Household debt is soaring !!! 3.9 million families in debt......

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 10:05

The centre for social justice has published a report showing 3.9 million families do not have enough savings to cover the rent or mortgage...

Personal debt in the UK is approaching 1.4 trillion.......

Falling incomes and rising costs are meaning more families are falling into debt..

Surely "Austerity" should be aimed at reducing household debt not increasing it ???

Or are we stuck with guys that want to be PM and Chancellor but don't want to do the job............No ideology whatsoever.......Thatcher love her or hate her had a plan !!!

On a side note.........If you take out Inflation Osbourne has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in 13..........

SOURCE - Political betting................

by Lumbering_Jack Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 10:22

3.9 seems a bit low to me. I would think a lot more people live month to month without really planning for unexpected events such as sickness/bills etc...

People need to take responsibility for their own future.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 10:29

Need to get paid in line with inflation at a living wage - then they can take responsibility for themselves.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 10:33

The British government want to stop a lot of this over sea aid......That the starving people never see and start worrying about their own !!!

Just as bad under Blair/Brown.............Foodbanks use may be soaring now.........But it started under the world's greatest Peace envoy !!.... Rolling Eyes

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 11:17

'Centre for Social Justice' i.e. an extreme left 'think tank'.

Therefore always keen to ignore that 'debt' is accrued in a bilateral transaction, it requires two parties - one to lend, one to borrow.

We've always been a debt heavy country, particularly due to the 'Englishmans home is his castle' obsession with owning one's own property, in stark contrast to Euro heavyweights like France and Germany.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 11:31

3.9 million families.......Is the important statistic........

Some of us care..........

Standard of living is important..........not the time for clowns with no idea.

No ideology...........40 U-turns shows that...

and It isn't funny.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 11:38

41 u-turns actually. Just changed their minds on ciggy advertising........

by Duty281 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 11:42

Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour party (and the Liberals) are trying to deny the British people a chance to exercise their right to democracy with a vote on the EU.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 12:14

Duty281 wrote:Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour party (and the Liberals) are trying to deny the British people a chance to exercise their right to democracy with a vote on the EU.

So is Cameron - he's just desperate enough to promise it to you because it might just squeak him the election. As it stands, the referendum is a threat with which we can hold the Eu's rather heavyhanded approach at bay - should we vote to stay in it would weaken the the U.k's position dramatically. Something akin to the Syria vote - The americans started bumming the french instead.

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 12:45

Duty281 wrote:Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour party (and the Liberals) are trying to deny the British people a chance to exercise their right to democracy with a vote on the EU.

How has that got anything to do with the debate? We are debating poverty in the Uk through forced debt.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 12:57

Tories tried Europe in 2001.......No one cared......

They won't in 2015..........It's a who do you trust and are we better off now ??

election.........

Problem Cameron has is his slogans don't work..........

"The Big Society"...........Boom gone.......

"We are all in it together" Boom gone.......

"Vote blue go green".......Boom gone.......

"Policies for hard working families" Boom going.........

If he says something enough he thinks smart Brits will believe him........

All style and no substance............40 U-turns.............Universal credit and 41 coming soon........

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 16:12

Tony Benn (Labour M.P) said that debt is being used as a tool by governments as a way to control people by keeping people hopeless and pessimistic -

'see I think there are two ways in which people are controlled - first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them, An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern. '. Tony Benn M.P.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 16:27

What a bleeding loon.

He always was an authority hating commie that resented the privileged background he was born into (and benefitted from).

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 16:39

TopHat24/7 wrote:What a bleeding loon.

He always was an authority hating commie that resented the privileged background he was born into (and benefitted from).

but there is an element of truth behind what he is saying in that demoralised and scared people are easier to control then confident prosperous people.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 16:47

By all accounts...They were bad days for Labour CS........But at least Tony benn stood for something....

If anyone can tell me what 40 U-turn.........Cameron stands for I'd love to know...

His policies change every week..Usually from bad to worse !!

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 17:23

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:What a bleeding loon.

He always was an authority hating commie that resented the privileged background he was born into (and benefitted from).
but there is an element of truth behind what he is saying in that demoralised and scared people are easier to control then confident prosperous people.

There's theoretical truth, but his application of the theory is BS.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 17:31

Pay day loan companies.............U-Turn number 41........

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 17:34

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pay day loan companies.............U-Turn number 41........

You mean the companies that came to prevalence under Labour and Labour decided they were fine and didn't need regulating?

Tories just cleaning up Labour's mess/mistakes. Same old same old...

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 17:38

And Labour spending to fix the problems caused by corporate cocksucking and damage to the infrastructure caused by underspending. They should just be given a term each with the liberal democrats in charge at 23:59:59 to 00:00:01 between new years eve and new years day.

by Duty281 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 18:02

Labour can't talk about the defecit - it's shrinking.
Labour can't talk about the national debt - it's falling.
Labour can't talk about unemployment - it's falling.
Labour can't talk about the economy - it's the fastest growing in Europe.
Soon Labour won't be able to talk about the standard of living, because it will inevitably increase.

As TopHat says, the Conservatives are clearing up Labour's mess again. Just like when Thatcher turned the UK from the "sick man of Europe" to a global powerhouse in 11 years, Cameron will have to repair the damage that a war criminal and a one-eyed Scottish idiot (ta, Mr. Clarkson) inflicted on this island.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Nov 2013 - 19:09

"It's Marxist politics and back to the seventies intervening in Markets"

Payday loan companies...... Rolling Eyes

by Champagne_Socialist Sat 30 Nov 2013 - 5:08

Duty281 wrote:Labour can't talk about the defecit - it's shrinking.
Labour can't talk about the national debt - it's falling.
Labour can't talk about unemployment - it's falling.
Labour can't talk about the economy - it's the fastest growing in Europe.
Soon Labour won't be able to talk about the standard of living, because it will inevitably increase.

As TopHat says, the Conservatives are clearing up Labour's mess again. Just like when Thatcher turned the UK from the "sick man of Europe" to a global powerhouse in 11 years, Cameron will have to repair the damage that a war criminal and a one-eyed Scottish idiot (ta, Mr. Clarkson) inflicted on this island.

Labour can talk about how the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer tho (widest gap ever under this government)

All this talk is irrelevant as labour will win the next general election.

by Duty281 Sat 30 Nov 2013 - 9:04

The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 30 Nov 2013 - 16:16

Blair was crap and Brown was worse !!.......Much better than this Cammy-guy though........At least they had an idea of what they wanted to do.........and Blair was ten times more professional..

This guy is an empty suit.........He's got the job he's always wanted and doesn't know what to do now he's there....

He reads the papers and gets policy from there !!

Miliband is crap and Labour are all over the place.........

But will it matter ????????........I don't think it will..........

by Champagne_Socialist Sat 30 Nov 2013 - 16:18

Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.

we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.

by The Fourth Lion Sun 1 Dec 2013 - 1:39

TopHat24/7 wrote:'Centre for Social Justice' i.e. an extreme left 'think tank'.

Therefore always keen to ignore that 'debt' is accrued in a bilateral transaction, it requires two parties - one to lend, one to borrow.

We've always been a debt heavy country, particularly due to the 'Englishmans home is his castle' obsession with owning one's own property, in stark contrast to Euro heavyweights like France and Germany.

Interesting comments, Top Hat.

May I just first suggest that one person's extreme left think tank is another person's social awareness group. The definition applied largely depends on the individual's political point of view.

I agree that debt is accrued through a two-way transaction, but it cannot be ignored that most debt is promoted in the first place by lenders eager to lend, who advertise their services aggressively and persuade borrowers that they can borrow without risk and at "rates they can afford".

One has only to view any of the current TV advertisements for Wonga Loans to realise that this "Gosh-who-could-call-that-irresponsible-lending" patter is nothing less than an insidious campaign to suck in the unwary, inexperienced, or just plain naïve.

As for the property market, well, you do have a valid point there. Sort of.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many house buyers buy into the promoted culture that their purchase is not a home for life, but an investment to make a profit on. The usual duration of ownership is considered to be two years before a property can be sold on with a reasonable prospect of making a profit. This leads to rapid buying and selling turnover, inflated house prices, eventual overheating of the market and ridiculous levels of borrowing that lead to the sort of meltdown that occurred in 2008 when the sub-prime market collapse in the USA precipitated the global recession.

Perhaps people should be more encouraged to buy a house that they intend to own and live in. We bought our house in 1985. We now own it outright and are quite happy with it. The only problem we now have is that we are pestered by an aggressive estate agency system that requires a constant turnover of properties in order to survive. I have lost count of the number of leaflets and letters that have come through my door.... unsolicited phone calls...... and even knocking salesmen, all with the same pitch: "Would you like to sell your house and enjoy the benefits of your fantastic equity..?"

They sell the notion that we could make a fat wad of dosh now.... and so we could. But selling our house would mean having to buy somewhere else to live, with all the expense that that entails, and another 25 years of mortgage repayments. Hey.... I sweated for 25 years of my working life to pay off one mortgage. I'm not going to saddle myself with another one now..!!

But many people do take the bait and go for the "spend now, worry about the consequences later." It is the property market businesses that promote and aggressively retail this destructive upward spiral of spending and borrowing, that leads to the eventual downward spiral of debt.

The average working family is not experienced or knowledgeable enough to deal with the sharks in the property market. Mostly, they are only going along with what is offered to them (often in the most seductive terms) and it isn't until later that they realise just what they have done.

The real fault lies with the capitalistic usurers who sell a dream of a consequence free "money-for-all" in order to make fat commissions and interest returns from ordinary people, to line their own pockets with.

The common man may be easily led and naïve at times, but at the root of it all is the greedy capitalist employing short term methods to trouser a fat wad of dosh at the long term expense of ordinary people.

If you're looking for cause and effect, start there.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 1 Dec 2013 - 10:48

Superb anaysis and offering as usual........

by Duty281 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 14:57

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.

Yes and I have said such schemes have been abolished for the simple reason that this country can't afford them any more.

The National debt was doubled, and the country was driven to bankruptcy by the Labour party, so it was inevitable that cutbacks would have to be made. You can't advance the same excuse for Tony Blair, who started off his premiership with an economically secure nation.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:08

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.

If the gap got wider under Labour, what's the relevance of those schemes? Whatever it was doing was clearly over-riding such superficial follies like bribing thick chavs to go to school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22545210

I also doubt your final statement, since we've apparently regressed to the same as '40 years ago', to quote one article. Therefore, by definition, the gap may be AS bad as any time in recent history, but I've seen no indication of it being worse.

I'd also severely doubt the gap is worse now than in Victorian times, for example.

by Champagne_Socialist Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:23

Duty281 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
Yes and I have said such schemes have been abolished for the simple reason that this country can't afford them any more.

The National debt was doubled, and the country was driven to bankruptcy by the Labour party, so it was inevitable that cutbacks would have to be made. You can't advance the same excuse for Tony Blair, who started off his premiership with an economically secure nation.

All research showed EMA was cost effective in that the cost was paid for by the benefits eg extra tax, less benefit payments etc.

The government have said countlss times that Housing benefit (bedroom tax) changes have nothing to do with saving money and was an ideological change not a financial one.

A lot of the schemes they abolished were cost effective and so the argument they were scrapped to save money just doesn't add up.

They were abolished due to the conservative government wanting to push through conservative ideological cuts.

by Champagne_Socialist Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:26

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
If the gap got wider under Labour, what's the relevance of those schemes? Whatever it was doing was clearly over-riding such superficial follies like bribing thick chavs to go to school.

.

Me and duty are having a serious debate so if you don't mind closing the door on your way out thumbsup

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:35

The Fourth Lion wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:'Centre for Social Justice' i.e. an extreme left 'think tank'.

Therefore always keen to ignore that 'debt' is accrued in a bilateral transaction, it requires two parties - one to lend, one to borrow.

We've always been a debt heavy country, particularly due to the 'Englishmans home is his castle' obsession with owning one's own property, in stark contrast to Euro heavyweights like France and Germany.

Interesting comments, Top Hat.

May I just first suggest that one person's extreme left think tank is another person's social awareness group. The definition applied largely depends on the individual's political point of view.

Fair point, sort of. But I don't think one's political standing/viewpoint would make a difference if one were to label UKIP or BNP 'right wing', it would just be a rational and objective observation. I think the same applies to any 'think tank' which has a clear leaning and focusses it's research on topics according to it's political stance. I would consider the TPA a 'right-focussed' think tank, for example.

I agree that debt is accrued through a two-way transaction, but it cannot be ignored that most debt is promoted in the first place by lenders eager to lend, who advertise their services aggressively and persuade borrowers that they can borrow without risk and at "rates they can afford".

Agree, partly. But if I met a man in a pub and he said he'd lend me £10k I would just accept it at face value because I fancied a new motor. This is what was happening. People used cheap debt to fund their own greed, borne out of 'keeping up with the Joneses' style envy and developed in a culture which under-promoted hard work as a means to fund one's lifestyle.

One has only to view any of the current TV advertisements for Wonga Loans to realise that this "Gosh-who-could-call-that-irresponsible-lending" patter is nothing less than an insidious campaign to suck in the unwary, inexperienced, or just plain naïve.

Agree. Hate them. Don't like interference in the markets, but they're an institution I'd like to see banned. They can try their recent 'real customers' PR, but I still see them as legalised loan-sharks and would like to see them regulated out of town (i.e. APR/AER caps, bans of fee rolling etc).

As for the property market, well, you do have a valid point there. Sort of.

Thanks, though we may be coming at this from different angles. Mine wasn't a comment on the property market, per se, but more offering an explanation as to why the UK generally holds a higher level of personal debt than other comparable countries, irrespective of recession, inequality, fiscal policy etc. UK rates are 65-70%, some of the highest of the West's major economies, therefore two thirds of the population will be holding hundreds of thousands of pounds on their own personal 'balance sheet'. This is the context personal debt needs to be considered in.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many house buyers buy into the promoted culture that their purchase is not a home for life, but an investment to make a profit on. The usual duration of ownership is considered to be two years before a property can be sold on with a reasonable prospect of making a profit. This leads to rapid buying and selling turnover, inflated house prices, eventual overheating of the market and ridiculous levels of borrowing that lead to the sort of meltdown that occurred in 2008 when the sub-prime market collapse in the USA precipitated the global recession.

Agree.

Perhaps people should be more encouraged to buy a house that they intend to own and live in. We bought our house in 1985. We now own it outright and are quite happy with it. The only problem we now have is that we are pestered by an aggressive estate agency system that requires a constant turnover of properties in order to survive. I have lost count of the number of leaflets and letters that have come through my door.... unsolicited phone calls...... and even knocking salesmen, all with the same pitch: "Would you like to sell your house and enjoy the benefits of your fantastic equity..?"

Agree. Is what my folks did, bought our family home in Oct-86 and are still there now, now mortgage free.

They sell the notion that we could make a fat wad of dosh now.... and so we could. But selling our house would mean having to buy somewhere else to live, with all the expense that that entails, and another 25 years of mortgage repayments. Hey.... I sweated for 25 years of my working life to pay off one mortgage. I'm not going to saddle myself with another one now..!!

SDLT is the biggest hurdle, IMO, and is what is causing me issues (a debate for another day though...).

But many people do take the bait and go for the "spend now, worry about the consequences later." It is the property market businesses that promote and aggressively retail this destructive upward spiral of spending and borrowing, that leads to the eventual downward spiral of debt.

Agree, in part, though property is just a function of debt fuelled greed, not the cause of it. See earlier comments.

The average working family is not experienced or knowledgeable enough to deal with the sharks in the property market. Mostly, they are only going along with what is offered to them (often in the most seductive terms) and it isn't until later that they realise just what they have done.

Then they shouldn't play. I only have a cursory knowledge of poker, therefore I play over a few beers with mates for £10 buy-in. I don't go to Casinos or enter big online tourneys to make a buck. You don't need to be a 'property player' to find somewhere you fall in love with, decide you can afford it, and then make it your home for 30 years. People that don't know what they're doing gambling on ventures and subsequently getting their fingers burned have themselves to blame and, again, are not restricted to property.

The real fault lies with the capitalistic usurers who sell a dream of a consequence free "money-for-all" in order to make fat commissions and interest returns from ordinary people, to line their own pockets with.

Are we back to the 'ordinary people' debate again??

The common man may be easily led and naïve at times, but at the root of it all is the greedy capitalist employing short term methods to trouser a fat wad of dosh at the long term expense of ordinary people.

If you're looking for cause and effect, start there.

I'd take the spoils of capitalism over the brutal poverty and gross inequality of communism a thousand times over. Capitalism is just a name, one people like to use to throw sh!t and hope it sticks. Capitalism isn't the problem, the human condition is.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:38

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
If the gap got wider under Labour, what's the relevance of those schemes? Whatever it was doing was clearly over-riding such superficial follies like bribing thick chavs to go to school.

.
Me and duty are having a serious debate so if you don't mind closing the door on your way out

If you can't keep up, feel free to tap-out.

by Champagne_Socialist Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:42

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
If the gap got wider under Labour, what's the relevance of those schemes? Whatever it was doing was clearly over-riding such superficial follies like bribing thick chavs to go to school.

.
Me and duty are having a serious debate so if you don't mind closing the door on your way out

If you can't keep up, feel free to tap-out.

You can carry on complaining about Labour encouraging 'chavs' to go to school on your way out Household debt is soaring !!! 3.9 million families in debt...... 4278589029

Household debt is soaring !!! 3.9 million families in debt...... 4278589029

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:46

Looks like Osbourne is going to try to do something about energy bills now.........

Good job there is a sun newspaper.......or the Tories wouldn't know what to do about policy..

"It's marxist and a trip back to the 70s to mess with markets"

"Vote blue go green"

"The Big Society"

"We are all in it together "

"Policies for hardworking families"

What's next.............The SUN better think of something soon!!

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 15:53

The Sun being the paper the propelled Blair to victory in 2007........??

by Duty281 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:11

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
Yes and I have said such schemes have been abolished for the simple reason that this country can't afford them any more.

The National debt was doubled, and the country was driven to bankruptcy by the Labour party, so it was inevitable that cutbacks would have to be made. You can't advance the same excuse for Tony Blair, who started off his premiership with an economically secure nation.
All research showed EMA was cost effective in that the cost was paid for by the benefits eg extra tax, less benefit payments etc.

The government have said countlss times that Housing benefit (bedroom tax) changes have nothing to do with saving money and was an ideological change not a financial one.A lot of the schemes they abolished were cost effective and so the argument they were scrapped to save money just doesn't add up.They were abolished due to the conservative government wanting to push through conservative ideological cuts.

1) Well they would say that wouldn't they? Saying they were doing x to save money wouldn't have installed a lot of faith from the electorate.

2) Maybe the schemes weren't any good?

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:12

Have UKIP got a 2nd policy yet ??

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:14

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Have UKIP got a 2nd policy yet ??

Have Labour got a 1st...??

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:27

TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Have UKIP got a 2nd policy yet ??
Have Labour got a 1st...??

Aye. Its called offering the lib dems with lube so they leave their abusive masters and come get sodomised by the benevolent if slightly condescending ones.

by Duty281 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:29

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Have UKIP got a 2nd policy yet ??

Look at their website and you'll find a few.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:31

Miliband should hug a hoodie..........start racing with huskies to show he's green.......and start calling people MUCCA.........To show he's not an out of date Toff !!......

Then again It didn't work for Cammie did it ??...........Against brown who's negatives were off the scale !! Rolling Eyes

by TopHat24/7 Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:32

ShahenshahG wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Have UKIP got a 2nd policy yet ??
Have Labour got a 1st...??
Aye. Its called offering the lib dems with lube so they leave their abusive masters and come get sodomised by the benevolent if slightly condescending ones.

Lol

2015 is going to bring an interesting dynamic that's for sure.....

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 16:37

I would laugh so much if Ukip decided to join labour and the monster raving loony party joined the tories. Please lord, make it happen.

by Champagne_Socialist Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 21:45

Duty281 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:The most that the rich-poor gap has ever grown was under the premiership of Tony Blair - even bigger than under Thatcher.

And keep saying the second line to yourself, it won't come true though.
we had this discussion befre duty, the gap got wider under labour but at least labour introduced schemes to help the poor eg child tax credits, working tax credits, EMA, Minimum wage etc whilst the conservatives have abolished a lot of the schemes.

The gap right now is the widest it has ever been between the rich and the poor.
Yes and I have said such schemes have been abolished for the simple reason that this country can't afford them any more.

The National debt was doubled, and the country was driven to bankruptcy by the Labour party, so it was inevitable that cutbacks would have to be made. You can't advance the same excuse for Tony Blair, who started off his premiership with an economically secure nation.
All research showed EMA was cost effective in that the cost was paid for by the benefits eg extra tax, less benefit payments etc.

The government have said countlss times that Housing benefit (bedroom tax) changes have nothing to do with saving money and was an ideological change not a financial one.A lot of the schemes they abolished were cost effective and so the argument they were scrapped to save money just doesn't add up.They were abolished due to the conservative government wanting to push through conservative ideological cuts.
1) Well they would say that wouldn't they? Saying they were doing x to save money wouldn't have installed a lot of faith from the electorate.

2) Maybe the schemes weren't any good?

They have quite happily said they are cutting other services in order to save money so that argument doesn't hold up.

by The Fourth Lion Mon 2 Dec 2013 - 22:37

TopHat24/7 wrote:

I'd take the spoils of capitalism over the brutal poverty and gross inequality of communism a thousand times over. Capitalism is just a name, one people like to use to throw sh!t and hope it sticks. Capitalism isn't the problem, the human condition is.

[/quote]

Thanks for responding to my earlier comments, which I have removed from this post, not because there was anything wrong with them, but because I think we covered all the issues and they don't need hacking out again......... except for the last one, which I've left in so I can respond to it.

I think you're making a bit of a quantum leap, in suggesting that I was advocating communism in any way shape or form. Nothing of the sort.

I'm not against capitalism either..... actually, as a property owner and a self-employed man, I would probably fall into some definition of capitalist myself.

But there is, what I would call 'benign' capitalism, and then there is the capitalism of sheer, naked greed.

When I talk of ordinary people being sucked into loans they cannot afford, they are exactly that. Ordinary people who are not necessarily trying to 'keep up with the Joneses.... usually, they would never have dreamed of borrowing for this or that in the first place, and wouldn't have done so had they not been seduced by aggressive marketing and high-pressure sales techniques. Another tactic is the subtle method of selling huge amounts of a product that people don't want, don't need, isn't any use to them and is something they often don't even realise they've had foisted upon them, so subtle is the method of selling that is employed, PPI being a supreme example.

So...... a responsibly regulated free market economy based on 'benign' capitalist principles is a good thing and I, like millions of other Britons, have benefitted from it in my lifetime. But what we are increasingly seeing in this country is a greed-driven form of hyper-capitalism, growing and growing, with no scruples, very little restraint and a "sell and be damned" attitude towards regulation.

This market force is pandered to by a government that is lurching further and further to the hard right, and is on an ideological mission to systematically dismantle the welfare state. This Conservative government's doctrine is to work towards a country where the State has no responsibility whatsoever for the welfare of the people. It will take them a long time to do it, but they're making a start now.

I'm a 'baby boomer' of the post war generation. I was born into the welfare state, have grown up with it, lived with it, paid into it, and I rather like it. I would like it to still be there for my grandchildren too.

And that, good sir, does NOT constitute communism.[/quote]

by TopHat24/7 Tue 3 Dec 2013 - 9:38

Good points, well made.

Funny thing is, the points/criticisms you've fairly raised re capitalism can also be levelled against socialism/welfarism. I.e. when it works, it's great, when it gets/allows itself to be abused it fails.

So we have a Tory government that's facilitating the destruction of the welfare state in the name/promotion of malignant (to borrow and extrapolate your turn of phrase) capitalism, but equally we had (possibly will have) a Labour government the facilitated the equally malignant abuse of welfarism.

I don't think rampant greed is good for the economy or society (though I would highlight here that greed runs throughout society and is not restricted to wealth, profession or social group), sorry Boris, but equally I don't think chucking money at society's problems without offering solutions and creating false senses of entitlement (a greater cause of the '11 riots than bankers bonuses) is not healthy either.

Neither party is universally doing right by the country, we need a balance I doubt we'll ever get.

by Gentleman01 Tue 3 Dec 2013 - 17:36

The Fourth Lion wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:

I'd take the spoils of capitalism over the brutal poverty and gross inequality of communism a thousand times over. Capitalism is just a name, one people like to use to throw sh!t and hope it sticks. Capitalism isn't the problem, the human condition is.

Thanks for responding to my earlier comments, which I have removed from this post, not because there was anything wrong with them, but because I think we covered all the issues and they don't need hacking out again......... except for the last one, which I've left in so I can respond to it.

I think you're making a bit of a quantum leap, in suggesting that I was advocating communism in any way shape or form. Nothing of the sort.

I'm not against capitalism either..... actually, as a property owner and a self-employed man, I would probably fall into some definition of capitalist myself.

But there is, what I would call 'benign' capitalism, and then there is the capitalism of sheer, naked greed.

When I talk of ordinary people being sucked into loans they cannot afford, they are exactly that. Ordinary people who are not necessarily trying to 'keep up with the Joneses.... usually, they would never have dreamed of borrowing for this or that in the first place, and wouldn't have done so had they not been seduced by aggressive marketing and high-pressure sales techniques. Another tactic is the subtle method of selling huge amounts of a product that people don't want, don't need, isn't any use to them and is something they often don't even realise they've had foisted upon them, so subtle is the method of selling that is employed, PPI being a supreme example.

So...... a responsibly regulated free market economy based on 'benign' capitalist principles is a good thing and I, like millions of other Britons, have benefitted from it in my lifetime. But what we are increasingly seeing in this country is a greed-driven form of hyper-capitalism, growing and growing, with no scruples, very little restraint and a "sell and be damned" attitude towards regulation.

This market force is pandered to by a government that is lurching further and further to the hard right, and is on an ideological mission to systematically dismantle the welfare state. This Conservative government's doctrine is to work towards a country where the State has no responsibility whatsoever for the welfare of the people. It will take them a long time to do it, but they're making a start now.

I'm a 'baby boomer' of the post war generation. I was born into the welfare state, have grown up with it, lived with it, paid into it, and I rather like it. I would like it to still be there for my grandchildren too.

And that, good sir, does NOT constitute communism.[/quote][/quote]

It is interesting to note just how far right the paradigm of political debate has moved since 1979. For example, Thatcher would have (and, I believe actually did) balk at the privatisation of Royal Mail. She also was incredibly nervous about reducing the top rate of tax down to 60% from 83%. A proposal for a top rate of tax at 60% these days would be considered tantamount to Stalinist oppression in the eyes of the more hysterical Right.

Labour drastically adapted their ideology after 18 years in the wilderness due to the, very real, fear of never winning power again and becoming irrelevant. When Thatcher said that her greatest legacy was New Labour, she was right.

What is clear is that, for decades now, people have simply not wanted left-leaning, social democratic parties in power. It is the reason why, arguably, no such major party really existed prior to Miliband winning the Labour party leadership race (it is a bit early to say just how far left Miliband is, as he is, wisely, keeping his cards close to his chest at this point).

However, what you've said about 'benign capitalism' I completely agree with, and, more importantly, so do the majority of the populous (albeit, to varying degrees). In some key areas, Cameron's government are widely perceived as having been successful, for example the UK economy is now growing, (I wouldn't agree that the growth the UK has seen since 2008 should be considered a huge achievement, but that is the perception).

However, despite this, the Con/Lib coalition is relatively unpopular. The reason for this is that GDP figures simply mean nothing to people who are struggling to get by.

I believe there is now a genuine desire among the populous, which has been mostly absent over the preceding 25 years, to see Capitalism much more aggressively regulated and it is also clear that, under absolutely no circumstances, are the Conservative party prepared to do that.

Miliband has been pilloried for his 'Marxist' views, yet his rhetoric on bringing the Energy companies to heel has seen his approval ratings increase, rather than decline. In fact, as Owen Jones pointed out, the majority of people do not feel his price freeze proposal goes far enough, and many would actually like to see partial re-nationalisation of the energy grid.

As a democracy, we get what we vote for (hence the very existence of New Labour). But perhaps the pendulum of public opinion has begun to swing back the other way, and perhaps in the decades to come we will see the Conservatives being forced to adapt.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 3 Dec 2013 - 17:45

Great to see you back on the board Gentleman, even if you do always seem to come on specifically to hand me my backside! Smile

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 3 Dec 2013 - 22:20

Gentleman01 wrote:

What is clear is that, for decades now, people have simply not wanted left-leaning, social democratic parties in power.

Or they have been persuaded that they don't through incessant propaganda in the largely right-wing media?

by Sponsored content