|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 22, 2023 10:25:01 GMT
By selling off some of the UK gold, financing was also needed for filling the big black economic hole left in the education system, thanks to Thatcher 'Grant Maintained' education funding that left the majority of state seriously underfunded. Two big black financial holes created by Thatcher and passed onto New Labour by John Major. I suspect Righties like yourself are the gullible ones for swallowing and promoting so much misleading Tory propaganda. I dont think the bungled sale of gold (with the vast cost to the State) is a particularly good example of financial acumen - but each to their own..  It put a hole in the gold reserves that did not have any negative effect on the UK economy, and would not have been necessary but for the stupidity of Thatcher along with the inability of Major to correct her errors. The best part is that Brown's approach actually worked. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 22, 2023 10:35:59 GMT
By selling off some of the UK gold, financing was also needed for filling the big black economic hole left in the education system, thanks to Thatcher 'Grant Maintained' education funding that left the majority of state seriously underfunded. Two big black financial holes created by Thatcher and passed onto New Labour by John Major. I suspect Righties like yourself are the gullible ones for swallowing and promoting so much misleading Tory propaganda. What you mean Brown had to flog off our gold on the cheap because Labour had bankrupt the country, causing a 'big black economic hole'.
That is the Labour forte, get in to power, squander tax payers money on nonsense, with nothing to show for it, just dead money, then the Tories have to take over and we have to suffer years of austerity cuts to plug the financial hole that Labour left.
Brown was trying to flog off all state assets to balance the books, if it wasn't nailed down Brown would try to flog it, he had to be strip searched by security when he got kicked out of No. 10, his removal van was raided by the police.
You have a ridiculously biased imagination. Three ridiculous and incorrect opinions in one post, which might make sense amongst your mates in your local pub, but have no place in any serious debate. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Dec 23, 2023 1:00:03 GMT
I dont think the bungled sale of gold (with the vast cost to the State) is a particularly good example of financial acumen - but each to their own.. It put a hole in the gold reserves that did not have any negative effect on the UK economy, and would not have been necessary but for the stupidity of Thatcher along with the inability of Major to correct her errors. The best part is that Brown's approach actually worked. British politics is really easy. The Tories want a small state, and Labour want a large state. The British public don't want to pay high taxes so they more often that not vote the Tories in. The problem with Labour is that they sell a false narrative that public services are shit because the Tories are just out for the rich. It is just plain wrong, the Tories want a small state so that EVERYBODY keeps more of their own money, which is a disaster for public service funding. Here lies the problem, one party (Tory) won't raise taxes to fund public services properly, and the other party lie and say we can Nordic levels of public services by asking the rich to pay more. This is why Labour sold gold, had PFI contracts, and introduced stealth taxes... because they are incapable of having an honest conversation about the proper funding of public services. If you cannot personally say you want higher taxes to fund proper public services then you really shouldn't be classing yourself as left-wing.... because you are just peddling fairytale economics that do not exist anywhere on the planet! |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 9:53:31 GMT
Dodgy, that's not a bad summary at all.
I will add this - The Tories have over time intellectually snookered themselves (and in my view the public) by not being plain about why the big state, big public services model wont work at all for somewhere like the UK and actually wont work anywhere in the long term. The conversation isn't exactly a nice conversation because real economics and real incentives isn't a nice conversational topic. You can either base your society on rewarding the efforts that keep it going or it will fall apart and fail - the only unknown is the exact timing of the fall. The Tories have, instead of arguing their case, tried to play on both sides on this issue and reason now has no champion at all. We have elections dominated by two groups who think (or say) society can function sustainably with huge swathes of the population being employed by the state and the state dominating economic life and incentives. It's a road to nowhere / chaos / tyranny.
The rich wont fund public services - or let me put it another way, their terms for doing so are not likely to be at all comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 12:11:30 GMT
The rich wont fund public services - or let me put it another way, their terms for doing so are not likely to be at all comfortable. What do you mean? I may have misunderstood you, but aren't the rich only rich by public sufferance? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 12:58:15 GMT
The rich wont fund public services - or let me put it another way, their terms for doing so are not likely to be at all comfortable. What do you mean? I may have misunderstood you, but aren't the rich only rich by public sufferance? The rich are a feature of a society that's workable. You could say they are rich because there is a rule not steal, but getting rid of (or breaking) that rule has consequences |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 13:09:49 GMT
What do you mean? I may have misunderstood you, but aren't the rich only rich by public sufferance? The rich are a feature of a society that's workable. You could say they are rich because there is a rule not steal, but getting rid of (or breaking) that rule has consequences Okey-dokey! I always thought the rules and laws that make them rich are just social constructs that could be changed at a moment's notice should the general populace ever decide they'd like it that way. What is 'mine' is only mine because of a social rule. Change the social rule and it is no longer 'mine'. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 13:56:37 GMT
The rich are a feature of a society that's workable. You could say they are rich because there is a rule not steal, but getting rid of (or breaking) that rule has consequences Okey-dokey! I always thought the rules and laws that make them rich are just social constructs that could be changed at a moment's notice should the general populace ever decide they'd like it that way. What is 'mine' is only mine because of a social rule. Change the social rule and it is no longer 'mine'. Sure they are social constructs and social constructs have consequences. If you change the rules (assuming you can) so that rich people can/do not exist, there might be other consequences. The bit I put in brackets in the above line is also important. What typically happens with revolutionary programs designed to remove the rich (or richness) is that nothing of the sort really happens anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 23, 2023 14:09:00 GMT
It put a hole in the gold reserves that did not have any negative effect on the UK economy, and would not have been necessary but for the stupidity of Thatcher along with the inability of Major to correct her errors. The best part is that Brown's approach actually worked. British politics is really easy. The Tories want a small state, and Labour want a large state. The British public don't want to pay high taxes so they more often that not vote the Tories in. The problem with Labour is that they sell a false narrative that public services are shit because the Tories are just out for the rich. It is just plain wrong, the Tories want a small state so that EVERYBODY keeps more of their own money, which is a disaster for public service funding. Here lies the problem, one party (Tory) won't raise taxes to fund public services properly, and the other party lie and say we can Nordic levels of public services by asking the rich to pay more. This is why Labour sold gold, had PFI contracts, and introduced stealth taxes... because they are incapable of having an honest conversation about the proper funding of public services. If you cannot personally say you want higher taxes to fund proper public services then you really shouldn't be classing yourself as left-wing.... because you are just peddling fairytale economics that do not exist anywhere on the planet! I don't think I have seen one of your posts that so totally fails to make sense until I read the above. It is, as proven by New Labour, an overopinionated load of nonsense. I don't class myself as left wing. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 14:09:56 GMT
Okey-dokey! I always thought the rules and laws that make them rich are just social constructs that could be changed at a moment's notice should the general populace ever decide they'd like it that way. What is 'mine' is only mine because of a social rule. Change the social rule and it is no longer 'mine'. Sure they are social constructs and social constructs have consequences. If you change the rules (assuming you can) so that rich people can/do not exist, there might be other consequences. The bit I put in brackets in the above line is also important. What typically happens with revolutionary programs designed to remove the rich (or richness) is that nothing of the sort really happens anyway. The rules can be changed. The better approach is a slow evolution rather than revolution. I'll grant that. The people of the UK are a lot wealthier today than they were a hundred years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 14:24:47 GMT
Sure they are social constructs and social constructs have consequences. If you change the rules (assuming you can) so that rich people can/do not exist, there might be other consequences. The bit I put in brackets in the above line is also important. What typically happens with revolutionary programs designed to remove the rich (or richness) is that nothing of the sort really happens anyway. The rules can be changed. I didn't say they couldn't (it's a matter of debate that they really could). However, rules (or their absence) have consequences. If the consequences are bad for everyone, then removing the rules is not much of an option. You don't appear to be reading my posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2023 14:25:38 GMT
I very strongly believe that in some instances, the British public ARE willing to pay a bit more for certain services, one of which would be the NHS.
I too do not think of myself as particularly Left wing, the term "Leftie" is banded around far too much, and too casually in here, you should not tar me with the same brush as Left wing militants or Corbynites, because thats just not me at all.
To me, one huge difference between Conservatism and Proogressives / Social Democrats, is that we strongly believe that Free Market Capitalism must not be allowed free reign, instead it has to be regulated in order to protect employers and employees, consumors, the sick, the aged and disabled, the vulnerable, the poor, the renter and the mortgage holder etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 14:27:58 GMT
You don't appear to be reading my posts. Not only yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 14:29:04 GMT
The rules can be changed. I didn't say they couldn't (it's a matter of debate that they really could). However, rules (or their absence) have consequences. If the consequences are bad for everyone, then removing the rules is not much of an option. You don't appear to be reading my posts. Of course, they could. And naturally someone who favours the status quo is going to say that any change will be bad. No surprises there. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 23, 2023 14:39:51 GMT
I didn't say they couldn't (it's a matter of debate that they really could). However, rules (or their absence) have consequences. If the consequences are bad for everyone, then removing the rules is not much of an option. You don't appear to be reading my posts. Of course, they could. And naturally someone who favours the status quo is going to say that any change will be bad. No surprises there. I didn't even say they were bad. I'm offering a possible explanation for a reality that must pose a total conundrum for you. If societies work better without the concept of wealth / hierarchy, why don't we see at least some successful societies without either? It's a real brain teaser if you assume that the rich having their wealth is just a net negative that can be forgone without cost Here is another puzzler for you - Why don't they let people spend any borrowed money without having to pay it back? If paying the loan back is where the pain is, why not just drop the pain and just have the spending part on its own? |
|
