Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Cynic what on earth are you talking about.

Labours policy on welfare benefits is nothing like that of the governments.

Have you been on the piss????????????

Either that or you just dont understand it!!!

Labour is panicking over welfare because they have realised that the public are largely behid the welfare cuts. It was the same in the Thatcher era. When the country has high unemployment, the opes in work are generally better off than when there is high employment. I remember it well when all the pundits said that Thatcher would lose due to high unemployment. In fact she won easily.

Cynic,

I am not sure that :

“labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, so they had oodles of time to change anything they didn't like - and felt was in the best interests of the country ..... it pretty much follows, that if they change or reverse something, they figured it wasn't so bad after all ..... not quite fair i will accept”
makes sense, but if my guesses are right

I partially agree with you, but a mistake they made in 1997 was committing to “spending restrictions of the previous government”.

This commitment was partially given to make them electable and probably the awareness of the “rawness” they might have, if they got into power. What effect that had on their policies I am not sure and maybe interesting to read some of the “political and new paper” commentaries of the success of labour government management of the economy for the period 1997-2006.
I came across this, written at time of when disaster was imminent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/boom-and-bust-britain-2006-465527.html


Boom and Bust Britain, 2006

Boom: city bonuses hit a record £7.5bn; 3,000 workers given at least £1m; sales of penthouses, fast cars and champagne at all-time high.

Bust: house repossessions up 70% to highest level since the 1991 crash; mortgage arrears up 21%; record 70,000 go bankrupt, a 51% rise

SATURDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2006
-------------
I think many people were aware of problems ahead and recall reading postings by some flogging off their housing and looking around for safe havens for their cash etc..
I doubt that the government and was George Brown did not see the impending problems, but they did not expect the “crash” to be so big and also against the “euphoria” of market and those grabbing as much as they could on an expectancy it would go on forever and do what they could do to stem the problem, partially driven from abroad.
The necessary changes would not have been accepted by the City, the political opposition and the public as a whole.

A period of buy a house, paint the wall and buy a few tubs of flowers, take a breath and then sell the house on, for a 10-20% gain. This feast was driven as if it was a party game, by “Buy It and Flog It” programmes on the TV, with modern day gurus telling you how to do it.

The same was being done by the glorified banking services.

However, the government of the day should have tried to stem the craziness and not
doing so partially led to the depth of the UK’s present problems.

The problem now is that George’s policies aren’t working and we have had 25% devaluation without surge any surge in GDP (partially due to world economy), even Japan and Portugal have eventually learnt the lesson of disproportionate austerity.

I think George is digging deeper and deeper and the effects will be on the poorest in the country, and the total wealth of the country is being distributed inappropriately, the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. The poor did not cause the problem but are being made scapegoats by a nasty party and the fellow travellers.
-------------------------

cynic
Now you have upset him by sujecting that Labour might do anything similar to the Conservatives.

This debate on welfare is a last desperate attempt by Cameron and boy George to get themselves out of the poo.

Some of the public have fallen for it just like they did with Camerons lies about bringing down the debt level.

Thing is at the next general election the STUDENTS will make sure Labour win with a overall big majority.

They havent forgotten how they have been saddled with 30 grand debt from the kick off.

a mistake they made in 1997 was committing to “spending restrictions of the previous government”. ..... but fred, there was nothing on reconsideration to have stopped them changing their minds and reversing any number of things ..... gov'ts of all hues do it all the time, so clearly they came to the conclusion that these spending restrictions weren't so stupid after all

============

3m - i thoroughly agree, though the "do gooders brigade" will complain that that is so unfair to force people who want benefits to do some useful social work - e.g. picking up rubbish on the verges; looking after cemeteries etc etc

The problem with Welfare is whether it goes to those who "need it", or those who are thought to deserve it.

Also, there are question to ask about incessant "need" to increase GDP, rather than maintaining the level the available "work" and "rewards" more evenly.

What is the need for a lot of "things" we are producing other than to fill rubbish heaps?

Could not those who are "unemployed" be rewarded for doing services to "society and the environment" at a non-prejudicial rate of pay, for intermittent periods of time?

conversely, to refuse reward for those who decline to be so employed

Fred best we just ignore cynic.

Hes just out to cause an argument and doesnt even believe what he says himself.

Cynic ....By the way Im half way through the thread where you posted those photos of yourself and pals on cycles.

I do hope you look like a pensioner, my re-call is that you looked like someone in late 30s.

We will see.

it would be more useful if you could tell me how to post other pix of our cycling trips, as i really haven't a clue

btw, i'ld accept that i may look more like early/mid 50s, but if someone in their 30s looks like me, they should request the application of assisted euthanasia immediately!

he he he dont wory bud just a few hours before you are exposed as a phoney.

Cynic,

I know it is long winded, but read what I posted.

I was just observing what they did and guessing at the reasons for them doing so.

As far as changing decisions are concerned.

If you made a genuine mistake, accept that it was incorrect, or circumstances have changed, and apologise and try to make amends. Sometimes, resigning is appropriate action.

goldfinger, you probably missed this so helpfully I repost for you to comment.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

hilary - 03 Apr 2013 21:03 - 22744 of 22923

Goldfinger,

Not that you'll be able to read this of course, but for a taxpayer to be better off to the tune of £100k as a result of a 5% cut in the uppermost tax rate, I calculate they'd need to be earning £2.15m pa. As a multi-millionaire accountant yourself, I would have thought you'd have realised that?

The dogoodders brigade does not rest with me - I want to do good and help people if I can but I certainly will not help anybody who will not try. Been a conservative since I was old enough to vote, so be it, I am not easy on this lot but we shall see.

Hiliary,

It is a the disproportionate treatment of one part of society at the expense of others that it important.

Also, the flagrant irresponsibility of this government to all parts of society, when it introduces new policies.

Fred, whenst did Hilary comment on the recent comments???? Or have I missed something?

It is as all nonsense. The coalition reduced the tax rate from 50% to 45% because Labour lifted the tax from 40% to 50% during the last month before the election. Labour just did it to cause trouble. They did not raise income tax to 50% during their long term for the same reasons that the Conservatives are dropping it. It is a downwards pressure on business to tax at a high rate.

Oh! I forgot to add I hope they have sent Mike Phillpott to the knackers yard being strung up from his preverbials allowing everything to drain before he hits prison. At least whenst he has served his short sentance which obviously will be reduced he could not sire any more little people.

sticky - a phoney what?

The Conservatives (/Libs) seem to be doing all the right things. Labour have admitted that their cuts would be similar and pretty much as deep. The difference is that Labour would borrow more to spend on projects. They might generate a consumer led mini boom. The trouble is that there would be nothing underpinning a real recovery. Business needs to expand for real growth and success. I have lived through several recessions as a businesses person. I remember the secondary banking crisis in 1973 when under capitalised smaller banks were on the point of collapse when the property bubble burst. The current government is using supply side policies to encourage business. Like it or not, they are the same policies that have got us out of recession several times before. The policies are beginning to work now, but their success is being slowed by the lack of liquidity in the business world caused by the instability of the banks. The last thing we need is Labour to just borrow more money.

As an aside, you may have noticed a couple of days ago S&P confirmed the UK's AAA rating!