Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

UKIP, Conservative coalition

12
8
On 3 Apr 2015 at 10:41pm Neville Blue. wrote:
Some of Farage`s views are so close to ours, that I am pleased that in the effect of a hung parliament David Cameron will not rule out a coalition with our close allies and friends UKIP Nigel Farage would be great deputy.So lets forget the Lib/Dems it`s a UKIP partner which makes the most sense for us.
7
6
On 3 Apr 2015 at 10:46pm my town wrote:
about time . some one has see the light . vote u k I p
12
9
On 3 Apr 2015 at 10:51pm UKIP Patriot wrote:
Good idea, the Conservatives and UKIP together, leading Britain out of Europe.What are we waiting for.I`m sure Nigel and Cameron are already talking behind the scenes.
8
4
On 4 Apr 2015 at 12:06am Dosh Dosh Farage wrote:
David Cameron & Nick Clegg have totally lost interest in winning the next Election. They both but more so Cameron have screwed enough money out of this Country to keep them & their families millionaires for generations to come.
So is it any wonder that they're so uninterested?
Now UKIP want a go.. your having a laugh aren't you..
5
2
On 4 Apr 2015 at 12:13am Bulldog wrote:
If the Tories form a coalition with UKIP its the end of the road for the Euoropean Union.Without its main paymaster it will collapse like a pack of cards.Vote UKIP for a national coalition and united front against Europe.
2
5
On 4 Apr 2015 at 8:24am Sussex Jim wrote:
Another prime minister whose name rhymes with millionaire resigned once his family had built up their property empire on the backs of the taxpayers.
2
7
On 4 Apr 2015 at 8:37am The Colonel wrote:
You would be talking about the LABOUR pm president Blair. Thank God this time they have a candidate who is working class and understands working people. The days of hypocricy in the Labour party are long gone.
COME ON PEOPLE, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, YOUR MAKING YOURSELVES LOOK VERY SILLY.
7
6
On 4 Apr 2015 at 10:12am Farage/Cameron = Winners wrote:
We are the natural heirs to Thatcher.Lets have that UKIP/Conservative coalition Mr Cameron ,its what the majority of the country wants.
3
6
On 4 Apr 2015 at 11:33am Paul Newman wrote:
As UKIP are unlikely to win more than one or two seats it hardly matters .They are on the other hand very capable of hurting the Conservative vote preventing a referendum on the EU and putting President Sturgeon in charge of the country, a country she wants to destroy.
That doesn`t mean there is anything uniquely dreadful about UKIP. It would be a very strange democratic system that did not represent concern about the inundation of ex Communist country migrants, object to a loss of Parliamentary sovereignty or point at the many failures in left wing fortresses such as education and health.
This Labour line is only around to distract form the true calamity facing us, the Rule of President Sturgeon. Her block of 40—50-MPs whose electorate will not be subject to the laws they inflict on the English, will bankrupt the country, then leave us with their debts !
There will be no UK to be independent .
8
3
On 4 Apr 2015 at 11:44am UKIP Patriot wrote:
We will win at least twenty seats,probably more.the UKIP tide is unstoppable.the people of this country have had enough.Vote UKIP and we will get a referendum this year and get us out of Europe which is what most Conservatives and the country wants.Vote UKIP for an anti Europe coalition with the Conservatives.
1
1
On 4 Apr 2015 at 12:03pm Paul Newman wrote:
Which seats ?
4
2
On 4 Apr 2015 at 12:42pm Pssss wrote:
It the same few Tory scumbags that keep posting their lies on here.
Anyone would think they're nervous..
2
1
On 4 Apr 2015 at 2:44pm UKIP lala land wrote:
20 seats! One if they are lucky. The country is just not interested in a one policy party enough, whatever that policy. You will need a tsunami not a tide and I don't see one of them coming in the next month.
9
5
On 4 Apr 2015 at 3:40pm busby wrote:
If we end up with a labour government we are all doomed. Every labour government is financially incompetent. We will stay in europe and end up the same basket case as France and Greece. God help us.
3
2
On 4 Apr 2015 at 3:56pm Clifford wrote:
Busby, hasn't anyone told you about the bankers and how they almost brought down the entire Western economy in 2008? Ask your Dad what happened and then perhaps you'll stop posting such absurd comments.
6
2
On 4 Apr 2015 at 7:50pm skeptical green wrote:
In the televised debate Cameron got away again with the lie he and his colleagues keep repeating that 'Labour crashed the economy'. If that were true it would be an unbelievable coincidence that all the other industrial economies went into recession at exactly the same time! Why do people believe this rubbish! The crisis was caused by a domino effect starting with the US mortgage lending fiasco leading to a crash in the value of the collaterised debt instruments which were packaged up chunks of those debts sold on to financial institutions as an investment on the assumption that the repayments from the borrowers would provide an income stream a bit like a bond providing a yield. The banks that put these things together had to keep some of the package themselves to make it look like a credible investment, but they did not want to tie up their capital that they could be lending to other people to cover the risk of non payment. So they were allowed to sell the risk to insurance companies and others in return for paying an annual fee or premium for the time left on the loans. This is called a credit default swap and the fee paid depends on someone rating the risk that the original mortgage borrowers will default. Because of the international nature of the derivatives markets, insurance business and banking British institutions especially banks were also infected with this problem. When the US end went belly up the consequences spread to everyone. The fault of governments everywhere was a failure to regulate any of this stuff properly and to that extent the Labour party under Blair with his near Thatcherite policies on light regulation of markets was at fault. ( Milliband conceded this in the debate) But of course the Conservatives had started that approach wanted to deregulate even further and constantly criticised the labour party for hampering the financial sector with too much regulation! The economy was crashed by the antics of international financial businesses and the dysfunctional nature of capitalist markets not by a particular party. Of course there is a respectable argument that the levels of labour borrowing for public spending prior to the crash made it more difficult to cope with the recession and a higher deficit than otherwise would have been necessary, but there are equally good arguments that the relatively low levels of unemployment at the time and the expansion of skills and education that labour spent the money on is part of the reason why we have recovered from the recession faster than many other countries (and Brown, Darling and Balls sensible refusal to join the Euro for all those years). There are valid arguments about whether the Darling plan - cut the deficit back but at about half the rate- taking twice as long - would have avoided the depth of the recession and the double dip as I believe or would have been unsuccessful as conservatives suggest, but none of this means that the claim that ' labour crashed the economy' is anything other than crude political propaganda and it is a shame that a supine media continues to let them get away with it.
3
1
On 4 Apr 2015 at 8:58pm Mark wrote:
Spot on excellent. Well done Sir or Madam. I'd query the bit about a supine press. Mr Murdoch is the proprietor. His interests and views are well represented. Don't forget how he managed to get Tony Blair to act as godfather to his child wearing a robe. The ultimate demonstration of power.
1
4
On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:02am Paul Newman wrote:
What and Who Caused the Crash
International ‘Casino capitalism’ (soi disant ) contributed to the transfer of, but was not root cause of the crash in 2008. International Banking, after all, has been a left wing scapegoat since Napoleon, with or without a shadowy cabal of Jews,but that old hatred in its new form is only marginally justified.
None of these instruments were invented in 2008 or anywhere near that time. None have been abandoned since, the BBC`s Robert Peston likes to linger on what may sound like devious chicanery to the naïve, but these words are no more terrifying than ‘mortgages’ or ‘Insurance Policies ‘. They can be mis-sold and poorly secured or not.
The Clinton Administration and its ‘affordable housing ideology’ of the 90 created a ‘toxic’ sub-prime lending book state interference in the market. There was, however, every bit as much Sub Prime lending in this country which has a far more more Wild West mortgage industry and ownership obsession than the US. New Labour tracked Clinton closely in many ways not least this one and let it rip..
Ed will happily own up to a marginally relevant failing to be tough on banking (as it will be assumed that Conservatives would have been worse ) he will not own up to a failure to control the money supply, the housing bubble and sub- prime lending.
He should because New Labour completely reorganised the regulatory regime removing the role of the Bof E role and with it `global’ risk assessment .We were good at checking the cigarette lighter but bad at noticing the car was going over a cliff.
The consequences spread around much of the world ( with interesting exceptions ) via securitisation and simple demand collapse but the cause was limited to only a few countries of which ours was one .Conservatives have historically been concerned about inflation and the money supply ‘ Labour`s prevailing Keynesian boosterism was a disaster then and will be again. We were not just infected we were also one of the main infectors.
New Labour turned a blind eye to the tidal wave of unearnt money taken out of housing because they liked the boom ( some of it real) that Thatcher’s reform of the Labour Market made possible. In the second term as their confidence grew they made a series of step changes in the level of government spending without widening the tax base .These conditions were not the new normal , unfortunately , and when Brown claimed to have cured boom and bust I, and just about anyone else who was interested crossed ourselves and shouted warnings.

When the speculative bubble burst spending automatically increases ( due to more payment son benefits of various kinds). Also as you try to pay back the debt you remove demand and thus make the tax base smaller . This means it is very much easier to acquire debt than to pay it off
That New Labour are criminally guilty of bequeathing a moutain sized millstone of debt is absolutely undeniable and no-one thinks the Conservatives would not have prepared a great deal better.
The proof of this was the we were already enjoying a boom under Major and he used to run surpluses and hand over a well-run shop. Oh that we had kept Major !!!!
The low level of unemployment entering the crash was a corollary of the overheated boom and non interest in housing inflation alluded to above , but as employment rapidly shook out before recovering this claim is a nonsense .As for the effect of education, who knows, there is no International correlation at all between educational levels of economic performance and in any case,according to the OECD a zero improvement was made during the New Labour period, despite salaries and staffing levels shooting up.
Overall Labour were not the ‘only’ cause of an international problem obviously , but they could not have been more to blame .They undeniably bankrupted the exchequer .
PS
Borrowing is in fact currently roughly where Darling wanted it to be so if you think it would have been a magic bullet , look around , we are living in it .In truth of course he could not have struck to his own plans under Union and political pressure .
PPS The Labour Straw man ( we did not cause the crash) is not as straw as they would like you to think, but their main crime was the creation of a terrifying structural deficit . You are not entirely wrong but the misrepresentation is theirs
PPPS – The only people who supported entering the Euro, an monstrously stupid idea, were Labour and Liberal , so one feeble half clap for that.
3
3
On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:11am Daily Male wrote:
Paul Newman.........is this the most misguided man in Britain?
 
4
On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:40am Paul Newman wrote:
and annuvver fing .....You claim that the media is insufficiently friendly to Labour , although you presumably would not include the Guardian Independent Mirror or New Statesman , in that accusation . The BBC howev-er is where 65% of news comes form dwarfing the print sector in total. The Business Editor Robert Peston (Hon)is the son of economist and Labour Peer Maurice Peston . To me much of what you write has the sound of his conspiracy theorist style . The book he wrote criticised New Labour of course , but from the left , and was warmly applauded by Polly Toynbee .
Ralph Milliband and Maurice Peston were both Highgate Labour Economists and as such within the orbit of the Toynbee Family who they both knew well.
How would you feel about having such a person as the critic of Ed Milliband at your expense on State media . Perhaps you prefer Labour supporting Stephanie Flanders who dated both Labour leader Ed Miliband and his shadow Chancellor Ed Balls during the 1990s, or maybe Neswsnight Economics Editor Duncan Weldon who was recently recruited from the TUC in time to bed down for the election
7
1
On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:49am Appalling Newman wrote:
It`s all a communist conspiracy.They`re everywhere,in my bed,In my jim jams, in my cocoa,crawling up the walls,reds,reds everywhere and they`re all STARING AT ME!!!!!!!!
3
2
On 5 Apr 2015 at 7:08am Mark wrote:
He gets in a flap when he's wrong.
3
 
On 5 Apr 2015 at 11:33am skeptical green wrote:
Quantative easing is a Keynsian strategy. It is the opposite of monetarist - tight control on the money supply. Its just poor Keynsianism because a lot of the money created does not get directed into investment in productive activity or the creation of tax paying jobs. I did not suggest that CDO'S and credit default swaps were entirely new. The expansion of derivatives markets and computerised margin reaping trading in other markets are a product of the 80s deregulation under Thatcher Reagan Bush snr etc and what I was pointing out was that the errors of labour (and I agree with PN- of Clinton) were to continue such a deregulatory approach to the financial sector. Brown's delinking of the BOE from direct government control likewise was an example of a trend for hiving off important state functions to allegedly independent institutions to avoid public accountability by politicians. Changing hospitals to trusts and the whole ppp pfi strategy for other public bodies is the same thing. The latter also skews the states accounts by making it difficult to see what is really being spent and borrowed by bodies acting on our behalf and what liabilities they are incurring which the taxpayer will have to cover in the event of failure. Once again this trend started under Thatcher and Major and Blair and Brown continued it. I am not suggesting a media conspiracy just a lazy tendency to repeat so called conventional wisdom. I take the point about BBC coverage of hard news but on political opinion the flow is the other way - all the BBC current affairs programmes constantly take their agenda from the Newspapers and often start and finish with an analysis of what the papers say about an issue or a politician as if they were the touchstone
2
1
On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:08pm skeptical green wrote:
Quantative easing is a Keynsian strategy. It is the opposite of monetarist - tight control on the money supply. Its just poor Keynsianism because a lot of the money created does not get directed into investment in productive activity or the creation of tax paying jobs. I did not suggest that CDO'S and credit default swaps were entirely new. The expansion of derivatives markets and computerised margin reaping trading in other markets are a product of the 80s deregulation under Thatcher Reagan Bush snr etc and what I was pointing out was that the errors of labour (and I agree with PN- of Clinton) were to continue such a deregulatory approach to the financial sector. Brown's delinking of the BOE from direct government control likewise was an example of a trend for hiving off important state functions to allegedly independent institutions to avoid public accountability by politicians. Changing hospitals to trusts and the whole ppp pfi strategy for other public bodies is the same thing. The latter also skews the states accounts by making it difficult to see what is really being spent and borrowed by bodies acting on our behalf and what liabilities they are incurring which the taxpayer will have to cover in the event of failure. Once again this trend started under Thatcher and Major and Blair and Brown continued it. I am not suggesting a media conspiracy just a lazy tendency to repeat so called conventional wisdom. I take the point about BBC coverage of hard news but on political opinion the flow is the other way - all the BBC current affairs programmes constantly take their agenda from the Newspapers and often start and finish with an analysis of what the papers say about an issue or a politician as if they were the touchstone
2
1
On 5 Apr 2015 at 2:56pm Mark wrote:
So let me understand this properly Paul. There was a collapse in the USA housing market but it was caused by the Democratic government and their policies?? Misguided is a generous description.
 
 
On 5 Apr 2015 at 3:04pm pn wrote:

Well…… ‘Monetarist’ policy might either be loosening or tightening of the money supply ( By broad or narrow measures such as credit for mortgages ) and it is done by controlling interest rated( the cost of borrowing ) Quantitive easing is in effect running negative interest rates and it is done to stave of the deadly danger of deflation and a full blown slump.
Keynes was an economist, not a Policy lever, and monetarism (interest rates) or fiscal action might both be Keynesian if they are used to counteract recessions which was his thang .( As opposed to an assumed equilibrium)
Monetarism is opposed to Keynesianism when advocates of the small state claim the only proper function of the state is to safeguard the currency and mind inflation
Sadly, nowadays Keynes is invoked will nilly to provide a fig leaf for unavoidable borrowing general profligacy state sector featherbedding and vanity projects. Calling our ballooning debts or throwing cash at the public sector , ‘counter cyclical policy’ is a tragic joke of this sort
The reason the left like this idea is that ‘Labour’ wants full employment . For this reason they tend to increase demand risk inflation borrow more and spend more . They call it Keynesian with no more sincerity than Thatch invoked Hayek
On PFIs the reason for them was transparently to increase borrowing while sticking to the “Golden Rule”( remember that … I do ). It was vastly expanded a ruse under Brown
By erecting a straw man ( That they unilaterally caused the global slump ) Labour have diverted attention from their considerable role in it , limiting the reputational damage to fiscal mismanagement .You have not accepted the key point about sub prime lending in the UK and the fact that the points of inception aside form the USre the UK .In fact we were early off the mark with Northern Wreck all on our ownsome
I profoundly disagree onthe BBC ...some other time
3
 
On 5 Apr 2015 at 3:46pm Mother of Dragons. wrote:
No, I have read Newman`s piece three times now and it is is still an incoherent mess of muddled thinking and poorly understood economic theory.
2
2
On 5 Apr 2015 at 8:19pm The Colonel wrote:
It wasn't the banks that were over spending the countries money. The Labour party created an economy where the country relied on heavy borrowing because the Labour party were spending more than was coming in. When the credit crunch hit, the supply of money dried up.
This spending economy is exactly what Bennett and Sturgeon want to bring back and as many on here have said, the country would be bankrupt very quickly.
4
 
On 5 Apr 2015 at 9:21pm Zzz wrote:
That's complete rubbish. Here is an article on the subject with stats, facts and references. The conclusion is very different from your myopic and prejudiced (lack of) reasoning.
Newman. You should read this to before going off on another of your interminable half-assed alcoholic rants. You cannot blame the Labour Party for the financial crisis. And that's it. End of story.

Check it out here »
 
3
On 5 Apr 2015 at 10:37pm Paul Newman wrote:
I daresay you could make a respectable argument for the Brown period but this isn`t one. Various versions the "Protocols of Gordon" have been doing the rounds for ages and funnily enough I ritually burned one in a similar style on this forum.
I like the first line.....
"As a Conservative I have no pleasure in exposing David Cameron's deficit claim...."
Riiiiiight ....

1
 
On 6 Apr 2015 at 7:42pm Boris wrote:
Good work zzzzzz, The Hiffington Post isn't left wing biased at all is it.
Explain this to me, if the country wasn't so heavily relient on borrowing to meet our needs ,why were we so effected by the credit crunch?
2
1
On 6 Apr 2015 at 9:12pm Bill Chapman wrote:
A vote for Labour is a vote for decency and common sense.
Labour is running a more disciplined campaign, and will reap the benefits. What strikes me is that the Labour Party has had its members and supporters out on the ground, knocking on doors and talking to people. No number of leaflets through the post can beat this personal approach.


5 posts left

Your response


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

terms


 

The Lewes Penny 119:132
The Lewes Penny

Invading armies are famous for "interbreeding" as you so delicately put it. I'm sure there's plenty of Norman dna as well. Please... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams