Who got us in this mess?

[Poultice]

The only reason I am posting so much, and so much utter crap since April is that I have been so bloody bored and I have nothing to do most of the time.

Yes, that much I knew.

Unlike Tavy I don't think it is an age related thing, I turn Tory when Zanu Labour is in but I yearn for a truly Socialist regime based on fairness as soon as the filth return.

There is something seriously wrong in this country and whining away on here ain't gonna change nuffin, neither probably is any other activity which we might reasonably engage in.

C'est la vie.

 

[brumgrecian]

What will prove to have been more reckless - the fiscal policies of Brown, & the investment in public services they funded; or the fiscal policies of Osborne, & the ideological deconstruction of public services being conducted under the cover of "cuts"?

This may not surprise you, but I'd suggest that the former was the more reckless policy! Years upon years of spending beyond our means, and years upon years of pumping money into public services on an ideological basis, whilst making little or no effort to reform them so as to ensure that the increased investment was matched by increased productivity.

Our public sector is a bloated, unproductive drain on our resources. Our money could be spent so much better, and I'm glad that the Coalition have the balls to look outside the box and initiate radical reforms to try and get better value for money.

Lefties/Labour Government's always seem to think the answer is that the more money you chuck at something, the better it gets, and they always manage to waste tax-payers money doing it.

 

[hatch4england]

Private sector (consumer) debt has been at unsustainable levels for more than a decade.
It is the supine response of the Governments of the West to the explosion in consumer debt that drove the crazy bank lending, with grossly inadequate supervision.. Don't blame the banks, blame the politicians.

It has been known widely that the public sector pensions have been unfinanceable in the long run for years and years (my firm saw Armageddon approaching in our final salary scheme and got rid of it in 1990). A middle-ranking civil servant on a final salary who retires at 60 represents a pension liability to the nation of about £900,000 ( ie quite a bit more than they will have earned in their career, most likely and a heck of a lot more than all but a very tiny percentage of people in the private sector could ever afford).Don't blame the civil servants, blame the politicians. (Civil servants vote too)

In the UK, tertiary education has been overexpanded greatly, leading to Mickey-Mouse universities giving crap degrees not worth the paper they are printed on. (Sorry, but I now regard a 2.1 from a proper university as about the same level of proven competence as 3 good A levels 30 years ago). This was largely to keep hundreds of thousands of young people off the unemployment stats. This isn't investment, this is waste and selling false hope to kids. Don't blame the kids, blame the politicians.

The cost of health care has been a time bomb people/Governments just won't face up to: old people (and NHS staff) are active voters and the former are a growing proportion of the population. Don't blame the sick and old, blame the politicians.

The Government's answer to all of these was 'keep borrowing, lie like hell and pray'.

Well, now the Tories are in and they will cut far too deep and we'll have that pain too.

And 90% of what they tell you on both sides will be lies and spin...and they'll keep looking after themselves through the tax system, their expenses, their getting favours for themselves and their families and on an on.

Get used to it, because it isn't going to end while people vote for their own short-term interest and they always will (I think).

 

[jambo]

pumping money into public services on an ideological basis, whilst making little or no effort to reform them so as to ensure that the increased investment was matched by increased productivity.

Yes - it was ideological - but it was an ideology which, buried deeply, had the ultimate aim of reducing the imbalance between rich & poor in the UK - hence the minimum wage, Sure Start, investment in the NHS which the Tories had left crumbling, investment in state education, which the Tories had left crumbling, etc. The Faustian pact was to use neo-liberal (voodoo) economics to fund this project. Whatever else they're doing, the Tories have utterly abandoned this overall aim (whilst maintaining the neo-liberal [voodoo] economic orthodoxy).

As for the claim that Nu-Labour didn't try to "reform" public services - this may be the mantra the right wing zealots would prefer you to believe - but it bears no relation to the truth. Why do you think Lansley was proclaiming that the Coalition would put a stop to top-down restructuring of health-care?

Our public sector is a bloated, unproductive drain on our resources. Our money could be spent so much better, and I'm glad that the Coalition have the balls to look outside the box and initiate radical reforms to try and get better value for money.

It is an easy, but fundamental, flaw to insist that, somehow, the public sector should be judged against the measure of "productivity" - public sector organisations do not, for the most part, produce anything. This does not make them better or worse than private sector organisations - just different. And they should be judged according to different criteria.

Lefties/Labour Government's always seem to think the answer is that the more money you chuck at something, the better it gets, and they always manage to waste tax-payers money doing it.

Well, you see, that's just ideology. Folk on the right think using tax revenues to invest in public services is a waste of money. Folk on the left think using taxes to invest in public services is a mark of civilised political society.

Public services will be hammered by the policies of the Coalition. The poorest & the most vulnerable in our country will be the ones who suffer the most as a consequence. But the real destruction will be wrought on the fabric of our society as a whole.

And that's what usually happens when right-wing ideologues get into power in this country.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

If you are gonna slag off the best piece of economic work by a chancellor since Clarky held the box you might at least try to spell the word appalling correctly.

I love you uni boys that have sat in a few lectures and know everything despite having done f*ck all for real.

I think as a condition of tenure all uni lecturers should be made to experience the real world for at least one year in every five.

Sorry Poults that was appalling spelling on my part ...

I'm afraid I don't think I know it all; like everybody I know very little. I need to stand on the shoulders of giants etc.

I appreciate the real world but I'm happy avoiding it for now ...

 

[Poultice]

Yes - it was ideological - but it was an ideology which, buried deeply, had the ultimate aim of reducing the imbalance between rich & poor in the UK .

Beautiful prose sir but hugely flawed at the premise level imvho, there are no extra points for good intentions in the big bad world, the gap between rich and poor has widened massively under Zanu-Labour and as a consequence of Gordy's mismangement of the Economy it will be necessary for that gap to widen still further.

Not ideology, just FACT !

 

[brumgrecian]

Yes - it was ideological - but it was an ideology which, buried deeply, had the ultimate aim of reducing the imbalance between rich & poor in the UK

I echo what Poult's said - that may have been the aim, but the ideology has been shown to have failed. It's results that count, and the fact a Labour government presided over a decrease in social mobility is a damning indictement of this ideology.

As for the claim that Nu-Labour didn't try to "reform" public services - this may be the mantra the right wing zealots would prefer you to believe - but it bears no relation to the truth.

I accept that Labour attempted reform to a certain extent, but they never went far enough because of the ideological split in the party and the subsequent lack of political will (as is being highlighted in Mandelson's memoirs). 'Nu-Labour' made lots of noises about types of progressive reform that I would have supported. The majority of this never happened. Some coalition policies are just serving to put these Nu-Labour ideas into practice (I accept that some are slightly more radical).

It is an easy, but fundamental, flaw to insist that, somehow, the public sector should be judged against the measure of "productivity" - public sector organisations do not, for the most part, produce anything. This does not make them better or worse than private sector organisations - just different. And they should be judged according to different criteria.

I accept that productivity isn't an ideal method by which to judge the public sector, but it's still an important way of judging value for money. Also, it's important to note that it is measured in a different way to that of the private sector - from what I remember it attempts to judge 'quality adjustments', rather than purely price-mechanisms (as is done in the private sector).

A couple of years ago I remember a study coming out saying that productivity in the public sector fell by over 3% (I think) in the Nu-Labour years. Considering the amount of extra money that Labour pumped into these services, it doesn't take much imagination to imagine how much of our money has been wasted. We were promised quality improvement, but instead we got more at a worse quality.

 

[Oli]

We are all to blame, ultimately people went out and requested loans and spent money on credit cards. The bank don't force you to spend. That said they should have taken more responsibility for who they lent to. The money owed by the banks is small fry in comparison to public sector deficit but with the difference being that if the government can turn the bank around then they will have some very valuable assets.

 

[Poultice]

The money owed by the banks is small fry in comparison to public sector deficit but with the difference being that if the government can turn the bank around then they will have some very valuable assets.

The money currently owed may seem like small beer but when you factor in that the Guv will probably have to suck a fair lump of the outstanding credit swaps at some point in the future then Armageddon is guaranteed, it's just a case of when.

Of course the fact that we operate a fiat currency may provide a way out but I suspect that will leave us with severely denuded asset values.

 

[Mackster]

The money currently owed may seem like small beer but when you factor in that the Guv will probably have to suck a fair lump of the outstanding credit swaps at some point in the future then Armageddon is guaranteed, it's just a case of when.

Of course the fact that we operate a fiat currency may provide a way out but I suspect that will leave us with severely denuded asset values.

The question is when? Guv's are good at putting off the inevitable. So who will be holding the parcel, will it go off for the Libcons, or will Cons or Lab inherit. Surely it will happen in the US first and we will all get soaked anyway.