We are all in this together

[BarnsleyBrewer]

Things are going better for us than the rest of Europe (our main trading partners) so what we are doing is working but there is a long way to go to repair the damage caused by the way the economy was run up to 2008. Ultimately we could never afford the society we were being offered when times were good and they were built on a house of cards not a firm foundation anyway. Cameron and all may be rich posh boys but that doesn't change the fact that Labour screwed up the economy just as they did in the late 1970's and its ten the historic role of the Tories to come in clear up the mess and start building things up again.

All dependent in which part of the country you live in regarding building things up....

BB

 

[calumscott]

lots.

Jeltz for PM!

 

[Dave1970]

The problem is that none of us are actually given the information we need to make an informed choice - it all comes down to who we believe and that's based to a large degree on our existing views and values.
The Tories want us all to believe that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy and they are the saviours of it. Clearly lots of people believe this. Others believe that the Tories are only interested in lining the pockets of the rich and couldn't give a toss about most of the population the Tories want us to believe in one nation Conservatism. It may well be that both things are true?

For me it all comes down to their start point - Labour want to try to make life better for most of us, the Tories want to make life better for the elite.

This doesn't mean I think Labour don't screw up sometimes, although I'm still not convinced that failing to forsee an upcoming financial crisis that caught just about every government in the world on the hop amounts to incompetent management of the economy. I've seen far more incompetence in this government, with it's make up policy now, ignore evidence and change your mind later politics than I ever did under Blair/Brown - maybe this is just because I have Michael Gove as a 'boss'?

 

[Aleman]

Michael Gove as a 'boss'?

Gove is a true politician . . .if his mouth his moving he is lying :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[calumscott]

For me it all comes down to their start point - Labour want to try to make life better for most of us, the Tories want to make life better for the elite.

For you it comes down to YOUR OPINION OF their start point.

My opinion of their start point is vastly different to yours. e.g. Labour want to make everyone like them so they can stay in power, the Tories are happy to take the decision not to try to make everyone happy so we don't go bankrupt (again).

<edit>
But for start points look to the ideology behind party politics not the opposition spin.

I have a preference for being left to get on with my life secure in the knowledge that if I f**k up I suffer and if I succeed I reap the rewards, the seed of which I have sown with my own hard graft and initiative.

Many have a preference to have a big comfy safety blanket provided by "the state" (read: the people who would otherwise reap the rewards, the seed of which they have sown with their own hard graft and initiative).

I will always be better off under an establishment which supports the former (all other things being equal and assuming that the latter don't borrow like a shoe-fetishist in a Jimmy Choo warehouse just to flatter voters) as I choose to conduct my life in such a way as to always aim higher and work to achieve that. I make personal sacrifices for professional gain, rather than give only the service for which I am paid, I do not believe that I am entitled to anything that I have not worked to achieve and I do not believe that I have ever received remuneration, promotion, increased professional responsibility or any other reward without specifically working towards it on my own. I guess when it boils down to it I believe in the free market (labour and skill are commodities like any other) and I believe I am just another part of it - I also believe that I can compete in it. So far so good.

Maybe another way of looking at that start point:

Labour want to try to give you a life *they* think is better, the Tories want let you to make life better for yourself.

</edit>

Paw-tay-toe, Paw-tah-toe...

 

[Jeltz]

This doesn't mean I think Labour don't screw up sometimes, although I'm still not convinced that failing to forsee an upcoming financial crisis that caught just about every government in the world on the hop amounts to incompetent management of the economy.

Actually I believe that they did, eventually, foresee that an almighty crash was immanent, but by that time they knew that trying to act would be too unpopular. Better to let it happen, spend a while in opposition while all the harsh work has to be done by someone else then step back in once the other party has made themselves so unpopular that they are unelectable. Brown could have tried to form a coalition with the Lib Dems after the 2010 election but chose not to.

I agree that plenty of other governments were happy to go along with a lending based culture. It increases the cash in the system which is an easy way for them to have consumer based growth, however the way the banks were lending goes against a couple of centuries of good practice. Not all countries let the banks get on with it unfettered, for example Australia's regulatory system was far better which is why they were much less effected. It was simply a symptom of the kind of politics which prevailed where the politicians didn't want to do anything unpopular, policy was as more based on polling than necessity. Of course that begs the question that can never be answered "would the tories have done anything different?" but really it doesn't matter as they weren't in charge at the time.

The thing I hate most about the political system is the way the parties play politics and that is often to the detriment of the electorate. For example Ed Milliband's recent announcement that he would freeze energy bills if he gets elected, well if he really wanted to do that he would have sprung it on them when elected without any notice. As it is he might just as well have sent a memo to the big 6 saying "If I get in next time you won't be able to increase your prices for a year so you if you intend increasing your prices you would be well advised to do it sooner rather than later!" The result is that the energy companies make sure they put the prices up high now rather than phasing in prices over time which also gives Ed more ammunition. Who loses out? Well that would be me and you and everyone else.

 

[Jeltz]

For me it all comes down to their start point - Labour want to try to make life better for most of us, the Tories want to make life better for the elite.

For you it comes down to YOUR OPINION OF their start point.

My opinion of their start point is vastly different to yours. e.g. Labour want to make everyone like them so they can stay in power, the Tories are happy to take the decision not to try to make everyone happy so we don't go bankrupt (again).

Paw-tay-toe, Paw-tah-toe...

Totally, it would be a pretty daft party that sought to appeal to only a tiny section of society. Traditionally the tories believe in more personal responsibility and less involvement in people's lives while Labour believes in an equality and managing society.

Personally I think an equal society would be atrocious and I suspect most people would agree with me.

 

[Dave1970]

Calum you seem to be saying that Labour's flaw is that they try to please as many of the electorate as possible - sounds fine to me. Nothing wrong with popular policies (not the same as populist policies which I think all are guilty of at times). You say the Tories don't try to make the electorate happy - not sure this would be seen as a good point.

Jeltz, nothing to disagree with in what you say, I'm in no way suggesting that an equal society would be a good idea, it's been tried and it didn't work. I do however think that an increasingly unequal society is a bad thing.

At that point I'm going to bow out...nice to debate with you Gents. I take no offence that you think I'm wrong and hope you feel the same. Maybe we should resume closer to the next election?

On reflection I feel I may be guilty of colluding to hijack this thread, it was meant to be about MP's pay and it's gone all party political, don't want to bore everyone with being overly political so will work on shutting up instead. :hat:

 

[Jeltz]

Yes Dave, It think its probably best put to bed now but I've been impressed as to the quality of discussion to be honest.

 

[bobsbeer]

Yes this thread has changed a bit from the start, but don't all of them. :lol: Calum I must disagree with you on a couple of points though.

Many have a preference to have a big comfy safety blanket provided by "the state"

The Tory spin machine has done a very good job at demeaning the poorest in our society. Words like feckless, scroungers, work shy etc have been bandied about to describe Benefit claimants and all have been tarred with the same brush. The reality is that even before the lowering of benefits, these people were having a hard time making ends meet. Yes there will be some who play the system, and some who outright cheat. I think many bankers earning millions could also fit into that category. But to suggest that this country has 'a big comfy safety blanket' is stretching the reality of the truth. But my point is that society will never be equal in terms of opportunity or ability.

I believe in the free market (labour and skill are commodities like any other) and I believe I am just another part of it

You are right and to an extent I agree with you. But a huge part of society are not part of the free market. Public services such as local authorities and the NHS are dictated to. Not by scarcity or otherwise of available skills, by what the Chancellor says we as a country can afford. The country want and expect excellent public services but few are prepared or even able to afford them if they were run as a free market. Yet we take them for granted as though they are a right. We expect our elderly and infirm to be given the best care, but want it for nothing. We expect children to be protected and blame social workers if it goes wrong. But we as a society are not prepared to train and give them the working conditions to do the job. To do so would cost too much. We expect our roads to be pothole free. Yet we are not prepared to pay for the workers and materials to do the job. We expect our bins to be emptied weekly. The list goes on. Yet this government have sucked billions from local services, but expect nothing to change, and normal service to be continued. How many private industries would allow this to happen. Look at how the energy companies have reacted to a price freeze. Even brewers are not immune. Drinkers don't want to pay more, so what choice have they but to reduce costs, and as a result reduce the quality of the product.

Maybe it's not the government we should blame for the state of our public finances, but the people who have become accustomed to having a public service that provides, not the comfy safety blanket as you allude to, but an unrealistic expectation of what can be provided in all areas of public services. Anyone who says I want more for less needs to have a very close look at themselves in a mirror, and ask how? As most know, if you want quality you have to pay for it. So if you want quality care for our elderly, quality roads, rubbish collection service, and a quality health service then we need to put our hands in our pockets and stop whingeing. Or do without. Or accept a poor quality service.

I consider that I earn a decent wage, but if market forces were to prevail it would double. How do I know this? I just need to look at the wages paid to agency staff brought in to fill the empty posts they can't recruit to because they want Rolls Royce staff for the price of Model T workers. And I am mug enough to hang around and get on with the job of protecting the most vulnerable in our society, because I care about them. And watch my wage go down by over £2500 a year and that doesn't even take inflation into account. Im sure if I had a conversation with a banker he would consider me stupid and feckless. And perhaps I am. But at least I have a conscience, and believe society can be better for everyone if we work together. Sadly society does not give a **** about it's neighbour anymore. It's all about profit an me.

 

[BarnsleyBrewer]

Well said Bob......

 

[Dave1970]

I know I said I'd shut up but........Well said Bob :thumb:

so much for the vow of silence - I'd make a lousy monk :pray:

 

[graysalchemy]

I agree with what you are saying Bob. However not only has billions been cut from local authority budgets but billions is wasted by local councils in procurement and tendering. Some of it darn right corruption and a lot of waste by buying stuff for the sake of it to using up budgets.

I was given an example by a supplier who was asked to supply some items for a local council. He tendered and was told that he had the job but there was a problem with price. He said that he would do whatever he could to bring it in on budget, but was told he was too cheap . The buyer was concerned that for 5 years previous that she had been paying twice that amount for the items and it wouldn't look good with her line manager if she started saving the council money. Admittedly that example was for a relatively small amount but if that culture exists within council departments then how many millions are being wasted.

When the conservatives came into power I was hoping that this type of culture within local government and government departments would be stamped out and that is where savings would be made. But no budgets were set and the easiest thing was cut....... staff.

A friend of mine has just lost his job at the council out of a team of 9 workers and one line manager the team has been reduced to one line manager and one worker. The remaining 'team' will now be completely ineffective and a waste of money IMHO.

In my opinion those in public office should be held accountable for their actions, and yes I would quite happily see Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the Dock along with I may add the heads of all the banks, whose reckless actions brought this country to its knees.

Perhaps then the powers that be may think twice about how they conduct themselves in public office.

 

[calumscott]

Great post Bob that highlights the fundamental problem with democracy (reportedly described by Churchill thus: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.").

The inherent paradoxes in any government but a hardline ideology will always bubble up in the people's commentary, and the politicians' arguments.

How can a socialist pay for socialism without a strong market driven private sector paying high levels of tax? (previous socialist governments ludicrous borrowing excluded)

How can a capitalist reconcile that some services really are better served outside of a free market economy? (Electricity generation - there is only one grid, railways - there is only rail network for example)

Sadly society does not give a **** about it's neighbour anymore. It's all about profit an me.

This sums the whole thing up for me. This is the line that is always used to bash any conservative voter. However, I see exactly that attitude in the reverse, people voting Labour because of what they'll get personally and not what it means for the country as a whole.

Working together is good. I've worked in lots of small companies which have succeeded purely because everyone "bought in" to the concept that if the company succeeded, so would they. Some people got very rich. Others who worked for it didn't, but everyone improved their lot by at least some margin. There is nothing inherently wrong with that in my book, this to me is "working together". Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that in the pursuit of improving my lot, I also improve the lot of richer people than me but also improve the lot of the company, everyone else in the company, the treasury's bank balance and in a small part, the economy at large, the prospects of other people, the UK as a whole etc etc.

I think we just have to accept that under either ideology there are fundamental problems.

On the right there is the risk of uncontrolled personal greed of those at the top repressing the aspirations of those below them in the organisation. (ex. the ludicrous greed of the eighties)
On the left there is the risk of uncontrolled personal greed of the masses demanding more and more from "the state" thereby repressing the machinery which provides the capital to run the state in the first place. (ex. the previous government and the "Sorry, there's no money left" note left for the new chief sec to the treasury)

At this point I have to conclude that if there were some method by which policies designed as pure "electioneering" (e.g. unsustainable welfare from the left, removal of protection for workers [NOTE: *NOT* workers "rights" as defined by the unions] from the right) could be eliminated by a regulatory body then we'd have a system that almost work.

Could that be part of a modernised upper house? No party politics allowed, a strict remit against which to judge if a proposed policy was in the interest of the country as a whole, was sustainable and had no element of electioneering (by which I mean the "buying of votes" that seems to be the only means by which the parties currently compete). :hmm:

I think in all honesty politics in the UK has to get back to real politics. For example I cannot abide the current "Oppose everything for opposition's sake" stance of Labour at the moment. They are even looking for excuses to oppose their own policies now being implemented by the coalition. This is not "working together". What on earth is wrong with the whole house just getting on with things that actually we all know they agree on? It's petty politics and if that's what people see from those at the top, how will they ever behave differently?

The Tory spin machine has done a very good job at demeaning the poorest in our society.

Or the Labour spin machine has done a very good job of making you believe that's what they said.

I couldn't give two hoots about the "poorest" in our society. "Poorness" is not an indicator of capacity. "Poorness" is a state of being. Poor people can become richer people if the framework exists for them to do that and the willingness to do it exists. I'm not for a second suggesting that the framework IS there and they're all lazy, it's not. BUT, just like you say the expectations around public service have to change, so too does the expectation about jobs, pay, the labour market on the whole and entitlement to specific jobs in specific geographical locations.

The framework to support the people who ARE prepared to up-sticks and make their lot better are not supported AT ALL as far as I know. This is wrong. If people show any initiative they should be supported to make them successful. It's what successful businesses do, it's what the welfare system should do too.

The point being that "poorness" should be a choice and, indeed, who are we to tell someone that they shouldn't be poor, that poor is bad somehow? We are not at the point where poorness is a choice though, it is still currently inflicted on some and the help for some that are who do not wish to be isn't there to enable them to become not poor.

The people I do give all the hoots I have about are the "disadvantaged". Those without the capacity to change their lot. The sick, the infirm, the elderly, the disabled and such (and for the time being it also includes those can and wish to change their lot but do not have the capacity or help to change themselves to change their lot - in an ideal welfare state that segment would not exist). Some of them are "poor" and that is troubling, they should, because they cannot do it themselves, be "comfortable" at our (the "able") expense and that should never be in question. The measurement of "comfortable" will always be a problem though...

 

[bobsbeer]

Again I think you are right and wrong. You are right in that social mobility ' and the old tory saying 'get on your bike' is impossible. Housing for one thing is a huge barrier preventing social mobility. The disadvantaged areas, mainly up north where the old manufacturing, industrial areas have closed. Coal, steel, heavy industry that once thrived in the north of England and Scotland employing millions has been driven out of business, by either price competition from abroad or changes in government policy. And I don't mean Tory or Labour. In my mind they are both as bad as each other. One minute they are green, then the other. Maybe I'm being cynical, but governments jump on bandwagons not to please the public or even reflect the public position. But as a means of increasing taxation. In the belief 'we' won't mind. Now look at the tories shedding green taxes on energy as a means to appease the masses in retaliation to Labours promise to freeze energy prices. That says volumes to me in terms of their green commitment. Labour were the same when they went on the attack on 4 x 4's. Suddenly anyone who owned one was a Sloan Ranger, taking our precious ones 300yds to school. Conveniently forgetting the users in rural areas who need such a vehicle for their day to day activity. But I digress.

With the industrial and manufacturing heart being ripped out of this country it left areas desolate and forgotten. But the people who once worked in the mines, factories and the likes remained. Stuck. They can't all move to the south east, which seems to be the only area in the UK that has managed to thrive. They can't all up sticks and move to picking vegetables. The main reason is where do they all live? Each county has housing rules, and those in social housing cannot just turn up in another area and ask to be housed. There aren't the houses to start with, but unless they have a local connection, the council say 'on your bike mate and **** off back to where you came from'. Or they have to find over inflated private rentals.

Labour seemed to think the answer was everyone going to university. That has just devalued university degrees and while in the past degree educated people were more likely to have higher earnings, today I feel sorry for the many graduates working in supermarkets, and low paid jobs. My son was one of them, but in true Tebbit style he got on his bike and went to London. Now he has a reasonable job with prospects. But he was young and single with no ties. Someone with a family to support is not as free to just jump on a train. Not that he is lazy or unwilling to work, just unable to make that jump. So he is stuck in an area with few jobs or prospects. You see this in Manchester, Sheffield, Glasgow and the north east. A middle aged miner is not the easiest person to reemploy into new and upcoming hi tech industries, which seem to have sprung up in the south. The wealth is in the south. I say lets move parliament to Bradford.

 

[Dronfieldbrewer]

Right...my twopeneth.

Over my years as a voting adult, I've seen Tory Governments and Labour Governments, both of which have made whopping mistakes in their belief that they will improve Britian. I've seen them do good stuff too...

The facts that I see:

Tories...made the country more investable by foreign companies by reforming the trade unions that were bankrupting the country...however dropped a right old clanger by selling off our utility companies, railways and social housing stock

Labour...Improved some schools and the NHS, but dropped the ball by selling off the gold for buttons, getting themselves tied in knots with stupid PFI contracts that are hoplessly onesided and to cap it all, sucked up to the money grabbing shites that are our bankers. Letting them lose on us with little or no regulation in the hope that these toss pots will make enough money to keep us all in clover. The staggering incompetence of the regulation system set up by the Labour government is truly breathtaking. Only now are we seeing a picture of what was going off in the banks. This is not a pretty picture at all.

Both of the above have missed the point that this once great nation was a giant of manufacture for the rest of the world, we invented things, we made things and most importantly we exported things. Which ever future government we get, we need to redress this balance and get rid of vast swaithes of pen pushing, bedwetting management and get back to basics. We need to encourage manufacture of stuff and export our way out of trouble.

The only party that are singing off this hymen sheet in my eyes are UKIP.

 

[Jeltz]

Actually Bob the saying was never that, the correct quote is

I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.

Of course the media and the Labour spin machine twisted it, but what he was saying was all about the personal responsibility of trying to provide for yourself rather than expecting others to get companies to come to your area. Now there is a happy medium to be reached but if we look today its the exact thing that Eastern Europeans are doing, they are moving to where the work and money is and good luck to them they are showing initiative and making short term sacrifices in order to secure a better standard of life for them and their families for the future.

Unfortunately the electorate repeatedly proves themselves to be far too willing to believe the populist policies and ALL parties are guilty as hell of offering what they can not and should not offer.

The coal and steel industries failed to maintain global competitiveness which is why they failed, no government closed any pits they just stopped a guaranteed price for coal and the mines couldn't produce it at anywhere near the price that other countries could extract and ship it to us. The steel industry had been dogged for years by having to buy British coal which is why they were uncompetitive. It was a national disaster when the pits closed but the situation had been allowed to get to an untenable state by the time Thatcher came in and she was the one to oversee the unpleasant surgery. That said UK manufacturing declined declined more during Blair's time than in the Thatcher/Major years. Source FT

Unfortunately it was both the Tories and Labour that loved the fact that by getting more and more school leavers into further education it kept them out of the youth unemployment figures, as an employer I'm astounded how many graduates I get applying for basic clerical jobs, there are simply far too few graduate jobs to justify the numbers going to Uni.

Right...my twopeneth..............<snip>

I agree with a lot of what you said there

The only party that are singing off this hymen sheet in my eyes are UKIP.

Ummm don't you mean hymn? :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[calumscott]

Maybe I'm being cynical, but governments jump on bandwagons not to please the public or even reflect the public position.

THIS! The politics of power - anything to stay in, to *personally* retain position! Nothing to do with fixing problems, nothing to do with making the country stronger, nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with "just keeping your job".

And THAT right there is the fundamental thing that's broken. They have pandered to the public for too long (yes, I did just say that) such that there is no possibility of a government who can LEAD the country, fix what's f**ked and remain in power because the are doing the right thing for the country (rather than the individuals in it). They want to keep their cushy number and do so by placating the proles and giving them treats now and then - all at the expense of the proles.

Every PM since Thatcher has done exactly that, only with a slight airbrushing of red (Brown), a tiny airbrushing of blue (Blair ) or a little squirt more of blue (Major, Cameron) [although I believe Cameron is a bit less guilty of the prole pandering than the rest, he seems to actually have a principle or two regardless of what your opinion of them is].

I very much doubt that we will see genuine leadership in this country again, unless we are faced with a genuine crisis (war, famine, proper economic collapse etc) as frankly, we are just dull and petty as a nation and as individuals - we have no repression, regardless what the daily mail reports our leadership isn't corrupt, we have a decent standard of living even if it isn't cheap, we really don't have a lot to get upset about - and our politics just reflects that (or do we just reflect our politics? :hmm: ).

 

[bobsbeer]

The only party that are singing off this hymen sheet in my eyes are UKIP.

I would agree with you except UKIP have vowed to take us out of the EU. Our major trading block and our major export destination. For good or bad I think we need to stick with the EU. There are problems with it, granted, but's let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to be in it to change it. Even Cameron has come to understand that the hard way.

Of course the media and the Labour spin machine twisted it, but what he was saying was all about the personal responsibility of trying to provide for yourself rather than expecting others to get companies to come to your area.

I wasn't suggesting that the industries should have been saved. They floundered for many valid reasons. My point was that their demise left huge areas desolate of sustainable steady employment. My use of the Tebbit quote was exactly as you say. Go and find the work. But that is too simplistic and impossible to achieve. Yes some are willing to sacrifice short term family life for the prospect of a better long term future. But a family living in Salford would find it hard to leave social housing and move to Oxford. There isn't the housing for one, and there aren't the jobs for everybody. And moving costs money, not just for the train fare. Money they haven't got. Just because someone is on benefits of one sort or another doesn't mean they expect the state provide everything. But most including myself, would expect a very rich country to support me in my misfortune. Not many people choose to be unemployed despite what the Daily Mail and the Tories may have us believe. The problem is we have been led to expect too much for too little, by politicians of all colours in a bid to get them into power.

 

[Dronfieldbrewer]

Actually Bob the saying was never that, the correct quote is

I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.

Of course the media and the Labour spin machine twisted it, but what he was saying was all about the personal responsibility of trying to provide for yourself rather than expecting others to get companies to come to your area. Now there is a happy medium to be reached but if we look today its the exact thing that Eastern Europeans are doing, they are moving to where the work and money is and good luck to them they are showing initiative and making short term sacrifices in order to secure a better standard of life for them and their families for the future.

Unfortunately the electorate repeatedly proves themselves to be far too willing to believe the populist policies and ALL parties are guilty as hell of offering what they can not and should not offer.

The coal and steel industries failed to maintain global competitiveness which is why they failed, no government closed any pits they just stopped a guaranteed price for coal and the mines couldn't produce it at anywhere near the price that other countries could extract and ship it to us. The steel industry had been dogged for years by having to buy British coal which is why they were uncompetitive. It was a national disaster when the pits closed but the situation had been allowed to get to an untenable state by the time Thatcher came in and she was the one to oversee the unpleasant surgery. That said UK manufacturing declined declined more during Blair's time than in the Thatcher/Major years. Source FT

Unfortunately it was both the Tories and Labour that loved the fact that by getting more and more school leavers into further education it kept them out of the youth unemployment figures, as an employer I'm astounded how many graduates I get applying for basic clerical jobs, there are simply far too few graduate jobs to justify the numbers going to Uni.

Right...my twopeneth..............<snip>

I agree with a lot of what you said there

The only party that are singing off this hymen sheet in my eyes are UKIP.

Ummm don't you mean hymn? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Nope...I am sure I was quite correct in the first place... :rofl: (perhaps it might have been a typo)