cost to someone else's liberty as the world is not an infinite place. To achieve liberty you first need equality - which is a fundamental mis-understanding of the libertarians view. To attempt to achieve liberty first will result in Barbarism as my liberty infringes on yours and I am bigger / more powerful than you.
That's possibly why it's a minority view because there are more people who believe they would end up on 'the wrong side' than those who will end up on the 'right side'
Complain about this comment
How does this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8293536.stm
= this?
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/stockmarket/3/default.stm
In a sane world? Anyone?
Complain about this comment
According to Garner's Dictionary of Modern [American] Legal Usage the verb to grandfather comes from the phrase grandfather clause = a clause in the constitutions of some Southern American states that exempted from franchise restrictions the descendants of men who voted before the Civil War.
Complain about this comment
It always amuses me how rich people, with their half a dozen houses, multiple cars, boats, Dividend income, multiple directorships, payments for newspaper articles etc,etc, enjoy knocking poor people who are on Invalidity Benefit, or Income Support.
Now, some of those people may be scroungers, but aren't those that are , merely closet Tories without Portfolio (ie no Shares to pay them unearned income)?
Complain about this comment
Isn't this all fairly simple - the Tories do not want to be the next government - they are scared of two monsters - that if they are forced by economic circumstances into massive cuts they will never be elected again and also that their party will then irrecoverably split in two over Europe. This latter problem should have been tackled in opposition - at least Labour actually changed in opposition whereas the Tories do not appear to have done so.
This public 'my shirt is hairier than yours' Tory conference looks a lot like panic. Leaving aside that the policies are still half cooked mush.
Complain about this comment
"37. At 3:34pm on 06 Oct 2009, supercalmdown wrote:
People have forgotten the real cause of the Gov't debt.
The Gov't has bailed out the Banks who bought securitised debt which was mis rated, (and misrepresented), loans sold by Salesmen on commission.
The Public Sector is not responsible for this Debt."
In what way are the banks responsible for the following on and off book coverment debt
1) Unfunded State pensions
2) Unfunded Civil servant pensions
3) Unfunded Nucular clean up bill
4) Off book PFI debt
5) Gap between day to day goverment spending and tax receipts
6) Unsecured Loans to Student Loan Company
7) Rail Track Garantees
The 7 items alone add up to more than one years GDP and all is debt ie monies already spent or committed to be spent.
You will note that the above dones NOT include any of the debt incurred due to the house price bubble and resulting bank bail out.
Complain about this comment
On Tax Dodging, it was a Conservative Gov't no less, that removed Foreign Exchange controls and enable the Tax Dodgers to move their assets abroad.............
You would be surprised how many Service Companies are based in off shore tax havens, whilst sub contracting work from our Public Sector........
Complain about this comment
70:
Now, my Dividend income vanished and my Share Portfolio is now worth eighty five percent less than in did before the City Criminals destroyed my Investments (Bank Shares, a retailer, nothing exotic,etc).
But I do not blame the Public Servants for the criminal neglect and exploitation of our Financial system.
Doctors, Nurses, School Teachers, Civil Servants, were not swindling my Pension Fund.
And I do not see why ordinary people should be made to suffer in order to make up the City Idiots losses !
And of course, to add insult to injury, they cry out that they deserve bonuses !
The only bonus I would give them involves a Pike, the Gates of the City of London, and the breaking of the Human Rights Act in a variety of imaginative and interesting ways.
Complain about this comment
It does't matter if the Torys, Labour or the the Lib Dems get in I'll still be on only £110.77 a week!.
Complain about this comment
Same old Tories, will they ever learn. they are out to feed the rich on the backs of the needy. I suppose their number one priority will be to bring back fox hunting. Think again losers.
Complain about this comment
As usual caught up in the left wing we all work for the state bias weren't you Rotterdam.
The cap applies on Public servants last time I checked I wasn't.
If you don't like the cap jump over to teh side that pays your salary
Complain about this comment
Under Labour the "senior" public servants have done particularly well. The usual argument will be trotted out - how can we get the best man for the job without paying him a shed load of taxpayers money? The answer is simple. If people think they are worth more, tell then to get it in the private sector!
Complain about this comment
some okay(ish) ideas there then - can't see why everyone is shying away from the obvious though - a rise in Income Tax for all but the poorest
Complain about this comment
Are you Conservatives seriously trying to blow it. There is general agreement that cutting of waste in the public sector is needed but highlighted a hatfull of ideas that dont look well worked out in terms of their implementability isnt going to win many friends. A pensions change that wont bring any saving till a long time out and yet automatically turn off an age group that does vote next year is not going to endear you either.
Was it wise to go and hassel the lame to see if they'll chase non existant jobs for £25 quid less -OK I know the processes have to be robust to discourage scrounging but is that supposed to impress voters as a flagship policy because it just looks to me like a bit of housekeeping that needs tidying up ?
Next masterstroke -coin £18k as a measure above which you need (anyone by implication)to forgoe a payrise (ie proportionately pay more) and hey presto youv'e unerved another good proportion of the working electorate.
We know that the legions of underperforming state employees need a cull and we'd trust 'Dave & co.' to do it so dont shout about it too openly. As they spend a bit of their short working day perusing the internet they will soon spot it -and you wont win their freindship (or their vote) by winding them up unecessarily.
At least you 'Cons' are provoking a bit of debate and its nice at last to see a few scraps of possible policy but it does still looks like tinkering and if you must do that try and do it without making too may enemies. Brown staying as labour leader is going to gift you a real advantage but labour cant be guaranteed to keep him there for you. A lot of back benchers know that while ditching him is a slim chance of a few voter points, it is at least a chance.
Id personally still rather vote for any BBC journalist who wants to stand. They still always sound smarter than the politicians in any interview I watch.
Complain about this comment
the already inept public sector will be starved of talent at the top - and will start to choke under its own weight as it compensates by hiring cheap labour (failed bankers, politicians, beauracrats) who's 'indecision will be final'. If the tories win will the last person to leave the country switch off the lights! (now where have I read that before!!)
Complain about this comment
ahoy pestonites
my electrician is 'grandfathered'; ie he doesn't need to retake his exams for the new code because he was a Master Electrician before it came in; he's a good electrician so that's ok
ironically, the term 'grandfathered' is highly appropriate for Britain, where inequality is increasing and we can rest assured that all wealthy people will get to keep their money on the basis that their grandfathers had money too
as for Osbourne's statements, they are nothing more than the usual shallow and transparent political PR exercise; public servants on £18k and up on frozen pay but no mention of all the fat-cat consultants making a fortune from govt contracts
humbug; your prospects remain poor until you chose some real alternatives - politically, socially, morally - from those that currently seem to predominate in the UK
Mr Pirate
Complain about this comment
Well done George, so far so good.
The only problem I see is that possibly he's revealed too much,
too early.
A lot of the electorate morons would probably stick with Labour
for an easier life, while the country is completely wrecked.
I'm fed up with references about toffs and making the rich, richer!
Margaret Thatcher gave ordinary people the right to buy their
council houses. A lot of them have made a lot of money.
Winston Churchill grew up in Blenhiem Palace. Never heard him called
a toff.
Complain about this comment
The person that remembers interest rates at 15% under the last tory
government, should reflect on the reasons:
Elected shortly after the previous labour government virtually
bankrupted the country. Dennis Healey running to the IMF for a bailout.
There has never been a labour administration that leaves the economy
in a better state than when they found it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
i keep looking at the red ticker close to the bottom of this page.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/
it shows the increasng level of government debt. i look at it every day for a daily dose of sheer incredulty.
i hope the BBC mods dont mind me linking to it - some of you may not have seen it. i look at the figure and my brain just stops - how can any of the measures mentioned deal with this reality.
Complain about this comment
87 wrote,
‘Margaret Thatcher gave ordinary people the right to buy their
council houses.’
Sure, and it amazes me how folk like you still have not cottoned on to WHY she did that!
Complain about this comment
Even if we took goverment expenditure back to say 2005 we would sort out most of the problems in a couple of years. Things did not feel so bad in 2005 did they ?.
Complain about this comment
Re post number 51
Entrepreneuers are not wealth redistributors. They are wealth creators. And that wealth is the ability to live a life that has greater scope and possibility than we have had before. Without entrepreneurs there is no invention and creation (never mind public services as who pays for them?). The life we would have lead without entrepreneurs would have been that of the subsistence farmer tilling the ground or hunting animals for food
Through their application and effort they create goods or services that people want, and that people are willing to exchange their own efforts for. This facilitates the lives that we now lead. It is right that the entrepreneur who has such a positive impact on others should be rewarded for their effort – as it is through the choice of others who want what he can provide that he earns his wealth
For this country to grow and develop and for us to be able to live the lives that we want to lead the key requirement for government is to create the environment that enables entrepreneurs to flourish. Punitive tax rates and an anti-business approach will not do this. Jobs will only come from entrepreneurs who are successful – attack these people and jobs will disappear.
Complain about this comment
Well if Osborne wants to be seen as honest, he's in the wrong profession.
But at least it was an attempt at getting people to wake up to reality and the fat that something for nothing is unsustainable, however, the policies mentioned, even when the increase in the retirement age filters through still doesn't close the gap labour have created.
With over optimistic forecasts, deferring payment for investment via PFI, not recognising the cost of public sector pensions when they are incurred (i.e. earned) but when they are paid and more than anything expanding the public sector massively due to a mass of new regulations and bureaucracy, our economy is weighed down and in many cases tied in to excessive pubic expenditure for years to come.
Spending more than we earn, with no way of paying it back is Gordon Brown's economic legacy and leaves the Tories few options but to try to repair the damage, leaving them open to accusations of being "the party of cuts". Cutting excess is certainly required and this labour government has been "the party of excess".
Of course an over expanded public sector which is facing necessary rationalisation is likely to result in additional votes for labour borne of self interest, as is any threat to welfare system (depending on how many can be bothered to put the effort in); in many ways the creation of these situations and high number of households dependent upon public funds has been a way of buying votes with taxpayer's money [and although yes, public sector workers pay tax, they are net recipients]; it also indirectly results in taxpayers money financing the labour party, via public sector pay, the high concentration of unionisation in the public sector and many of these unions being affiliated with and financing the labour party.
Arrangements akin to the bank bail outs are nothing new, although the reward for services rendered in the form of non-executive directorships will be in the future rather than for ongoing party funding.
Balance was mentioned before - and that is what is needed... the country needs to balance it own finances, between revenues and expenditure and so does the country in the world economy.
There's no such thing as something for nothing, the sooner we realise that everything costs and needs to be earned the better - but of course people still prefer to get something and have someone else pay for it, currently it seems to be a case of trying to shift the cost on and have future generations pay for our excesses; and these are often the same people who happily throw around accusations of greed at anyone who happens to earns more than them.
Complain about this comment
#97 "Without entrepreneurs there is no invention and creation"
That's odd. I always thought that most invention and creation occurred in Universities or in the R&D departments of existing large companies. And the invention is largely achieved by scientists and engineers whose motivation is more to do with peer approval and even altruism than it is to do with the expectation of high remuneration.
OK. Every now and again a startup comes along and makes a lot of money out of something new and important, but in my experience this is very rare. Entrepreneurs (basically risk takers) certainly have a role in society, but I think it is greatly over-rated.
Complain about this comment
"as for Osbourne's statements, they are nothing more than the usual shallow and transparent political PR exercise; public servants on £18k and up on frozen pay but no mention of all the fat-cat consultants making a fortune from govt contracts"
Of course in many ways that's an indictment of the public sector managers who either;
- engaged the consultants (generally to tell them what their staff already know and have been telling them for years, but being ignored as they're too junior)
- created some sort of mess that meant politicians had to be seen to do something about (unfortunately the more money you spend the more you are seen to do, so expensive consultants make an issue look more important).
- provided really poor specifications allowing consultants to charge an only ludicrously large basic fee, which then becomes truly astronomical with all the add ons which were omitted from the initial spec, but are essential to the projects success. (You could also add in the general procurement and re-engaging the same people who previously gave them the advise that now needs re-analysing).
Its actually quite interesting when consultants are engaged, as to how much time is spent by both sides trying to gather evidence of who to blame if the project fails.
Complain about this comment
Public sector will have to suffer as we have no way of supporting pay and pensions. Welcome to the real world.
Britain will suffer longer and harder than the rest of Europe because we've destroyed our manufacturing industry.
Think of the wealth and jobs you've exported whilst driving your German cars.
Complain about this comment
I do note that you didn't take up the National Insurance holiday for new employees
How about figuring that into your business equation?
Complain about this comment
Firstly, hello to everyone that's bothered to read and comment, we won't be asked to join the new cabinet and so, our opinions are just opinions.
It's fair to say that under New Labour we have not been treated fairly, there will be books on what happened in the years to come and, how we were walked into a nightmare of debt by Mr Prudent himself, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Gordon Brown. The main points to the economy recovering are growth and spending, we have to spend but we can't grow much because we own nothing. Most of our big companies are owned by overseas companies, what do we actually make anymore that the world buys in great volume (other than gas which we sell and buy back at a higher price when it's cold) other countries are bound to recover faster than us, we buy their cars, televisions, white goods, clothing, power etc, the list is a long one. The scrapage scheme has put money into car dealerships but, we have no motor industry and the profits go abroad in the main. Our gas and electric is owned by overseas profiteers, the clothes we wear are from China, our TV's are from China and Japan like a lot of consumer electronics are. The jobs that are offered here are going to migrants at minimum wage, great for the employers that profit but, the minimum wage won't pay his or her rent and food, the taxpayer picks up that tab, not the employer. We have to get a real grip of a lot of tricky situations before we can start to recover as an economy. I don't have the answers but, I have eyes and half a brain cell left. There are no quick fixes and it's going to be hard. Regards.
Complain about this comment
#95
Large companies have all been started by entrepreneurs
Universities, as with the majority of government services, are supported by the taxpayer. These taxes have mainly come from those who provide jobs and profit (i.e entrepreneurs)
To turn an idea into a reality requires the ability, effort, and drive to make it a profitable venture
As such, in what way do you think that entrepreneurs are overrated?
Complain about this comment
Gideon Osbourne has shown the Tories for what they are. Mean spirited, partisan & uncaring. The nasty party has never gone away.
Complain about this comment
"For the better off Osborne was saying no jam today and maybe - just maybe - there'll be a bit of marmalade for breakfast in a few years."
Well he is a Conserve-ative.
Complain about this comment
The Tories will win but this time next year will be 10% behind in the polls. Expect the Winter of discontent II.
The problem they face with public services is that there many parasites that need to be weeded out, but they are generally the managers and they will never fire themselves.
I think a new type of outsourcing needs to be developed for the Public Sector where the Management is Privatised and not the Workers.
Complain about this comment
#99 rolluptheflag:
A very accurate assessment, the only thing we really export is financial services, hence the way the banks could virtually blackmail the government into supporting them.
People expect a high standard of living because they're British, but how much of that is earned?
In many ways a lot of internal service sector jobs don't create wealth, they just redistribute it internally; to create wealth we either have to produce it for ourselves (for which we lack natural resources) or export goods and services.
The question is what do we do better and / or cheaper than our competitors?
If nothing, why do we deserve the latests imported gadgets?
We're a nation with a great history of pure research but in recent times a poor one into applying that research to create successful industries.
And if a chinese worker will work hard for room and board and a minimal wage, why would most industries set up here, where people complain about hard work and expect paying well for being there even if they contribute nothing?
In many ways our own arrogance and feeling we "deserve" means the likes of China and the Middle East hold the mortgage on Britain (and the US); what we built over centuries has been sold off to finance a consumer lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
Post 4 sums up perfectly (for me, at least), today's activities.
4. At 1:42pm on 06 Oct 2009, ukblahblahblacksheep wrote:
Laugh... i nearly voted Tory.
Complain about this comment
Osborne OK - but can we survive outside the Euro? With the loss of dollar reserve currency ....
Thank you Independent for much the best leader of the day.
Complain about this comment
#99
...and have you noticed how virtually every car manufacturer put up UK car prices, coinciding (strangely) with the arrival of the scrappage scheme? Trying a 'before and after' on new car prices is instructive.
Complain about this comment
Robert, as most public sector workers are (currently) on final salary pensions, do you think this will this mean they will no longer pay contributions on salary above £100k (if on 1/80ths schemes) or will Osbourne have the governement pocket the difference?
Complain about this comment
jimickie #93
The Concise Oxford Dictionary says:
"entrepreneur: person in effective control of commercial undertaking; contractor acting as intermediary."
Where does it mention creating/inventing anything new? Find the bastion of commerce who bastardised the meaning and you will find the root cause and foundation of our greed culture.
toocleverbyhalf #87
How many of the purchasers of their council house have now sold them and moved into negative equity mortgages as a result of entering a housing market without financial stability? Why do you think Barretts gave Margaret Thatcher a luxury house in Dulwich? How many of the subsequent housing bubbles and bursts were set in motion by the throwing away of community housing stock at knock down prices for envisaged political gain?
Winston Churchill declared after the Second World War, to the House of Congress (having been rejected in his bid to be made Duke of Marlborough - because one already existed) that he always saw himself as an American (as was his mother). A would be toff I would say, rejected toff, and have you ever visited his council house at Chartwell? Get real, a toff of the highest order; preparatory school; Harrow; Royal Military College Sandhurst - not Peckham Secondary Modern as you would fanticise.
Complain about this comment
Apparently, we are all in this together..
Tosh. In the event of their wrecking the economy £4M Osborne and £15M Cameron just become tax exiles or get their rich friends to bail them out.
Complain about this comment
#109
Strange defintion. By my version it says "a person who sets up a business or businesses"
See http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/entrepreneur?view=uk
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately I have absolutely no confidence in what George Osborne said in his speech for putting this Country back on it's feet again.
They say one thing in Opposition but when it comes to actually Governing it is an entirely different position. What has happened to the policy that was announced with a fanfare for scrapping Inheritance Tax? So the Rich could get richer. It sounds very bad policy now due to the State of the nations finances.
What about reforming the unfair Council Tax. Not one word.
The basic thing is that this country has to start living within it's Income and not to pay out more than it is earning by paying excessive salaries and pension entitlements.The burden of this now starting to be felt by the whole working population.
Complain about this comment
Reaper_of_Souls #94
I did not see any public sector involvement in Northern Rock selling 125% mortgages, or Bradford and Bingley deciding to concentrate on sub-prime loans. Was Sir Fred Goodwin a civil servant when he forced RBS into buying a failing bank with toxic debt oozing out of its accounts?
I did see public organisations in the Treasury and Bank of England desperately working to stave off a complete banking collapse in this country. Was it civil servants that purchased Rover from BMW? Which public sector workers were in America supporting the Bush American Dream selling sub-prime mortgages that could never be realised, and then packaging them as AAA debt to be sold to any greedy bank?
The last time the private sector failed on such a scale the railways and the mines were nationalised. Maybe all these over paid public sector workers should take over the banking jobs that were so ineffectively filled of late. Last time I looked it was the pack of cards of American banks that were collapsing, not British, but then that's market forces for you. Speaking of which does not the taxpayer now own large swathes of some massive banks, which market forces say will increase in value and be sold back to the private sector at some future date. Or has that conveniently slipped everybodies memory?
Complain about this comment
According to:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
The following are classed as public corporations
Bank of England
Northern Rock
Bradford and Bingley
Lloyds Banking Group
Royal Bank of Scotland
The 235,000 people working for these outfits are now classed as public servants.
Complain about this comment
#100 "As such, in what way do you think that entrepreneurs are overrated?"
Maybe I phrased that badly. Perhaps I should have said that I feel that risk-taking and profit motive are over-rated as drivers for innovation. Also that we need to encourage R&D in existing companies as much as encouraging new start-ups.
Complain about this comment
I included a link to an ONS document that included an email address
Quite why the BBC mods think that they should protect those who publish their email addresses in government docs, I do not know.
Anyway the gist is this
The following have been re-classified as public corporations
Bank of England
Northern Rock
Bradford and Bingley
Lloyds Banking Group
Royal Bank of Scotland
All 235,000 employees have been reclassified as public sector workers
Complain about this comment
JavaMan1984 #45
Whoops! I think you will find that it was the Thatcher government that started the deregulation of banking in the belief that it would make london the financial hub of Europe alongside New York in America complicit with her chummie Reagan. The first Tory Budget deregularised Currency Controls that allowed the development of tax havens for non Channel Island/Isle of Man residents (the previous tax havens pre-1979). While I agree the Blair/Brown compact of neo-Conservatism called New Labour permitted its continuance and extended where convenient, but the origin is firmly in the Thatcherite monetarist court.
#114 Apology for my inability to spell everybody's - touch of passion I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
"gavinthegromit: When the crisis hit, Osborne said we shouldn't intervene, whereas Gordon Brown led the world on a Keynesian crusade which has saved us from the abyss."
What a load of presumtuous tosh!without real sound economic recovery we have only been saved FOR the AAAbyss, euphemistickally referrable too as an AAAAAAAAA's hole or ponzi pAAAydAAAy of co[s]mic proportions
the GreaT Gordon [ILLUSIONIST and buck passer PAR EXTRAORDINNERAIR ]merely purchased the ponzi abyss on credit [diddle doe] as a parting gift FOR the next Conservative government.
For some reason the labourink classes prefer the AAA's hole to be in front of them rather than behind
Complain about this comment
As of 6 October 2009, the Earth's population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6.789 billion. The UK population is a mere 0.08% of this and yet have 4.4% of toal world GDP. Fair is a bizarre concept in these terms
Most of rest of the world live from hand to mouth with little in the way of permanent employment, employment protection rights, health care, social security or permanently clean water. Their children die in infancy.
What do you think happens to these people when they live beyond their means? They probably go hungry.
Too much has been spent by individuals, corporations and government. We have to do some metaphoric belt tightening but in comparison to the majority of the world's population even the lowliest worker is extremely fortunate.
So, stop moaning and thank your lucky stars that you've got roofs over your heads, heating, food, clean water, health care, a criminal justice system, education for your kids, more clothing than you need.
For now, you are secure.
Complain about this comment
No one needs to tighten their belts, not while there is ebay and fools still high on credit wanting the latest flat screen when their cr tube tv is still perfectly usable.
Labour will carry on tightening the bolts on their frankenstein monster until it stops saying "who made me!"
Complain about this comment
jimickie #111
Still beggars the question, when did the 1964 (reprinted in 1974) definition get changed from the mundane to the virile, and by whom? Find the answer and you will locate the beginning of the growth of greed as a culture - somewhere between 1974 and the present day. I wonder when that might have been and by which group of individuals?
Complain about this comment
#113 honestgeraldinho
You're joking right?
Who was responsible for controlling the banks... those same public sector bodies you just praised for "saving" the banks.
The banks actually didn't need "saving" as much as was made out, they had the assets, its just that they were prohibited from calling them in, and destroying the housing market. The losses would've been horrendous, but reflective of the consequences of failed risk taking, and would've fully exposed the "economic miracle".
The only problem was with financial services as our only real export, the banks could "leverage" the government in to providing it with cheap credit to avoid many of these losses in return.
The poor accounting standards and the supposed public sector spitfire squad at the treasury allowed many of the risks to be concealed and further promoted the "nothing can go wrong" mentality, pooling risky assets of the same type does little to reduce risk... basic portfolio theory. Yet the assets were continually valued without factoring in potential losses due to risk - leading to higher bank profits (and bonuses) for years.
The government had actually continually encouraged the property asset bubble and the provision of easy credit to drive it... given the lack of control, and signals that as the economy was been based on financial services and property speculation the government would act to protect them. As is the nature of people in any speculative environment, unless they're controlled they get carried away, but the government relied on the unearned "wealth" from the property bubble for a feel good factor and hoped things would keep going as they were until the next election.
Look at all the new agencies labour has created, look at the number of public sector employees, look at the growth in public spending (rarely matched by a similar improvement in results) - and you claim the entire public sector as it is is fit for purpose and an efficient use of our money???
Complain about this comment
If the economic crisis that beset our global economy has been averted by the International concert that Gordon Brown played a very good part in, I salute him.
Thanks Sir.
I bet you didn’t think your ambition for Premiership would embrace the actuality of these recent times.
Dip or double dip, we’re all surviving but some better than others!
As the crisis has moved out of the spotlight for now, the follow-ons of increased unemployment and some kind of future prudence to pay for the emergency will have to be addressed.
Thirty weeks from now our country will have a new government. No matter what bunch gets in next [and I favour the present Opposition], it is still a global problem and will be. Quantative Easing is not a magic vaccine; healing takes time.
It is now the time for doers not sayers; straight, not dodgy, politicians; encouragement not discouragement of graft with an healthy attitude.
Oh, I didn’t mean graft as in corruption.
N.
Complain about this comment
Post 123
I thought I'd say, " Why don't you join the Foreign Office?" before anyone else does.
N.
Complain about this comment
Just had a look at the graphic The ageing UK (Percentage of population aged 65 and above) on BBC page concerning Osborne's speech. What is striking is the consistent 15% of over 65s up to 2009 and the explosion continuing up to the 2030 figure of 23%.
Now can somebody tell me how over the past 50 years economists and statisticians have missed the probability of this outcome? One did they miss the statistic of the post-war "baby boom", and two did they think that the National Health Service would have no effect on life expectancy? If all of this has been so blindingly obvious for such a long time why has no government previously attempted to plan for it? Why in the 1990s were employers given pension holidays (continued to this day) and access to supposed excess monies in pension funds when in reality the projections indicated excessive additional need in 20 odd years time?
A culture established in the early 80s by a previous Conservative government concerned with quick money and excessive profit with related stock market quotations. A Maxwell instigated raiding of pension funds for corporate convenience and financial expedience never appropriately punished, or ever stopped by subsequent corporate actions.
To ever imagine a Conservative government will do anything more than line the pockets of the already wealthy is to ignore historical precident. Do not be misled by the notion that historically Conservative governments have repaired the economy after Labour excesses, they have violently readjusted the distribution of wealth within Britain that the present Labour government have not addressed. An American colleague commented in the middle 80s how struck they were by the extreme demonstration of rich and poor that existed in Britain at the time, and that at that time it was not that obvious in America. Class structures are rigid in this country, with recent comment from the Head of a Public School Association suggesting that the country would collapse without the continued funding of Public Schools as they provide the "officers" needed to lead the military in war. By the same token they provide the military officers who waste enormous sums of taxpayers money on porly budgeted military development programmes. Exampled by desperately needed helicopters sitting in hangers in England because they cannot be flown without unpurchased software (ommitted from the spec given to the American supplier). We should also remember that the taxpayer pays for the public school education of military officers' children (captain and above) along with foreign office personnel above a certain rank. No wonder the same old mistakes occur, its in the genes and inbreeding of the selected few.
Conservative government for the people? Only because they see it as their inbred right to be leaders of the underprivileged classes, that they are chosen by birth to be in control, to have the wealth; the land; the influence. At least a minority of the alternative parties have had some contact with the realities of the majority's lives, and only one in living memory has had a Minister of Education with any professional educational background. Whatever happened to Estelle Morris?
Complain about this comment
The "highly paid CEO tallent" running local authorities, for the most part went along with the IDEA OF INVESTING council tax receipts IN ICELANDIC BANKS,no doubt the extra half percent interest translated into a substantial performance related bonus for them and their croniease .
It might be a good idea to show them the door with a noose above it so that they can think about the green green grAAA's of home .
Complain about this comment
It is time for a new beggingin ,with those responsible for the squan derink of the nations liquidity into insolvent AAA's holes to be publicly castigated and their dear high DrAAAted bawls turned into hallogen lampshades to adorn the chritmas tree in trafalgar square and prevent it becoming a sight for sore ayes
Complain about this comment
Reaper_of_Souls #122
Please tell me which bit of the Fanny Mae/Lehmann Bros., et. al., collapse you didn't understand, "they had the assets", yes in paper debt that was never going to be paid off by sub-prime borrowers? Toxic debt that has been underwritten for banks around the world by governments. Comments such as "prohibited from calling them in", yes by the reality that they were never going to be paid. Just drive through suburbia USA and see the rotting For Sale signs on repossessed properties that cannot become realised assets.
You ignore the blackmail undertaken by the banking institutions allowed to grow excessively by previous administrations as proof of their monetarist theology. With increasing professional conivance in inflated property values from builders; estate agents; mortgage lenders no administration could shut down the greed machine (look what happened when Thatcher attempted to reign-in the mortgage bubble of multiple ownership) it was seld-perpetuating under the banks becoming bigger than governments. This is demonstrated by the largeness of the support now provided by future taxpayers. To say responsibility is with the regulators is to condone the irresponsibility and greed of those paid huge sums to direct these institutions - the Boards of the banks.
As with Napoleon III, when there is no employment a socially conscious government creates it. With the dessimation of productive employment by the actions of previous administrations (historically mainly Conservative) would you have been happier with mass unemployment and the civil unrest that Thatcherism created?
Complain about this comment
104, Reaper_of_Souls
Well said.
30 yrs ago I discovered the obvious - that only work in productive industry creates wealth. All other activity dissapates wealth (though I do accept we need some resources for infrastructural services and regulation).
But today we have the balance all wrong.
Simple household budgeting demands that if I can't afford a cleaner, either I clean the house myself (and accept I can't earn for myself whilst doing so) or I accept the house stays dirty. I can't afford to employ the cleaner and continue to rack up the credit card debt.
The same applies to Government.
It's time for all of us to re-think our purchasing priorities - and the biggest cost for all of us wee folk is PUBLIC SERVICES. We are all paying for activity that is of questionable value in current circumstances.
Complain about this comment
The moderators should be thankful for the free edukation about reality that they are receiving on these boards.
Complain about this comment
Morning Robert,
another blog to get the contributors responses flowing. May I say thank you to all the contributors here, they make for interesting reading!
However, I feel sometimes divorced from reality here.
In the last 18 months since this financial (and political) crisis started, I have seen nothing of note change.
Complain about this comment
On Pensions...
Over recent years there's been much fuss over pensions. Also there's been much fuss over Corporate Governance (... ie the understanding and evaluation of risk). Here's where they collide!
I wonder how many Boards of Directors would (be allowed to) sanction an investment for a potentially unlimited liability to a future debt? ie set up a final salary pension scheme.
Company says... "come and work for us and after xx years we'll pay you 2/3rds of an unknown amount for an unknown period (until you die) to do nothing."
Corporate Governance Good Practice says you wouldn't commit to unlimited future liabilities - yet we happily let our Government do so.
Time for a change to Public (and Private) sector pensions.
Complain about this comment
Reaper_of_Souls addenda to #128
BA wants to cut jobs; 1000 voluntary redundancies; 3000 to go part-time; recruitment of new staff on different terms and conditions to current employees. Surely this is flaunting employment law where redundancy means permanent loss of post, the job function is no longer required, not a convenience for employers to cut costs. I suggest the directors of BA discuss the matter with some Principals of FE Colleges where similar tactics were attempted in the 1990s.
Why are we allowing comments about the failing public sector and the need for pain when clearly there are few parts of the private sector that are not being run by delusional directors. Is this not one of the airlines demanding extra runways at airports for envisaged increased capacity? Are not all airlines (Russian, Japanese, American, etc.) seeing a fall in passenger numbers with reduction in need for aircraft? Is this not the airline that has announced the establishment of a "business class only" airline at a time when such passengers are declining? Are BA not introducing in November extortinate charges for seating allocation? Why when I can reserve a seat, or adjecent seats, in a theatre months in advance at no extra cost, does BA intend to charge £60 per seat for the privilege of doing it more than 24 hours before usage? Must remember to take some coins for the toilets; a packed lunch and flask for refreshment; a credit card to pay for refuelling on any longhaul flights. These bastions, lauded by yourself, of the ridiculous need to go and go soon - we have gone back to the management style of the 1960s car manufacturer. Which MBA have these directors been taking?
Complain about this comment
It is hard to get a cigarette paper between the parties, New Labour, New Conservative and New Lib/Dem are all talking cuts (of varying degrees)
It's doom and gloom from all sides, no thought as to what we are going to do if the global economy starts to pickup. Everybody is saying that we have to tighten our belts, reposition ourselves (downwardly) into a new world order.
Why ?
I thought these people were the brightest and best, where is their ambition ?
Why not invest some really huge sums of money on making sure that when a global recovery happens we are able to reposition ourselves higher in the world order.
Large scale investment both in the long and short term in electricity generation for export would provide huge amounts of productive work over a very long timescale.
Only a government can provide this kind of stimulus.
None of the parties seems to acknowlege that it is the lack of general economic activity that is the problem, their vying for the sharpest cutter will only make things worse.
Complain about this comment
How refreshing to see so many responses to a story about the Conservative Party's policies.
Whatever our politics, it's great to see a genuine debate for a change; 'hard cases make bad law' but 'imagination is more important than knowledge'.
Bring on next Spring!
Complain about this comment
#125 honestgeraldinho wrote:
"Just had a look at the graphic The ageing UK (Percentage of population aged 65 and above)
Now can somebody tell me how over the past 50 years economists and statisticians have missed the probability of this outcome? One did they miss the statistic of the post-war "baby boom", and two did they think that the National Health Service would have no effect on life expectancy?"
Believe me its well known (I'm guessing the source there is ONS) as are projections for the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases.
The staff working in these areas are some of the best in the civil service.
The questions these projections raise is, "is the NHS sustainable in its current form?".
Part of the response is to push more resources towards prevention, resulting in a larger saving on treatment.
The fact is the NHS needs to get more efficient and is likely to need even more resources... so perhaps we should start debating what is "necessary" for the NHS to cover, and how much we're prepared to pay for it. Things such as IVF, transgenda ops, etc should surely be considered a luxury when set against heart surgery, hip replacements, etc.
We can only afford so much, which should inevitably lead to hard decisions.
#133
Incompetent management isn't restricted to the public sector, but (other than tax revenue or bank bail outs) isn't really as relevant to the public finances if we're not paying for it.
As to the specific circumstances, no doubt BA have had lawyers look at this in advance and attempted to phrase the deals and specify the new roles in such a way as to work around employment law.
Its a pretty common practice to redefine terms and conditions, I seem to recall Vickers did a similar move in the 1990s with the old ROF factories, and pensions were "redefined" despite guarantees and the fact they were already financed by a government hand out.
As to MBAs, you do realise that senior managers in a lot of organisations are encouraged to have them and their companies pay the body granting them considerable fees... now it wouldn't be great value for money, or an advert for future business, if they didn't get the certificate would it?
The airline industry is not an area I have personal knowledge of, but in many ways it can seem to be something of a law unto itself.
No doubt the additional runway argument is related to envisaged capacity 5+ years down the line.
I do not recall "lauding" BA or indeed any particular private sector business, their management do however often have to face up to the real world much more than their public sector equivalents, it is only certain companies that get bailed out if they make horrendous mistakes.
Complain about this comment
#134 BobRocket
Ahh now you're talking about genuine investment. no the "investment" (expenditure) Brown so often talks about.
Pure research has always been our strength, especially as it tends to be relatively "cheap".
Unfortunately, applied research has been a massive failing for a number of years.
We now have too few engineers, yet more and more people are going to university, unfortunately only the same number (if that) are the brightest and the best, and "soft" courses are much more appealing than the disciplines that could aid our future economic stability.
And when you put that against China and India who are producing vast numbers of IT and engineering graduates, we're falling way behind.
I agree entirely that unless we find something, to supplement financial services our long term decline is inevitable.
Perhaps pharmaceuticals offers another option?
We are certainly well placed to look at wind, wave and tidal power; becoming an energy exporter, with limited dependency on potentially unstable areas of the world would certainly aid our national security.
Complain about this comment
It was Tory fiscal policies that got us in this mess in the first place so i hardly expect them to get us out if it.
Complain about this comment
#138
Starshifter wrote:
"It was Tory fiscal policies that got us in this mess in the first place so i hardly expect them to get us out if it."
Strange, I thought we'd had a labour government for the past 12 years???
Didn't Tony Blair get a $5m p.a. role at JP Morgan?
And who decided to spend more than we earn even in the good times?
The Tories can certainly be blamed, but more indirectly - for making a mess of things and allowing the economically inept labour government to retain power for this long.
Complain about this comment
"But if a newly recruited boss of Royal Mail, or the BBC or the Bank of England were paid less than £200,000 a year, surely all his or her more junior colleagues would also have to see their pay slashed?"
They will just make it up in bonus, £3 million for the Royal Mail boss a while back, a good years work though!
What happened at Royal Mail was effectively a coup de gras on civil servant pay levels, Asda man Alan Leighton introduced as chairman the concept of 'outside' pay levels as per the Blue Chip companies and every senior role since CEO Adam Crozier arrived has had 'lottery' pay ever since, for a declining service! When i was on £15k the CEO of Royal Mail was on £70k, now i am on £30k his role now rewards itself £1 million!! Nice work if you can get it.
Complain about this comment
#140
Starshifter
Ahh Leighton and Crozier, I remember their involvement in football.
Leighton showed his credentials during the Leeds Utd fiasco... and if it had been a business other than football, he might not be able to be in his current role at Royal Mail.
Its always interesting what these "bonuses" are for when things don't seem to improve, but then directors tend to sit on each other's remuneration committees and take care of their own.
At least until Royal Mail is sold off, such salaries can be frozen. Not that they seem to deserve any rises (or bonuses) with how recent changes have been handled.
Although when others are allowed to poach the profitable business and Royal Mail is forced to provide the non-viable services to the middle of nowhere for the same price, its a difficult "business" to make profitable.
The fact is these public sector CEOs though undermined by political interference, don't face the same challenges as their private sector equivalents. In the private sector, directors are paid to generate wealth for shareholders (although their contracts frequently pay them for losing money and pay them even more for being fired due to incompetence). If this is done right, they're paid a proportion of what they make for others and should add more value than they cost (theoretically).
In the public sector, the government is always there with a bail out if things go wrong; the organisation can't go bust, (although as I recall Royal Mail's pension scheme is an issue).
You're right though, the runaway pay of public sector executives is ridiculous and hasn't resulted in any noticeable improvement, as such they're obviously not worth the money. Perhaps the shareholders (govt) should decline to renew their contracts.
Complain about this comment
Am I alone?
Anyone else on here petrified by the thought of these muppets getting into power?
Caveat Emptor: Check back on my posts, I'm NO fan of Liebour
Complain about this comment
I can't wait for sunrise...another day of the politicians trying to top each other on how tough they are going to be on the public sector, how long before public sector floggings and hangings are announced by one of them.
I tell you now, the private sector does well out of the public sector. I am sick of seeing consultants come into my work place and get paid a fortune to state the obvious. I'm sick of private sector IT companies delivering terrible software at shocking prices.
I've worked in both the private and public sector and there ain't much difference. When times are good the public sector can't get a decent pay rise (never mind a bonus) as "that would fuel inflation" and when times are bad we can't get a pay rise either. There has also been big job cuts in the sector I work in, over the last few years.
Whacking the public sector seems to be a winner for the politicians....it somehow excites the private sector Man in ways slightly worrying and they fall for it every time. Lap it up. We public sectors are quickly becoming a persecuted minority group !
Complain about this comment
Any Chancellor facing this situation has got to walk a fine line which gets in the necessary revenues but does not provoke an extreme reaction from the public.
If the Chancellor is too drastic the unions will lead strikes and some of the rich may simply emigrate.
If the Chancellor does not do enough we simply won't get the revenues necessary to offset the UK's debt.
The slow, steady approach of the tortoise is preferable to the fast, erratic pace of the hare.
Small tax increases or other income raisers in a wide number of areas is likely to be more effective than large increases in a small number of areas.
The Chancellor would also need to have a integrated approach so that changes in one area do not have negative repercussions in another. Cutting staff in Whitehall for example could simply mean fewer people paying tax and National Insurance and more people claiming benefits, which is not helpful.
For my money, the person with the best grasp of the nation's finances and a gentle, persuasive manner to go with it is Vince Cable.George Osborne reminds me too much of the hare and his approach does not sit well with the unions.The Conservatives need to be careful that their abrasive, "tough love" way of doing things does not let Labour in by the back door.
Complain about this comment
There is a mood at the moment that suggests we "punish" all those who were employed in, or involved in, the credit crisis as if that would be good for the country, the economy and salve our concsiences. This is very negative and dangerous. We have to do everthing we can to encourage the wealth creators because as before - and Labour knows this well from history - there will be a flight of all these people out of the country. That includes both individuals and companies.
If an employee in any sector has performed extraordinarily well in his/her work then it should be perfectly possible to pay them a bonus - and the larger the better provided it reflects the business achieved. Don't forget one of the largest contributors of income tax to the exchequer is the City of London.
We MUST get away from this idea that bonuses are bad. They are NOT. What is bad is where bonuses are "guaranteed" regardless and where the performance is so short lived as to have no measurable benefit to the operation in the future. To that end it ought to be quite possible to make bonuses of a pre-determined level payable over, say,a 36 month period.
ALL the blame to my mind rests with those staff who determined the RISK in the lending function incorrectly - both internally and in the rating agencies.
Let's now get on with re-creating a truly dynamic and thrusting City of London.
Complain about this comment
Robert -- rather a lot of updates. Perhaps it would be smart in future to get the facts right before you write the blog rather than trying to do a "Nick Robinson" political statement [ ie all fluff and no substance ].
Complain about this comment
Robert,
The markets seem to be calling the end of the dollar as the sanctuary currency. Is this likely to happen?
What is going to replace it?
What would it mean for our financial sector, and also our exports etc?
Complain about this comment
George Osborne has at least given the Electorate the truth.
Whether or not the Tories will be able to do everything that they want if they get in to power remains to be seen - however they are far more realistic than the present Government who have no idea as to how to deal with the problems that it has created.
Also - a note to Dependable Dennis who posted earlier - where have you been for the last ten years or so when this Labour Government has made the poor poorer; the middle classes poorer and the rich much, much richer!
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
The PM's salary may seem like a reasonable benchmark for public sector pay but our last three Prime Minister's have made millions on retirement from speech making and appearances. Not an opportunity available to the rest of us. Then again perhaps Gordon will prove me wrong.
Complain about this comment
NEMESIS
I don't believe we are taking this seriously enough. We are in denial. Believe this! The UK can go bust with the all the destitution which would be the consequence. The world will watch in horrified fascination as this once great and proud country ends up like a old tramp in the gutter. Will they help? I doubt it. It has been self-inflicted and they have enough of their own worries to look after.
George Osborne and David Cameron know this and Alistair Darling probably knows this.
THE CUPBOARD IS BARE. We had the good times and blew it all. The money is gone. We are ruined.
Other country's attitudes have been shaped by the depictions of British drunks who behave atrociously at international football tournaments or at foreign holiday resorts. Our PR is lousy. We are at rock bottom on the scale of deserving.
It's no use going on strike in protest. Who wants what the UK has to offer? It's not very much. We had better get real and soon. The world does not owe us a living.
Complain about this comment
So really, what Osborne is saying is that he won't actually cut the bankers pay. Everything is not a firm pledge. So really we will have the typical Tory government. Protect their wealthy friends and everyone else will get screwed.
Complain about this comment
@ 145. At 08:20am on 07 Oct 2009, Barnabas wrote:
... "ALL the blame to my mind rests with those staff who determined the RISK in the lending function incorrectly - both internally and in the rating agencies."
No you're entirely wrong, because in fact the HBOS risk manager who warned of excessive risk taking prior to the credit crunch was sacked for having the temerity to speak up - see this Daily Telegraph article for confirmation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4582535/Senior-HBOS-executive-sacked-for-warning-of-banking-crisis.html
This is because in a culture of profiteering the messenger will always be shot for saying the party can't go on.
In a political atmosphere where all eyes are directed to the bottom line only, you are never going to look up even for a moment and see the tidal wave on the horizon that's shortly going to obliterate you.
Complain about this comment
Are public sector employees allowed to retire at age 55/60 and take a pension that is paid by the taxpayer, and at the same time take another job ? Surely hard on those stuck with a state pension that will not be accessible until they reach the age of 66 and to those leaving university and are unable to find work. Surely state pensions and pensions paid by the state should be bound by the same conditions.
Complain about this comment
59. At 4:33pm on 06 Oct 2009, AudenGrey wrote:
Gordon Brown is basically a dead duck, but I must admit, the the Tories are looking 'dafter by the day'
You know if they get rid of Brown, Labour could still win another term.
I think we'll end up with the 'least loser' of the next election - there won't be any winners as not more than 50% of the country will bother to vote for the expenses skimming scumbags.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a lot of people making the arguement that "it`s not fair to blame the public servants" and "why should they have to pay".
I'm not blaming the rank and file workers in the public service one bit for what`s gone on but everyone in this country has to wake and face the reality of the situation that UK Plc is in.
Public servants work for the state and in our case the state is broke!
Innocent people working in the Public Service have to face the same realities that innocent people in the private sector have been faced with for the past 12 months. I know many people in my area who are normal working folks who have been paying their bills and getting on with their business and certainly haven't played any part in the financial crisis. That hasn't prevented them from having to go to a 3 day work week or in some cases lose their jobs altogether.
why should those in the public sector be any different?
If the worse they have to suffer is a 12 month pay freeze than I think they have not done so bad - millions of other low paid workers in the private sector who have lost their jobs would snap your hand off in a second if you could offer them the same.
The long and the short of it is that the public sector is too big and too expensive for what the country can afford. This "not fair" arguement is rubbish. Since when has life been fair? If we all lived in a fair society things would be a hell of a lot different in 2009 than what they are!
Complain about this comment
63. At 4:49pm on 06 Oct 2009, hurrahforhedge wrote:
"Slightly off topic, but, Writingsonthewall, whilst I do enjoy reading your two pennies worth (with the hints of sarcasm and large doses of pessimism), I am curious to know what you did with your life before this financial meltdown occurred, and how have you not been sacked for not doing anything except writing on blogs?"
If you were an avid follower then you would know that I work in the city - I am highly paid and don't actually do any work - didn't you realise that's how the system works?
I am simply a parasite on society - as are my colleagues around me. Whilst I realise I am calling for my own desctruction I know the difference between wrong and right.
Unfortunately this is an uncommon view here.
Ps - I am not pessimistic, but realistic. Only time will tell if I am right about the predictions I make - however like all good Economists I have a list of reasons why I might have got it wrong!
Complain about this comment
DoctorQuelch #149
I wish you would stop using your invisible ink for your blog.
Or is this another form of moderation and censorship?
Complain about this comment
70. At 4:56pm on 06 Oct 2009, NorthernThatcherite wrote:
"It's time the public sector shared the pain.......but the things is George hasn't gone far enough!"
Oh is that how it is in your world? Who lost the future income of the country gambling on future production - was it the public sector?
How do you reconcile the 'sharing of the pain' with Thatchers libertarian views? Surely if liberty is the highest prize then you couldn't advocate impacting the liberty of the public sector by making them pay for someone elses mistake (or in the case of bankers - their Liberty).
You see folks this is the conumdrum which the Tory party cannot explain. They are all for individual liberty - which sounds reasonable - until you see reasoning like NorthernThatcherite where he is stating his liberty is more important than that of the public sector worker.
Even though I don't work for the public sector (and never have) I am not so selfish as to expect them to pay for the mistakes of the private sector (it's called responsibility for your actions).
What NorthernThatcherite has conveniently omitted is that his 100% wages in 2007 was probably 5 times that of a public sector worker and whilst the loss off earnings is huge (80%) - it probably doesn't compare to average P.S.W.
Tell me NorthernThatcherite, if I gamble my weeks wages on a horse tomorrow and loose, should I ask you for the money?
That is what you are expecting the public sector to do.
Complain about this comment
There's little need for the sorts of arbitary panic measures Osbourne proposes. That's because our government debt burden is set to be a lot less than we had in 1997, when we paid out 5.2% of national income in interest just to sustain government debts mostly accumulated by Thatcher and Major governments. Interest that's nearly half as much again higher than the highest estimate for 2012 (3.6% of GDP). We didn't panic then, so why the theatricals now?
Moreover, panic measures that create further unemployment may satisfy Osbourne's desire for vengance, but will also cut demand for goods & services and push us back into recession. And even higher debts like Osbourne's predecessors accumulated in the 1980s.
Top tier public officials are paid way to much anyway, and grab disproportionately large slices of public pension funds. Why not set their ceiling as no higher than the US Federal Reserve pays its chairman? That's £121k pa - and quite enough for Ben or anyone else.
Complain about this comment
Writesonthewall... Do you know anything at all about basic economics? Or do you just spout tribalistic soundbites you've picked up along the way. Lets run through your complaints from the last Tory government. I'll be very interested to see if you bother to respond to reasoned argument...
Interest rates @ 15% - Interest rates are directly related to the coupon paid on national debt aka government bonds. When your debt is high and risky, higher coupons will be required to attract people to buy the debt. It's a pretty simple thing to get your head around, to invest in higher risk requires higher reward to make it viable. We were on the brink of disaster last time around when Labour had pushed us to the IMF and that is why rates were this high - otherwise we would have got no investment, would have defaulted on our national debt and would have been in a lot more trouble besides. This time around is going to be worse. The only reason it isn't already is because Gordon Brown keeps printing new money and using it to buy government debt which is high risk and pays out nothing. In the next few years, we will either enter hyper-inflation through continued printing of money, or we will have to bunk up our interest rates accordingly to attract foreign investment.
Mortgage payments taking up 75% of monthly earnings - It's going to be a hell of a lot worse this time around I assure you. 30 years ago a mortgage generally had a large deposit paid on it and represented no more than double or treble anyone's salary. Under the last 12 years of Labour government people have been encouraged to buy property with no deposit on 5-8 times their earnings. This was actively encouraged by Brown and Blair and when mortgage rates shoot up people simply will not be able to afford their houses. But what is the alternative? Keep interest rates low, default on government debt and essentially become reliant on IMF handouts as a bankrupt nation? Yep, way to solve a crisis there.
3 million unemployed (not counting all those moved to disability benefit)- hahahaha. Are you getting Labour and Tories confused here? As we rapidly head towards the 3million mark and the Tories want to show just how many people are claiming disabilities when they don't need to be, this figure will be left for dust in the next 5 years whoever is in charge. Over 50% of our working age population rely directly on the state for their income, whether this be through benefits or employment. Income tax take home is lower than benefits claimed. The 50% tax rate will see the implementation of the Laffer Curve. Simple supply and demand dictates we can no longer exist as we are, we are heading for oblivion unless severe, direct action is taken.
A poll tax - i.e. a tax on voting. - Yes, actually being honest about punitive taxes is awful isn't it? What they should do is lie and cheat and hide any tax proposals under layers of legislation and create stealth taxes. It's a lot sweeter being ripped off when you don't get told.
A lost generation - What exactly is the current welfare state that exists? Oh, of course, it's a product of Thatcher, the last 12 years of Labour have seen the issue tackled head on and solved the problem seeing them re-integrated into society and the employment world during an unprecedented growth in our economy. Wait... whats that? They all stayed at home watching daytime telly because it was made prohibitive for them to work due to ridiculously high taxes on low rate incomes and a benefits system that sees them profit through having a number of children that can live off welfare? Ah, that'll be great.
An NHS near collapse - And despite squandering an inordinate amount of cash on it Labour look like leaving it beseiged with problems and in a fragile state. Another success story. I will not argue against the NHS as it is of huge benefit to this country, but anyone who argues Labour's management of the NHS has been a success needs to have a think about what they define as success.
Widening gap in the distribution of wealth - Again, aren't most the posts complaining about that being worse than ever now? Although I do love the fact that everyone on here seems to view the tories as the bankers party, despite the fact that it was Labour who oversaw London turning into the financial capital of the world. It was Labour who foolishly created a tripartate 'regulatory' system that essentially left everyone confused as to who was responsible and eventually resulted in all parties concerned turning a blind eye due to the wealth being 'created' (also known as 'made up'). Who exactly on here had heard of a hedge fund, of mortgage backed security and of quantitive easing before our friends in the Labour party turned up? You can't blame the Tories for a period of 12 years in opposition when the party in charge have been caught drunk at the wheel, but many of you on here are trying to.
Sleazey ministers who spent more time in womens beds than doing their jobs - at least these ministers resigned in shame. Unlike each and every Labour minister allegedly caught with their fingers in the till. Unlike Baroness Scotland, unlike Harriet Harman and her 'you know where to find me'. Please don't try and make out Tories are sleazier and smarmier than the current Labour bunch, people aren't idiots.
David Mellor - Ben Bradshaw. Harriet Harman. Gordon Brown. The list goes on and on.
Complain about this comment
74. At 5:23pm on 06 Oct 2009, supercalmdown
Very true - and well put, and have we forgotten who the REAL scroungers have been all along?
Duck island
Moat cleaning
House flipping
Marx said that in times of crisis the unemployed / immigrants and generally minorities are blamed by the Capitalists for the inevitable collapse. Once again it's true to form - strangely not picked up by the media or any members of Government.
This is what Hitler exploited to get into power......mmmmmmmmm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
78. At 5:52pm on 06 Oct 2009, supercalmdown
Excellent.
Maybe we shoudl campaign for public sector workers to receive comparable bonuses to the city.
I put a lot of the attitude shown by some down to adoration of 'their betters' - however if you are astute enough you will know that actually there are no 'betters' and that people who claim to be geniuses are very often the exact opposite. Only sheep assume that highly paid people are better than they are - the rest of us find out and come to the opposite conclusion.
No-one ever questions why bankers were ever entitled to such huge bonuses in the first place - if the media actually dug into it they would realise how simple the job is (in fact Peston has commented a similar sentiment on his previous life as a trader) and in fact the bonuses come from the 'tax' applied to the movement and use of money - something which we struggle to live without.
I've said it before, if this was a genuine 'tax' then there would be uproar, but because it's taken by stealth they get away with it. We're only finding out now that the money has been taken.
Complain about this comment
I still don't think the TRUTH is out and the BBC has played its part in the deception of the facts.
The Tories cuts yesterday amounted to £7 billion per year,not a small lump of money, but considering we are spending £175billion a year that we don't have , the figure is paltry and insignificant.
The reality is to we are going to need significant pay cuts across the public services, a freeze on public employers pension contributions, mothballing of the minimum wage, a cap on public capital expenditure ie New schools, Hospitals etc, withdraw from the conflict in Afghanistan (Has anyone seen the cost of this operation ??)and mothball Trident upgrade, Typhoon,aircraft carriers.
Now, not in 12 months just to stand a chance.
Even if we did all above , it would still not equal or even get close to the deficit of 2009/2010. Another factor is the interest on the UK loans, if we made savings of FIVE fold of the Tories announcements it would barely cover the INTEREST on the money we will owe by 2011/2012 !!
Gordon Brown has brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy and lets face it he has been assisted by the jellyfish mandarins in the treasury / Bank of England, who should of issued SEVERE warning notes and implications on this reckless spending and the media. In particular the BBC.
As the BBC are the largest (Only) independent broadcaster they should of been far more challenging to Darlings forecast in Nov 2008 that the UK could take on £1000 billion in debt in order to ride out the recession. It was obvious at the time it was a brainless plan and not something a small company would do neither mind a country, with millions of dependent's, who depend on the government for food and warmth. The California example could of been used to demonstrate the cut backs that would be required, highlighting the fact the UK public services are far more developed thus the cuts will be far more deep.
All the above have been highlighted over numerous posts by numerous people ,so there is no salvation in hindsight. The government and the establishment knew what they were doing 12 months ago .
Robert you are wrong, it will be the POOR not the RICH who will pay the price for Labours deceit and dishonesty ,the rich are insulated from above, they have assets, bank accounts, the poor have little and will have to accept that there present livings standards are going to be cut and cut hard...
Complain about this comment
87. At 6:18pm on 06 Oct 2009, toocleverbyhalf wrote:
"I'm fed up with references about toffs and making the rich, richer!
Margaret Thatcher gave ordinary people the right to buy their
council houses. A lot of them have made a lot of money."
....and therein she sowed the seeds of the housing boom which led to the crash which left more people unemployed than when she started and forced her to try and implement a tax on voting - last tried in Feudal times.
Can you explain the consequences of selling all those council houses? let me help you - it meant larger housing waiting lists for the homeless and much bigger costs for local Government who now have to rebuild and find new properties at inflated costs.
She certainly was a good magician - moved all the costs associated with the selling of homes into the future where we wouldn't find them until years after. A model since followed by the banks.
toocleverbyhalf? - ho ho ho. don't you mean halfcleverbytool
Complain about this comment
One final point for now, Writings... Whose decision was it to bail the banks out? Labour, once again. The Libertarian view would be to let them go to the wall. That way no public money would have been touched. No one knows what would have happened as a result, it would have been grim but it would have been immediate, it would have taken out a significant number of bloated financial firms and put us back a long way but we would have been starting with a clean slate. All that squandering public money has done is left us waiting for that to run out so the cycle can kick off again. You seem to assume anyone with right leaning Libertarian tendancies wanted the bail out - that's not the case.
Complain about this comment
88. At 6:35pm on 06 Oct 2009, toocleverbyhalf wrote:
"The person that remembers interest rates at 15% under the last tory
government, should reflect on the reasons:
Elected shortly after the previous labour government virtually
bankrupted the country. Dennis Healey running to the IMF for a bailout.
There has never been a labour administration that leaves the economy
in a better state than when they found it."
I don't know what version of history you've been reading but that's not exactly accurate is it.
Dennis Healey was no more in control of the Economy than any other chancellor has been in history. If you look at what the Tories did when Thatcher arrived it was simply to create a 'distraction bubble' in the housing market (through the sale of council homes at reduced prices and the removal of the MIRAS tax) to give the impression they had fixed the Economy.
That bubble eventually burst and that led to the 1990's recession.
....or have you conveniently forgotten that?
Maybe you are simply a product of Tory spending cuts in education.
Complain about this comment
Why not get the money back off the banks and bankers who are still making enourmous profits and paying/collecting massive bonuses and pensions. Why not get the money back off the banks/building socieites who loaned ridiculous amounts of money to people in the 80's and 90's to 'buy' houses. Why not cap Private sector rents as well, or re-direct some of that 'unearnt' money back into the public purse. Fat chance... because some people actualy believe that these things are 'right and proper'... like the Tories and Labour. Thou shalt know them by their deeds (and then conveniently forget the past).
Complain about this comment
What the posters compaining about private sector pay cuts are forgetting are the good times and bonuses they were happy to rake in during the good times.
Public sector pay has always (like for like) lagged badly behind the private sector. Having never received any 'bonus' during my career and miniscule pay rises which were overyurned by the governments so called independent pay board I'm not willing to "take the blame" as I wasn't invited to the trough of greed.
I cant believe the British people are being taken in my Cameron et al. It's the Tories cronies that got us into this mess in the first place
Complain about this comment
Just a quick note to all above who think the public services are getting an unfair deal. The bottom line is all public services are paid by taxes.The tax take in the UK has fallen off a cliff. No matter how hard you work or super you are, if there is no money coming in you can't be paid.
Raising taxes does not mean you will get more tax take...
This YEAR the government will spend over £175 billion it does not have ,divide this by a salary of £30,000 and see what number you get...
Its 5,833,333 jobs
Now tell me we can keep spending,the government has no assets if we can't borrow the money, you won't get paid within 3 months....
It's not fair but it is where we are...
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall wrote:
"That bubble eventually burst and that led to the 1990's recession. "
True... but the Tories got the country through that recession through discipline in financial control, including imposing high interest rates (which actually were for a very short time) and control in public spending.
Labour shadow chancellor at the time, John Smith, may have told the 'truth' going into the 1992 election, but this isn't what lost Labour that election. Then, as now, the country trusts the Conservatives to have more competence in dealing with major problems in the economy than Labour, as Labour has no self-control in public spending and no self-discipline in realizing the need to curtail their experiments in social engineering.
Complain about this comment
If you cannot get a tax cut out of the Tories there is no point in voting Tory. That's what they are for.
Here we go, it's 1980 again.
And it looks as though ,if the Tories get elected by sad Little Englanders, Mad George would like to bring on another depression, talking the economy and the public down and dis-incentivising anyone who with the misfortune to be a public servant or a business runner under the Tories.
And if you are a woman, you'll have to work until you are 66.
Also we would see huge interest rate rises and more industrial and business decline under these Tory amnesiac slashers, who forget what a hash they made of Britain in the 80s and 90s .
Suddenly Labour seem a better bet.
And thank goodness the Tories were not in power when the crunch hit.....we would be in a much worse state.
No way should anyone vote for these Tory miseryguts.
We need vision and confidence ,not demolition and pessimism.
And for all of his lack of pzazz and polish, Gordon understands what is needed better than anyone in opposition.
Complain about this comment
93. At 7:18pm on 06 Oct 2009, jimickie
What nonsense.
"Without entrepreneurs there is no invention and creation"
So what was Alexander Graham Bell, Einstein, James Watt etc - were they all entrepenuers?
Name one entrepenuer that actually 'invented' something - except inventing new ways of exploiting labour.
When man invented the wheel - was there an 'ug-entrepenuer to make sure it was taken on? or maybe that was a successful invention that didn't need 'marketing'.
There is a great fantasy that entrepenuers somehow 'make wealth' - but considering wealth is only 'created' by the application of labour - and entrepenuers purchase that labour (and don't do it themselves) then they are simply re-organising the wealth the labour produced. Each time they do this successfully they keep a slice which they then use to organise some more labour later. The bigger the organisation the bigger the slice - hence expansion.
.....or maybe you can explain how wealth is created without man's intervention of labour. I'd like to hear it.
If I removed all the entrepenuers in the world tomorrow - would we all sit around in the dark until we died? I know I wouldn't and nor would millions of others.
The problem is some people cannot see past the motivation of greed and assume this is somehow a good thing.
"It is right that the entrepreneur who has such a positive impact on others should be rewarded for their effort – as it is through the choice of others who want what he can provide that he earns his wealth"
What effort? What does the entrepenuer do other than give permission for his / her accumulated wealth to be used to produce.
...and best of all - who governs the 'reward' for the 'effort' (which I presume you mean risk) - how did the bankers assess the risk and consequently reward themselves fairly?
Some people are destined to a life of slavery.
It's LABOUR that makes wealth - there isn't a good or service sold in the world which has not been touched by LABOUR.
This is why air is currently free - but as soon as it need purifying it will cost money (because labour is involved).
Untreated water is free (from a stream) but water that has been cleaned and delivered to your tap (through labour) is not.
It's not rocket surgery - you need to stop reading texts from books and start thinking for yourself.
Complain about this comment
171 - you hit the nail on the head.
w/r the bonuses paid for by private firms to private sector employees during the good times - this was due to the revenue the firms were making. Also, not everyone in the private sector gets a huge bonus each year despite what you may believe. Median private sector salary is lower than median public sector salary, the mean is massively skewed by 1 or 2% of the highest private sector earners. Don't foist their wealth on everyone else out there working far harder hours than those in the public sector, without a union to depend on, no flexitime and 4 weeks a year statutory holiday.
Complain about this comment
"Osborne's remarks will reverberate through the public sector and the private sector", quite right. Think how this will effect the recovery. People who have some disposable income, at the moment, may stop spending it, and save it for the hard times ahead, if Mr Osbourne becomes Chancellor. This will certainly not help the fragile recovery we are experiencing at the moment. Cuts are quite inappropriate until employment recovers, which will not be for at least 5 years. So why talk about them now.
The idea that the government might default on the repayment of its bonds is a quite ridiculous scare story. These bonds are repayable in sterling, so if necessary the Treasury can tell the Bank of England to create extra sterling by means of more QE. This in normal times could cause inflation, but unless and until the private banks start lending as freely as they did before the credit crunch, inflation is unlikely to be a problem.
Interest payments to the BOE revert back to the Treasury in the profits of the nationally owned Bank.
Chancellors and prospective Chancellors must be careful what they say. They must resist the temptation to say things damaging to the economy, for party political reasons. Mr Osbourne has failed miserably.
Complain about this comment
Writingsonthewall
A quick trawl through this blog reveals the usual crop of partially informed conspiracy theorists railing about the ever-shady THEM, plus public sector types aghast at having to join the rest of the country in tightening their belt. The fact that so many seem to have the time to opine endlessly all afternoon on their faux-doomster predictions illustrates precisely where all those efficiency savings could come from!
I've not had a pay increase in two years and neither has anyone else I know. But I don't mind because if I had intended to become some sort of leftie flat-earther I too would have failed my A Levels and got a job in local government. The public sector simply has to be required to join the rest of us and not expect constant pay-rises for doing the same job whilst looking forwards to a guaranteed final salary pension. George Osborne has made the sensible and just decision not to include the lowest paid but the rest should not expect to be featherbedded through this crisis.
Complain about this comment
Robert wrote:
"Or do they pay what George Osborne has signalled as the new maximum - viz £197,689 (actually presumably it's a bit less than that, since the Tories would impose a pay cut on all ministers)?
But if a newly recruited boss of Royal Mail, or the BBC or the Bank of England were paid less than £200,000 a year, surely all his or her more junior colleagues would also have to see their pay slashed?"
I think £197,689 per annum is a perfectly reasonable salary. If someone will be the PM for that (with the possibility of being cast out of their job within 5 years) then I see no any argument at all for higher salaries in any of the other positions you list.
'No one will do it for that!' I can see mandarins arguing. Really? I'll do it for that - and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other perfectly capable people in the country (not that I'm arguing that I fall into that category!) who would!
Complain about this comment
115. At 10:39pm on 06 Oct 2009, random_thought wrote:
"Maybe I phrased that badly. Perhaps I should have said that I feel that risk-taking and profit motive are over-rated as drivers for innovation. Also that we need to encourage R&D in existing companies as much as encouraging new start-ups."
random_thought - I think you're being hard on yourself. Of course entrepenuers are overrated - that's why they earn so much for doing relatively little.
If I invent something tomorrow which is brilliant why am I then restricted as to finding someone to invest in it in order to make sure everyone uses it?
The answer is because of uneven distribution of capital. The entrepenuer has it and I don't therefore I am reliant on him to ensure it's produced. However what is his contribution to the invention? The answer is nothing.
By keeping wealth unevenly distributed it ensures that inventors have to go cap in hand to those with the wealth - allowing them to take a cut and thereby further increase their wealth (and the uneven distribution of it).
Even if you leave that aside - is entrepenuership efficient anyway? The entrepenuer will only invest in an item which he thinks will further enhance his wealth - not what is good for society.
Hence so many items on sale which are bad for society and the environment - these are no considerations in their assessment of what is worth investing in or not.
Hence the heavy investment in drink, cigarettes and petrol driven cars.
Most people would be happy to drive an alternative to petrol driven vehicle - but because there is less profit in it for the entrepenuer there are very few choices about.
If we continue to drive our successes based on profit motive then we shall surely destory society and possibly the planet too.
Complain about this comment
126. At 00:47am on 07 Oct 2009, SpartacusmartyrAAAs wrote:
"The "highly paid CEO tallent" running local authorities, for the most part went along with the IDEA OF INVESTING council tax receipts IN ICELANDIC BANKS,no doubt the extra half percent interest translated into a substantial performance related bonus for them and their croniease ."
...after they took advice from PRIVATE SECTOR financial advisors who suggested Iceland as a 'safe bet'.
Complain about this comment
#53. truths33k3r wrote:
"25 - yes, individual liberty is a minority view."
Wanting to see the end of income tax and the minimum wage and, by logical extension, the end of collective responsibility for the care and well-being of the underprivileged and disadvantaged in society is more than just a desire for individual liberty. It is selfish, heartless cruelty.
Complain about this comment
156. At 09:51am on 07 Oct 2009, jd6969preston wrote:
"Innocent people working in the Public Service have to face the same realities that innocent people in the private sector have been faced with for the past 12 months."
...but why? Public sector workers have not been faced with the same pay as private sector workers for the last 10 years.
The deal is this (in case you were asleep in your careers advice at school)
Public sector = low pay but increased job security (esepcially in recession)
Private sector = higher pay but much reduced job security.
What some private sector numskulls expect is:
Private sector = Higher pay + more job security
Public sector = Lower pay similar job security
Is that fair? I don't think so - but then what do the private sector employees know about being fair - they've all expereinced 'performance reviews'!
Complain about this comment
169 UKblabblabblab
Have you ever heard of the expression "we are where we are". It makes implicit that fact that we can point fingers in all directions but it makes precisely no difference to getting out of this mess.
I am personally disgusted by the behaviour of some bankers and hedge funds and the way in which they are remunerated but they do represent a small part of the financial sector. Banks that have got through the crisis without recourse to public support are legitimate businesses and you can't decide to penalise them on a whim! What's the charge? Those that have been reckless and required public bailouts will have to pay that money back...something that is already happening under the government's preference share arrangements, and excessive bonuses and pay must be curbed in those cases.
It is fundamentally dishonest to apportion all the blame on the banks. It's like blaming the heroin problem on farmers in Afghanistan. It takes demand...demand that comes from ordinary people who believed that they could have it all...now! Sure once the demand becomes established then market forces will move swiftly to fill that vacuum, hence the explosion in institutions happy to lend out all that cheap money created by Chinese people working for a dollar a day. So we end up blaming the pusher rather than our own weakness...convenient but not true.
If you were to look around you could see many other drivers behind the crisis...a media that showcases impossibly glamorous lifestyles...a growth in a secularism that sees no virtue in thrift, future heaven or paradise, only empty material gratification now...the deliberate targeting of children by marketing departments...politicians selling material Nirvana for no extra effort...the lack of real growth opportunities in the UK market beyond a vacuous shopping culture. In a nutshell we have all contributed to this mess and George Osborne had the temerity to say so and for that alone I salute him.
The crisis is a generational opportunity for all the clapped-out class warriors of yesteryear to renew their syrupy blame game, but the real irony for these "champions of the people" is that the crisis is the creation of the "people" themselves. Irritating but true!
Complain about this comment
161. At 10:05am on 07 Oct 2009, pubatron
1) I think we're talking about different periods mate - I am talking about the period of high interest rates under Major's government in order to prevent stagflation (or in case you didn't know at the time the Tories were adamant that inflation was the biggest problem not unemployment). At that point there had not been a Labour Govt. for 16 years!
2) You nicely put the blame at Gordon's door - are you forgetting that the crisis was a banking one and not a Government one? Did you also forget that it was a Tory Government which de-regulated the city which contributed to this mess? - sure Labour stupidly followed it - but I am not defending them.
3) "30 years ago a mortgage generally had a large deposit paid on it and represented no more than double or treble anyone's salary."
...and under the last Tory Government this increase to 5 times salary and the concept of PEP mortgages were invented (I know because I had one) - which contributed to the housing boom and therefore the collapse.
4) You seem to think I am defending Labour - which I am certainly not. As far as I am concerned there is no difference between Labour and Tory economic policy - it's all designed to ensure wage slavery in the future as more and more public sector wealth is diverted to private sector hands. An ever decreasing number of people own an ever increasing propotion of our lives.
As most of your points seem to be comparing Labour to Tory policy I won't bother responding - you're probably right, but I don't actually care because neither party has anything other than their own interests at heart. If you believe one party does then more fool you.
P.s. if you want me to list off sleazy Tories I could fill the rest of this blog. For people to claim they are the better alternative is a joke. Maybe you didn't notice the biggest offenders in the expenses scams were Tories - or that some of them still havene't resigned. Or maybe I should simply point out that the 'Tory mayor' has just lost another deputy who admitted corruption in court yesterday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8292796.stm
If you took those blue spectacles off for a minute you might realise that you've spent your whole life as a conduit for others to exploit - as have the rest of us - but the difference is we don't admire those who are exploiting us where as you seem to.
Complain about this comment
Osborne had been challenged by Gordon Brown and his stooges to flesh out what is the Tory intention as to public sector cuts.
In so doing they have rather foolishly allowed Osborne to set the mood music for the coming debates. Osborne has met that challenge with a very constructive set of proposals.
Public sector pay restraint will not effect the low paid in the public service of which there are many, but will tend to focus its limitations at the higher end. This should have already happened anyway. A pay freeze for everyone else on the public payroll for one year is nothing. This often happens in the private sector so where's the beef?
Osborne has put a set of proposals forward which augurs a return to One Nation Conservatism. I can see dear old Willie Whitelaw smiling down from the firmament!
To my mind Osborne does not go far enough. I think the state is far too big, far too bloated and utterly incompetent. I am not going to set out the flags as I am no Tory. I give the guy E for effort. It is a good start but this is also time for the Mighty Bureaucrats to be cast down from their seat. For the meek to inherit will take a little longer and that is not a Tory preserve.
Complain about this comment
167. At 10:21am on 07 Oct 2009, pubatron
Well I agree that the bailout was wrong, but at the same time can you cite an economy in the world (at any point in history) which has been able to handle the complete implosion of the entire financial system?
At that point surely 'public money would have to be touched' in order to pay the police force to quell the rioters or to buy food to feed the hungry.
I think the thundering sound of hungry and homeless people coming up your street might change your mind about letting the banking system go to the wall (and due to the intricate cross holdings of banks these days it would have been the entire financial system not just a few banks)
The real issue is that whilst the choice to bailout may have been the 'best of the worst options' it doesn't explain why it wasn't seen coming and why they are still doing very little to avoid the next catastrophic event. Both parties are in complete denial and whichever one wins the next election they will be taking us down a very bad road.
Complain about this comment
172. At 10:41am on 07 Oct 2009, the_fatcat
Spoken like a true 'Jack' - are you alright?
Obviously you weren't on the 'wrong end' of the recession which the 'Tories helped us through'.
I seem to recall they 'helped us get through' by destroying the industries that would have got us out of recession (manufacturing for example)
Thanks for the help getting us out of the mess that you got us into Tory boys.
I would also point out that nobody has ever been in control of the Economy - if you haven't worked that out by now then you need to start looking through history and see who has been able to prevent recession - Labour, Tory - or neither.
Complain about this comment
175. At 10:46am on 07 Oct 2009, pubatron wrote:
"w/r the bonuses paid for by private firms to private sector employees during the good times - this was due to the revenue the firms were making."
-- And that revenue came from where? If you look carefully the bankers took an advance from the gamble of predicted future growth. When the growth didn't happen the hole needed plugging and all the bankers had disappeared leaving the tax payer to fill the gap. Haven't you been paying attention?
"Also, not everyone in the private sector gets a huge bonus each year despite what you may believe. Median private sector salary is lower than median public sector salary, the mean is massively skewed by 1 or 2% of the highest private sector earners."
-- this is true and yet merely a demonstration of how there are always some private sector workers who need to eat and allow themselves to be exploited in order to fill that need, or the deluded who think that they can 'achieve the dream' by working 18 hours a day.
"Don't foist their wealth on everyone else out there working far harder hours than those in the public sector, without a union to depend on, no flexitime and 4 weeks a year statutory holiday."
-- Without a union???? there used to be private sector unions but a one Mrs T made sure they were all beut destroyed. Don't drag your bleeding heart story here and claim 'poor private sector workers' - it's simply not true. You have a choice - go and work in the public sector if it's all so great - ah but no, you want private sector rewards and public sector job security - it's called having your cake and eating it.
Complain about this comment
177. At 10:49am on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
What you are saying would be fine if it was in isolation - however you seem to forget the reason 'we must all take a pay cut' is because of the complete failure of a section of the PRIVATE sector.
P.s.
"The fact that so many seem to have the time to opine endlessly all afternoon on their faux-doomster predictions illustrates precisely where all those efficiency savings could come from!"
If you're referring to me - I work in the private sector and have done all my life - there are just as many lightweights, lazy and useless people in the private sector as in the public - and to imply public sector workers are failed A-level students is extremely arrogant and factually incorrect.
Still, getting your facts right was never really a concern of the private sector employee - so long as you can blame someone else for your mistakes - right?
Complain about this comment
183. At 11:20am on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
...but the bankers were the 'experts' in this situation - why do you want to spread the blame to the non-experts (the consumers) who only thought the experts knew what they were doing and weren't over-extending themselves?
Why do people think they 'can have it all'? Don't you think it's got something to do with the constant bombardment we have through the media of idolising the rich and useless and disparaging the unfortunate? Have you ever watched the adverts in kids TV? Is it any wonder we have a society which is driven by self indulgence?
Complain about this comment
184 - The reasoning behind my assumption you are defending Labour being that you seem to think that all the issues with this country are at their root caused by Tories, reading more of your posts it actually appears that you couple the Tory party with the Private Sector and you have major grievances with the private sector. The quoting of Marxism also tends to give an idea of your political leanings.
1) Rates under Major dropped from 15% when he took power to 5.5% by the end of 1993. Bit of an unfair charge to put against him.
2) The government debt has not single handedly been caused by a banking crisis. Borrowed from post 76 above:
1) Unfunded State pensions
2) Unfunded Civil servant pensions
3) Unfunded Nucular clean up bill
4) Off book PFI debt
5) Gap between day to day goverment spending and tax receipts
6) Unsecured Loans to Student Loan Company
7) Rail Track Garantees
Exactly what were these to do with the financial industry?
We could also fall back on our gold reserve to help us now that gold has reached a new record high. No, wait, we can't.
3) 12 years of another government not only living with the housing bubble but actively promoting and increasing it.
4) I've not voted Tory since I was 18 years old which is sadly a very long time ago. I am your traditional floating voter. Whilst I certainly do not think the current Tory Party represent any sort of truly viable alternative, what they do offer is something different to the current bunch who have categorically, in my eyes, proved themselves as incapable. If the Lib Dems offered a truly Liberal Party such as their recent coalition forming sister party in Germany I would be voting for them like a shot. Politically I think we probably share similar outlooks to those parties in charge, however your classist, anti business outlook isn't for turning. You try and argue this from an economic outlook but your knowledge appears limited at best. Politicise this debate as much as you like, the simple economics dictate that we're all going to suffer. Yes, some rich may be protected but we cannot just go and loot them because they legally made profit during the good times. The public sector cannot carry on regardless as there is nothing left to pay them with. Keep increasing their wage, those in the private sector who are hit with the taxes will go elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
To all those partisan about 'i'm in the private sector and public sector is getting more!' and vice versa, if the grass seems greener on the other side, MOVE! If you think you are getting a raw deal in the public sector, move to the private sector. There's nothing stopping you.
As for Brown vs Osborne, well, Brown is all smoke and mirrors waving his hands _without saying anything_ that would _displease anyone. Osborne sprouting spin _saying everything_ to try and _please everyone_.
I can't trust either of them, but at least I'd know when Osborne does something to break his promises, while Brown I wouldn't have a clue where he is going or promising.
Osborne talks the good talk, do we trust him to do the walk?
Complain about this comment
-- Without a union???? there used to be private sector unions but a one Mrs T made sure they were all beut destroyed. Don't drag your bleeding heart story here and claim 'poor private sector workers' - it's simply not true. You have a choice - go and work in the public sector if it's all so great - ah but no, you want private sector rewards and public sector job security - it's called having your cake and eating it.
Hahaha, I love the way you're coming up with gems such as "Still, getting your facts right was never really a concern of the private sector employee - so long as you can blame someone else for your mistakes - right?" when someone is assuming something of you, whilst the above is a blatant assumption upon others. I have a job in a small firm, in which i own equity and in which my job is relatively secure. I work good hours and do well for myself. I have also worked in the public sector, spent my time surrounded by alcoholics and misfits spending their days making coffee and chatting about the weather. I know where I would rather be and I'm happy with the risk involved. It is the public sector who wish to have their cake and eat it in the form of continuous pay rises when no money is available for these pay rises to be made. You agree with me that other than 1-2% of the private sector the pay between private and public is relatively equal in your above post so how can you at the same time argue those in the public sector deserve greater pay rises and better job security? You're contradicting yourself. People don't want to move to the public sector as they want to work for someone other than the state and wish to have more control / input into their working life by working with small / medium sized firms rather than a big beaurocratic machine. Is that really so hard to get your head around?
Complain about this comment
Why can't some people actually listen to what was said in the speech and take it for what it was - as Robert Peston has corrently pointed out - George Osborne is actually showing what real Conservatism is about, looking after the vulnerable in society and finding innovative ways out of this incredibly difficult situation rather than simply finding new ways of telling the same old lies about labour investment verses tory cuts that Brown kept trotting out until he was shown to be fibbing (again).
The real problem that this Conservative govt will have is down to the fact that, yet again, they will have to clear up the mess caused by a Labour party that (under Gordon Brown's management, let's not forget) thought that the debt-fueled boom would last forever - who ever heard of having a 10 year long party with no hang-over at the end of it?!? Duuuuh! They were so in thrall to the money that they completely lost their bearings. That is what Brown's lagacy will be.
The Torys do however have an impage problem, I agree, which is down to the behaviour of their ministers the last time they got in, so they have to convince people that they are not the same. I happen to believe them and wish them a fair wind in sorting out the country.
Complain about this comment
@159 Writing
"Tell me NorthernThatcherite, if I gamble my weeks wages on a horse tomorrow and loose, should I ask you for the money?
That is what you are expecting the public sector to do."
I'm afraid you have this backwards. We don't expect the public sector to cover the losses of the private sector. It's simply a fact that the private sector and private individuals cannot afford to finance such a large and expensive public sector any more.
To correct you analogy -
It's like saying if you gamble your weeks wages on a horse tomorrow, you'll have to tell your cleaner not to come this week because you can't afford to pay him.
Complain about this comment
#174 writingsonthewall
"It's LABOUR that makes wealth - there isn't a good or service sold in the world which has not been touched by LABOUR."
This is the old chicken and egg conundrum. Surely you are not suggesting that wealth is created by labour alone, without the added catalyst of the entreprenuer? I agree that wealth cannot be created without labour, but jobs are certainly not created without the invovement of the entreprenuer who generally is prepared to risk all his or her accumulated assets (often time after time)in order to get a business off the ground. I venture to suggest that there are very few people working in either the public or private sector who would be prepared to do this, especially in these uncertain times.
Jobs and therefore spending power and taxes (to pay for the public sector) will only be created by the risk-taking entrprenuer. We are fragile breed on the verge of extinction and as an essential catalyst to change we should be cherished and encouraged!
Complain about this comment
189 Writisinthepost
I'm sure that your A Levels are just peachy. If you really do work in the private sector (not some bought out Council operation where you hang on under TUPE arrangements) you must either be a senior manager in a company not doing any business at the moment, or you must expect to be sacked any moment as you clearly have nothing constructive to do.
190
A neat debating trick...all you did was take my own suggestions for the wider causes of the financial crisis and rebadge them as your own!!! That's called "stealing someone else's clothes"...which gives me the answer! You're a member of the New Labour policy machine. A bit stumped for ideas at the moment but conforming to type by pinching other people's ideas just like in 1997.
Complain about this comment
Labour v Conservative
How strange that when we have so many politicians nowadays it's still the Reds against the Blues.
We have Parliament, Scottish Parliament, The Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies, the House of (decaying) Lords, The European Parliament and God only knows how many local government departments.
I can not remember anyone of these sharp dudes noticing before Northern Rock took a tumble, that the world was on the verge of financial meltdown......not really worth their wages when you think about it.
Complain about this comment
@182 writingsonthewall
"The deal is this (in case you were asleep in your careers advice at school)
Public sector = low pay but increased job security (esepcially in recession)
Private sector = higher pay but much reduced job security."
That used to be the deal. Now the reality is that the public sector is paid just as much, has few real measures of efficiency or effort, provides a job for life regardless and is given pensions funded in perpetuity by the rest of us that the private sector no longer has access to.
If I wasn't already planning on emigrating (and I had no morals) I would be looking for a post with the state that would allow me to waste time, get a guaranteed pay rise an d a hefty pension.
Complain about this comment
This thing is so serious that a coalition government is needed to do the brutal but necessary things.
Bet the population of Argentina never imagined that it would happen to them.
Complain about this comment
#188 - writingsonthewall wrote:
"You have a choice - go and work in the public sector if it's all so great - ah but no, you want private sector rewards and public sector job security - it's called having your cake and eating it."
What a truly ridiculous comment.
Even with the massive expansion of the public sector under labour there are only so many public sector jobs, and many of these are filled by people who have been there for years keeping taking the money for doing outdated and inefficient roles and resisting any change unless they're paid more.
And who pays for the public sector?
Ah yes, the private sector; its not like the public sector generate wealth or revenue for the country.
So if everyone could chose to be in the public sector, the country would be bankrupt even faster.
I wonder of pay restraint refers to just no percentage increases for particular bands or it also refers to the ridiculous and outdated practice of paying people more for doing the same job, no better and perhaps worse because they've been at that pay band for longer?
#189
And who encouraged the fake "wealth" creation of the housing asst bubble?
Yes your beloved labour government.
The situation we are currently in is not just the fault if bankers - incompetent administration by the public sector and a desire to promote an unsustainable feel good factor by politicians are also responsible for our current predicament.
Also, the banks have little to do with our underlying deficit; that's due to excessive public expenditure even in the good times.
There are separate issues, one being a (hopefully) short term "impact", the other being a systematic imbalance.
Unfortunately the banking sector offers one of our few hopes, if it recovers, ta revenue from its profits will help to prop up a hopefully more streamlined, efficient and fit for purpose, public sector in the future and given that financial services are our main "export", perhaps the much reviled banking sector will enable us top finance the import purchase of things such as fuel, computers, etc without totally devaluing sterling.
Thatcher didn't destroy British industry, greed and the global market did, the greed not being the greed of the market, but of people and the unions, wage demands and lack of flexibility meant we were massively uncompetitive. Why should anyone employ someone in Britain to work less hard, doing a job no better for vastly more than someone else in the world is prepared to do the same job? Do people deserve something for nothing, just because they're British?
We used to be a nation of engineers and craftsmen, producing the best, but the "gimme more" attitude, even for the unskilled lead to an erosion of the "job well done" mentality which combined with a resistance to moving with the times cost us so many opportunities.
Do you remember the pre-Thatcher 1970s?
Do you seriously think the country would've survived another 20 years without going bankrupt without massive change?
The unions were responsible for that mess and they, despite the somewhat blinkered approach many of their advocates may have, do prevent the public sector being more efficient. Unions constantly tying to define policy and manage the public sector is unhelpful and very much the tail wagging the dog, claiming to want the best for the service and expecting a pay off for every change is somewhat "contradictory". Then again many union reps are the laziest and most hopeless non-workers in an organisation, who use the union position to continue to be paid without having to do a proper job; and to inflate their sense of their own self importance.
Complain about this comment
Witteringonabout
"What you are saying would be fine if it was in isolation - however you seem to forget the reason 'we must all take a pay cut' is because of the complete failure of a section of the PRIVATE sector"
I can't believe that you can hold down a job! The banks who are widely blamed for the collective disaster are just a part of the "PRIVATE" (are you shouting?) sector. It would be equally true to blame the public sector who, despite a massive increase in funding since 2001 have delivered virtually nothing in terms of greater productivity.
As mentioned by others, crass attempts to politicise this mess into a tired old class war argument will get you absolutely nowhere closer to working out how we will balance the books. When creditors get scared of the UK's debt position they will either take their money away or charge punitive rates of interest (25% of government receipts are already earmarked for debt-service!!!). When that happens we could see public employees fired en-masse or simply not paid (the Zimbabwean approach)...we could see State Pensions not paid...we could see what export business we still have crippled by the freezing of export credit guarantees. It would be a disaster that would make the banking crisis of 2008 look like a minor blip!
So we follow your argument that some whiny pen-pushers must be treated as an eternal special case, insulated from reality? Great...but you'd better hope that you have a private income denominated in Euros!
Complain about this comment
# 186. writingsonthewall wrote:
"I think the thundering sound of hungry and homeless people coming up your street might change your mind about letting the banking system go to the wall "
So why would a collapse in the banking system have lead to homelessness and food riots?
Its eminently possible to allow people to remain in properties as tenants rather than bailing them out when their gamble on property speculation fails. The same kind of capitalist risk taking that you rightly criticise the banks for was being done by people over-extending on house purchases, looking to generate unearned "wealth" from rising prices. Buying the most expensive house you can and constantly trying to move up the property ladder was in many instances not buying a home but attempting to make "free" money, rather than predominantly as a home; but with tax breaks.
Perhaps homes should be subject to capital gains tax if resold within say 5 years.This might reduce speculation and you never know, people remaining in the same place might allow communities to re-form.
It is highly unlikely that the entire banking sector would have collapsed, very few banks were in a negative asset position; the problem for the country may have been more due to the loss of international confidence in the sector we rely on so heavily. The problem for the government and those who over-extended, being repossessions and the total collapse of the housing bubble (which is still pretty inflated); after all when you've based an entire economy on house price speculation, the "economic miracle" would be truly shown to be the lie it was if the underlying market returned to reality.
Stability in the banking sector could also be encouraged via a compulsory asset guarantee scheme, which by applying risk based market rates could discourage excessive risk taking.
Complain about this comment
191. At 12:05pm on 07 Oct 2009, pubatron
I don't have grievances with the Private sector - I am merely stating how it's very interesting that there are many posts claiming it's time for the Public sector to pay up - even though this is a private sector born crisis.
If this call was not being made then I wouldn't be attacking the views of the private sector - alas, due to the inherent unfariness of exploitation the private sector employees are desperate to look for a scapegoat (rather than realising - as I do - that it's our own fault)
Also it's dangerous to assume people's political leanings by the books they've read, I have read Mien Kampf (Hitler) and Liberalism (Mises) - but it doesn't make me a Fascist or an Austrian school liberal. The reason I quote Marx is because his critique of Capitalism is absolutely correct - seeing as it was 95% of what he wrote it certainly doesn't make me a Communist or 'lefty' as your mind will tell you.
1) I didn't blame Major specifically - I said 'under a Tory Government' - which there was from 1974 until 1997.
2) All those listed (whilst some controversial) - were accounted for in the budget the banking crisis was not accounted for or planned - hence it's massive impact. Most of those items listed are where the public sector has had to fill in for the failing private sector (PPI, Railtrack) - I don't agree with the idea of PPI but the reason it's gone so bad is because that's what happens if you involve the profit making motive into public services.
3) I couldn't agree more - that's my point. Neither (or any) major political party is going to anything but create the next bubble. Why? because that's all they can do. Capitalism is heading for it's final crisis and it's too late to start unwinding it all - all any politican can do it keep the thing going for slightly longer by repairing the damage caused by collapse with public money. What angers me is those who come on trying to make out that the Tories have anything new to try - which of course they don't.
4) I agreee there is no choice and no change - which is uncanny as it's the Tory party line 'Time for a change'
I think you really need to question your ideals - and in particular your sense of justice and 'right'.
"Yes, some rich may be protected but we cannot just go and loot them because they legally made profit during the good times. "
Who wrote the law that made it legal? Who uses their amasses wealth to lobby Government to change laws for their benefit?
It seems you are perhaps viewing this from your own selfish position and not from others less fortunate than you.
Complain about this comment
Tories at no10 well thats everyone north of Watford done for again (remember Maggie). Keep labour, what a mess. Lib Dems who/what???. I wonder if the Monster Raving Loony Party is still going? Couldnt do any worse than above.
Complain about this comment
193. At 12:21pm on 07 Oct 2009, pubatron
The public sector can expect continuous pay rises as you have pointed out they have chosen careers where they don't risk higher rewards for their work - as you have done yourself.
Bankers gambled, took the big rewards and then expected the public sector to make sure they didn't loose their jobs by bailing them out - how is that fair?
Don't you get it - the reason the public sector isn't going to get a pay rise is because of the bailout of the private sector - how is that having your cake and eating it?
"You agree with me that other than 1-2% of the private sector the pay between private and public is relatively equal"
I don't agree - but I don't disagree - I haven't seen any statistics to confirm this claim. However there has traditionally been a pay gap between pub. and priv. pay and it's due to the job security you get from working for the state.
You seem to be arguing at a tangent - I'm not saying that the public sector should get massive pay hikes and keep their job security, in case you haven't noticed the next Governemnt (whoever it is) will be cutting public sector jobs and pay (in real terms) - thereby taking away both job security and steady pay rises.
My god - what's the weather like on planet self-centred?
I lost £100 on a bad bet on a horse yesterday - be a good chap and refund it for me out of your wages please!!!!!
Complain about this comment
143.
noahbro wrote:
"I tell you now, the private sector does well out of the public sector. I am sick of seeing consultants come into my work place and get paid a fortune to state the obvious. I'm sick of private sector IT companies delivering terrible software at shocking prices."
How much of that is down to terrible procurement practices and setting of specifications by the commissioners in the public sector?
What makes it even worse is, they then go back to the same people for the next system to replace the failed unworkable system they've just finished.
There is a vast amount to be saved by improving such procurement activities, not just in IT - how come the risk always seems to sit with the public sector, if the 3rd party over spends, rather than making a loss for their own incompetence, they just have taxpayer give them more... not much of an incentive to control costs, and terrible value.
Complain about this comment
195. At 12:41pm on 07 Oct 2009, Gothnet wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding.
Where were all the calls to cut public sector pay from the private sector for the last 10 years? Oh what's that, nobody bothered because they were all too busy with their noses in the trough?
It's only now that the country has run out of money that people are suddenly questioning public sector pay.
Where were you questioning the £6 million bonus bankers were receiving 3 years ago?
What do you think the bailout was? It's the public sector bailing out the private one - or do you think the money was grown on trees in Downing street. Where do you think the money for the bankers bonuses came from? - that same tree?
It's laughable that now the financial scamming has been unveiled that suddenly public sector pay is dragged in as the culprit.
Your analogy is correct - except you haven't realised that the gambling is the irresponsible action and the consequence is bourne by another (the cleaner).
Maybe you should have finished it off with:
It's like saying if you gamble your weeks wages on a horse tomorrow, you'll have to tell your cleaner not to come this week because you can't afford to pay him.....and as a result the cleaner and his family starve to death - but i can always find another one!
Complain about this comment
196. At 12:44pm on 07 Oct 2009, houseflogger
"I agree that wealth cannot be created without labour, but jobs are certainly not created without the invovement of the entreprenuer who generally is prepared to risk all his or her accumulated assets (often time after time)"
Define 'His assets' because it seems to me they never were his as they were accumulated by the exploitation of a previous worker, or workforce.
I am very much suggeting that wealth is created by the worker alone - name one good or service which has value and yet has no labour involved in the production or provision. I'm still waiting.
However I have already pointed out inventions that did not require an entrepenuer to ensure their success.
It's a very Feudal view to assume that "if it weren't for the master then we would all starve" - because that is what you are suggesting with the entrepenuer.
Remember, modern day entrepenuers don't always put their own wealth in - most of them borrow from the banks (or us) - so really we're taking the risk not them. However access to those loans are restricted by the banks who decide who is 'credit worthy' on their terms.
This risk is mitigated by the law which ensures that Limited company directors can walk away and fold their company without much recourse. When those debts go un-filled it's the rest of us who share that bill through the legal process to wind it up (administration).
Complain about this comment
197. At 12:48pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
....and you're constructively doing.....?
Don't guess at what I do for a living as you will only embarass yourself.
Complain about this comment
199. At 12:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, Gothnet wrote:
"That used to be the deal. Now the reality is that the public sector is paid just as much"
I'll need some evidence for that.
It's funny but despite knowing who the highest paid Local authority Chief exec wages are - I know they don't compare to say.....Fred Goodwin - a failed banker by all accounts.
If you're going to try to compare public sector wages to the private sector I fear you're on a loosing wicket.
Start with the PM's salary and see how many Private sector employees earn far in excess of that.....
Complain about this comment
201. At 1:00pm on 07 Oct 2009, Reaper_of_Souls wrote:
"And who pays for the public sector?
Ah yes, the private sector; its not like the public sector generate wealth or revenue for the country."
See above for how wealth is created and start again. All the private sector does is exploit it and redistribute it - and in some cases badly.
I guess your argument hinges of what you consider 'valuable' - clearly you're measure of value are little pieces of paper which you chase around - however I value healthcare, decent education for my children and care for my elderly much more highly.
As for the rest of your paragraph - all very interesting but who said Labour were 'my beloved'?
You are putting words into my mouth.
Every political party in my lifetime has contributed to the destruction which we see today - I don't defend any of them.
Read Das Kapital and maybe you will see why collapses keep happening. Only a fool would blame it on the 'Reds' or the 'Blues'.
The reality is neither party can stop it - and it's being proven as we speak.
Complain about this comment
# 174
Thank you for highlighting some incredibly successful entrepreneurs
The Bell Telephone Company owned by Alexander Bell was formed to exploit his invention
Boulton & Watt was established by James Watt in 1704 to exclusively manufacture steam engines
And of course either Bill Gates / Steve Jobs gave you the capability to write on this blog today…
They may not define themselves primarily as entrepreneurs but this is what they are. They created things that people want and that people are prepared to pay for, of their own choice. They facilitated this by establishing businesses and employing people.
To suggest that they should not have become wealthy is clearly nonsense. If someone with his own free choice decides to pay for the items they produce then why is it a bad thing if the entrepreneur becomes wealthy as a consequence of that? It is the free choice of each individual that ultimately determines the wealth that an entrepreneur could make. It is each individual that governs the reward to the entrepreneur for their effort as they decide what they are prepared to spend their money on. Do you propose some sort of price or volume rationing to prevent this happening?
If you invent something tomorrow, or if you see an opportunity in the market, then risk your house and your job on it if you think it is worthwhile. This is what entrepreneurs do on a daily basis.
I do not equate bankers with entrepreneurs. There is a clear failing with the banking model
The premise of this blog is what we are going to do to enable the UK to grow given the grave situation we are in. My view is that the way we do this is by creating the conditions that enable entrepreneurs to thrive. This will lead to jobs being created and tax revenues being raised that will support government expenditure. If one of these entrepreneurs is successful and has considerable wealth as a consequence then I would celebrate that as he will have provided something that people want.
Complain about this comment
202. At 1:04pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
Anyone who readily uses the decription
"some whiny pen-pushers"
Has clearly read to many Tory manifesto's.
Here's the final nail in your Blue coffin - The Tories are a party of libertarians who advocate less state intervention and smaller Government - right?
So why are they talking about giving more powers of regulation to the BoE and the FSA?
Could it be they have realised their ideology is faulted?
Surely the Tory solution to the banking crisis is to simply allow banks to regulate themselves? In fact there is no crisis because the banking system is self regulating!
I don't even have to pick the holes in the Economic liberal ideology - the Tory party are doing it at their conference for me.
Can you explain?
Complain about this comment
203. At 1:18pm on 07 Oct 2009, Reaper_of_Souls
"So why would a collapse in the banking system have lead to homelessness and food riots?"
Seriously?
Well how about the fact that without banks no-one would get paid - and then would you be going to work?
How about the queues of angry savers (a la Northern Rock) demanding their savings - would they be calm?
Faced with bankruptcy every bank would immediately liquidate their assets - that means the houses they own (because remember mortgage holders - you don't own your property, the bank does until it's paid)
...enough to paint the picture?
However it seems you believe that:
"It is highly unlikely that the entire banking sector would have collapsed"
..on what evdence I do not know - maybe it's the very small ripple Lehmans made, or perhaps the tiny tremor Northern Rock created - or the day when Hank Paulson said "we were within hours of financial Armageddon"
Complain about this comment
Writingsallovertheplace
Are you Nick Cleggs joke writer? Do you have a plan to get us out of this mess or are you just going to carry on with your student union speech? Reading Das Kapital and Mein Kampf may make you feel intellectual but in fact just shows that you can put up with a huge amount of dullness just for the sake of a few muddled quotes.
I was never much of a fan of the Iron Lady (especially after she went mad) but she did once come up with a very good quotable line..."the problem with socialism is that eventually you always run out of someone else's money!" I fear that moment may be breathing down our necks
Complain about this comment
207. At 1:27pm on 07 Oct 2009, Reaper_of_Souls wrote:
"How much of that is down to terrible procurement practices and setting of specifications by the commissioners in the public sector?"
...and how much is down to the fact that the 'efficiency' driven private sector does everything on the cheap and will cut every corner going.
Did you not read the story on the building contractors fined for coluding to fix public sector works prices?
....shame - you must have been off that day...
Complain about this comment
you have to laugh at the cheek of politicians, Labour, have given all our money ( the tax-payers) away and got us in a shed load of debt. The Tories expect us the ( the tax-payers) to pay it back to them by raising our taxes if they get into power.
The Tories will then spend that money given back to them by us (the tax payers) on defence, which their mates, the arms dealers,of course will get all the lucrative contracts.
This is, their way of thanking the arms dealers for funding the conservative party.
Of course we will need all these arms to defend Britain from...Oceania, I think it is this time.
At the moment we are an occupying force in Afghanistan. We are not doing very well....Look out Oceania, your next !
Complain about this comment
WritingsOnTheWall,
I admire you because you take on so many, attempting (with futility it appears) to show them the light. Forgive them as they do not know what they do, Red / Blue – they cannot see that in the highest echelons of society divide and rule still prevails.
Perhaps the time has come to enjoy a few beers, while you can afford one (assuming GO and DC are getting in) :-)
Complain about this comment
As an add on to 219,
Is it just possible that there are those on here who do not see the difference, as they were not affected by the Tory rout of Scotland of 18 years?
Complain about this comment
210 Wearingeveryonedown
"....and you're constructively doing.....?
Don't guess at what I do for a living as you will only embarass yourself."
I am self-employed and likely to be right up there and helping to fund this mess. Right now I am being diverted from trying to make a living crust by sorting out my 2008/09 tax return, hence the occasional forays online to preserve sanity.
What do you do for a living then? Are you ashamed of it or something? Perhaps you should go and get on with it;-)
Complain about this comment
216. At 2:05pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone wrote:
Ah the old 'where's your solution snort' - well I don't profess to have it - but what is abundantly clear is that no major political party is looking for one.
Maybe I should respond to the well regurgitated sound byte of Thatchers with:
"The problem with Capitalism is that you eventually always need someone else's money to bail you out".
Maybe you shoudl just go back to your boo-ya style of politics as it's clearly all you can understand.
Complain about this comment
@ #5
"It makes no difference what Georgie say's we all know what he means. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Half of the stuff he says he wants to implement will be thrown out of court by any decent judge. It's all poppycock."
No government will be able to alter that. The problem lays in the fact that rich people have more opportunities to become richer, while the poor have little opportunity to become rich. After all, getting rich is about luck, opportunity and the right personality. As we should all know, there are entrepeneurs out there who started off with nothing and are now part of the rich classification. However, money brings prestige, connections, etc. that allow for a better chance of creating an opportunity and there's less need to worry about luck when you have the money and connections. Then it's all about the personality, but with wealth and connections then who needs to worry about personality as a lot of these people are similar in nature anyway and it's part of their culture to look after their own first. I know that many of my friends with degrees have ended up in worthless jobs but that's just the way it is.
"Only yesterday the Tories were banging on about getting folk who are sick back to work, just where all these jobs are coming form nobody knows. Never mind though, George, David and chums will all be OK they all have friends that have friends that will make sure they and their families have a nice high paid job."
Taken out of context, there are people out there that due to the complex nature of the system brought in by Labour have caused people to end up with benefits they shouldn't really have all in the name of fudging the statistics to read the right way. There are people who abuse the system and claim benefits they're not entitled to. So you're happy to pay for all these loafers on Incapacity Benefit who are able to work but can't be bothered?
Before I get an angry response, I'm not saying that those who are unable to work should work and that is also what George Osbourn said. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Tory but I am definitely against Labour. They have really mucked up the system. I'm aware of people on training schemes created by the government to get them off Job Seekers Allowance while on these courses. That is the only reason for creating them. SHould they be working? Yes, they should but the government have done nothing about it because those that want to work end up wasting far too much time with pointless and unnecessary training courses while the Loafers have a good bit of fun knowing that they will be back on benefits once the course is ended, mainly due to poor education and skills, which the training completely fails to address ending up with no employee wanting to hire them. So you're happy to fund these loafers too?
So what about that Mayor that was reported on, filmed at a football match as a line judge running up and down the field when on Incapacity Benefit. You were happy for him to remain on benefits?
I'd really like to know where you draw the line because your statements imply that all people on benefits are 100% in need of them. I would disagree. There are people on benefits who need them but there are also those on benefits that don't as well as those in need of benefits whoa re also being given the wrong benefits. All this thanks to the great system from Labour.
"I am one of milions who has worked hard Six days a week 10 hours a day) for 20 years, have a degree and yet I still can't dream of earning half of the salary of the average Tory banker. It's all a load of hot air, Gerogie will not implement this, he will cut spending on Health and Education and then in few year sthe voters will see the long waiting lists and the schools failing down and vote Labour who will then spend to put it right."
I work for the NHS, the Public Sector is already a mess and thanks to this government, if we let them continue things will be far worse. We're already suffering severe cuts to frontline services thanks to government policy as well as this goverment bringing us to Recession. Not only the future of the NHS, but of all the public services are in danger of falling to a state of no return under Labour. From what I can see, Labour may have been spending but very little has really improved. There is excessive waste in the system thanks to our government and many billions of pounds has been spent on Quangos that should never have been. The only reason they exist is so that government can deny accountability and responsibility when things go wrong and then a few days later the same people are running the same show under a new government initiative. I may not have a great salary and I may never achieve that much either but stating that all the bad bankers are Tories is a bit of an overstatement. There are many bankers in the Labour camp too since New Labour came in and were all about being friends to business and the previous Tory establishment. That's why New Labour took such a majority in 1997, they became the New Tories in red clothing claiming to retain Labour values. Labour have as many banker friends as the Tories do and Labour look after their own just as much as the Tories do. However, right now we need cuts, the Public Finances are way out of control and unless we have some strict measures the schools will probably fall down anyway but we will not have the money to rebuild them.
@ #6
"Why am I being asked to sacrifice anything? I've done NOTHING WRONG!!! I wasn't at THEIR PARTY !!!"
Agreed there, I've done nothing wrong but the truth is that, as a nation, we are all in this together. I doubt the Tories will go as far as they pledge and will probably encounter much opposition, especially in the Public Sector. I'm prepared to take a pay freeze. If this country continues exponentioally on its downward path then the future will as close to those post apocalyptic movies as you can imagine. Politicians, as a breed are untrustworthy in nature but given the choice, Gordon Brown is the worst disaster that could befall this country, an extra term of him is not what this country needs.
I think his policies are pretty good, I acknowledge that there is pain to come and I would rather face it with having an open and honest discussion from poiticians than waiting for it to creep up on us slowly from a lying, cheating New Labour government. I don't trust any of the New Labour crew and wouldn't vote for any of them if they were in charge. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years and it sounds like many here are still consumed by Labour spin and consider the Tories to be a bigger threat than New Labour. I work in the public sector, a sector that New Labour say they represent. I look forward to them being thrown out of government, they don't have my support and they are most certainly not a credible government considering their past track record.
However, do I want the Tories in power? No, not really.
Cuts should have been made long before now, it's not just the next few years on the line, it's the years of generations to come as well as our own futures to consider as well as the UK's position in the global economy. With our huge debt, the future most certainly isn't bright and no chance of it being Orange but we're doomed if the future is Red in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
The day of reckoning has been postponed, but for how long? This is the question that preoccupies me........
Complain about this comment
Cuts sit nicely with the Tories, who are making such a big deal out of it. I'm more interested in promoting growth to get us of recession quicker and banks to return tax-payers money efficiently. Quantative Easing cannot be relied upon so to combate recession banks may be purchasing bonds so that that they hold more liquid assets.
Turning the coin around, issues that caused recession allow investment banking the means to finance it cheaply whilst yields remain cheap.
But the fact is that, for now at least, bond markets are telling us that there‘s no urgent need for big, quick spending cuts.
Could it be that talk about the huge deficit is just a handy excuse for bashing the poor and not the rich?
Complain about this comment
199. At 12:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, Gothnet wrote:
"That used to be the deal. Now the reality is that the public sector is paid just as much..."
Are you looking at a like for like comparison of jobs, or at a comparison of payrolls divided by headcounts? If the latter, you need to allow for effect of transferring low paid jobs from the public to the private sector.
Complain about this comment
@Mods re: # 163. At 10:12am on 07 Oct 2009, magnetic_monopole wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Ok I realise why this has been referred - Mods please note that when I used the phrase "con the credulous" I intended to mean this in the sense of an artistic con, not a financial one!
However, I am happy for that entire paragraph to be "redacted" as it was only an aside really, and I can see why you might not want to publish it, so feel free to publish my comment without it, if you deem it otherwise worthy, thank you :-)
Complain about this comment
It seems all Parties are saying how the Peoples way of life must change, for the greater good.
But what do they mean by Greater Good ?
The Greater Good is very different for each and every person you might ask.
For Example, a Rich Man may say low Taxes and Free Trade, are for the Greater Good.
A Poorman may say, higher Pay, better Services, Security if I fall Ill or cannot work are for the Greater Good.
Is a Free and unregulated Global Marketplace genuinely for the Greater Good ?
Has Job losses in Britain, and low cost sweatshops abroad really served the Greater Good ?
And this obssession with low Inflation, does that genuinely serve The Greater Good ?
I think perhaps People have lost perspective. Cheap Imports are not necessarily the Greater Good for anyone.
Short retirements are I suspect many will agree, not serving the Greater Good.
But of course, Rich Men who are free, to work (or not)as, how and when they please, seem to have a disproportionate influence over what counts as the Greater Good.
Is the Greater Good going to be continually defined by the Law of the Jungle, and Might Makes Right ?
Even in the Jungle there is balance.
Dodgy City Dealers may see themselves as a Lions, striding through the Financial Savannah. But Lions only kill what they need, they do not wantonly destroy the Herds on which they depend.
In fact, if someone asked Mother Nature, what the Greater Good would be, it would probably involve all living beings in proper Equilibrium,no one species overbearing the others, all living out their alotted cycles in their proper place.
It is probably too much to expect Humans to live in harmony with Nature, after all, Humans have shown themselves incapable of living in harmony with themselves !
Complain about this comment
219. At 2:09pm on 07 Oct 2009, JavaMan1984
...but apparently this is some 'ancient class war' I am fighting which doesn't really exist.
"The devil's greatest trick was to make the world believe he didn't exist"
Complain about this comment
At last - someone who is brave enough to give the hard facts of an economic recovery BEFORE an election. Everyone has benefited from the fallout of the last Conservative Government when Margaret Thatcher nearly managed to pay off the national debt, only for Labour to borrow billions. Those who moan about 'belt tightening' have lived off this credit card country for too long and now have to pay off the interest. It makes sense to hit those who have sponged - both wealthy and benefit hangers on. Its also important to rectify this obscene loan that Gordon Brown has used to patch up the economy. I haven't had confidence in the Tories for years, but I will certainly vote for them in the next election.
Complain about this comment
@ writingsonthewall
"Where were all the calls to cut public sector pay from the private sector for the last 10 years?"
Just here, like they've always been. Under the last government the public sector got too big and cost too much. It is a millstone around the necks of the UK economy. Where do YOU think the money to pay for it comes from?
"It's only now that the country has run out of money that people are suddenly questioning public sector pay."
No it isn't, it's been going on since a certain Gordon Brown started introducing stealth taxes, the moment he got the keys to number 11.
"Where were you questioning the £6 million bonus bankers were receiving 3 years ago?"
3 years ago I would have told you a collapse was on the way. It was blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Evidently that set doesn't include politicians, bankers or your good self.
"What do you think the bailout was? It's the public sector bailing out the private one"
And they got the money from....?
The State does not earn revenue. The State costs too much. The State watches us too much. The State needs to shrink, massively, and get out of my life and my pocket.
I don't care if that comes from pay freezes or a cull of useless people, useless initiatives and useless departments. The private sector, from the owner-operator of a one-man plumbing business to the cogs in the biggest corporate wheels, are the generators of revenue. The state takes and consumes it. Some is for valuable and useful services (roads, defence, NHS), much more is simply swallowed by an endless parade of consultants and failed projects.
People in the public sector have no more right to employment or pay-rises than anyone else, and like any company that realises it has overstretched and the books don't balance any more it has two choices - put the prices up and risk the market for your services collapsing (in this case because the burden becomes too high), or cut back on expenditure.
There is no third way.
On pay levels -
"I'll need some evidence for that.
It's funny but despite knowing who the highest paid Local authority Chief exec wages are - I know they don't compare to say.....Fred Goodwin - a failed banker by all accounts."
Yes, right, everyone in the public sector is a Chief Exec and everyone in the private sector is Fred Goodwin. Good, useful, down-to-earth comparison of everyday common people there!
Complain about this comment
Java Man Writingonthewall
I get it now. We're all just manipulated wage slaves, doomed to play our red versus blue games for ever while the errrrr THEM (bankers, aristocracy, Bilderburg Conspirators etc etc) find ever more prosaic ways to enrich themselves by zapping our brains with their mind-rays.
No policy ideas then...have you risen above all that?
Are you disappointed 3rd Wayers? Uber-Greens with that "kill the poor" sub-text or simply one of the "we're all doomed" mindset. Are you dreaming of a return to rural idyll or some other Utopian state? The problem I always find is that those who reveal themselves as having been blessed with superior insight usually move fairly swiftly to advocating government for the "Greater Good". Always a sanguinary path be it Robespierre or Pol Pot.
The red v blue argument is as old as politics itself and I can't see it changing because you're tired of it. Simply abdicating any sense of responsibility for effecting periodic change in society and just waiting to pick over the bones is the curse of the modern age. The best brains in this and many other countries are dedicated to commentating rather than doing. In that sense yes...we probably are doomed!
Complain about this comment
213. At 1:58pm on 07 Oct 2009, jimickie wrote:
"Thank you for highlighting some incredibly successful entrepreneurs"
...and thank you for highlighting the fact that entrepenuership does not need to be a seperate discipline to invention - which is contrary to the current status quo.
In those days inventors could afford to raise their own companies - but how many can do that today?
You're example of Steve jobs and Bill Gates is a very bad one - don't you now your history? Gates took DOS from the original inventors and sold it as his own. He took the ideas of windows from IBM's OS2 - so not much invention going on there then. He was a programmer - but by all accounts not a very good one. He has merely profitted from the naievity (or trust) of others
I would also be surprised if Steve Jobbs 'invented' apple Macs. Usually the inventor doesn't go on to be the millionaire - however when you're rich enough you can re-write history.
I think you don't understand what drives inventors. Good inventors don't sit at home and think "I need to make money - I shall invent something and sell it to the world".
On the contrary - inventors think "There is a problem, I wonder if I can invent something to solve it" - it's the entrepenuer who see's the money to be made.
"If you invent something tomorrow, or if you see an opportunity in the market, then risk your house and your job on it if you think it is worthwhile."
This isn't even correct - do the "dragons in the den" risk their houses on inventions - or do they merely risk a small portion of their capital - or even risk someone elses.
Until you can explain how the first entrepenuer made money without exploiting the inventor or worker - then all your later arguments are based on sand.
As is both Labour and Tory economic policy.
Still - you don't have to listen to me - just sit back and watch the demise of this country as we slowly realise that too many parasites will eventually kill the host.
Complain about this comment
221. At 2:13pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophile
We're all self employed these days.
Don't worry about my job - I know I'm not - my boss is very happy with me. Maybe you should be concerned that I am able to be highly productive (if there is such a thing) and still have time to answer so many entries.
Maybe I am superman in disguise ;-o
Complain about this comment
223. At 2:21pm on 07 Oct 2009, AlphaPhantom
I read your comments with interest - but one line does not sit right:
"Agreed there, I've done nothing wrong but the truth is that, as a nation, we are all in this together"
....but were we all in it together when the bankers were awarding themselves huge bonuses?
Did we all get a share? (because I must have missed mine)
It's classic political nonsense the parties roll out about being in it together - oh yeah, now there's a mess we're all in it together, but when the party was on it was every man for himself!
Classic contradictory Capitalism - how do you reconcile that with your morals on justice and fairness?
Complain about this comment
You haven't seen anything yet.
Once the Tories are in power they will get stuck into the pension differences there are between private sector and public sector workers.
First the retirement age will be adjusted (set at 66yrs.old) to reflect equality among all working people in the UK and then the public sector pension will depart from a final salary scheme to reflect the conditions those of us working in the private sector have to endure because our pension funds are broke.
Complain about this comment
So, how does more Expensive Privatised Public Services, serve the Greater Good ?
And, come to think of it, just how many people actually make it to the current retirement age, and of those who get that far, how many last until Seventy ?
Complain about this comment
Writings at 32.
Spot on!
Never, has so much been owed by so many to so few.
Hows about clawing back net bonuses, maybe backdated to 2004. If the bonuses have gone, send in the baliffs and bankrupt them.
Complain about this comment
228. At 2:43pm on 07 Oct 2009, supercalmdown
That was excellent comment - especially the analagy about the lion.
The crux of this crisis is people are going to have to question their morality and their ideology - and that's why some are angry and confused.
For too long the 'greater good' has been 'my greater good' and not a collective one - sadly so few people realise this is the case and actually believe that their ambitions are aligned with those of our leaders (which of course they are not).
Complain about this comment
233 Writingonthewall
Hmmmm...I'm starting to suspect that far being superman you are in fact super househusband. It's the only way your boss could be satisfied with you and your total dereliction of duty whilst carrying out your big conversation with the nation. Haven't you got some ironing to do? ;-)
"Did we all get a share? (because I must have missed mine)"
I think I've got to the bottom of it. To get a share of a profit you first have to help make the profit using your skill and knowledge. Not by being in the office doing photocopying at the same time. To reuse your hilarious betting analogy "I see you've just won £1000 on the 1.30 at Kempton Park...please give me £100!"
Surely this ridiculous experiment with democracy is at an end;-)
Complain about this comment
And People like to knock the Public Sector and its Pay.
Well, for most of my working life, the Folks in the Public Sector have been on a third to one half of the Salary of their Private sector oppossite numbers (accountancy), doing the same work, but without Share Options, without Private Health Plans and Private Pensions.
Many Private sector people I know retired in their early Fifties.
Admittedly they paid more in to their Private Pensions, but hey, they were paid three times as much to start with !
However, something I had not considered before now, rather remiss of me, but these agreements, pay deals, pacts, negotiated contracts that are being set aside, is this accepted and legal?
If long standing agreements are not set in stone, indeed are optional, and lapse with time (quite short amounts of time as well) does that mean the Gov't and People do not expect or believe or require that long standing agreements,pacts,contracts to be honoured ?
A very interesting thought.
Complain about this comment
Javaman and gromitt guy. So negative. I am deeply confused how you can have a go at George Osbourne or the Tories in General. Mr Brown and Blari have ruined everything this country stood for. Of course we are in debt like we were last time there was a labour government. It is cyclical. Labour get in debt tories get us out of debt. We will all have to contribute, my only worry is now labour know they are on the way out will they go for damage limitation and get us more in debt due to their total inability to manage the finances of our country.
Complain about this comment
231. At 2:58pm on 07 Oct 2009, Gothnet
Lets put a nail in this 'public sector don't create any wealth' shall we?
Don't you think the private sector make profit because it's only interested in doing things that are profitable?
If there was no private sector then the public sector would be generating all the wealth - the reason the US were so afraid of the USSR had nothing to do with ideologies - but more to do with the realisation that the Soviet state was threatening to create massive growth - within a generation. This is something Capitalists could only dream of.
What's left for the public sector to manage are all the unwanted parts that struggle to make profit. There's no profit in social housing, or building schools - so the private sector leaves it alone.
"The State does not earn revenue. The State costs too much. The State watches us too much. The State needs to shrink, massively, and get out of my life and my pocket."
Ok - so lets go into your world where there is no state - whilst that is exactly what I want too - your way of getting there is no de-regulate everything.
So how do you police the streets? Financial incentives for officers? There's no money in policing so the market won't bother providing it.
I did read the rest of your comments but they are so paranoid about the state that I seriously think you need help. Then I read this:
"There is no third way"
....well with a defeatist attitude like that why are you still bothering to breathe?
A world of infinite possibilities and Gothnet gets stuck at 2!
BTW - where exactly were you voicing these concerns about excessive pay - oh and your predictions for the crash?
Can you cite an example - or did you just dream it?
I can make a prediction now - there will be another collapse.
I will be proven 100% correct.
Complain about this comment
#9 Rotterdam
Eveything is NORMALLY cyclical.... but sometimes the cycle gets broken and needs mending.... this hasn't been any part of a normal cycle... it's sort of the point of it!
Complain about this comment
232. At 3:03pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
Quite bizarre. So you're not a wage slave then? Living off someone else or are you writing this from a Kabutz?
I'll tell you what - you make that 'change' and convert Nu-Labour to Nu-Tory and I'll see how well that goes in 6 months time.
Unfortunately I have seen 8 changes in Government in my lifetime and not one has produced any change whatsoever.
I decided to look at why and the conclusion is clearly that we don't even live in a democracy as I thought - otherwise the 'winning' party would have a real majority.
As it is the 'winning' party merely beats the others - most people abstain from the system which is testament to it's failure.
Clearly you seem happy with this pointless system of governance.
Complain about this comment
240. At 3:28pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone
"I think I've got to the bottom of it. To get a share of a profit you first have to help make the profit using your skill and knowledge."
....and bankers showed their 'skill and knowledge' by investing in CDO products they clearly didn't understand the risk of - and took that profit - right?
Sadly that is not the case - and if you do your research on Brownian motion you will realise that there is no skill involved - merely luck.
In the same way some people are lucky when the hurricane comes it misses their house alltogether.
P.s. - If I lent you that £1000 to bet on the horse that you won - should I get £100 back - but if I lose then I still want my £1000 back!
...and that's banking for you...
Complain about this comment
242. At 3:37pm on 07 Oct 2009, laborouttoriesin
Yes, so you prefer the mouth of the crocodile to that of the lion - that is your choice.
Neither Labour nor the Tories will be getting my vote - I shall probably be burning the ballot paper to keep myself warm next winter.
Such short memories....
Complain about this comment
@243 writingsonthewall
"If there was no private sector then the public sector would be generating all the wealth - the reason the US were so afraid of the USSR had nothing to do with ideologies - but more to do with the realisation that the Soviet state was threatening to create massive growth - within a generation. This is something Capitalists could only dream of."
And yet it failed utterly, collapsed in on itself and has as part of its historical epitaph restriction of movement, grinding poverty and a collection of horrible abuses of its population.
I would refrain from holding up the Soviet Union as a paragon of virtue and success for all. From where I'm sat it looks like an abject failure.
"Ok - so lets go into your world where there is no state - whilst that is exactly what I want too - your way of getting there is no de-regulate everything.
So how do you police the streets? Financial incentives for officers? There's no money in policing so the market won't bother providing it."
Right. So you didn't actually bother to read my comment at all, just the one phrase. The comment in which I said that the state has a place and provides useful services like roads, defence and the NHS but has got way too big of late?
Instead you've leapt to the conclusion that I'm a paranoid, anarchist libertarian. Which I'm not. I just don't believe that one-size-fits-all is a useful policy, nor do I believe in top-down authoritarian communism as you seem to.
I'm glad that both the libertarians and communists like yourself are in a tiny minority, because both systems lead to tragedy on a massive scale.
"BTW - where exactly were you voicing these concerns about excessive pay - oh and your predictions for the crash?
Can you cite an example - or did you just dream it?"
It's been obvious since about 2003 that housing was in a massive bubble and advancing beyond the ability of new market entrants to keep it afloat, and anyone engaging with Americans on a regular basis would have heard about the masses of investment in sub-prime debt, by definition pretty toxic. I know a lot of people that sold their way out of the housing market and out of share-based assets in the months and years leading up to this.
I never voiced concerns over excessive pay, excessive pay isn't what caused the problem, bad debt and dodgy financial dealings were. The bonus culture was just the excessive icing on the cake.
But I don't have a blog and I'm not a journalist, so was I supposed to keep a public diary to make you happy? Sorry but I just don't care enough to do that.
Complain about this comment
I'm a bit confused, we're not all in this together as Osbourne suggests, I didn't over borrow, nor overspend nor take stupid risks nor over pay myself for the work I did and continue to do in my business. I fail to understand why I and millions like me have to now pay for the sins of the others. Let's review the pay of all those involved in FS over the last 10 years, review what they did and what they got paid and add a super tax to them as individuals. Let's then look at each bank and super tax them into the future. Fair enough what we can't reclaim this way, spread that amongst the rest of us, so we can do our bit
Complain about this comment
Even God has his price in Capitalism....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6864623.ece
Complain about this comment
246 Writingonthe wall
You still seem to believe that the whole private sector of the economy is composed of a speculative branch of investment banking...accusing me again of supporting bonuses for profits based on risky CDOs that are little more than transferring the same money from one pot to another. I absolutely categorically do not support this and would see banks compelled to refuse bonuses to those involved. If the bankers want to sue for breach of contract let them stand up in court to explain why they should be paid at what is now effectively the taxpayers expense.
There are many, many other areas of the economy where profits are made by skill and knowledge of talented people who have risen to senior positions based on their own talent. Success is based upon a whole raft of factors, including some degree of chance and luck but absolutely nowhere near any analogy with Brownian motion...that 90s Chaos stuff is so passe! The problem with this debate is that there is a subtext that anyone "succesful" is wealthy and well-connected..well this may apply to small number of people but I tend to spread my definition of success a little wider so that it includes people who have reached a level of personal affluence and/or personal contentment based on their own effort and values.
I do OK...better than many of my neighbours but it has been based on education (paid for by me!), taking risks with my own money, endless travel and separation, vast amounts of personal inconvenience over the past 25 years. I could have just gone and settled for any old job but I didn't. I certainly didn't opt for the public sector where advancement depends upon Brownnosian Motion (geddit?).
Life is a lottery in terms of your genes and these will affect your chances of success but it's far from the whole story. Altogether now...."Tell it t'young people today...and they won't believe you!"
PS: If you're thinking of clawing back all those bonuses why stop there. Why not claw back all rises in property prices since 1997
Complain about this comment
Writngonthewall
"Such short memories...."
Hmmm...such arrogance. For a student of Mein Kampf I don't need to tell you how it's author came to power. People not voting! If you're above the democratic process because nobody matches your take on life then you are doomed to put up with what you get.
Complain about this comment
I'm with comment 249 on this - what I have done to deserve this shoddy treatment by the Tories?
I'm a public sector worker, don't recieve any bonuses, I earn £20k, so I can expect to lose my pension rights and have my wages frozen (which year-on-year any increases were roughly 0.5% and have been for at least the last 5 years). I could earn more in the private sector but I enjoy my job.
How would I be able to reduce my debt when my wages don't go up but cost of living does? And why freeze wages on workers earning 18k and above when the average wage is higher than that? Isn't this just keeping us lower scale workers poorer than others?
'In this together'? I think not, unless the Tories fancy having finances like mine!
Complain about this comment
At last a party who are prepared to stae the patently obvious with no molly coddling and spin that makes us think the reverse of what was intended.
What you haven't grasped Robert is that the speech is literally revolutionary. People will not be paid high salaries unless there is a legitimate reason or they are exceptional candidates.
All to many remuneration committees are filled by the same people who use the same agencies to forever up the ante.
The issue of paying QUANGO's, various useless advisors, the while structure of what we have taken for granted is nowbeing tosses aside and real time value and contribution will actually count.
It's hard not to see your disdain given the public don't know what you earn or whether you have set yourself up as a consultancy.
The vast majority of senior exceutives are not worth anything like what they get paid, with the same applying to Bankers.
As for Lord Turner, please don't assume he can't be replaced with someone better for half the price. It does look as though your role of interviewing high profile people has affected your ability to see what is really happening at the non ivory tower lever.
The world is changing Robert an you really should keep up with events!!
Complain about this comment
"he's made it difficult for anyone at the top of the income ladder in any part of the economy to be awarded a big pay rise in the next year or two".....What? Seriously, you believe this? Have a missed the irony? It's happening now, in fact it's never stopped. Instead of benefit cuts and public spending freezes tax those who got us into this mess and who have been the major beneficiaries of the billions of punds of tax payers money pumped into the banks etc.
Complain about this comment
Well, at least not all public sector workers are going to have to deal with pay restraint.... if this is to be believed http://www.boho.com
Complain about this comment
Dear Robert,
Paint me cynical but perhaps
"who wishes to pay a public servant more than the prime minister will have to put it before the chancellor"
actually means,
"When we get in to office the PM is going to get a massive pay rise."!
Complain about this comment
I've just had a wonderfully interesting thought.
Debt I know is inheritable, but under English Law can a Contract be inherited ?
And can a Contract be inherited when one party to the Contract does not know it exists ?
Out of curiosity, even if Contracts can be inherited unknowingly, can they be inherited by successor organisations.
Presumably an ordinary gov't change (Election) would not affect long standing Contracts but presumably a Civil War (with conquest) would..... all Contracts/Pacts with the prior sovereign would be null and void.
What an enjoyable day !
More rain !
Complain about this comment
"I would refrain from holding up the Soviet Union as a paragon of virtue and success for all. From where I'm sat it looks like an abject failure."
I wasn't - I was explaining why the US was so fearful of it as it threatened their existance. However it cannot be disputed that the country went from peasants to superpower within a generation which has not been repeated by any other state (not even Nazi Germany), not what I would call a failure - unfortunately, as with all western Democracies the party became the 'rulers' and not the people - merely another form of exploitation further abused by Stalin.
....but wait a minute - there was no concept of entrepenuership in the Soviet Union - so how did they manage to invent manned space flight? Surely only a system which allows entrepenuers can 'create and invent'?
I do not disagree that the state provides useful services (the ones the private sector are not interested in) - but who decided it got too big? Have all the waiting lists gone? Can you get an instant appointment at the doctor? Are there free prescriptions for all?
Your assumption is that I am a Communist - but once again that's a very wide term, does it mean I wish for a stateless society - yes, does it mean I think democratic Government should endeavour to nationalise everything - no, all that serves to do is pass more control to the private sector.
Why should we start concerning ourselves with the solutions when most of the country can't even recognise the problem in the first place? My stance is that Capitalism is faulty, it will continue to fail. The crisis we're experiencing is not grounded in Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher or anyone else - they may have complied with the failing system, but they never ever had control over it. They all merely tried to make the impact of disaster more paletable - and when they fail we turn to the other lot and give them another in a merry go round of failure.
Once the country stops believing the tripe rolled out by our political leaders about who's fault it was and realise that the inherent nature of Capitalism is to collapse every now and again then we might get somewhere.
Incidently this view is also endorsed by the Liberal Economists - but they argue this is a price worth paying for (what they describe as) the only Economic option.
This is where I disagree.
Some people call me a cynic, but I seem to be the only one insisting that there has to be a better way of allocating our resources in society (because that's what it all boils down to).
The rest of you seem to feel there are only 2 (or 3) choices - "Stalinist Communism" and "Western Capitalism" or the 'fudgy' middle road we currently take - worst of both worlds.
How depressing that must be to feel like that.
I'm sure before 1969 many people said there was no way man could walk on the moon - and yet it was achieved.
Man is only limited by the depths of his imagination and the strength of his courage - maybe that's where the problem lies with society - no courage and no imagination.
Complain about this comment
252. At 4:38pm on 07 Oct 2009, Anglophone wrote:
"Hmmm...such arrogance. For a student of Mein Kampf I don't need to tell you how it's author came to power. People not voting! If you're above the democratic process because nobody matches your take on life then you are doomed to put up with what you get."
...which version of history was that then?
I seem to recall Hitler came to power after he took advantage of Economic crisis and an unfair resolution to the first world war by blaming the minorities in society - like the Jews, the Gypsies, the immigrants - it wasn't solely because people didn't vote.
If your saying there are only 2 choices on the table and neither are good then why does it make sense to force yourself to choose one?
I see from your earlier post that you think our lives are already decided by our genes and not our interation with society - you need to be speaking to Jaded Jean about that - however I have seen kids from 'bad parents' take very different paths to their parents and their siblings - but if it's all in the genes then I must have dreamed it.
Don't let me stop you deciding which party you'll vote for in the next election - just let me know if it changes anything.....
Complain about this comment
254. At 4:42pm on 07 Oct 2009, proman53 wrote:
"At last a party who are prepared to stae the patently obvious with no molly coddling and spin that makes us think the reverse of what was intended. "
Unfortunately Osbourne's £7Bn cuts are a drop in the ocean of the £175 Billion needed - so is he really being honest?
I suspect this is partial honesty - because if he actually told the real truth then no member of the public would be able to handle the reality of the situation and panic would ensue.
Complain about this comment
My final thought before going home.....
If this crisis is 'over' - then why is this happening?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8295582.stm
When there are serious fears about currency Gold is the haven for the rich.
See you all down at the soup kitchen!
Complain about this comment
Writingsinyourhead
"but more to do with the realisation that the Soviet state was threatening to create massive growth - within a generation. This is something Capitalists could only dream of."
It's really not often you get an apologist for the Soviet Union these days. Economic growth...who knows but I think that it is unlikely. Russia made little of export quality and could not even supply its own internal demand. Its State Owned industries were mired in the most horrendous inefficiencies and driven by centrally decreed 5 year plans irrespective of demand.
Could those little Volgas and Trabants have swept away the puny economies of the West. Think of all that mass immigration of people desperate to enter the workers paradise to share in all that massive growth and prosperity. Think of those massive collective farming schemes that have turned half of Central Asia into a dustbowl. The Soviet Union was nobly conceived but very rapidly went the way of all nobly conceived schemes. It rubbed up against human nature and the noble schemers did what they usually do i.e. confiscation, persecution of minorities, repression, travel restriction etc etc. The nobler the ideal, the greater the loss of life! To cap it all (and the Americans are not blameless either) they indulged in a 40 year military/ideological tussle that eventually bankrupted them.
Just think if all the money expended by both sides of the Cold War were put to better use in terms of healthcare, sanitation, business investment. Surely even the misty eyed apologist in you might concede that one;-)
Complain about this comment
@ writingsonthewall
"However it cannot be disputed that the country went from peasants to superpower within a generation"
At the cost of grinding the lives and bodies of the poorest into the dirt, and setting up a massive police state to keep everyone in line.
No, I'm sorry, not my ideal at all.
I agree that there must be better ways to allocate resources. However all I see in any of your posts is criticism of others. I pity you even more, to be convinced that imagination of a better way is possible but utterly unable to lend even the slightest constructive thought to that process!
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that the over stretched Santander has succeeded in raising significant Funds in Brazil.
It's the last one standing of the ABN takeover cartel.......
Complain about this comment
259 Writingsonthewall
OK....but what then do you believe in? Do you have any beliefs as to how the world could be made a fairer place without all the usual murder of millions of people?
You keep telling us what you're not. Why not just try giving us a clue what you are and, while you're at it. Stop assuming that nobody else is sufficiently high-minded to understand.
Lead us Oh Prophet!
Complain about this comment
260 Wilfullymisquoting
"I see from your earlier post that you think our lives are already decided by our genes and not our interation with society - you need to be speaking to Jaded Jean about that - however I have seen kids from 'bad parents' take very different paths to their parents and their siblings - but if it's all in the genes then I must have dreamed it."
Twit! You were the one saying that it is down to Brownian Motion and that success was based on money and contacts. If you can't remember what you said and are reduced to fatuous misquotes then stop blogging.
I would have thought that someone as yourself who professes to represent the people would agree that when I said "life is a lottery" it was meant to mean that some of us are not born with the same capabilities as others..something that spans class divides, parental outcomes etc. The mark of a decent society is the extent to which those who have done well out of the lottery look after those who who haven't.
Complain about this comment
When I try to rationalize some of the points of view I would ask anyone and all who offer debate to these blogs to answer the following because we are often making reference, building argument and occasionally offering solutions based on entirely different concepts or interpretations of the same word.
So we can all better try to understand each other please tell me, when you have five minutes away from the heat of the debate how you define the following – thank you..
What is money
What is wealth
What is asset
What is credit
What is liability
What is debt
What is greed
What is ambition
What is contentment
What is lethargy
What is growth
What is inflation
What is balance
What is recession
What is conservativism
What is socialism
What is communism
What is capitalism
What is community
What is family
What is support
What is control
What is learning
What is training
what is circulation
What is hoarding
What is ethics
What is morality
What is opinion
What is reporting
What is statistical data
What is facts
What is truth
What is a lie
What is public spending
What is tax
What is government money
What is socio-economics
Who pays
Who takes
Who creates
Who dissipates
OK so you are not going to get the time but worth a thought when trying to decipher what on earth some of us are on about. That is of course if you are interested in another opinion or not. And in any case misinterpretation is always the other persons.
Mind I bet one person has the time and more, their definitive answer to them all
Complain about this comment
I'm heartily disappointed. The clarification about existing pay has just lost the tories any postman votes. Most posties would like to see other cuts at the top as well
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall you can't keep knocking entrepreneurs as there's too many fans of Dragon's Den and The Apprentice on these blogs and it really pains them when you question their world view.
BTW didn't Alan Sugar buy a big bunch of Woolworths shares just before it went pop. Such verve, such genius! Where would society be without visionaries like him eh?
Complain about this comment
#262. writingsonthewall wrote:
"My final thought before going home.....
If this crisis is 'over' - then why is this happening?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8295582.stm"
Isn't it obvious?
Gold is a currency just like any other, and as the US dollar falls the value of gold expressed in terms of US dollars is bound to rise. The current gold price is very unlikely to be an all-time high when expressed in Japanese yen, or even in euros.
And although the price may be at an all-time high in absolute dollar terms, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms it is still worth less than half its peak value. Adjusted for inflation, in 1980 the price of gold reached almost $2500 per ounce.
Complain about this comment
A couple of posters have criticised the whole red vs blue team thing as some kind of ‘policy cop-out’, but I disagree, I think it’s part of something important that we should be thinking about…
As far as I can make out, far too many people on this blog do have a ‘red hat’ or a ‘blue hat’ on (or very occasionally a ‘yellow’, ‘green’ etc hat on). Individuals' arguments are made or dismissed based entirely on the colour of the hat on their head. And to me that suggests that if politicians, top bankers, CEOs of multinational companies and all our other 'Masters of the Universe' were to read the comments here daily they would soil themselves laughing. (I doubt they do read them though, because frankly they don’t give a cr*p what you, or I, think unfortunately…)
As people sit there at their computer screens squabbling away with someone with a different coloured hat on, they overlook the very real problem: unless you’re in the elite classes already you’re getting screwed over by everyone who is, and will likely never make it to the gold panelled, jewel encrusted bathroom of decision making.
I’m not a Marxist, Communist, Leninist, Cuban or any other flavour of political reactionary I’ve often been accused of being. I regard myself most as a ‘humanist’, i.e. I believe in people. Yes ‘people’ are flawed and often dangerous, yes there’s a great many ‘people’ that I’d cross the M1 to avoid, and yes some of the worst behaviour of a great many ‘people’ is what has led us into this latest financial crisis (not to mention the environmental crisis, plus a myriad of social crises). But when it comes down to it that doesn’t take away from the fact that I’d like to see the best done by as many of my fellow humans as is possible.
What we should really be aiming for is justice and equality in society. That doesn’t have to mean some left-wing utopia, and it can include meritocracy. It does mean we have to take the vast majority of power (which also means money, land etc) out of the hands of the few and spread it more evenly throughout society. This isn’t communism, this is rational.
Control by fear is not OK. Inequality of opportunity is not OK. A widening gap between haves and have-nots is not OK. Intolerance of your fellow human is not OK. These are things I think the majority of us would agree with. Yet they are statements that NO political party truly, truly supports. (Even if they claim otherwise, given power they would all utilise the above mechanisms to maintain that power, without fail).
So as we sit here and bash each other over the head with arguments about what the red team have done wrong, and where the blue team will get it right, or vice versa, we’re missing the bigger issue. We’re sitting here in 2009 enslaved by the powerful, the rich and the privileged, and it would appear we’re not smart or organised or determined enough to do anything about it.
So let’s stop the infighting. Take a moment. Look to your left and look to your right. If there’s another person there you owe it to them to put your ‘human hat’ on, grab them by the shoulders and shake them into the realisation that we’re all getting done over. Then the 2 of you need to find a 3rd person and shake away, and the 3 of you find a 4th, and so on and on and on. And when enough of us have been shaken awake, we can all stand up together, walk away from those who would seek to control us for their own benefit, and go and have a sit down and a nice cup of tea whilst we discuss how to reframe the whole bloody landscape (social, economic, political, environmental and more) to suit us ALL the better.
Complain about this comment
# 215.
writingsonthewall wrote:
""So why would a collapse in the banking system have lead to homelessness and food riots?"
"Well how about the fact that without banks no-one would get paid - and then would you be going to work?"
Incredibly simplistic... the food would still exist and alternate payment could be arranged - not all financial institutions were massively exposed; and other transfer mechanisms are available (although admittedly a barter economy is somewhat inefficient). There is however an obvious lesson here in over dependence on the banking system in relation to basic transactions.
"How about the queues of angry savers (a la Northern Rock) demanding their savings - would they be calm?"
Not homeless or food riots.. note the savings guarantee scheme.
"Faced with bankruptcy every bank would immediately liquidate their assets - that means the houses they own (because remember mortgage holders - you don't own your property, the bank does until it's paid)"
and how would that lead to homelessness?
it would just reduce home ownership... and drive down property prices.. any new owner of the property not intending to love their themselves would seem to have a readily available tenant.
"However it seems you believe that:
"It is highly unlikely that the entire banking sector would have collapsed"
..on what evdence I do not know - maybe it's the very small ripple Lehmans made, or perhaps the tiny tremor Northern Rock created - or the day when Hank Paulson said "we were within hours of financial Armageddon""
I believe this was at the time Hank Paulson was looking to have the bank bailouts authorised in the US, something that met with considerable delay and in many ways happened after the worst had happened.
So the people stating total collapse were either the bankers after cheap finance or their friends (and no doubt future employees) pushing to provide that finance.
Don't get me wrong, I would happily have leant the banks funds, at a rate reflective of the market conditions and their risk profile - instead they got the money for next to nothing and are now back to making considerable profits.
A bit of brinkmanship, but the bankers did quite well from it, considering the losses they should have sustained for their actions.
Several years ago when I recognised the multiplier effect of the housing bubble on any economic downturn, I predicted governments would intervene to protect the core of their illusionary "economic miracle", sometimes things are so predictable.
As previously stated the notion that CDOs couldn't be valued was a misnomer, its just the sum of the parts (i.e. individual loans within the bundle) - but banks refused to do this to avoid recognising the losses.
The intervention did everything to protect the profitability of the banking sector at taxpayer expense and considerable moral hazard.
Complain about this comment
272.
James8112 wrote:
"As people sit there at their computer screens squabbling away with someone with a different coloured hat on, they overlook the very real problem: unless you’re in the elite classes already you’re getting screwed over by everyone who is, and will likely never make it to the gold panelled, jewel encrusted bathroom of decision making."
Very (depressingly) true, and such debates and "freedoms" just serve to create the illusion that we have a degree of power and control.
The hamsters on the wheel just keep the powers that be in the style to which they have become accustomed.
And to think, in many cases, the nobility and "old money" made much of its wealth as landholders, stealing what they could and squeezing those in the area with protection rackets. Such is the way of "civilisation" and taxation. But then I don't suppose the proceeds of crime act applies back to the middle ages :P
Complain about this comment
Sounds like a lot of good ideas. The best thing that can happen is that the complete p***ts that are the media front people will be paid what I think they are worth and not what they demand and this may see the end of Evans Et Al. The more the government can recoup from the top bankers who made the problem the better and another thing he should be doing is to renationalise the utilities that are in foreign hands without compensation as they have ripped us off along with the EU. Hopefully the tories will have the nerve to hold the referendum on Europe and the Lisbon constitution and then pull us out.
Complain about this comment
The Sixth biggest economy in the world is about to be handed over to two posh middle aged men who cannot show one day job they have ever done!! What happened to the country once known as Great Britain?! David Cameron can only claim Black Wednesday and George Osborne Nothing!
One hour speech and not a single word on Growth...No matter how many cuts Mr O can boast of his so called austerity will not even have a dent on the debt is going to be achieved.
The only way to attack the debt crisis is to boost growth and without growth there will be mass unemployment from the cuts and before we know it we shall be camping outside No 10&11 asking them out.
Expecting those earning £18000(I do) to contribute is not only as immoral as the 50% tax rate but it is also un-conservative. 50% rate is anti-business,anti achievement and anti talents as well and besides it will earn the Exchequer peanuts.
Praising dysfunctional NHS is only as hyprocrite as bashing the City.
NHS is not sacrosanct it requires effective reforms and not protection and above all this country needs healthcare reform which should include consideration of private insurance say about 20%. And the Benefits culture we are paying people to have babies with no limits, then housing benefits, Where is the culture of responsibility??!! People should not be made to expect they can have unlimited number of children because the state will look after them.
I am reading that there are thousands of households where no one ever works and you know why? Because they expect the rest of us working to look after them such is the proligacy of Gordon Brown. This must end.
(The era of "Thou who do no work, shall not eat" should be revisited.) One could also say is the price we pay for giving Christianity a cold shoulder, he would not be wrong!!
What this country needs is growth through work and real work making stuffs not fiddling numbers and it is time politicians starts looking and talking of bold initiatives to make this country Great again and not Gloom mongering as these two have been doing since the crisis began like this is some sort of a Little Britain........Where are the true Brits nowdays???!! Does it mean we have come to this??! It is scarry ....I am neither English nor British by the way, but it pains me!
Complain about this comment
#268
Dear Mr Round
Marvellous
Yesterday I asked a linguist 'If language is our primary means of communication, how well can we communicate if we attribute different meanings to the same word?'
I used the examples of liberal, anarchy, poverty and investment.
The answer is of course, not very well.
Today's question is 'what is the role of government and what is its responsibility?'
One answer might be to be frugal
Yrs Mrs Bloggs
Complain about this comment
276. At 7:17pm on 07 Oct 2009, Sabasjoe wrote:
"What this country needs is growth through work and real work making stuffs ..."
And what can we currently make (even with employment costs subsidised to the level of benefits) well enough and cheap enough to compete in a global market?
Like it or not, in a global market the cost of labour here, makes Britain uncompetitive in bulk manufacturing.
What we may be able to manufacture is items where there is efficiency savings in manufacturing / assembling nearer to end markets (i.e. Europe).
Other than that, we have a history of engineering, so specialist engineering services certainly offer potential, if only we didn't have a dearth of engineers (and a surplus of wannabe celebrity media studies "graduates").
Portraying the picture as "gloomy" may not be what many want to hear, but its realistic.
Expectations of pay rises in the current economic climate certainly demonstrates a degree of divorce from reality and could be seen as a kind of ivory towers mentality in parts of the public sector.
But in many ways you're right, we need to figure out what we can do well and focus our efforts on supporting the development of these talents,
(although I don't know what the global demand is for lager louts).
However, to do this we must look to the future and stop clinging to the past.
Complain about this comment
I just cannot believe the cynicism shown towards the tories in the comments.
Do you all really want another 10 years of new Labour?
It's so pathetic that so many people cannot admit to themselves that they made a terrible mistake by voting labour back in at the last election.
Moreover, there is such class hatred that many cannot bear the thought of the country being run by public school boys, even when the alternative is too awful to imagine.
For me Osborne may not be the finished article, but I will happily vote conservative at the next election because it represents the only realistic hope of the country avoiding bankruptcy and complete breakdown.
Complain about this comment
It's not just bankers that the tax payer has to support.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/3758169/Taxpayers-face-public-sector-pension-black-hole-of-1-trillion-CBI-warns.html
Complain about this comment
As I understand it the current populist government has extremely incompetently allowed some £90bn and rising of unfunded debt to fall on the heads of the nation. Each point rise in interest rates will increase the cost of all debt by an extra £13bn.
Who ever becomes the next chancellor of the exchequer will inherit dreadful state finances and hopefully a large majority will agree that these should be corrected. He or she will have to get used to being very unpopular. This cannot be done with populist policies. Quite how the responsible media report such attempts will be interesting. It is doubtful that the IMF will have the funds available similar to its 1977 rescue of that administration, who similarly recked the nation's finances.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
243. At 3:38pm on 07 Oct 2009, writingsonthewall wrote:
""I did read the rest of your comments but they are so paranoid about the state that I seriously think you need help. Then I read this:
"There is no third way"
....well with a defeatist attitude like that why are you still bothering to breathe?
A world of infinite possibilities and Gothnet gets stuck at 2!""
An interesting observation given that you are also stuck at 2 (read your own posts over the weeks - nada) But don't worry you are in good company Marx didn't propose any solutions either - just spent his life whinging about how bad it was working in a factory (not him you understand) that someone else built thinking "wouldn't it be great if the government abolished property and gave me some of this factory that I did not build and do not own" He was a barstool intellectual and his ideas are as dead as he is.
271. At 6:00pm on 07 Oct 2009, rbs_temp wrote:
"Gold is a currency just like any other" - no, gold is real money, whereas fiat paper is currency. Very different as you will see over the coming years. In gold there is truth, in gold there is liberty. Since the end of the gold standard there has been no settlement and is the crux of where we are today. A fake currency, in a fake economy.
Complain about this comment
Ah those rich teachers whose pay is being frozen, that'll show em. Hey, the fact that you get paid far less in the public sector than the private sector is neither here nor there.
The big tory idea seems to be how to pay more for worse services.
Complain about this comment
Osbornes idea to put a ceiling on upper levels of civil service and local government pay is a sound one ,one gets the impression that the remuneration comitees in local authorities are backscratchers anonymous not disimilar insubstance to the bankers who sat on eachothers remuneration comitees to decide how big a piece from ponzi pie each could have.
Complain about this comment
# 280
Shows the official "debt" figures for the whitewash they are doesn't it?
The public sector should be forced to do what the private sector has to do, and put money away to fund future pensions whenever additional pension liabilities are incurred.
Then we might get a bit closer to seeing the real cost of the public sector and hence the real deficit.
Complain about this comment
Cuts to the left of me, Cuts to the right, Stuck in the middle ?
What is it with these people, no drive, no ambition, no imagination.
We still have a financial services industry skilled in attracting investors with too much money from all over the globe to invest in hairbrained fantasy schemes (Portsmouth FC anybody)
We own some banks that can give the illusion of leading the investments (financed by the QE/Gilt moneygoround)
I suggest we start on a really big ambitious project, a project of a scale never before seen.
The European Hole.
Situated in the West Midlands (where else), The European Hole will be the widest man-made hole ever built on the surface of the earth. And deep, deeper than any hole ever imagined. It will take years of skilled labour, many thousands of diggers and supporting industries. Investors can stay in luxurious hotels built near the site so that they can see their investment taking shape, service industries in the region will boom bringing in more foreign investment, infrastructure to support it will be created, investment opportunities will be myriad.
And when the project is complete and we have poured all of the investors money into the ground we will be 'TOO BIG TO FAIL' and our creditors will have no option but to bail us out.
Did we learn nothing from the banks ?
Complain about this comment
284. At 00:18am on 08 Oct 2009, Mandricard wrote:
Ah those rich teachers whose pay is being frozen, that'll show em. Hey, the fact that you get paid far less in the public sector than the private sector is neither here nor there.
========
Actually I wasn't badly paid as a Teacher, (although even now I take exception to anyone saying 'You must miss the Holidays' - arrrrggg, I spent them preparing lessons for the next term or marking exam papers from the previous one AND I needed to catchup on all the sleep I missed marking books until stupid hours of the morning during term time and finally, for some reason, I was only EVER sick in my holidays - b*gg*r)
But back on topic for two seconds, I took a pay cut when I left and went into IT. Teaching, however is c**p, and I'm amazed anyone would do it, well, in State schools, certainly in some of the sink comps I taught in. Odd really, on the evidence it would appear that Socialists hate the working class, some of the smartest kids were in the Comps(there were smart kids in the private schools I taught in, but there were more higher quality in the Comps) and boy what a miserable life they had. I can understand all the Labour MPs sending their kids to private schools or fiddling to get them in the likes of the London Oratory, but to then leave everyone elses kids in such dumps and even defend the system defies belief. Yep, I do hate Labour, I expect some Tories to battle for the system, but then it does help to get your child into the top jobs if the smart poor kids are stuck in the dark ages.
Still, they can become Sportsmen or Sportswomen, such important jobs can still be selected on ability, just not unimportant jobs such as your surgeons, Engineers, Politicians - ah yes, Politicians, if we had a meritocracy all the Labour/Tory Dynasties probably wouldn't survive.
Way off the track of remuneration I know, but there we are. Oh yes, I lost my job recently, outsourced,(would I be writing this at 3am if I had to work?) still thats the private sector for you, and no, I wouldn't go back to teaching, despite all the offers - actually Supply Teaching pays well, although make sure you get a school with a SWAT team - I can't remember if most of them did have or not. It doesn't make life easier, but can be most entertaining,I remember one particular lesson when I was teaching/baby sitting in a hall with 3 entrances, it was a like the Keystone cops, enter recalcitrant pupil stage left 15 mins into lesson, swears blind he should be in my class, before he finds a seat, enter SWAT team stage right, exit at great speed recalcitrant pupil stage centre, followed by swat team, second later enter stage right said pupil, followed by immediate exit left, followed by Swat team members entering right and centre asking had I seen said pupil, all my kids point to left exit (no honour amongst thieves or schoolkids it would appear) exit left swat team, then lo and behold enter stage centre said pupil, heads right only to meet 3rd Swat team member entering, bounces off and heads left straight into other 2 members of Swat Team (Thankfully, as I was beginning to think it didn't look good to the kids the 3 man* Swat team not catching a one man fugitive), this time fails to bounce off and is carted off stage left, 3rd member radios in 'Suspect apprehended', well maybe not quite those words. Sigh, if it wasn't for the General Teaching Council, I might be tempted back BUT ONLY IF I could become a SWAT team member and have a radio and the coloured 'flack jacket' - who knows nowadays they may even get issued with firearms! Maybe thats why the troops in Afghanistan are short,Govt are issuing all the body armour to schools - OK, maybe the Chinooks aren't in the schools yet, although I bet an Apache or two would go down a bomb with the SWAT teams.
*man above is used in the sense of Homo Sapiens/Mankind, one of the team was female, I would have been happy to have bumped into her, but not if I were a recalcitrant fugitive.
(Caveat that was some years ago, during Mr Education , Education! Education? 's tenure as Con Man In Chief, so for all I know state schools are now havens of peace and light and seats of learning.)
Finally, trying to write proper English in a tiny window at 3am is a pain so when/if you spot Grammatical errors, spelling mistakes or InaPPropriate Capitalisation, it is no reflection on the education of teachers in general, but may be on me in particular. Teachers will, however unfair it may be, suffer along with the rest of us, as our Government as well as our MPs are above the law and change their implied or actual contracts with us, particularly regarding pensions, at their whim, and put their hand into yours and my pocket with impunity. As an aside, private companies also change their contracts at their whim, which I find odd, as I damned sure, once signed, I couldn't change it to suit me.
Complain about this comment
#288
TheEnglishman
Great post, gave me something to laugh at, if only it wasn't also such a worrying reflection on the plight of our education system.
Complain about this comment
Robert Preston is adding to the illusion. Why did he correct his thoughts half way down? Why do we have to find out that in fact most of what has been said doesn't appear to be true?
The Tory Party is the party of the financiers, bankers etc. who created this crisis. They introduced de-regulation and they don't seem to be advocating changing that. Why are they proposing cuts at the top of the public sector as their first option? Because their plans are that they want to see it fail so that they can privatise it. They will NEVER NEVER try to control the private sector, i.e. the market economy at the financial level that got us into this mess. They have learnt nothing. They are still rigidly Free Marketeers wherever that market may lead us. They didn't want to act as the Brown Government did to try to prevent a depression. Like the Neo-Cons in America they wanted the market to correct itself. They are ideologists.
Not only that but Osborne and Cameron are seriously dangerous people because they think the world belongs to the rich. They are not compassionate Tories like Butler in the old days, or even Clarke today. They are decadent minds living in modern bodies. Osborne particularly has no sense of fairness.
Why don't the Tories renounce Thatcherism if they have truly changed? How they have the nerve to blame this crisis on the Government when it was years of their kind playing fast and loose which has brought the world to this pass. And they want us to have more of it?
If the Tories get back this country will suffer because they have no answers to the world financial crisis. However Brits have a huge reservoir of public action and revolt to draw on, a long radical history. I can't believe that Robert Preston is not aware of this. If not he should be. History tells us that the Tories will smash and grab what they can while they can. But it will release an anger that has yet to be reckoned with.
Complain about this comment
Seeme like a good excuse to raise the PMs pay!!
Anyway, we're not comparing apples with apples here. When it comes to recruiting a new PM there is a limited field (of fairly limited people) from which to choose :(
Complain about this comment
@276
Twelve years ago the Tories handed over to country to a public school and Oxford educated posh kid(Blair) and a Phd history academic(Brown).
Look how they screwed up
Complain about this comment
I don't for one favour any of the options available in this election but a simple case of I don't want an unelected government that throws money around in charge for any longer. There is nobody left in this current government that I voted for and that could not and should not happen in a democratic country.
I for one plan to vote tory not because I support a lot of what they stand for but because there isn't a decent option to vote for. Labour under Tony Blair did many good things minimum wage, tax credits etc.. but they wasted money. Then Brown came in did more of the same and then introduced a 10p tax rate to tax the poorest in society. They also in the last election said they wouldn't introduce top up fees for students and then did anyway. (I agree with students paying for their study but saying one thing to gain votes then not doing it is fraud surely??)
The sheer amount of money we as a country have pumped into to every area of life from the NHS to education should have yeilded better results or am I the only person that thinks this. The NHS is closing hospitals and moving ambulance centres futher away (or certainly are where I am living) you still can't get to see a doctor or a dentist when you need to see one, you either wait weeks on end or have to pay privatly. Transport in this country is nothing short of a national disgrace with prices for transport going up every single year both when travelling by car or using public transport. Education may be hitting all these fancy targets but children leaving school now don't know how to do simple things like cook for themselves or have any respect for anyone elders or otherwise.
What we really need is some people actually capable of making decisions, the tory party announced that they would increase the pension age which is going to have to happen but then it turns out they will set up some sort of commitee to decide how that will happen
How and why does it take a commitee to decide this we elect these people to make decisions not ask someone else to do it, then the idea is voted for before parliment so one persons wacky idea in theory can't become law.
Tell the public sector to like it or leave when it comes to a pay freeze for one year. Its only one year, in comparison to the wage rises they normally receive in comparison with the private sector low paid workers who are lucky to get any pay rise at all. There is a large portion of unemployeed people in this country who will take their jobs if they don't want them.
Complain about this comment
A Freudian slip?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8296079.stm
‘The CBO said the increased spending was due in large part to the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program for financial firms’
A new acronym for TARP anyone? Whoops. Nenver mind its only 1.4trn Jings Crivens
Complain about this comment
283. At 11:48pm on 07 Oct 2009, truths33k3r
Interesting....
It seems you (like others) are merely a child - you don't want to go to the trouble of finding alternative solutions to big problems - you simply want someone to tell you what to do.
It's laughable that you write Marx's off as you do, and yet you claim the whole Economic system is a ponzi scheme since we left the Gold standard (which I don't disagree) - if you knew anything you would know the reason the Gold standard was dropped was to offset the Economic crisis at the time - a crisis which Marx explained clearly in his writings.
So the current system doesn't work and all you can do is moan about it and insist there is no way out of it.
Sounds like you're doing exactly what you accused Marx of. Your solution of 'going back to the Gold standard' would put a mail in the coffin of growth as we unwind the last 50 years of Economic expansion for as you must be aware the pulling back to'gold value' would decimate all those who have printed money since then - the US would collapse and then maybe we get WWIII - nice.
....now that's barstool philosphy.
Still - I suppose you can always ask your mummy what to do if you require guidance.
I however have already started looking for another way - because unlike you I decided to get off my backside and do something about it - you on the other hand can sit in the dark and moan about the entire crisis of the world being Gordon Browns fault and completely miss the last few hundered years of capitalism being the culprit.
...because even Gordon Brown had a hand in the 'south sea bubble' - didn't he?
Complain about this comment
The ratio of salaries between the top and bottom of almost all organisations has grown spectactularly over the last twenty years, and has become both unjustifiable and immoral.
If the conservatives are intending to do what Labour has so clearly failed to do and tackle this, then good luck to them. It's about time someone did.
But, cynic that I am, I cna't help suspecting that the motivation to do this will decline markedly once they are in office and need the goodwill of all the organisation bosses who are earning more than them . . .
Complain about this comment
I have voted all my life, From Wilson onwards. I`ve now given up on the lot of them. I wish there was a space on the ballot paper headed "None of the Above". Cameron is Blair-lite. Brown is finished. Clegg is -who? I do wonder whether we need political parties at all. A parliament of true independents answerable to us citizens could be the way forward.At present there is no democracy. Many ministers are appointed-who voted for Baroness Scotland? Why hasn`t she been sacked? Where is the honour left among our elected dictatorship.
I have put a number of questions to the Tory party. I`ve yet to receive any answers. By the way pensioners, Osborne didn`t mention the winter fuel allowance. I think you can kiss goodbye to that, or at the very least pay tax on it.
Complain about this comment
273. At 6:11pm on 07 Oct 2009, Reaper_of_Souls
You're living in a fantasy land.
You cannot seriously believe the Government could 'gurantee' all the savings of the population without collapsing sterling.
The guarantee is nothing more than another unfulfillable promise. What the Government actually did is make a promise to any individual who might loose their savings that the rest of us would have a whip round to pay for it.
The reality is that if you're plan went ahead there simply wouldn't be enough cash in the pot to pay out anything. I know someone who had savings in one of the icelandic banks and they still haven't had it refunded. The whole thing is a bluff to give confidence to the public - it couldn't actually happen.
Your suggestion of a barter Economy is probably accurate - afer all that's what Russia did in the 90's - however it's a bit difficult to run a modern Economy when there is no form of universal exchange commodity (money) - it might be interesting, but a real pain to live with.
It seems to me that you (like many others) are desperate to cling on to the hope that 'things will sort themselves out' - Old lady writingsonthewall has the same opinion because it always has done the past - however you should know that past performance isn't a reflection of future performance.
If you don't believe me - then believe your hero - David Cameron - he's talking about Austerity and cutbacks under his government before the election can you find another case where the front runner for the election is talking down the jig before he's even got it?
We all know politicians are liars - so you can assume he's being economic with the truth. However it's unlikely things are going to be better than he suggests - it's much more likely they will be far worse.
Can you ever remember a time when the TV is plagued with adverts to send in your gold for melting down? Not even in the 80's recession did that happen.
Time to start brushing up on your bartering skills then - don't you think?
Complain about this comment
My heart bleeds for the 'relevant institutions'
Complain about this comment
BBC headline today. US defecit at record 877 billion pounds.
The UK defecit? 832+ billion pounds. 832,000.000.000 increasing at around 1 mill every two minutes.
How did we get to this point? How is this not headline news on the Beeb?
All possible cuts (trident etc) will only pay the interest... and that is for just 1 year. The scale is staggering and we are nowhere near the size of the USA.
Complain about this comment
Ah. Wow. I have enjoyed your posts, however re: 259 Peasants to Superpower, please eamine the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Perhaps the cost was too high for Russia to be used as an example.
Keep posting!
Complain about this comment
To An Englishman
I was horrified to read your summary to sink school teaching.
We keep being told how much cash is going into the system, but like a drug rehab scheme it seems to offer a poor outcome.
I have young children and dread the type of education in life the comprehensives have on offer. I am more than aware that my kids will never have the education advantages of Boris, George and David.
But one thing that YOU, with your combined skills could offer would be a website offering the best lectures from the best teachers on the main subjects. A bit of an "Eton for Plebs" offering.
Sounds like you may have some time on your hands. And it would be a new way to access real ideas for kids in the SWAT classrooms.I,ve been looking online for ages for this and not found it yet.
Maybe if you set yourself up as an online acadamy you would get a grant.
Complain about this comment
Writingsonthewall
Still waiting to hear what you advocate or represent or believe. I'd be satisfied if you simply said that you believed in nothing, or that you believed only in whatever allowed to you take a contrary stance in blog threads.
A value system based entirely on naming what you don't like is a pretty modest ambition for such an intellectual. If you can't articulate an alternative how are we to follow you into the sunny uplands of enlightenment? You claim in your latest homily that "all politicians are liars". Have you considered buying a new shaving mirror?
Complain about this comment
302 Annewworld
I share your fears about how the education system ends up betraying our children, especially bright kids from poor backgrounds. I forget the exact numbers but a recent analysis said something like...that in any year of 11 year old children there are roughly 30,000 kids who are considered to top tier...7,000 of then in private schools, 21,000 in the State. By age 14 there are still 7,000 top kids in the private sector but only 11,000 in the state sector. Where have these children gone?
So much of state sector teaching seems to be about crowd control. Poverty of ambition seems to seep through the system infecting teachers and children alike. I'm not sure that the sector is even short of money these days and the facilities often appear better than those in many private schools. It will be unpopular to say it but, despite the herculean efforts of some teachers, the dead hand of public sector bureaucracy is writ large across the system and we will continue to short-change our children until someone has the courage to face down the "educationalists".
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
Yes, I feel sick thinking of the comprehensive experience. I was very lucky to be placed into a (now considered non PC) Catholic school, where discipline and high standards could be imposed without too much local authority red tape.
That education meant that I was able to head to a decent university and into a well paid job. Those schools are now as rare as hens teeth and the rules to get in are so strict you would have to be the Popes daughter to access them.
Your point about bureaucracy is spot on. Each child at a school yields 5000 pounds a year for the school, so my 2 children over a 14 year school career will provide 140,000 pounds for the schools. I am sure that I can do better with the cash by teaching my kids at home, but that isn't an option.
Maybe a complete overhaul is needed, with real people, not education experts providing the blueprint.
Complain about this comment
303. At 11:54am on 08 Oct 2009, Anglophone wrote:
Clearly you are a sheep who needs to be shown the way - I am not and therefore do not.
I do not need to give you a 'belief' so that you can put me in a box like you do everyone else. My views have been more or less consistent - just not recognised as 'left' or 'right' which confuses you as I cannot be classified.
I am merely trying to warn you all of the impending doom we face - but if don't want to listen then it's no skin off my nose. You can carry on in your belief (or rather hope) that 'Reds' or 'Blues' will solve your problems for you.
I have already seen the plans of red and blue and neither will work - they will both end in disaster. The solution to the problem cannot be found in the political arena but outside of it.
To effect real change you need a population's will - adversity drives that will as it shall this time.
Complain about this comment
I have come to a strange idea regarding democracy, and as this thread is soon to be subsumed I will voice it here. I and many others seem to be sick and tired of the 'government club' whether it is right , left, centre or any spectrum colour, it is by its nature bound to unwritten rules that engender a particular thought pattern on the encumbents.
Call it the party line.
Call it graft, call it corruption.
Call it extremism.
It is always the same animal trapped in its long pen of blinkered thinking.
So, true democracy, and a check and balance for the political parties... 50 new parliamentary seats, to be taken for initially one month periods (extendable) by ordinary citizens (sorry, HM subjects) selected on the same basis as for jury service. All expenses paid and jobs guaranteed.
Clearly for understandability, the effect of all bills must be diluted into plain english (A whole new quango for those quango fans).
But, for smoothing out the political extremes and injecting 'man on the clapham omnibus' reality into our decision making (not to mention usurping civil service yes minister agendas), it is not such a crazy idea.
Is it?
Complain about this comment
180. At 11:01am on 07 Oct 2009, writingsonthewall wrote:
126. At 00:47am on 07 Oct 2009, SpartacusmartyrAAAs wrote:
"The "highly paid CEO tallent" running local authorities, for the most part went along with the IDEA OF INVESTING council tax receipts IN ICELANDIC BANKS,no doubt the extra half percent interest translated into a substantial performance related bonus for them and their croniease ."
...after they took advice from PRIVATE SECTOR financial advisors who suggested Iceland as a 'safe bet'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writingson the wall ,I remember when i first heard about local authorities brain freezer of investing OUR LOLLY iniceland and thinking to myself "there goes the money down another ponzi scheme drain ".
Now although im not trained as an economist, it was obvious to me that it was another box ticking bonus enhancing scaaam on the part of local authority ceo's with the buck being passed now by peole like yourself to those experts and crony friends of the diseased[like the AAA's rating agencies]AND WHO also no doubt WERE remunerated at great expence by council quack payers for their expert advice .
Your prodigious outpourings are more suited to the "whitingontheroll"sibrouquet
Complain about this comment
"What he appeared in the round to be proposing was a programme of national sacrifice to reduce debt and create a culture of saving."
I'm sorry Mr Peston but I must take you to task over this statement.
It is not a national sacrifice when the wealthy are doing little in terms of taking one for the team.
5% on an MPs salary of £60k+ pa is not much, 5% on £15k pa is a considerable amount more in terms of what the person earning each amount can afford to lose. Thus MPs are not "in it all together" with the rest of us. Also George's Inheritence Tax pledge benefits the top 3k wealthy people in this country whilst not helping those lower down the ladder.
I hate to sound like the Nu Labour representative on Question Time this evening but I agree with her comments on these "promises" by the Tories, I just wish she had the balls to come out and say what she should have said - The Tories will only be helping themselves and their wealthy chums out of the recession meanwhile the low paid worker and even the middle class will be trodden on, yet again, in the name of capitalism and profit. The wealthy have gotten where they are on the backs of their workforce who are often struggling to make ends meet, it's about time the wealthy took one for the team, properly.
Complain about this comment
I've just arrived back from Manchester. It has been a hugely inspiring conference on many levels and I think I really need some time to take it all in. The Conservative Party have so often been criticised for spilling rhetoric and not having any policies. David Cameron's Conservative Party have always had policies. Many of them have been adopted by Labour!
The modern Conservative Party also recognise some areas where Labour policies have succeeded. They not only acknowledge the fact but give clear indication that they will protect and improve in those areas.
One of the most moving events at the conference for me was the full length video of Cameron Direct. David Cameron is one of the greatest leader of the Conservative Party of all time, if not the greatest. History shows that leading the Conservatives is one of the toughest roles any man or woman could ever have. It was the cause of Margret Thatcher's downfall. She did not fail in being a Prime Minister. She did not fail as a stateswoman. She failed as leader of the Conservative Party.
David Cameron is not only a great leader of the Conservative Party but someone who is truly and totally motivated at being in touch with the electorate. His leadership comes from listening to real people. He is not in politics for money. I don't think he is there for glory. I think he is a good man who really desires the best for all. He cares about the weak and the needy. He has plans to motivate and gain the best from all. He has a huge respect for those who give to society and to our country. His vision is that we as a nation have great talents and that with good leadership we can achieve things that are beyond our imagination right now. These things do not seem to be above his imagination and if there is anything that I have taken away from the conference it is that he has seen a great potential in the people of the United Kingdom and that he will lead us to not just to aspire to more than we can imagine but to achieve also.
I think if you ask me when I have had time to digest the whole experience - What did I come away with?
Hope.
Complain about this comment
Good points from the ex Teachers and those who state how our education system lets down the poor.
The one critical point about private education is not the vast resource and better teachers it has access to, but that it can be selective whereas the state school must be inclusive.
The key is getting the aggressive kids who don't want to learn into special schools and giving the rest a chance.
Complain about this comment
1. Do not be fooled by the Tories - but knowing the 'British' public they will be - do not forget, the reason we are going to have 60% energy cost rises is because Thatcher (Cameron et al are mates with her and supported her), sold off all our energy and closed the mines - you were warned at the time by Arthur Scargill - but most of you chose to support - 'Thatcher the Milk Snatcher'
2. I worked in public service for 35 years - if I had made one mistake - yes, only 1, in my expenses, I would have been sacked on the spot - reported to the police and altho' I have professional qualifications, I would not have been able to get a job again - these lot - a) are loaded anyway b) the fact that they break laws, steal from us etc is of no matter - they will not suffer like Jo Public does
3. Get used to it - we DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY - IT IS A 'DYNASTY' OF THOSE THAT HAVE AND THEY ARE ALL MATES - HOW CAN ONE BE MATES WITH SOMEONE LIKE THATCHER, FOR EXAMPLE - SHE STOLE FROM US, MADE MILLIONS UNEMPLOYED, DESTROYED WHOLE COMMUNITIES - OH AND OF COURSE, SHE SAYS - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY/COMMUNITY - AND THIS LOT THAT ARE SEEKING YOUR VOTE WILL CARRY ON THE PLUNDER OF OUR INCOMES AND RESOURCES.
As my dad said many years ago: These people do not believe in God (my dad was ex-catholic - now atheist) - if they did, they would not carry out the policies, nor act they way they do - read the Bible or Koran - whatever - these people, including her Maj, know that when they die there will be no consequences for them - I HOPE THEIR 'FAITH' IN GETTING AWAY WITH IT IS MISPLACED.
4. AND IF YOU NEEDED ANY FURTHER PROOF OF THEIR ARROGANCE, 2009 IS THE 500TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE THIEVING HENRY THE 8TH - IF THEY HAD ANY SHAME AT THE WANTON DESTRUCTION, HE AND HIS DESCENDENTS, MAJ INCLUDED, HAVE AND CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT - WITNESS HARRY/WILLIAM/CHARLES USING OUR RESOURCES FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH ENDS - BUT WHAT'S NEW?? THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT 'THE PEOPLE' - LOOK TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CELEBRATING THIS YEAR WITH THE ISSUE OF A £5 COIN - TO CELEBRATE THEIR PLUNDER.
This is the true nature of the majority of the Brits, but in particular, the English (and unfortunately that's my nationality) - look to your history about the Islands here - drunkards/whoremongers/violent/thieves...need I go on?
If I do, then you are already lost as a soul/person.
IF IT WERE UP TO ME THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM, IF NOT EXECUTED, SHOULD BE PILLORIED SO I CAN GO AND THROW ROTTEN STUFF AT THEM AND HUMILIATE THEM - AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THE PARASITES - POLITICIANS/ROYALTY/MANAGERS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR - HOPE YOU GET MY DRIFT - AND NO, I AM NOT A COMMIE, IT JUST MAKES ME ILL TO SEE THEM GETTING AWAY WITH EVERYTHING, AND 'YOU LOT' ACCORDING TO LATEST POLLS - WILL VOTE FOR THEM AND IN ANOTHER 10YRS WE'LL BE REHEARSING THE SAME MANTRA - TIMES THEY'RE GONNA BE HARD,BUT NOT FOR THEM THAT HAS EITHER MONEY OR 'STATUS' - THEY HAVE NO STATUS IN MY EYES
Complain about this comment
Bonuses, pay offs, only for the rich, has been troubling me, and one particular one I decided to enquire about. No point in me trying to get companies to explain their excessive renumeration of people at the top, as not being a shareholder they'd ignore me. But what of Channel 4, a publicly owned company in which we are all shareholders. Well, I asked them about the pay offs the companies directors get when they choose to leave, which are six figure sums of cash, paid, according to C4's reports, as "compensation". What, I wondered, do they need to be "compensated" for when, of their own volition, they've decided to quit C4? And their reply? They refused to discuss it. So I've tried getting our elected representatives in parliment to say what they think of C4 directors taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of the companies cash with them when they depart,and I can't get any, so far, to even answer. In fact it's become to long a saga, still ongoing, to recount in posts in forums such as this, so I'm recounting it, as it happens, in a blog. If your interested you can see it here,
http://tvlicenceorvod.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS