Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Georgie Peorgie

On 9 Aug 2012 at 5:48am Expat two wrote:
Georgie Peorgie, Pudding & Pie, kissed the economy, made it die.
Merv's forecast for 0% growth makes a nonsense out of those tory promises of fiscal recovery through spending cuts and lower taxes for the rich.
But according to the bbc website;
Chancellor George Osborne said that economic growth was "disappointing", but that the government had an opportunity to "give its 110% attention and effort and energy" to getting it moving.
Why isn't he giving his 120%? 200%? 1,000,000%?
Bloody slacker.
On 9 Aug 2012 at 8:47am Pete wrote:
About time we had a cabinet shake up. Give Vince Cable a go.....
On 9 Aug 2012 at 9:01am tom wrote:
power to the people
On 9 Aug 2012 at 9:11am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Given that Merv's last 2 forecasts have been overestimates, I forecast negative growth of at 0.5%.
I can't work out if the forecasts are accidentally unduly optimistic or if they might be deliberately on the hopeful side to try and build confidence in the markets.
On 9 Aug 2012 at 3:28pm Trevor wrote:
Your poem/rhyme started off well, but kind of tapered off... the iambic pentameter was all over the place by the end...
On 9 Aug 2012 at 8:31pm expat two wrote:
We call it 'freeform'
On 9 Aug 2012 at 8:41pm Screaming J wrote:
Must admit; thought this was a reference to this early 80s RnB classic

Watch the video »
On 9 Aug 2012 at 9:08pm the old mayor wrote:
When and how can we force an election ?? Lack of confidence in the current government.
On 10 Aug 2012 at 8:38am Pete wrote:
How about we get Joyce McKinney to kidnap Goerge ?
On 10 Aug 2012 at 2:41pm Ducatipete wrote:
Bring on ZIP WIRE BORIS.......
On 10 Aug 2012 at 4:28pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Slightly alarming, but Boris could well be the first man to be elected PM precisely because he is a buffoon. In most cases, their buffoonery only becomes apparent after they;'ve been in post a while.
On 10 Aug 2012 at 6:39pm Hammerite wrote:
Your right old mayor, lets have another election. Hopefully the Labour party will get back in, they did a fantastic job the last time they were in power. What an excellent Chancellor Ed Balls would make, if only George would listen to him.
How great would it be to have Ed Milliband as PM, he would be respected globally .
As for Boris, well how embarrassing, Ken Livingstone would have made a much better political face for the Olympics.
On 10 Aug 2012 at 7:43pm Sussex Jim wrote:
I like Hammerite: the paint, that is: excellent for outdoor metawork, car underbodies, etc.
Not so sure about Hammerite the poster. Ed Balls would do just that- balls it all up! What fantastic job did Labour do when last in power? Wreck our economy, so we are all relatively poor now, until we can catch up.
The Labour party served their purpose in the last century; to bring equality to the working man. They should have been history after 1979.
On 10 Aug 2012 at 10:52pm Hammerite wrote:
"Sussex Jim" How dare you come on this this forum and slag off the Labour Party. Your clearly one of those dreadful Torys.
On 10 Aug 2012 at 11:21pm Hammerite wrote:
Blimey Charlie, did anyone else just see that flock of pigs flying across the night sky of Lewes ?
On 10 Aug 2012 at 11:48pm expat two wrote:
You're half right Jim, but for the wrong reasons. (New) Labour wrecked the economy by de-regulating the banks and allowing bankers' greed to get the better of a controlled finance industry, but don't forget that rather than opposing those successive de-regulations, Tories said they didn't go far enough - so its reasonable to say that had they been in power, the crisis would have hit sooner and harder.
So yes, Labour did wreck the economy and now their mates, the Conservatives, seem hell-bent on finishing it off.
It's right of center governments that have caused the crisis, your attempt to link that crisis with (old) Labour, or left of center goverment, is just nonsense. There is absolutely no connection. Its Daily Mail rhetoric rearing its very ugly head again.
By the way, what happened in 1979 that makes you feel the Labour party should have disbanded? (Although they pretty much did soon after, when Tory Blair and his lawyer chums took over, that's why they called themselves New Labour - remember?)
On 11 Aug 2012 at 6:10am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
If Labour have served their purpose, Sussex Jim, why isn't the average "working man" equal to his wealthy cousins?
On 11 Aug 2012 at 8:14am Pete wrote:
For heaven's sake people, MPs only work for themselves doh ! Doesn't matter who we elect, they'll be looking out for themselves, so we'd better watch out !
On 11 Aug 2012 at 8:16am Southover Queen wrote:
Oh you've spoilt it now you two: I was loving Hammerite being "ironic" or "sarcastic" and Jim getting the wrong end of the stick.
On 11 Aug 2012 at 2:43pm Red Ken wrote:
Long live the Labour Party. We will soon be back to patch up the mess the coalition leave.
On 11 Aug 2012 at 4:46pm wrote:
Good thread people, nice and local. Keep it up. Petty squabling
On 11 Aug 2012 at 8:26pm Sussex Jim wrote:
There will never be equality. It is not human nature. But at least today we have the freedom and opportunity to improve our position, unlike a hundred years ago when the rigid class system kept the proletariat down. Think of entrepreneurs like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar , who have come up from the bottom and become wealthy.
On 11 Aug 2012 at 8:36pm Sussex Jim wrote:
There will never be equality. It is not human nature. But at least today we have the freedom and opportunity to improve our position, unlike a hundred years ago when the rigid class system kept the proletariat down. Think of entrepreneurs like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar , who have come up from the bottom and become wealthy.
On 12 Aug 2012 at 1:24am expat two wrote:
Richard Branson came up from the bottom? Well yes I suppose he did, if 'the bottom' is having a public school education, a barrister for a father and a high court judge for grandfather. As for Alan Sugar, he came from an impoverished background alright, he was lucky enough to capitalise on his skills at stepping on other people's faces in what we'll come to call the post-war golden age of social mobility. Opportunities did start to rise, marginally, thanks to the efforts of (relatively) left of center government. Whilst you appear to applaud that, you think its right that we've put a halt to it, and you support politicians who are doing their very best to turn back the clock and tighten the stranglehold on power held by those with wealthy backgrounds.
Where do you stand Jim, more or less social mobility?
On 12 Aug 2012 at 8:39am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Imo, we'll only have equality when everyone can access the same quality of medical care, education, legal services etc, and when there are services to mitigate the effects of being born into impoverished families on poor children. That has got much more unequal because of spending cuts.
The distribution of wealth has got far more unequal over the last 30 years or so. The battle is far from won.
On 12 Aug 2012 at 8:49am Southover Queen wrote:
Jim, I agree with you on much of that statement, but like Expat I question the logic of your conclusion. The current cabinet consists mostly of hereditary millionaires many of whom attended Eton and Oxbridge. The current Tory party is interested in preserving the privilege and wealth of those like themselves. They justify this by talking about "wealth trickling down" so that the super-rich employ others/buy stuff/support the state through taxes and keep us all going. We know they don't: they ship their money off-shore and pay zero taxes.

Historically - in fact, in the 80s - the Conservative Party did accommodate those from a more diverse "class" background, but goodness didn't they make a fuss about it? "The Grocer's Daughter" and the "Chingford Skinhead" - but what they wanted was to be accepted into the "upper class", or at least tolerated. Google Tebbit and the "Government of Chums" and see what he thinks of the current set up. Interestingly I have a hunch that without the limited social levelling produced by the Attlee government in the immediate post war period - the NHS and access to higher education, for instance - that they would not have been able to move from their "lower class" origins. I also think they'd struggle now, because for a young person to succeed in Britain today you need money (and quite a bit of it) and connections to see you through university and into work, and you need to be able to call on that money and those connections for extended periods through low pay/no pay starts in most sought after jobs, and help in shrugging off the vast burden of student debt.

There's a lot of research which shows that more equal, higher tax, societies are much happier, with less crime and more mobility. Somewhere a young person with a good brain can succeed irrespective of his or her class, in fact, just as you were advocating. I don't see much of that in the UK and I certainly don't see it in the current government.

On 13 Aug 2012 at 1:54am Expat two wrote:
What can we make of the fact that George Osborne (born Gideon Osborne, son of Lady Clarisse Loxton Peacock and Sir Peter Osborne 17th Baronet) and his chums blame the previous government for the crash, whilst the American right blame current administration?
BTW if you think you can escape such nauseatingly corrupt nepotism/cronyism, forget it. Here in NZ the PM also happens to be the country's 10th richest person. He's a slimey **** too.
On 13 Aug 2012 at 11:56am london exile wrote:
@expat two
What would you have him do ? There is no Plan B.
Since Brown was allowed to run amok..........this country is totally ****ed for at least a generation. We have no money or assets. The only way out is to make ourselves more competitive ie work harder and longer for less money. This process has begun. Our standard of living has been driven back to 2003 levels already and this will continue down until our goods become cheaper than competitors.
All the moaning in the world about wages, pensions, benefits will not create one new job or one pound note. The only new money is that which is being printed by the BoE to stop the banks closing.
The sooner the main poulation pick up on this the better and we can all just get on with the work needed.

On 13 Aug 2012 at 12:57pm Zebedee wrote:
expat two. It was the tories (Margaret Thatcher) who deregulated the financial sector not labour. If you can't even get your facts right in your first sentence then your whole point of view is frankly not worth bothering with.
On 13 Aug 2012 at 2:36pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Good post. London Exile. The world does not owe one a living; one has to make their own way.
My four grandparents were all from working class families of 14,10,8 and 2 children, but made it to home ownership and saved a bit for retirement. If they wanted something, they saved up until they could afford it. Apart from a mortgage, they never borrowed money.
Now I am not rich, but just comfortable, and intend to use my meagre assets to help my children and grandchildren get a good start in life.
Please don't cock it all up by voting in another socialist government to wreck this country further.
We did well in the games. Let's carry on, an make Britain great again!
On 13 Aug 2012 at 8:53pm expat two wrote:
In actual fact Zebedee, Thatcher started the trouble, but Gordon Brown stunned the right when he gave banks even more leeway within the first few months of New Labour's office. Whichever right wing government was responsible for giving them the rein to screw up the economy is besides the point. Don't expect me to defend Labour scum from Tory scum.
Half the problem is people like Jim here, who thinks 1. Labour are socialists and 2. that despite having had the opportunity to improve his lot, now supports and end to social mobility, and indeed a reversal. He's grateful he's been allowed to accumulate "meagre assets" now its its time to stop anybody else doing the same?
London Exile, there are plenty of plan b's - plenty. Capitalism, per se, is not necessarily a bad thing when its handled correctly. It hasn't been - its been allowed to serve the runaway greed of a lucky few, a lucky few who still want more and more. The assets of the rich list set have rocketed over the last year - they haven't suffered at all in the crisis. But, as you say, the rest of us have to work harder for less. That sounds fair?
Capitalism should and could allow us all to benefit, instead its allowing the few to take more from the many, and the gap widens.

6 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Barbican Lewes 7:132
Barbican Lewes

Good to hear.

Tempers have been flaring in town over the lack of diversity of choice of olive oil ;p

Would love to know... more
The Lewes Forum is one of the many great things about Lewes