Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!



Economic Growth-Are lunatics running the economy?
Clive B
Posted: 04 October 2012 12:49:09(UTC)

Joined: 25/11/2010(UTC)
Posts: 508

Thanks: 225 times
Was thanked: 172 time(s) in 100 post(s)
Nobody with any sense would lend money to the Labour party, as a) they have no assets and b) they've got a track record of messing up everything they touch, leaving it for others to sort it out. If it wasn't for money from the unions, they'd be totally bust.

All Labour ever do is blame everything on "the rich" (funny how the gap between rich/poor got wider during their time in office) and dream up plans they don't cost and the country can't afford.
Posted: 04 October 2012 13:42:49(UTC)

Joined: 20/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
If there are "rich" labour supporters, why don't they voluntarily do a 50%, 60%, 70% or 98% tax rate on themselves?

You see those "Labour" celebrities that say and want to show how much they are "Labour"

They could give as much of their income away as they like. They can live in a caravan, or a tent and give all their wealth away to the poor!

You said about no one would lend to them. Well if those "rich" labour supporters would offer up their own livelihoods or homes as collateral, and underwrite those loans, or put their money into such things, and not do it using loans, perhaps they would learn how to manage an economy!!

They can go and buy big screen TVs, SKY boxes, or whatever else they believe that the poor need, they can take all their business profits and give it to the poor, they can sell their own homes and move into a semi-detached, two-up two-down, and live with the poor.

They could build large hotel like places for the homeless, they could buy up brown field sites and build.

They could employ the unemployed designers, architects, builders, etc to build in this country, or the recently graduated who are looking for work and build.

They could take empty offices and rent them and convert them into low-cost accomodation, so their labour members could have a cheaper place to live in hard economic conditions.

But will they?

With all that money they get from the unions.

They could set up a postal company in parallel with the Royal Mail. They could set up schools in parallel to the state education system, they could set up hospitals and everything else in parallel to the state system, OWNED by LABOUR!!

If they actually DID SOMETHING POSITIVE, perhaps we would believe in them, instead of appearing like a bunch of moaners!
Rose G
Posted: 04 October 2012 14:14:09(UTC)

Joined: 26/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 112

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Firstly, I am not a labour party supporter.

Secondly, Nulabour was not representative of working class people. Tony & his gang were no different to the Tories who had messed up during their previous time in goverment.

I understand that currently, the Tories are doing no better than their predecessors, Nulabour.

If Nulabour were still in government, all of the arguments you put forward would apply equally to the Tories when they were in opposition.

Governments are not established to help people, they are there to be creative in making policies that will establish them in the minds of the electorate. If you believe that current governments, wherever in the world this maybe, actually care about their people, then this old fashioned view is somewhat out of date.

No government is able to do any of what you have suggested - if this were their agenda, changes for the better would have taken place already.

The politicians who had a vision of making conditions better for the working classes, like Lloyd George or Aneurin Bevan, were genuine in their aspiration for the people in Britain. They wanted to make Britain a place to be proud off. Their policies enabled a huge housebuilding programme after WWII - there has never been the same aspiration to provide for people who fought in the war, millions losing lives.

Today's politicians are there to create a name for themselves, their egos demand that they spout rhetoric which will never come to fruition.

Nearly all the really honest politicians, whose integrity was unquestionable have all left Westminster to the predators who say one thing to the electorate, while calling us all plebs - this is what is taught at their private schools. Is it any surprise that there are many graduates from Oxford or Cambridge who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, whose aim in politics is to join the bandwagon on the gravy train. The expenses scandal was not that long ago, politicians of all parties were found to have made false claims.

If you believe the current government are doing such a sterling job, they you maybe in for a surprise. None of them knows how to deal with the misery caused by the subprime lending scandal. They are all just posturing about how they are going to reduce the deficit at the same time as making more people redundant, which just increases the welfare bill.

The latest information regarding the contracts for running the trains is just one example of how inept they are at getting anything right. It has been one u-turn after another.

The labour party proved that they were not fit for government, the tories are no better, unfortunately, and as for the libdems, clegg is a dead man walking. He has to be the world's greatest liar!
2 users thanked Rose G for this post.
banjofred on 04/10/2012(UTC), Jeremy Bosk on 04/10/2012(UTC)
John Osborne
Posted: 04 October 2012 14:32:10(UTC)

Joined: 13/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 58

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Millipede 2, Balls and Co. spent most of the Labour conference attacking the "Tories" with hatred and class envy, with numerous personal attacks and distortions of their policies and intentions. At the same time they said precious little about what they would do to reduce UK deficits except to borrow more money and increase taxes as much as they could get away with (ie apply discriminatory taxes on likely non-labour voters in the South East). Some "one nation" politics, more like a Bolshevic revolution.
If the opinion polls are to be believed, in less than 3 years these same people responsible for the last 15 years mess will be back in power without as much as an apology. The majority of voters will have the government and society they deserve.

Clive B
Posted: 04 October 2012 14:37:45(UTC)

Joined: 25/11/2010(UTC)
Posts: 508

Thanks: 225 times
Was thanked: 172 time(s) in 100 post(s)
"in less than 3 years these same people responsible for the last 15 years mess will be back in power without as much as an apology. The majority of voters will have the government and society they deserve"

Doubt very much they'll be the choice of the majority of the voters, regardless of whether/not they become the government.

I could see it happening- a lot of people just won't face up to the fact that they're in this mess due to their own greed. Anybody who promises to reduce cuts/austerity (ha !, make me laugh - we're still spending vastly more than we earn) may well get elected, even though they make promises based on thin air.
Posted: 04 October 2012 16:25:53(UTC)

Joined: 20/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Personally I have voted for every party, I do not stick to one party.

I always try and get the current government out, but this time, they might need longer to sort out the mess, like Thatcher needed during the 80s.

Some of us are self-employed and do not, and never will draw any unemployment benefits, and we do the best we can without taking jobs from unemployed people. I try to do the minimum amount of work, and keep earnings low so that others get a chance if they had the ability, and live off investments.

Perhaps if some of the wealthier people were forced to retire early, e.g. directors of public companies / organisations, then that faster turnover would mean that those high wages could be earned by more people, and not just a few, but each would have a shorter term in office.

Perhaps they should have a committee of BBC director generals, of 5 people, each earning 1/5th of the salary? Would the decisions be better? It would reduce unemployment if this applied to all chief execs of Councils, Health Trusts, etc etc.
Posted: 04 October 2012 16:33:38(UTC)

Joined: 20/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Perhaps there should be an upper limit that people can earn (e.g. £5M) in certain well-established companies.

If they are then booted out and told to go set up another company from scratch, it would be interesting to see how many could rise to the challenge, or if they were only good at stepping into a fully functioning company that was already running.

How many chief execs could get something running like Alan Sugar?

If they are so good, then they should be setting up new companies from scratch!
Posted: 04 October 2012 17:42:21(UTC)

Joined: 14/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 235

Thanks: 111 times
Was thanked: 119 time(s) in 70 post(s)
Sad to say but we need a tough man to sort out the mess.

Not Stalin or Hitler tough, but someone who could cut a swath through the money wasting going on in this country.

The place is heaving with pigs dipping their bread in our gravy - judges who cant judge but get paid fortunes to "finish early its 4.30 and the jury have had enough *, managers who would be in the private sector if they could manage. Corrupt incompetent politicians. Public sector waste that is beyond the pale.

If I were running the show it would be like this

1) pass an emergency act to justify any emergency action in next five years, and to over-ride any existing law. (This to prevent uk and european judges from stopping just actions - e.g. Hamza and family to USA

2) call in the civil servants and place a full stop on all outgoing payments pending a review to justify said payment - e.g the EC (for starters)daily payment of millions,foreign aid, quangoes etc

3) leave the EC

4) sack most of the incompetents (judges,lords senior civl servants etc - use a a yardstick - if this man did not come to work in the next week, or month or year, would the world keep turning. Warn any remaining judges that one crazy sentence and they lose everything - you would soon see minds being focused.

5) tell any public servant that if they screw up they will be sacked and forfeit their pension (all of it). Screw up includes freeing parolees who re-offend, freeing murdering loonies, miscalculating rail franchises, etc, killing football fans at Hillsborough, selling off our stock of gold, letting banks lose our savings.

6) anyone who then goes on strike because of that is sacked, and the job re-advertised, or better still scrapped.

7) turn the prisons into a profit centre - execute all repeat criminals on a friday night on sky tv and charge sky for the worldwide tv rights. would make a fortune and empty the prisons. Remaining non-executable prisoners get bread and water and a bible, no tv. and perks for work.

8) cancel all current and planned wars and bring the forces home within a week.

9) for new criminals, immediate forfeiture of all money and property (even if in wifes name). if foreign the whole family to be deported within 24 hours, no appeal. if not foreign all pension rights cancelled, and uk citizenship withdrawn, and kick em out. (foreign includes EC countries)

10) any government to have interim reviews (as in usa) after 2 years, and if they are not implementing announced policies, or slipping in policies they did not previously announced, end of govt.

11) only Spinal Tap goes to 11.

Call me Mister Softee, but I would only do these soft things first,and follow up with the hard action later.

What do you think?

Posted: 04 October 2012 19:32:50(UTC)

Joined: 20/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I think the one thing that sums it up is completely contained in one news item on tonight's news.

The NUM is trying to get Arthur Scargill out of his grace and favour £35,000 per annum London apartment, which he wants, when he has a large house some where up north.

Supposedly it is costing each NUM member £20 per annum. I am not a member, and I would rather give that money to charity to poor people who need to be fed, like through food banks, if needed.

If all organisations, like the Labour party, the unions, etc are like this, who is looking after the economy or other things for the people of this country?

There have been many people who have been made redundant from local Councils, or services cut.

It is interesting that the highly paid council executives decided to do that instead of giving themselves a pay cut. If the Councils and government departments shrank all their bloated payscales, then no one needed to be made redundant. But who of them would have decided to do that?

Until those in positions of power make decisions that affect them as well, Councils, Unions, Government departments, it is not surprising that the country's finances are so bad.

If there are Labour Councillors on £100,000 p.a. living in Council houses at low rents, it is not surprising that this country's economy is going to the dogs!

It's a bit like footballers being paid millions by low paid, poor people. When will people say "I've had enough"?

Perhaps some of these Council or government jobs should be put out to competitive tender. We would soon see people bidding for lower salaries.

Who wouldn't do a job for £100,000 if there were no jobs available at £250,000, but perhaps they have enough money, so they can manage without the work?

Is this the basic problem with the economy?

Some jobs/work is not put out to competitive tender? Surely the country's finances would improve if many positions were, and perhaps this is where the country's finances have gone down the tube, with some GPs now being paid £250,000.

Ten years ago I was earning about £36,000 working full-time, highly qualified, working hard, running a project team in industry at the cutting edge of science. The top scientist was paid about £45,000 (who had another 5-10 years experience on me). Average wage at that time was about £22,000. If all the government funded parts of the economy are so bloated and have huge salaries compared with industry that pays the taxes from profits, I'm not surprised that we have a state with finances that we cannot afford.

Perhaps the fantasy economy run by local and national governments will slowly come back into line, but not until those at the top are willing to have a "real-terms" pay cut.

If Labour can only suggest borrowing more, they have obviously run out of ideas, and don't have a clue about the fundamental structural financial problems in the economy.
1 user thanked Richernotbroker for this post.
huudi on 08/11/2016(UTC)
Rose G
Posted: 05 October 2012 10:54:32(UTC)

Joined: 26/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 112

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 7 post(s)
During Blair's time in government, the public services, especially NHS, and the staff working within it were given the impression that the cash cow was alive & well. Between the fiasco of the PFI deals & the other privatisation within the NHS, GPs got an increase without taking on more responsibilities; Consultants had their pay increases, Agenda for change meant that staff within certain bands of pay had increases too. However, in the previous Tory government years, investment in the NHS was negligible. Whatever we may or may not prefer, as far as health services are concerned, leaders within this organisation, have lost their way.

As has already been mentioned, CEOs in the public services, including BBC, have seen their remunerations increase - I do not believe that those who work with/for/on the BBC, Russell Brand or Jonathan Ross, notwithstanding, should ge getting millions, funded basically by taxes & licence fee payees.

There has been an exponential rise in the pay of Consultants, even though the period of getting to be a Consultant has decreased (ie less experienced professionals) meaning decrease in quality of patient care & safety.

The Tories, including Thatcher, were reluctant to take on the BMA/RCN - these are powerful lobbyists who are not representing patients but the professionals. With the increase in budgets for staff pay, there has never been an increase in quality of care, just more money for doing less - 80% of trained & experienced nurses are now doing desk jobs, working 9-5 or less, getting decent wages, as opposed to the pennies nurses got under Tory government.

I definitely do not believe this is an efficient or effective deployment of staff - hence, the complaints about poor care is ever on the increase. I do not believe that Lansleys top down changes, which continue to cost millions (mostly paid out to friends/contacts of the Tory party hierachy) to privatise the health service - this does not mean that patient care will improve, rather that the companies who fail patients over and over again, just change their name, the name on the contract, and voila, back in business.

Privatisation of the rail services has led to increase in fares, more money from taxation awarded to train companies being awarded contracts, but I am not sure about the improvement in the quality of the service. Last time I used Virgin trains to travel to a concert, my journey time back to London on the Sunday took twice as long because of the disruption due to maintenance. The maintenance programme for train & tube services has seen disruption to all services which is very frustrating if you have to rely on public transport - fares are going to go up in January, but this is being announced at the same time as huge profits for the companies running the services, while the costs of repairs, delays to repairs, continues to rise and rise, because this is something that is paid for from public funds - how can this be privatisation?

Privatisation should mean that companies get their funding from private donors, stock markets, etc, not funding from the public purse - this is what incentivises private companies to cherry pick the services they want to run, whereas national train companies did not have this choice - they have to provide services to all the areas, not just those with a lucrative profit margin.

We do have lunatics running the country, because unfortunately, politics is not an attractive area for those who actually care about others & who want to improve the quality of life for those at the bottom of the ladder. Politics attracts megalomaniacs, who cannot see what they are doing wrong, because they have grown up being encouraged to think they are demi-gods, when in actual fact they are **** holes
mark antrobus
Posted: 17 February 2014 17:48:01(UTC)

Joined: 20/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 4

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 2 post(s)
The UK govt can still borrow at about 3% p.a.,by issuing new Gilts, arguably at zero interest after deducting inflation. The case for borrowing to invest in infrastructure is overwhelming, and such investment needs to be focused on helping UK firms and especially those with a focus on manufacturing and exports. This is the best opportunity this country has had for a long time but economic dogma prevents the solution.
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 17 February 2014 22:07:14(UTC)

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,294

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 213 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Mark Antrobus

We are misgoverned by scum elected by dregs. The writing was on the wall when Thatcher abolished hanging for treason - after giving guns and money to the Taliban.
1 user thanked Jeremy Bosk for this post.
Recently Redundant and Retired on 18/02/2014(UTC)
Posted: 18 February 2014 10:50:21(UTC)

Joined: 09/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Thanks: 141 times
Was thanked: 524 time(s) in 210 post(s)

Sometimes, you sound just like Wolfie Smith.

Well, most of the time, actually!

Recently Redundant and Retired
Posted: 18 February 2014 12:25:31(UTC)

Joined: 08/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 302

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 140 time(s) in 71 post(s)
Bosk has my vote in the next election.
Would that I was DG at the BBC I'd snap him up for a current affairs show.
Posted: 19 February 2014 03:54:55(UTC)

Joined: 18/02/2013(UTC)
Posts: 313

Thanks: 176 times
Was thanked: 391 time(s) in 162 post(s)
mark antrobus;23220 wrote:
The UK govt can still borrow at about 3% p.a.,by issuing new Gilts, arguably at zero interest after deducting inflation. The case for borrowing to invest in infrastructure is overwhelming, and such investment needs to be focused on helping UK firms and especially those with a focus on manufacturing and exports. This is the best opportunity this country has had for a long time but economic dogma prevents the solution.

I think the main argument for infrastructure investment (using borrowed money) is that the benefits are multi-generational. Therefore it’s reasonable to borrow over the very long term so that each generation pays its share.

Helping UK manufacturers and exporters is a shorter term strategic argument.

In principle, UK infrastructure investment – flood defences being an obvious case in point - should benefit UK companies across the UK. However London domination and corruption is so overwhelming that investment money is likely to flow to international corporations and large companies with London head offices; not to mention the London legal, banking and insurance service sectors that would cream of huge amounts. And I’m sure the London ‘security’ sector would get their snouts in the trough too.

It is an opportunity alright – but this divisive government has no intention of protecting the people from disaster; only protecting the rich from the people.
1 user thanked sandid3 for this post.
Jeremy Bosk on 19/02/2014(UTC)
Posted: 19 February 2014 06:28:07(UTC)

Joined: 27/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,797

Thanks: 798 times
Was thanked: 2689 time(s) in 1018 post(s)
sandid3;23237 wrote:
this divisive government has no intention of protecting the people from disaster; only protecting the rich from the people.

They are rolling back 200 years of social gains many of which were driven by the Liberals (shame on their current successors)

Alas the alternative governments in prospect, and the quality and true motivation of all their leaders, seem at least as bad, incompetent , egocentric and dismal.

The key is getting us turkeys to vote for Christmas. And Christmas is not necessarily a bad thing for turkeys. If it were not for Christmas, there would be far fewer turkeys and they would be scratching about for meagre food, many falling victim to predators and diseases. Think on. :-)
1 user thanked Micawber for this post.
Jeremy Bosk on 19/02/2014(UTC)
Clive B
Posted: 19 February 2014 14:07:15(UTC)

Joined: 25/11/2010(UTC)
Posts: 508

Thanks: 225 times
Was thanked: 172 time(s) in 100 post(s)
We should be working on ways of decreasing the national debt, not increasing it by the simple lure of "cheap money" as we all know how that tends to end.
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 19 February 2014 15:02:36(UTC)

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,294

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 213 time(s) in 128 post(s)
A couple of years ago, I was regularly howled down for my views on the mismanagement of this country. It seems that some of the seed fell on fertile ground.

For the record I agree with Micawber that Blair was as evil as Thatcher and Cameron. I let Brown off with incompetence and possibly being driven mad by frustration with Blair.

I quite liked Callaghan and Heath, despised Wilson (whom I briefly met), Alec Douglas Hulme barely registered. I was too young to have much of an opinion on the peacetime performance of Churchill, Atlee or Eden.

Jeffian - Wolfie Smith I can live with. Winston Smith - who loved Big Brother - now that would have hurt :-)
Posted: 19 February 2014 18:28:41(UTC)

Joined: 27/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,797

Thanks: 798 times
Was thanked: 2689 time(s) in 1018 post(s)
Jeremy Bosk;23247 wrote:

I quite liked Callaghan

Interesting. I spent two days with Callaghan when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and although he was fresh from dealing with Idi Amin, he was both astute and a decent guy during those two days.

I didn't quite say that Thatcher and Blair were evil; but I did say that the alternatives in prospect all looked much the same by way of evilness.

In my book, Thatcher deserves credit and blame in equal amounts! No half measures. I met her just the once, and found her a frightful snob. Work it out....Carrington, on the other hand, who was very well bred, was not a snob at all - an excellent foreign Minister and a decent honourable chap too.

Brown was dreadful, particularly as PM, and has a good deal on the debit side. But he deserves credit for two things> making the BOE independent, and being a significant factor in Saving The World in October 2008. Fortunately, we had a PM who actually had been in the Chancellor's seat a long time, knew the job, and could recognise a yawning financial sinkhole when he saw one, and knew what to do about it. I'm sure historians will see he gets that credit, though his name is generally mud right now.
uphill swimmer
Posted: 19 February 2014 19:11:41(UTC)

Joined: 10/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 259

Thanks: 55 times
Was thanked: 119 time(s) in 77 post(s)
Jeremy, you say you found no takers for your view that we were being mismanaged 2 years ago. whats happened since? are we getting left behind by our European partners, our comrades from behind the curtain, have we been sucked by the mints , bashed by the brics. . left In the wake of the oil rich middle east as they diversify their interests? given a example of true effective democracy from the u.s.a.?. its my first taste of coalition government and the thought of radical change next year is not appealing. osborne and alexander have not got much wrong in my eyes and have left egg on the face of few along the way. the only way to help people is to get them in work, by whatever means, the rest is neither here no there. ive seen what non work has done in areas of Manchester all my life, the fact that the blair government did nothing to tackle this was a disgusting lack of leadership . one of their many crimes, maybe im in the minority, but im counting my blessings at the moment. springs on its way.
2 users thanked uphill swimmer for this post.
Alex Peard on 19/02/2014(UTC), Gill Pelosi on 21/02/2014(UTC)
11 Pages«Previous page7891011Next page
+ Reply to discussion


Other markets