Mantis Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Obviously you didn't read any newspapers or watch any political coverage over the past five years, as it is the line that the Tories have been peddling consistently and effectively, and plenty believed it enough to repeat it ad nauseam during the recent election campaign. I did actually. What the Tories have been arguing (and I agree with them on this) is that Labour's reckless spending while the economy was good made the impact of the financial crash worse and helped drive up the national debt. For some reason Labour supporters and many in the media and have got it in their heads that we think Labour caused the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 17, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 17, 2015 The role of politicians was largely inconsequential to the crash. Banks caused the crash, politicians don't run the economy - it's too important to those people that run it to allow it to be too heavily affected by public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The role of politicians was largely inconsequential to the crash. Banks caused the crash, politicians don't run the economy - it's too important to those people that run it to allow it to be too heavily affected by public interest. Come on. Brown took regulation of the banks away from the BoE and the result is history. Labour didn't cause the crash, they facilitated the framework that enabled greedy capitalists to be greedy capitalists. It was the equivalent of putting Rotherham Council in charge of child protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm not sure why you Tories are so smug. Corbyn may not win the election but he'll drag public discourse to the left, and talk about ideas which neoliberalism has organised out of politics. A lot of the assumed political wisdom of the past 25 years might need re-justification too, as there are so many examples of the system failing. As we've seen elsewhere in Europe, in the age of austerity, there's an audience for this stuff. Yeah remind us how that's working out 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) It would be going a lot better if democratically elected governments weren't bullied into submission by unelected and unaccountable EU austerity-mad suits. Edited August 17, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm not sure why you Tories are so smug. Corbyn may not win the election but he'll drag public discourse to the left, and talk about ideas which neoliberalism has organised out of politics. A lot of the assumed political wisdom of the past 25 years might need re-justification too, as there are so many examples of the system failing. As we've seen elsewhere in Europe, in the age of austerity, there's an audience for this stuff. Yeah remind us how that's working out How what's working out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm not sure why you Tories are so smug. Corbyn may not win the election but he'll drag public discourse to the left, and talk about ideas which neoliberalism has organised out of politics. A lot of the assumed political wisdom of the past 25 years might need re-justification too, as there are so many examples of the system failing.As we've seen elsewhere in Europe, in the age of austerity, there's an audience for this stuff. Yeah remind us how that's working out How what's working out? Err, Greece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm not sure why you Tories are so smug. Corbyn may not win the election but he'll drag public discourse to the left, and talk about ideas which neoliberalism has organised out of politics. A lot of the assumed political wisdom of the past 25 years might need re-justification too, as there are so many examples of the system failing.As we've seen elsewhere in Europe, in the age of austerity, there's an audience for this stuff. Yeah remind us how that's working out How what's working out? Err, Greece? Hang on a minute, are people trying to blame Syriza for the situation in Greece? That's a bit like moaning at Sherwood that Villa don't challenge for titles anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 17, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 17, 2015 Obviously you didn't read any newspapers or watch any political coverage over the past five years, as it is the line that the Tories have been peddling consistently and effectively, and plenty believed it enough to repeat it ad nauseam during the recent election campaign.I did actually. What the Tories have been arguing (and I agree with them on this) is that Labour's reckless spending while the economy was good made the impact of the financial crash worse and helped drive up the national debt. For some reason Labour supporters and many in the media and have got it in their heads that we think Labour caused the crash.See there you go believing the narrative that you said no one believed. Are you aware that the last Govt, the coalition one, borrowed more money than every single Labour Government in history added together and some more besides. Money is created out of nothing by the banks after being given licence to do so by governments. This whole bankrupt Britain narrative, is the biggest load of cobblers and people believe it day in day out like its the truth because as OBE alluded to earlier there has been no opposition. An effective opposition would have pointed out that it was cobblers, the Labour Party of Miliband wasn't an opposition it was a bloody lap dog, it agreed with so much of the Tory narrative that the whole country thought it must be the truth.The Labour party currently faces two choices, be an opposition party that may not get elected but will at least put across the fact there is an alternative to this austerity nonsense (vote Corbyn) or it can carry on being Tory-lite and never getting into power because people might as well vote Tory anyway (Vote for shades of blue in the other three). At least with Corbyn there'll be a debate.The hysteria surrounding the possibility that Corbyn might be leader of Labour is absolutely astounding. The real Tories are actually worried that he gets elected precisely because he will drag the debate in this country back leftwards instead of all the parties continually pursuing the same rightist economic agenda in just different shades separated by mere cigarette papers. When they are all continually pounding the austerity drum, the Tories have the confidence to pursue a more and more extreme right thinking philosophy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 What the Tories have been arguing (and I agree with them on this) is that Labour's reckless spending while the economy was good made the impact of the financial crash worse and helped drive up the national debt.So 'reckless' that the Tories pledged to match it?September 2007 Torygraph:In an echo of New Labour’s own 1997 manifesto promise to match the Tory Government’s projected spending levels, George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown’s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years.“Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals,” the Shadow Chancellor said.“Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £616 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010/11.“Like Labour, we will review the final year’s total in a spending review in 2009,” Mr Osborne wrote in a newspaper article.He added that the effect of the commitment “is that under a Conservative government, there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year”. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The crash was caused by private debt not public. Public finances were fine, until the Govt. "saved" the banks, by covering those debts. Whether or not they should have just let the bastards sink , as the Icelandic Govt. did, is another question altogether. Iceland is doing quite well now apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The role of politicians was largely inconsequential to the crash. Banks caused the crash, politicians don't run the economy - it's too important to those people that run it to allow it to be too heavily affected by public interest. Come on. Brown took regulation of the banks away from the BoE and the result is history. Labour didn't cause the crash, they facilitated the framework that enabled greedy capitalists to be greedy capitalists. It was the equivalent of putting Rotherham Council in charge of child protection. And of course, if I think back, I'll definitely recall sage, wise old Conservatives shaking their heads at the imprudence of financial deregulation, right? Oh, no, as I'm sure you're very well aware, what I will find is that the Tory party opposed those Labour plans as not involving enough deregulation of the financial sector. To say Labour 'facilitated the framework' without even acknowledging that the Tories wanted, and argued for, an even more lenient framework themselves, is very intellectually dishonest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I can't actually find a source for that alleged Kendall quote. Certainly nothing on the news about it and nothing from the other candidates. I feel sorry for her a bit. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her she's got a lot of unwarranted abuse from members of her own party. There's absolutely no reason to feel sorry for her. She's a Blairite, and the constant argument in the Labour party made by Blairites goes along the lines of, 'okay, we're not going to give you what you want, but at least we're electable'. They make a big deal out of electability, do Blairites. Yet here she is, running last in an election for her own party leadership. She sucks at the one thing she's supposed to be good at. Why does she suck at it? She seems to genuinely not know, or have totally forgotten, that Blair waited until he'd actually been elected leader before he told the party membership that he was going to drag them to the centre and ignore many of their priorities. She's got the result her own stupidity deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) I said very few people believed Labour caused the crash - myself included. I never said anything to indicate that I believe that. It'd be nice if people didn't try and put words into my mouth. Believing that Labour made a mess of the economy during their time in office (which they did) isn't the same as thinking they caused the global financial crisis. I can't actually find a source for that alleged Kendall quote. Certainly nothing on the news about it and nothing from the other candidates. I feel sorry for her a bit. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her she's got a lot of unwarranted abuse from members of her own party. There's absolutely no reason to feel sorry for her. She's a Blairite, and the constant argument in the Labour party made by Blairites goes along the lines of, 'okay, we're not going to give you what you want, but at least we're electable'. They make a big deal out of electability, do Blairites. Yet here she is, running last in an election for her own party leadership. She sucks at the one thing she's supposed to be good at. Why does she suck at it? She seems to genuinely not know, or have totally forgotten, that Blair waited until he'd actually been elected leader before he told the party membership that he was going to drag them to the centre and ignore many of their priorities. She's got the result her own stupidity deserves. Ah yes I forgot, not buying into the 80s lefty narrative means she deserves to get all kinds of vile personal abuse hurled at her. Edited August 17, 2015 by Mantis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 What 'vile personal abuse'? Can you quote some examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 17, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 17, 2015 I said very few people believed Labour caused the crash - myself included. I never said anything to indicate that I believe that. It'd be nice if people didn't try and put words into my mouth. Believing that Labour made a mess of the economy during their time in office (which they did) isn't the same as thinking they caused the global financial crisis. But the economy was fine until the crash, how does that work #illogical What 'vile personal abuse'? Can you quote some examples? Tory is the usual one 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) ^ Just go on Twitter and type in "Liz Kendall bitch/word removed/witch" etc I said very few people believed Labour caused the crash - myself included. I never said anything to indicate that I believe that. It'd be nice if people didn't try and put words into my mouth. Believing that Labour made a mess of the economy during their time in office (which they did) isn't the same as thinking they caused the global financial crisis. But the economy was fine until the crash, how does that work #illogical Yes and they still borrowed in spite of that. Of course they didn't cause the financial crisis but the economy would've been in a better state when they left office had they not insisted on borrowing so much. Edited August 18, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) The role of politicians was largely inconsequential to the crash. Banks caused the crash, politicians don't run the economy - it's too important to those people that run it to allow it to be too heavily affected by public interest. Come on. Brown took regulation of the banks away from the BoE and the result is history. Labour didn't cause the crash, they facilitated the framework that enabled greedy capitalists to be greedy capitalists. It was the equivalent of putting Rotherham Council in charge of child protection. And of course, if I think back, I'll definitely recall sage, wise old Conservatives shaking their heads at the imprudence of financial deregulation, right? Oh, no, as I'm sure you're very well aware, what I will find is that the Tory party opposed those Labour plans as not involving enough deregulation of the financial sector. To say Labour 'facilitated the framework' without even acknowledging that the Tories wanted, and argued for, an even more lenient framework themselves, is very intellectually dishonest. No dishonesty. Labour were in power, Brown created the new framework for financial deregulation which allowed the banks to act like drunks in a betting shop. The financial sector duly blew up taking the real economy with it. They may be inconvenient facts but they are still the facts. What the Tories may or may not have done in Labour's place is academic, they were not in power - and I have no brief or desire to defend them either. Labour = bad doesn't equate to Tory = good. Edited August 18, 2015 by Awol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) The banks play both sides for mugs. Brown tried to put the fire out, but he'd left the window open and picked up a petrol can instead of the water bucket. After all that, our current incumbents handed the Post Office sale to one of the toxic debt dealing shysters that actually did start the landslide. You can't see Corbyn getting too cosy with high finance. Edited August 18, 2015 by Xann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 The hysteria surrounding the possibility that Corbyn might be leader of Labour is absolutely astounding. The real Tories are actually worried that he gets elected precisely because he will drag the debate in this country back leftwards instead of all the parties continually pursuing the same rightist economic agenda in just different shades separated by mere cigarette papers. When they are all continually pounding the austerity drum, the Tories have the confidence to pursue a more and more extreme right thinking philosophy. I'm a real Tory, and this bit of your post is , from my perspective, utter drivel. I cant wait for Corbyn to be elected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts