Comments for en-gb 30 Thu 24 Jul 2014 20:44:05 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Big Sister *Groan* Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:08:54 GMT+1 U14595260 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:06:18 GMT+1 U14595260 Pickles says he's flexible about how local authorities raise money - more so than Labour.There's more danger here. Getting rid of an asset that doesn't provide revenue and costs to upkeep saves money even if the assets get given away.Remember the council house sales and the cemetery given away.It'll be tracts of land next - commuity playing fields, park land etc. To people who know how to look after open land, of course, the people who passed it over to the local authorities as death duties in the first place.Clegg and Cameron's aristo friends, friends. The hallmark of this coalition is the admix of the mad extreme ideas of liberal democracy and of toryism. The only people who will benefit from this government are the sorts descended from Clegg's landowning and banking ancestors This is a coalition detached from ordinary people, divorced from the real processes of wealth creation. Rentier interests are the only interests they have in common and the only interests they are pursing, driving down the price of labour, throwing dust in the face of their pursers by claiming ordinary people are no more than a generation or two from getting what is rightfully theirs. Goodness they're as bad as a couple of the Labour Party leadership candidates, as bad as the traitors Ralph Milliband used to warn us about. Except that Clegg and Cameron don't even pay lip service to socialism.Skip the next three posts if you're bored by people droning on and on ccomplaining about the development of socialist theory and who take refuge in calling me names. (Should shut 'em up. (:-) Moderators there is NOTHING about this post or its author breaking House Rules, I promise you) Fri 17 Sep 2010 00:37:23 GMT+1 U14595260 What a pickle Pickles is in.In Brum just now I paid £1.80 for three hours at a Green Zone meter, 400 metres from the Centre. A Council do.On Sunday last in an empty National Thingy Park multistorey I paid £9.80 for three hours.What is the split National Thingy Parks for cars gives to the Councils?Actually I think we should make National Thingy Parks for cars pay a polution tax for every vehicle hour parked there. Thu 16 Sep 2010 15:30:31 GMT+1 U14595260 Goodness me, we really ARE up against it and Eddie is a major source of hope.These coalitional parties can offer anything they like in their manefestos and then do whatever they want in government, saying 'That's coalitional politics.' But if they knew they were going into coalition and knew the other party wouldn't wear it, that's lying.And Eddie is the best lie detector in the game.And if they know they won't get their way with their coalitional partners but still say it's their policy, they're trying to get credit for political failure. Thu 16 Sep 2010 15:26:21 GMT+1 U14519596 33. redheylin"32 - I blame that Ming Dynasty. If it had not been for them inventing paper money....""Benjamin FranklinA Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency (1729)There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one's Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and there fore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho' it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity o/ a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed...." Thu 16 Sep 2010 10:36:21 GMT+1 davmcn rh 28, An air-headed remark? Thu 16 Sep 2010 09:44:52 GMT+1 davmcn rh 21, If you can't pick on the ARGUMENT, pick on the poster's spelling. Thu 16 Sep 2010 09:43:40 GMT+1 davmcn rh 14, What argument? Thu 16 Sep 2010 09:41:55 GMT+1 U14595260 Why isn't Vince Cable at the TUC? He is all that is best in coalition politics.'Vote Clegg', get Cable, I seem to remember was the proud boast here!First there was the volte-face on this year's cuts. Then there was nowt but a 'behind the arras' whisper at the 'casino taking over the bank' at Barclays. Now he's privatising the mail, ihncluding parcels, without affecting post offices.Goodnness, he's looking more and more each day like that avuncular private school teacher, tweeds and elbow patches, them at the TUC never had the benefit of.He's a natural Thu 16 Sep 2010 00:06:30 GMT+1 U14595260 Wow, there's a Professor Philo at Glasgow who supports our view hat the whole Hationnal /debt can be paid off by the richest 10 percent.If your contribution is 1 million and your assets are all tied up in a 14 million pound house in Sandbanks, the Revenue takes a charge on your house and sells it to a bank ...and retires debt with it.No cuts needed. PS Have you heard one of the consequences of tax neutrality that this so-called government is keen on promoting? The prestigious (ie the others went to his lectures) James Mirlees inspired this stuff. No tax on transactions. What not even a little Tobin Tax that we were very keen on, only weeks ago here. Wed 15 Sep 2010 23:46:46 GMT+1 U14595260 Intrigued by Mervyn King at the TUC.'Course if you help kick everyone out of your University who says capitalism is subject to regular crashes and is inherently unstable.....and if you CAN'T believe a Chancellor Howe and a Prime Minister Thatcher would deliberately cause a slump......and if you don't believe there's much wrong with capitalism's inequalities ('cos 'interpersonal comparison is impossible')....then saving cappitalism by chucking billions to banksters rather than forming state banking sector.....and now insisting that workers get poorer to jack up profits, 'cos as redheylin points out the usual asset price inflation mechanisms are on hold (housing and shares)'d think you'd keep away from the TUC. Morally hazardous, I'd have thought. Wed 15 Sep 2010 23:21:09 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse 23 I don't believe that the people who were over borrowing appreciated the assurance you believe 'Brown's boasting' gave them - if they understood then they would have understood that it didn't count for anything.Unless you're the dumb fool who believed it. In any case all Brown's enemies were trashing the idea, not because they understood but because they didn't want Labour to succeed.People were borrowing because they lived in a free country and because there was a shortage of some assets, esp housing. Now I wanted more social housing, I think Brown wanted more housing but he wanted more private housing, still would have reduced house prices. I don't think Brown was a good PM but I don't accept that the crisis was his fault, except that he didn't stand up to forces that would probably have beaten him. Had he gone for borrowing controls we would now be looking at a Tory government that had won on the basis that such controls were wrong, and which had removed them just inn time for the crash.He could have created blocks on financial organisations trading in instruments they didn't understand or where implausibly over rated (on the safe to invest in scale) but it wouldn't have stopped it happening in the US or the crash that occurred when lenders found out that some of these instruments were worthless. It was when they stopped lending even to safe bets that caused the crisis, caused when they got their fingers burnt in America. We could only have stopped that by leaving the free market age and going back to feudalism. Wed 15 Sep 2010 20:54:24 GMT+1 elcej Hey! reheylin.... repeat after me"calm, calm, calm" Wed 15 Sep 2010 20:04:17 GMT+1 Redheylin According to the OECD seven of its member states exceeded the OECD average deficit of -7.9% by the end of 2009. The table below shows their deficit as a percentage of GDP in 2007 and 2009: 2007 2009Ireland 0.1 -14.3Greece -5.4 -13.5UK -2.7 -11.3Spain 1.9 -11.2USA -2.8 -11.0Portugal-2.7 -9.4Iceland 5.4 -9.1Three of the countries now in the direst state had surpluses before the Crash and four were in deficit. Iceland had one of the healthiest fiscal positions of all OECD nations in 2007. The thing these countries share is not a bad deficit position prior to the 2008 meltdown but heavy reliance on banking and/or construction Wed 15 Sep 2010 19:33:20 GMT+1 Redheylin So:Osborne says he has a mandate. Yesterday's Times-Populus poll had three-quarters of respondents rejecting both the speed and the scale of the cuts.Osborne says Brown was responsible for the credit crunch. The best that can be argued here is that it was Brown, not the banks, that was encouraging citizens to take out more credit.Osborne said in an Oct. 09 "keynote speech" (still available on Con's website) that a growth plan was needed as was legal limits on banking and its bonus culture. He has not mentioned it since.Osborne says that stringent cuts are unavoidable. Mervyn King says otherwise (while still pleading with the unions to act as though they were).It's not a good record - and he has not done anything yet! Wed 15 Sep 2010 19:05:15 GMT+1 Redheylin (to protect) the markets, banks and high earners, + c. Sorry, pressed "replace" Wed 15 Sep 2010 18:44:08 GMT+1 Redheylin 32 - I blame that Ming Dynasty. If it had not been for them inventing paper money.... Right, if you want, Brown's rhetoric "played a part". The recession still happened in Europe and America, where no Brown boasted. The current administration, however, seeks to lay the blame for the entire collapse of banking on the Labour administration, and this hypnotic mantra is evidently intended to reconcile us to an "inevitable" policy that has, as Mervyn King said, completely valid arguments against it, the markets, banks and high earners, to maintain unbalance in the economy and unacceptable pay differentials, to justify cuts to public services.But I do not think many people are getting hypnotised, that's all. Apart from our friends at PM, who have conveniently cut down on financial/economic/fiscal analysis and who fail to pick up statements they know to be untrue. Wed 15 Sep 2010 18:41:44 GMT+1 IMOORE 23/I am sorry Brown's boasting did play a part in the recession. For Brown's boast that he had done away with boom and bust gave everybody the idea that they could load up with debt, mortgages at 5-6-7 times earnings , and melt the plastic without any regard to risk. Wed 15 Sep 2010 18:26:30 GMT+1 IMOORE 29/We didn't have steady economic growth, our manufacturing sector retreated, our housing market was in an unsustainable boom, Gordon Brown couldn't make the books balance, and we were the most personally indebted people in the world, EVER. We carried more credit card debt than the rest of Europe put together. That is not steady stable economic growth. Gordon Brown created a binge econmy that went bust. Wed 15 Sep 2010 18:21:02 GMT+1 Sindy 21. redheylinAbsolutely. Osborne is definitely non-U. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:58:35 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse The Tories operated a policy of boom and bust, recessions that deprived UK manufacturers of demand, booms that made life too expensive for their staff, Brown tried to have steady growth, good for manufacturing if only they would make things people would actually want to buy. For some reason they wanted foreign made kit that worked.We had steady growth until the economic crash which was more down to bankers and dodgy investment vehicles that turned out not to be worth their face value. Should Gordon Brown get the blame because some believe that 'there's a mug born every minute' is a business opportunity? Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:43:13 GMT+1 Redheylin 26 Bob Crow RocksI am sorry to hear that. Perhaps he can be shored up with a mullion. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:39:46 GMT+1 Redheylin 25 Rather, I think, to the extremely advantageous conditions of work in the UK combined with the propensity of those lucky workers to spend their money on cheaper imports!I don't think it's a matter of quality - in fact, my £2 s/h Russell-Hobbs kettle, for example, has already achieved double the life of the string of new modern goblet models that preceded it - even though it was at least 20 years old when I bought it. Same for the home-made 60s/70s stereo. And this pattern has been repeated the more I have sought out old technology.It's just price. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:38:42 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn Imoore, redheylin, Jonathanmorse,Bob Crow Rocks. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:36:44 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse Surely the import problem was due to our inability to manufacture reliable products. We've always been good at things that break down. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:31:32 GMT+1 Redheylin 22 Furthermore, you're asking us to accept that public employment and investment was at an acceptable level in 1997. The majority did not think so then, neither did they think so in 2010. It's not a defence of the argument simply to ask us to accept from the outset that the conservative view is correct. I was saying; most people do not accept that and did not vote for it, to say otherwise, as Osborne has, is untrue. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:29:32 GMT+1 Redheylin 22 You're confusing two arguments. Brown's "boasting" and budget deficit did not bring about the recession. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:25:15 GMT+1 IMOORE 18/They didn't just fail to correct it they made it a whole lot worse. In 1997 our current account balance was in the black, under Brown and Blair it went deep in the red, £60 billion in the red. We lost further ground in manufacturing, losing a million jobs, and hid that loss of jobs by massively inflating the state, adding 900k jobs there. 17/Yes the lenders and borrowers were to blame, but then we also had a Chancellor who was egging the lending boom on, boasting that he had done away with boom and bust, boasting about the low interest rates etc, meanwhile Brown pocketed the deflationary effects of the Chinese exports, he also fiddled the inflation numbers by switching to CPI that removed the inflationary effects of housing. Perhaps if we had higher interest rates, as we should have, then the credit binge might have been a little less. Note at the same time Gordon Brown was inflating the economy by running a budget deficit. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:20:40 GMT+1 Redheylin 12 Osborne, sorry - no "u". Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:10:51 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn I meant to say click on the Sinhead O'connor clip at my 19 Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:09:34 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn I think this sums up what a lot of people think about it. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:06:45 GMT+1 Redheylin 15 He oversaw a very distorted economy This is indeed a valid criticism of the Blair/Brown years; that they failed to correct the economy's unbalanced reliance upon the international stock market that you yourself have always defended and that this administration also shows no sign of correcting - rather the opposite since they wish us all to pay to keep things as they are. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:05:07 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse 15 so was it the lenders who too freely lent, or those who too freely borrowed, who were to blame? Hang on, the borrowers, that would be us, then, everybody. If Labour had curbed lending they'd never have won an election against a Tory party that would certainly have committed itself to scrapping such controls. Wed 15 Sep 2010 17:02:38 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse So why only a short campaign to get this statue? I've always seen these campaigns as attempts to make Labour look like it's not patriotic, rather than about celebrating what these people did, run by people who hate the working classes, people who didn't bother with such campaigns when Tories were running the country. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:58:17 GMT+1 IMOORE 12/Gordon Brown was responsible. He was responsible for the regulatory structure that failed. He failed to balance the books in a boom. He oversaw a very distorted economy, and so on. Anyway I believe the Bank of England Governor stated it was the banks and policy makers, in this he is correct, the failure was the policy maker, a Gordon Brown. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:57:11 GMT+1 Redheylin 4 I am not a Labour supporter but I do consider such sniping to be an air-headed avoidance of the substance of argument. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:53:03 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse So Winston Churchill didn't think that the Battle was that important. So all the rest is spin? Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:52:33 GMT+1 Redheylin When Mervyn King asks unions not to frustrate spending cuts he is acting as a party politician. The unions are mainly affiliated to the Labour Party, which recommends a Keynsian response. The Liberal Party also opposed quick and stringent cuts. Yet George Osbourne claims that this administration is mandated to do so, and that the general public accepts this, although the majority voted against. This is unacceptable and needs to be challenged.The Chancellor also repeatedly claims that the credit crunch was created by Gordon Brown - this is a major rationale for the policy of cutbacks. Everybody knows it is untrue, everybody knows about banks and bonuses and trillion-dollar credit. While such mendacity is more usual in a politician than in the head of the Bank of England, it suggests a vested interest on the latter's part and renders the former's reasoning, along with his claims that there is no alternative, unacceptable to a large section of the general public.Workers are being asked to take a step down the social ladder in order to maintain the unacceptable income gap between themselves and the real creators of the mess, and no amount of claptrap from this minority adminsitration will convince them, particularly in the public sector, otherwise.PM has so far failed to challenge these fantasies but, since it finds USA current affairs so much more fascinating than those of the UK, could perhaps ask Mr Osbourne;1) Is it true that the USA had no recession?2) Is it true that Obama's (Labour/Liberal-like) response to this non-existent event is nonsensical and cannot succeed? Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:51:32 GMT+1 davmcn Was that the meerkat, Aleksandr, from the TV ad that just spoke on PM? Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:48:21 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse Is this volunteer also an athlete? Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:44:33 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse Could we save money by scrapping the ONS, it seems to be a front for the Tory Party, keeping quiet about economic growth until Brown was out of power, now slagging off the public worker. How do you compare different jobs? Easy if you've decided the results beforehand. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:43:40 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse I thought what happened with Greece was caused by British and German banks conspiring with the Greek government to hide their debt. Banking regs to stop this are all that is needed. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:40:08 GMT+1 IMOORE 2/I felt the claim and linking of atheism with a third world country should have been explored. As far as I can tell, religion is usually linked with poverty and poor education, so a country where there is aggressive atheism would most definitely not be third world. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:39:47 GMT+1 davmcn I liked Osbourne saying that we are all in this together. Yeah, all of us millionaires. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:37:20 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse I thought the problem the police have is that they can't cut their main cost, they can't make Constables redundant. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:34:40 GMT+1 davmcn rh 1, Another disgruntled Labour sore loser, eh? Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:34:29 GMT+1 Jonathan Morse When Republicans run the US they cut taxes, raise spending on defense, end up more in debt whilst their followers expect debt to fall so when the Democrats get in and they first notice it they blame the Democrats. And the debt goes away when the Republicans get re-elected, or so their followers think, whereas in fact the pro-Republican press stop talking about it. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:33:14 GMT+1 newlach I was quite shocked by the inflammatory comments of the cardinal who called Britain a "third world country" and then attempted to justify his remarks with reference to "aggressive atheism". Hard-working British taxpayers are contributing millions of pounds towards the cost of the Pope's visit and they have every right to voice their disquiet on the matter. Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:22:35 GMT+1 Redheylin Hello. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, is not making sense: in a Home Secretary the nonsense levels are dangerous. She has announced directions to the police regarding classes of crime that must be pursued - but in the case of the News of the World voice-mail affair has announced that such directions cannot in general be made by her department. Now she is able to declare how much money can be saved from police bills without affecting crime - but is unable to provide details of how this is to be done and, indeed, represents an administration that espouses a "localist", or "hands-off", philosophy as regards regional government.As a public service we need the BBC to nail this general question: does the Home Officer intend to micromanage the police, does she not, or is it simply a matter of what suits her from day to day?Because we can all take law-abiding and law-enforcement on a "when it suits me" basis, but it's going to lead rather towards the apocalypse predicted by police lately than towards any "big society". Wed 15 Sep 2010 16:21:34 GMT+1