March For The Alternative - London Saturday 26th March

[eFestivals]

That's not how the system works in this county. We do not vote on individual issues. We vote for a government and they make decisions for us.

Like I said earlier, can you imagine if the great british public were to get a referendum on every issue. Do you think any cuts would ever be voted for. In fact, do you think anything would ever get done for the greater public good if everybody were to be allowed to vote for exactly what they wanted. I think there's a phrase for that, it's called "mob rule".

PMSL.

It would help if you knew what mob rule was before using the phrase - it's certainly NOT mob rule to have a referendum for every issue. That is absolute democracy (tho it's only ever as good as the brains that make the votes).

Mob rule is when a small mob makes a lot of noise and by doing so get what they're wanting. That's EXACTLY what the tories have done to implement these cuts - the noise is the lies they give as justification (which then leads to stupid people believing it and giving stupid survey results). You know, like you thinking that the banks are net contributor when they're actually a net drain.

I agree, we vote for a programme of policies (and I realise that it can't realistically work any other way). And the simple fact - that just can't be got away from - is that twice as many people voted against the programme of cuts we're getting than voted for them.

I believe in PR, and I believe in (true) coalitions. I don't believe in self-interested stitch-ups, such as what we have.

But I also believe that for PR and true coalitions to work, we cannot have lies presented as truth to mislead the electorate (which is what the tories have done), and we cannot have an electorate so stupid that they believe those lies and spread them just as you have done here.

[eFestivals]

I refer to the fact that they (the banks) make up a large proportion of our GDP.

I refer to the fact that robberies and burglaries make up a large proportion of our GDP. Where's the difference? There is none.

GDP means f**k all by itself. What matters about it is what profit is earned by it, and not merely turnover.

And just as robberies and burglaries are non-profit from the point of view of UK plc, so is our financial sector - over thirteen years the losses from the financial sector are about £200Bn, more than a year's deficit.

We need to cut the deficit, and just as that required the reigning in British Steel and the National Coal Board in the past (tho - and here's a recurring theme - not as much as happened with them ), we need to reign in the financial sector now. The deficit cannot be ultimately tamed without doing so.

[ivan]

Oh, so there was no world at all until there were banks?

Just because we've become reliant on them doesn't mean that we have to be. In fact, as someone old enough to know of a world when banks were used far far less than they are nowadays, I'm able to see that the advantage of using banks has been HUGELY over-played.

The world worked just as well when people got their pay in cash, rather than the regime we have now where just about every employer forces their employees to use banks. The only people who gain from the current system are the banks themselves.

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

Banking goes back to the 12th or 13 century I think , possibly even earlier , so I guess we have always had em.

I am sorry but a society based on cash and sticking under the mattress is not the way to go ! , I will pay for 4 Glasto tickets on Saturday knowing that the money will not be lost or stolen on route so to

speak , which is better than sticking in an envelope and posting it to Somerset !

[eFestivals]

Banking goes back to the 12th or 13 century I think , possibly even earlier , so I guess we have always had em.

I am sorry but a society based on cash and sticking under the mattress is not the way to go ! , I will pay for 4 Glasto tickets on Saturday knowing that the money will not be lost or stolen on route so to

speak , which is better than sticking in an envelope and posting it to Somerset !

such things worked during the eighties. There's no reason why the same things can't still work now.

[Guest blackcockerel]

They still want PR, they just had to settle for less.

if all the other parties got together and formed a coalition, they'd also have a more votes than the conservatives. So it's possible to have 2 different outcomes from the same system...

and that's democracy

you keep saying no-ones got any ideas...

it's wrong and boring now

a better outcome would have been to have a re-election within a fairer system, like PR, which the libdems used to want

[Guest blackcockerel]

they should stick to what they believe in, otherwise we end up not believe in anything

[ivan]

such things worked during the eighties. There's no reason why the same things can't still work now.

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

I refer to the fact that robberies and burglaries make up a large proportion of our GDP. Where's the difference? There is none.

GDP means f**k all by itself. What matters about it is what profit is earned by it, and not merely turnover.

And just as robberies and burglaries are non-profit from the point of view of UK plc, so is our financial sector - over thirteen years the losses from the financial sector are about £200Bn, more than a year's deficit.

We need to cut the deficit, and just as that required the reigning in British Steel and the National Coal Board in the past (tho - and here's a recurring theme - not as much as happened with them ), we need to reign in the financial sector now. The deficit cannot be ultimately tamed without doing so.

Edited March 29, 2011 by whatmidlifecrisis?

[eFestivals]

Well there you go then

All credibility in this debate lost.

Complete and utter empty headed bollocks.

I have the sovereign right to use my vote in however I wish, no different to you - and includes not voting.

And my not voting wasn't apathy, it was done with a very deliberate aim, which I have tried my utmost to pursue (I shalln't bore you with the details). But sadly we have a govt that passes laws but which has no intention of operating those laws - which gets to show that the govt (of any shade) knows that the laws it passes are a pointless ass, done only to make them look like they're doing something and not nothing.

Look, this is all really simple. As somebody pointed out, we vote for parties not policies in this country.

The simple is you. It's not stick-a-tail-on-the donkey as you wish to believe.

It's a vote for a party on the basis of the policies they say they'll pursue.

The Tories got more votes than anyone else and they formed a coalition (which really isn't a hard concept to understand) with the Lib Dems and between them they got 52% of the vote, which is a majority.

which is a majority of numbers, it is not a majority of how those numbers were gained.

Not one person has even attempted to put forward a fairer system

glad to see you have such great (not!) attention to detail. Which probably explains much of the shallow bollocks you've posted.

Because there was no fairer outcome given the voting.

Wrong. A fairer outcome would be policies being implemented that had majority support.

That means that the LibDems could have backed the tories as the party to lead the govt, but to have voted in parliament with what they said in their manifesto.

Which of course would mean that the cuts would not be as hard, and the consequences of those cuts not as dire.

This country is nowhere near any sovereign debt crisis. Statements that it is are simply lies.

[eFestivals]

Cashflow enables us to service debt and therefore borrow more easily when required. It is more about cahflow that profit.

thank f**k you're not running the economy. You'd make Brown and slimy Gideon look like financial genius'.

[Guest blackcockerel]

If there had have been another election, the Conservatives would have been likely to get a majority and things would be even worse than they are now.

[eFestivals]

The nation can never make a profit as we have no nationalised industry of any kind.

Factually wrong. I see you've never studied even the basics of economics.

Only by encouraging foreign companies to stay here and pay tax here can we ever hope to redcue this debt.

Factually wrong. I see you've never studied even the basics of economics.

Banks are a net contributor (excluding servicing their debt) as they are now all in profit.

oh, right. In which case NCB, BS, BL, and all the others were also profitable - cos I'm sure they turned a profit on one day, even if they never did for all the other days.

BS and NCB - weren't they losing money AND uncompetitive?

yep - exactly the same as the banks have done over a period of years.

Which part of "the bailout cost far more than they ever contributed" are you finding so hard to grasp?

But unlike the likes of coal mining or car manufacturing, there's no associated opportunity cost (at the same level, anyhow) with banks. So while closing uncompetitive coal mines cost this country money and didn't save it money (cos we still need coal, and that requires foreign exchange), the same is not true for the banks. Shutting the coal mines cost this country money, it didn't save it; the same is not true for the banks.

I'm not really suggesting that we close all of the banks, but we don't need the 'city' sector of it. It's a huge financial drain on this country.

Edited March 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If there had have been another election, the Conservatives would have been likely to get a majority and things would be even worse than they are now.

I agree entirely. But there would have also been ultimately positive consequences from that.

Instead we've got a situation where some of those that voted LibDim are feeling that they need to justify how they voted, with the result of many of the posts in this thread.

Meanwhile we create another lost generation. Thatcher is starting to look mild alongside Dave Moron - she never managed the 20% youth unemployment we have now (and which is actually a LOT higher than that in a true comparison, due to social changes - no claimants aged 16 or 17 now, and hugely more numbers in higher education). She shat on the youth sector big time (such as abolishing the govt Apprenticeship Scheme, only recently half-receated), but at only a fraction of the extent that Dave Moron is doing so.

[Guest]

I obviously need to spend a bit more time browsing deludedfool.com Posted Image

[Guest blackcockerel]

I agree entirely. But there would have also been ultimately positive consequences from that.

Instead we've got a situation where some of those that voted LibDim are feeling that they need to justify how they voted, with the result of many of the posts in this thread.

Meanwhile we create another lost generation. Thatcher is starting to look mild alongside Dave Moron - she never managed the 20% youth unemployment we have now (and which is actually a LOT higher than that in a true comparison, due to social changes - no claimants aged 16 or 17 now, and hugely more numbers in higher education). She shat on the youth sector big time (such as abolishing the govt Apprenticeship Scheme, only recently half-receated), but at only a fraction of the extent that Dave Moron is doing so.

[Guest]

Yeah, whoever got in this time around, it had been obvious for months that they would be in serious shit and cuts were unavoidable. It looks better for Labour to be shouting from the sidelines because in time people might forget that they caused the problem in the first place. Gordon Brown - "No more boom and bust" - yeah right.

Having said that, the Tories are pure evil and will be using this as an excuse to f**k the poor over even more.

And I can understand people now hating the Lib Dems but as has been said, it's a coalition government, there's only so much they can do to weaken the Tories.

Although if someone like Kennedy or Ashdown were in charge I'm sure they'd be doing a better job of that than an Orange Booker like Clegg.

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

thank f**k you're not running the economy. You'd make Brown and slimy Gideon look like financial genius'.

[paulbrock]

And if I were running the economy the Festival tickets would be a legitimate business expense.....

[eFestivals]

or a succesful business - god forbid.......

A company borrows to invest (or a good one does). A government borrows to spend.

A good govt also borrows to invest.

Day-to-day spending plus debt repayment for borrowings for capital projects is - in theory - covered by tax income.

It can only borrow if the cashflow is is good enough to service that debt. GDP therefore is very important. Essential even esp. in austere times. (see Greece, Iceland, etc).

you're completely wrong from every economic angle. There is an associated cost for any goods and services provided. The difference between them is called profit.

'UK plc' cannot be profitable when the costs of that GDP are greater than the turnover of that GDP - which is precisely what the banks managed to do.

Better GDP = better tax revenue = better credit rating = easier and cheaper to borrow cash. Therefore the fact that financial sevices contribute more to our GDP than any other industry makes them essential.

not when - as has happened - they amount that's had to be paid out in bail-outs as a consequence of their existence is greater than all the income they brought in.

Until we can generate more tax revenue than we need to run the welfare state and other government spending and service our current debt we will not reduce the debt will we?

for once you've managed to get something right.

But every action has a consequence. The consequence of cutting spending is even lower tax revenues and even lower spends at private businesses. If the cuts are made to deeply a downward spiral is created where things get worse and not better - and that's exactly what has been done.

And if I were running the economy the Festival tickets would be a legitimate business expense.....

I don't need you to run the economy. From where I'm sat they already are.

[eFestivals]

1910 to 1914 - The Strange Death of Liberal England, as documented by George Dangerfield.

2010 to 2015 - The Final Death of Liberal England, as done by Nick Clegg.

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

But every action has a consequence. The consequence of cutting spending is even lower tax revenues and even lower spends at private businesses. If the cuts are made to deeply a downward spiral is created where things get worse and not better - and that's exactly what has been done.

[eFestivals]

So how to we maintain public spending (or reduce the cuts) without increasing borrowing even further?

we don't. We should increasing the borrowing some more, so that the cuts can be made slower, while growth can happen in the private sector to pick up the slack.

Maintaining tax revenues is as big a part of the whole situation as any extra borrowing. It's no good cutting borrowing for expenditure on services if the borrowing still has to be made to cover benefits for huge extra numbers of unemployed - which is precisely what happened when Thatcher tried doing exactly as Dave Moron is doing (and hence why borrowing was greater in the 80s than it is now).

No denying the banks (with either government sanction or ignorance) got us in to this but I also think they are are the only ones that can lead us out. I do not see another industry in this country with the potential of turning the huge profits required to genertae enough taxable income to turn things around. I still hold the belief that the City as a world leader in finance has beneficial knock-on effects to our economy that are essential for recovery.

It was a view precisely like that which led us into the shit we're in now. "we don't need manufacturing, we can be a financial services economy" - © Thatcher, the eighties.

Point taken about the cost of generating the GDP - but they have got that funding now, surely it is better to protect our investment and do all we can to make sure our financial industry (and the assciated service industry) becomes profitable and starts to repay the nation.

care to show me the guarantee of profit for any business?

Nailing the financial services indusrty to the wall now would do more harm than good.

that's been the cry for 25+ years, and is precisely what got us here.

The wise don't make the same mistake twice.

BTW - Does the legitimate business expense extend to bar tab at the Cider Bus?

sadly not.

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

we don't. We should increasing the borrowing some more, so that the cuts can be made slower, while growth can happen in the private sector to pick up the slack.

Maintaining tax revenues is as big a part of the whole situation as any extra borrowing. It's no good cutting borrowing for expenditure on services if the borrowing still has to be made to cover benefits for huge extra numbers of unemployed - which is precisely what happened when Thatcher tried doing exactly as Dave Moron is doing (and hence why borrowing was greater in the 80s than it is now).

[eFestivals]

Granted but to be fair apart from this....ahem....hiccup it was going OK wasn't it

nope, not at all, not ever.

The smart economists always knew this would be the outcome of Thatcher's doings, and so it proved.

Sadly, the thick economists had won both the talk battle and the talk war around two decades ago, so that the smart economists were no longer listened to or even given a platform on which to speak.

Which is precisely why those thick economists like to present things as "nobody could have known" or lay the blame at the regulator's door, to hide their own knowledge of their own culpability for it all.

The mistake was not the expansion of the industry it was the lack of control and intelligence within the government to understand what was going on and reign them in.

oh, get out of here.

It was not entirely dumb of the govt to work on the premise that any business - and particularly banks - wouldn't be so frigging stupid as to think they could magic risk away. And along with that, if the "smart" (PMSL) bankers couldn't understand the most basic of economic principles, why does anyone think that those considered from every angle to be significantly dumber than those bankers would be listened to above those bankers?

It was an emperors new clothes scenario. Some people were actually smart enough to give the warnings of doom, but nobody wanted to listen to them - exactly as you're still doing now by repeating the lie that the 'city' banking sector was and is of economic advantage to this country.