On 27 Oct 2010 at 8:56pm tony wrote:
I was wondering whether all those who voted for Norman baker feel betrayed or relieved that he and his party are supporting the tories in the most savage series of cuts seen since.....who knows when. is this what you voted for and is it time for Norman to be given his P45 and to fade into history?
On 27 Oct 2010 at 9:03pm Bumble Bee Me wrote:
And the alternative to the ciuts is..............Oh yes, more debt.
On 27 Oct 2010 at 9:19pm Normans Wisdom wrote:
Norman Baker. One of the best MP's in the house. FACT.
It's not his fault that the Labour party almost bankrupted the country and the electorate could not decide. Whoever got in would have had to make the cuts anyway.
keep it up Norman. Ignore the mischief makers. You are playing a blinder.
On 27 Oct 2010 at 9:20pm Peter Byron wrote:
Tony you must see that Labour ran up the debt that tories and all of us are paying for, and before you say it I do not vote, they are all fools as I am myself. Goodnight. Peter
On 27 Oct 2010 at 10:29pm The Godfather wrote:
My inner jury is still "out". When my 3 year old asked me during the election what the orange diamond on our front door was for , I told him it was to "keep the Tories out". As Johnny Rotten once said "ever had the feeling you've been cheated??" To make myself feel better I console myself with the hope that this could be a case of Norman and the Lib Dems in the boat, rocking the boat, and hopefully moderating the excesses of Tory Eton Rifles. I shudder to think how extreme the cuts would have be if the Tories had won a clear majority.
On 27 Oct 2010 at 10:41pm Newmania wrote:
If you compare 2014 -15 , this governments last planned year with the last year of Labour you should expect Public Sector Spending up £92 billion , a small increase if inflation is 2% or less. £176 billion collected in taxes and £451 billion more borrowed over the life time of the Parliament.
Spending is up its just that interest is also catastrophically up and could be whole lot worse of we do not look like paying it back.
When you have an annual deficit of 12% or so the truth is your creditors run the country and no Party could behave very differently. Certainly not New Labour whose own cutting plans were as severe as the cuts that finally emerged .
Norman Baker cannot change much of this but he must be wielding considerable power as part of the cabinet . This is the most serious time of his life and whilst I am not a Liberal I feel total confidence that he will be using his considerable enegry and intelligence to good effect .
On 27 Oct 2010 at 10:44pm Newmania wrote:
I shudder to think how extreme the cuts would have be if the Tories had won a clear majority.
Had the Conservative Party gained a majority for the period of comic misrule we have endured there would be little need for cuts and we would have sailed through the recession.
On 27 Oct 2010 at 10:49pm QueenBeen wrote:
I voted for Norman and am happy. The liberals are the only ones who didn't vote for the war in Iraq. I voted labour before the war but will never again because of the ultimate betrayal by them; in my book domestic policy comes a distant second to the murder of over 100k people for a reason that didn't exist.
On 28 Oct 2010 at 10:41am tony wrote:
The labour party certainly could have done better in particular on housing which is a disaster. But I thought it was the banks that almost bankrupted the country albeit because labour 'deregulated'. Perhaps Vodafone should pay up the £6 billion in taxes they are avoiding or the brits who are avoiding tax of £40 billion by keeping their money in Switzerland could do their bit. An extra £46 billion would help. I wonder if Norman's aware of it!
On 28 Oct 2010 at 12:38pm Newmania wrote:
Tony if you would like a world without banks sod off back to the medieaval period and see how much you like it. The Banks did not bankrupt the Economy the recession would have come from a Property bubble anyway and that is factor of overheating credit .
In any case it is the nature of markets to be unstable that is the central insight of Keynes which is why it was lunatic to build up a structural deficit in the height of a boom. Did you think we had cured boom and bust? What sort of infant would come to that gibberingly nutty conclusion ? Oh yes Brown.
No idea where you get your £40 billion from is that ever ? Tell you what ,why not close the borders and mimic the fabulous Economic achievment of Cuba and the Soviet Union alternatively deal with the world as it is .
The Labour Party could not have done worse if they had tried . This is their fault and they were warned again and again even now what are they saying borrow more , put it all on Red... well what could go wrong with that ?
On 28 Oct 2010 at 1:36pm Down and Out wrote:
Newmania: your posts read as if you are saying:
- The banks did nothing whatsoever wrong; it's just the glorious machine of capitalism taking its natural course.
- Had the Tories been in power for the last 13 years, we would not currently be indebted in any significant way.
You'll have to remind me which countries in the world with conservative type governments for the past decade are not currently experiencing a recession? Clearly, there hasn't been any sort of recession at all in the US, because of the Bush administration's fiscally prudent public expenditure...
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I regard your position as possibly somewhat blinkered.
On 28 Oct 2010 at 5:53pm King Of The Swingers wrote:
He's a politician, so no.
On 28 Oct 2010 at 8:56pm Newmania wrote:
Australia -
On 28 Oct 2010 at 9:34pm Burn em! wrote:
Yes, isn't it pleasing to see Norm and the other Lib Dems standing up so proudly for their beliefs and principles! Here's what his boss Clegg said in April:
"Do I think that these big, big cuts are merited or justified at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not. Of course I would vote against cuts which would destroy any chance we would have of having a sustainable recovery."
Or how about Secretary of State Chris Huhne who recently announced eight new power stations - but previously described nuclear as "failed technology"?
Hmmm - or how about the fact that nearly every Lib Dementia MP and candidate signed a pledge promising to vote against any increase in tuition fees - and even set out a timetable for scrapping fees.
Maybe some of you remember Cleggy talking on camera on this subject in April and saying it was "time for promises to be kept"?
I could go on...
Amazing what people will do for a sniff of power and a ministerial post. Turncoats the lot of em. Let's hope one of the societies burns dear old Norm - I mean an effigy of course!
On 28 Oct 2010 at 11:55pm Spikey's former friend wrote:
Newmania claims that "Norman Baker cannot change much of this but he must be wielding considerable power as part of the cabinet".
But he's NOT part of the cabinet. He's a junior minister, answerable to his Tory Secretary of State, and his job is to impose cuts in local authority transport spending, cuts in bus subsidies and cuts in the concessionary travel scheme - in fact every cut that the Treasury imposes on his department. He'll be allowed to announce meaningless "initiatives" like "I'm encouraging people to work from home, because it will save the planet", but nothing positive will come out of him.
And the best thing, from the Tories' point of view, is that junior ministers aren't allowed to ask awkward questions.
But, hey! There's a £70,000+ salary that goes with this sell-out.
On 29 Oct 2010 at 12:08am brixtonbelle wrote:
NO, is the answer to your original question, Tony
On 29 Oct 2010 at 3:31am MC wrote:
@Tony>
But I thought it was the banks that almost bankrupted the country albeit because labour deregulated'.
I hope your political opinions are not all based upon similarly incorrect assertions (but this might go some way to explaining your support for the in-it-for-themselves party). It was Thatcher who de-regulated the banks (and who so totally screwed it up).
On 29 Oct 2010 at 4:30am Lewesian in exile wrote:
Newmania: Australia has a Labor (sic) government. Just got re-elected (and I mean 'just'!) Anyway, the only reason we have avoided the recession is because China is buying all our raw materials.
On 29 Oct 2010 at 10:45am Newmania wrote:
Lewesian in Exile - During the period in which we built up a fiscal hole ( uop top 2007) Australia was , as I assume you noticed, governed by an admirable Conservative administration under John Howard which bequeathed sound national finanaces as Major did to Blair. This meant that as revenues dropped there was far less danger and far more freedom for stimulus which Australia took advantage of. Fact.
The further fact that the UK country is peculiarly vulnerable to speculative bubbles by reason of its reliance on services and property makes the structural deficit we aquired all the less forgiveable . An administration that let demand rip got into bed with the City and privatye equity and paid off its client state of wasters with the froth was , quite obviously , the perfect storm of everything we did not need
I would be the first to admit that not everything that happens is due to the government but the fact the future is not plannable for is precisely why you do not expect the state to behave like pathetic gambling junky with other people`s money . This is what Blair and Brown did and what Howard did not.
We also benefit disporpotionately from emerging markets at least as much as Australia and I would suggest that part of the reason we are up a gum tree is the fcat we have actually Communist levels of Public Sector employment plus a tax system that makes Austrlia look like a business paradise
The codes are overall quite similiar buit the difference in housing costs means the net income of the antipodean is vastly more .That, Lewesian in exile is why you are in exile. You voted with your feet so don`t sit there in the sun suurounded by affluence ,Fosters ,shrimps on a barbie and Kylie Minogue telling us we were not conned and betrayed by the socialists here
We were and if this administation is not perfect it simply could not be worse Norman Baker is to be applauded for helping drag this country out of Labour`s muddy ditch
On 29 Oct 2010 at 11:01am Dave wrote:
Actually, in reply to "Spikey's former friend", Norm's salary is now about £140,000, excluding any exes.
On 29 Oct 2010 at 8:49pm Burn em! wrote:
Newmania:
Wise up friend. Much as the Tories try to blame Labour (i.e. every other sentence they utter) any fool knows it was the greedy bankers what done it. They, and the tax-dodging CEOs and others who earn obscene amounts of money while others work hard and struggle just to survive.
The bankers gambled with other people's money, conned the general public into a culture of surviving on ridiculous levels of debt and rewarded themselves with horrendously huge bonuses for doing it. In fact, the bigger the gambles they took, the more money they gave themselves.
And they're still doing it.
Now we, the hard-working taxpayers, have to carry the can for their greed - first by bailing out the very banks that caused the mess and now in the form of sweeping, deep cuts which will see many thousands out of work (as always, an acceptable price to pay as far as the Tories are concerned) and many made homeless. This, topped with attacks on the NHS, education, the postal service, the police etc.
Still, none of this affects the let's-privatise-everything Eton mob or their sellout Lib Dem ministerial colleagues.
Next you'll be telling me that capitalism is working!
(And no, I don't vote Labour and I'm not a socialist...)
On 29 Oct 2010 at 11:14pm jrsussex wrote:
Gordon Brown's administration never had policies that reduced private sector employment whilst at the same time increasing the public sector work force by tens of thousands? It wasn't them that sold the family's gold at half price, or continued to spend our money recklessly when we could all see a recession on the horizon?
Yes the banks did play a major part in the world economy's downfall but those that went to them borrowing money way above that which they could afford, and I include the many who took out 100% mortgages etc for property they could not afford, must share that blame along with the banks. Of course they were too free with their credit but they had people queueing up to take their money. Control the housing market and the risk of recession is greatly reduced. Way back in time I bought a property which I could not afford but the lenders sanctioned the mortage so I bought it. A few years later I was in negative equity, business was very poor and I lost the house. I never made that mistake again.
On 30 Oct 2010 at 1:49am Newmania wrote:
Capitalism has delivered paradisal levels of affluence and saw off its rivals with ease in the 20th century. It has always been subject to bubble and slow -downs and it has never been safe.
Both sides of the equation are what any responsible government should bear in mind when it decides to run serial deficits at the height of a super heated boom.
For ten years Brown told us 40% over a cycle was the maximum we should borrow ..ha ha ha , what cycle is that , ice age to ice age ?
As for bailing out the banks if they lent money to us on the basis we have lent it to them they would be in court we stand to make a huge profit , it has not cost you a penny.
None of this was foreseeable, certainly by Economists now queueing up to offer cures , what was foreseeable was that the boom would collpase for some reason some time ,and that is why we should have behaved prudently.
Simples Burn'em , if you enjoy parroting that New Labour lie you go ahead it is so obviously a lie that it hardly matters.
Never never again should they be trusted with so much as a whelk stall .
Heed my words
On 30 Oct 2010 at 3:58pm queequeg wrote:
JRS, Burn Em, et al, Please explain why the housing market is so buoyant, why there are relatively few repossessions if, as you say, the recession was caused in any way by people extending themselves excessively (Financially). The recession is bugger all to do with any of that - it was purely a case of the USA property boom getting out of hand, rubbish securities being sold on fraudulently to banks round the world and a catastrophic collapse in confidence as a consequence.
Because it was caused by a property boom in USA and because we have had a number of years of house price increase in UK people are inclined to say that our market must have been a bubble as well. Not so! We had experienced property deflation from 1990 to 1994 and a recovery from 1994 to 2007 was to be expected. This effect was redoubled by increase in population and diminution of household size and house building far below the necessary level. It's simply supply and demand at work. There is huge demand as maintained property prices verify and a pretty stable supply of housing stock because of our planning policies.
Sadly I have to totally agree with Newmania regarding Gordon Brown, the economic cycle and fiscal prudence. That lot will never again have my vote although I have had their posters up previously. Their total emphasis is on bigger state, bigger taxes, subsidies here, micro management. Our economy that has to compete with fleet footed rivals is held back by a ball and chain.
On 30 Oct 2010 at 10:19pm wallander wrote:
queenqueg,
one reason there have been few repossesions is that interest rates have been low for a long time. This looks like it might be about to change so we aren't even into the woods yet,let alone out of them.
On 31 Oct 2010 at 12:33am Newmania wrote:
Good point Wallander and when Red Ed tells us that we can afford to risk running a higher deficxit for longer he jutsifies it on the basis of low interest rates .
Well what could go wrong with that ?
On 31 Oct 2010 at 7:48pm queequeg wrote:
Wallander,
So what facts show that the UK property market was over heated in 2007?