Clarke correction

"Hmmm."

Hmmm indeed. Clarke's grasp on reality was always tenuous.

It matters not one iota who actually stopped the routine sending out of nomination papers. Gordon Brown is "holed below the waterline" and so is NuLabour. Those politicians who have any sense of duty to the electorate will have to press for a leadership change or better still a general election in the hope that the result is either Jack Straw for leader or a hung parliament. Neither outcome will be a panacea for all the country's woes but it will be a move in the right direction. Don't dither you self-serving M.P's but ACT NOW!

Another MP sacked from their post. Is Gordon going to sack David Milliband as well?

I think Charles Clarke and David Milliband are behind all of this. Perhpas they intend to distablise the Prime Minister in order to further their own political ends.

This is definitely an organised campaign, with elements of the Blairite camp likely to be involved.

At least with the coup on Thatcher it was a bit more straightforward.

But if Gordon does decide to resign, that may cause David Cameron to go for the confidence vote, something Alex Salmond would relish.

Perhaps we should all pretend that we think it'd be a fantastic idea for Harriet Harman to become PM, then some Nu-Lab oik will read it on here and encourage her, and then she in her arrogance will knife Brown good and proper, take his place in a bloody coup, then we could have an immediate general election and the stinking carcase of Nu-Lab can be cremated at last!

Just a thought.

Harriet Harman to become PM, then some Nu-Lab oik will read it on here and encourage her, and then she in her arrogance will knife Brown good and proper, take his place in a bloody coup, then we could have an immediate general election

And you think Harriet Harmon, her head swollen as being nominated PM would go through the 'unnecessary expense' of a general election. With so much 'work still to be done' to 'tackle inequality'.

I fear you seriously misjudge the honourable intents of any of this government. They will simply do what Gordon Brown did. There is no precedent or compulsion to hold an election just because we change PM in mid-stream. Harriet Harmon would simply appoint all her best mates to cabinet posts, embark upon a world tour to meet the Prime Ministers of foreign countries and tax the rich. To appeal to her core vote.

Then in 2010 she too would be an ex-Labour Prime-minister. Good for a dame-hood and plenty of speaking tours and NED-ships.

A new PM would trigger a general election? More likely Gordon Brown would do that before he'd let anybody else step into his shoes. Out of spite.

If Labour want a general election to land the Tories with cleaning up this mess (and the blame in the eyes of the feebler-minded with a less tenuous grasp on cause and effect) then they could just propose a vote of no-confidence now.

If I were David Cameron - I'd abstain in such a vote. I wouldn't want this pile of garbage economy now either. I'd want even the feeble-minded to be clear whose fault it was before I took over.

#4

Yes sack all the nulab clowns, its not their party, it never has been,

"NO HOW NO WAY NO NULAB AGAIN"

the plotters have lost the plot!!
they are going to rip the labour party apart !charles clarke is the most arrogant man, so what he says then the labour party must do!! i do not think so, i remember the mess he left the home office or has he forgot that mess.
regarding milliband he is playing a dangerous game, as if he sneaks into the top position is he forgetting the top union men despise him and they pay the bills.
gordon should come out fighting what has he to loose then he will show what he is made off! stronger stuff than the plotters? intresting watching

Iain Dale is claiming to know of three more MP's demanding nomination papers:

Mike Hall
Fiona Mactaggart
Shona McIsaac

https://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/09/exclusive-i-reveal-3-more-labour-mps.html

God, but politics just got interesting again, didn't they?

This is getting ridiculous. The country is damned near bankrupt; the era of cheap energy is all but over and the lights will start going in out in about 5 - 7 years hence (windfarms were a serious, albeit foreseeable error); we're pretty much in recession (some arguing that the UK economy will get much worse); our society and way of life is being threatened by religious lunatics and/or untrammelled immigration - take your pick (shall I go on ..... ?) ... and all the while the BBC's Political Editor spends his time analysing to death the contortions of a minuscule cabal of third-rate politicians as they wrestle to save their skins. Is it just me, or is something seriously wrong with our political system to allow this incredible nonsense to go on much longer? When do we take to the streets? Gordon Brown has crafted himself one hell of a political epitaph.

What's the weather going to do tomorrow Nick?

#6 ... U and the numbers,

Regarding who to blame for our "garbage economy"

Nothing to do with the global Credit Crunch then?
Nothing to do with the ultra capitalist bankers in the City and on Wall Street?
Nothing to do with booming international commodity prices?
Nothing to do with people (yes, people, not the government) living beyond their means for the best part of a decade?

Well, I guess not if it's all Brown's fault.

Strange how the whole of the Western World is suffering in the same way, don't you think? If it's down to Brown, how come all those countries who don't have the pleasure of his stewardship are in pretty much the same mess?

You know what you come over as? You come over as one of those people who's constantly whining, whenever something goes wrong, that it must be someone else's fault (Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Richard and Judy, whatever) instead of taking personal responsibility.

Thought you Tory types were meant to despise that sort of attitude?

The situation looks very bleak for Brown, and outside of the core Labour support most of the nation has already made their mind up who they will not be voting for next time.

What makes this power struggle so interesting is unlike the Conservatives in 1990, where they has two or three people who wanted to be PM and probably could have done the job, New Labour's leadership cupboard is looking a little bare.

Is Clarke behind this or even Milliband?

If 70 or so New Labour MPs requested and submitted nomination papers, who would replace Brown?

At some point we will have to find out, it seems rather likely that New Labour will vote themselves out of power at the next election and a new leader would most likely follow. It would be inconceivable that Brown would stay as Labour leader if he was in Opposition.

So find out who fancies themselves as the next New Labour leader and you have the smoking gun.

#12

A mild front on the lib/dem camp

Lashing down on the conservative camp

Bright sunshine and clear open sky's perfect opportunity to kick nulab right into the dustbin.......in the labour camp....

It is amazing that the few minority backbenches that want a new labour leader dont even know anything about Democracy. They keep mentioning democracy meanwhile in reality they want an autocracy. Democracy has and always will be in England especially the support for the majority. They are the minority that have accepted the Democracy system but are unhappy when they are not listened to due to being a minority. They should accept Democracy and shut up. Alternatively join a group that oppossed Democracy and see how far they will get.

Brown can keep on sacking people if he likes, but he knows it's only a question of time before the electorate sacks him.

power_to_the_ppl is right.

Harriet for leader NOW! And then, as the votres recoil in shock and horror, we can look fwd to NuLab's total extinction.

I'm starting to get seriously worried here. Alan Johnson might just slip in as leader.

He has union backing, porbably more than any other senior figure.

I'd rather have Milliband, and that's saying something!

#13

We have been through this before.

Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, on the blog has said the deteriorating economics conditions are all Brown's fault. However many, myself included, think he should have regulated better (he set up the tripartite system let's not forget) and spent less (in order to be able to reduce taxes, duty etc now when the commodity prices have gone up).

He was quite happy to ride the global wave for ten years and he took full credit for the economic growth in those times. He can't have his cake and eat it.

Nick,

surely we are going to see history repeat itself. Many readers seem concerned as to who will take over when Gordon eventually sees the light and departs to pastures new.

Consider that labour will be completely wiped out in Scotland, by the nationalists.

The conservatives will win most of the English vote, with the liberal democrats taking a few of the labour seats where labour supporters will never bring themselves to vote conservative.

At this point the labour party will cease to exist. I think that they will have no alternative other than to merge with liberal democrats and become a social democratic party.

Nobody will actually be able to form a government so there will be a government of national unity, to fight the economic quagmire and the threat of terrorism, from whatever quarter. The leader of such a national coalition I haven't yet decided, but it will not be David Cameron, maybe George Osborne, maybe a new leader will just emerge. Don't know yet.

In the meantime America will go into a deep recession and the whole world will be thrown into turmoil.

The debate must come into the open, this is not good enough.

The main function of the Leader of the Opposition is to give the PM of the day a good kicking at PMQs while at the same time giving the people a good laugh.

This is therefore the quality that Labour should be looking for in their new leader since it is plainly going to be his or her main purpose in life in the not too distant future.

Who on Earth do they (Labour) have who would appeal to voters at the next election. It's hilarious watching them all wriggle and squirm. The problem is Labour have been in power so long they can't pretend the economy is anything other than their fault. I don't buy the credit crunch as an excuse, this has been brewing up a long time, the credit crunch has just brought the matter to a head. Getting rid of the head doesnt mean the body politic is sound. Zombi time.

Wurzel Gummidge for the next PM, he can change his head every day

#21 TAG

TAG raises some pertinent points, which I believe have substance.
The situation is becoming so bad, that maybe an emergency national coalition, would be a viable solution.
Would people, including politicians. be able to lay aside life-long loyalties and prejudices in order to restore Great Britain from the mess this government has brought it to. Yes, there is a credit crunch, but no, after so many years in power NU-Labour cannot keep blaming the tories.
Personally, I have never voted either for the tories or the socialists, afraid I've always been for the underdog, the wild card in the pack. But, if a person such as Frank Field was leading the socialists, I'd be prepared to give them a chance. He seems uncorrupted by greed or power, but then I'm probably the most naive person when it comes to politics, so I can only hope, against all the odds, that we are spared both more of Gordon Brown and not inflicted with the braying David Cameron.

16, jonmon1


Do you call this a Democracy?

Britain Today.

What Democracy ?

Democracy, Democracy that enigmatic lie.
From the dictionary it ought to be deleted
Whilst democracy’s the slogan that politicians cry
The majority of us feel that we’ve been cheated
With political correctness forced upon us every day
Just in case the casual word may cause offence
If you have a strong opinion be careful what you say
Even though you may be talking perfect sense
When we joined the E.E.U. I’m sure we took the view
It would give a larger market for our trade
Yet now our mighty nation has a legal obligation
To abide by regulations Brussels made
The referendum was denied, the politicians lied
These decisions were decided by the few
It was no doubt understood, M.Ps thought it would be good
With a total disregarding of our view
MP’s pull out all the stops to try to fill our shops
With G.M foods that we don’t want to eat
Whilst cameras check our speed on roads where there’s no need
We’d be better off with coppers on the beat
If confronted by a crook and you land a good right hook
You may think that he deserved it, it’s his fault
When he is on probation you’ll be locked up down the station
To appear before a jury for assault
When travellers leave a mess, you’d be spot on if you guess
That authorities will turn an eye that’s blind
Yet drop a fag end in the street and before it hits your feet
You will get an instant ticket and be fined
If asylums what you seek and English you can’t speak
Benefits are paid for your welfare
But if your British and your old, your property is sold
To pay for any time you are in care
If you chastise your child, because he has run wild
That law will on your collar give a tug
For no matter what you say, do-gooders rule the day
Even though the child may grow into a thug
In the interest of fair play referendums are the way
The majority decide just where we go
We shouldn’t change our laws or take part in futile wars
To massage a political ego
When we are due a big election, parties vie for our affection
Promising the things they have in store
It fair gives us the hump, they should take a running jump
They must realise we’ve heard it all before.
It is hard to understand who governs our fair land
Or who it is that makes up all our rules
Our politicians bore us, or totally ignore us
Democracy in Britain! It’s for fools!!.

Frank Field for PM phoenixarisen? Frank was the fellow who wanted to solve the NHS budget by flying you and me and everybody else to Calcutta for surgical operations. How do you like that as an idea. No thanks. Lateral thinking for me doesnt extent to being horizontal on a trolley in Calcutta.

sagamix

Think you're punching an invisible target.

"Nothing to do with the global Credit Crunch then?"

Nobody blames Brown and Co for creating the "credit crunch". But a country with a bit of cash in the bank is better placed to manage it than a country with growing debts. Where's our money?

"Nothing to do with the ultra capitalist bankers in the City and on Wall Street?"

Bankers have proven that the argument in favour of high wages, because they may otherwise be "poached" to fill an international role, is complete horlicks.

Just what did Brown do to try and control the way UK banks operated? The FSA (his creation) had about as much idea as a cat in a dishwasher.

Brown smoothed the path for Blair, who was very close to Financial Services (witness his role with J P Morgan).

But did nothing to stop Northern Rock (which the FSA knew had a bad model) from trogging along.

By the way, the government could have made life very difficult for the dumb blokes offering outrageously optimistic money deals.

"Nothing to do with booming international commodity prices?"

Funny thing is that, in the 80s, when I got very exposed to international activity, it seemed pretty evident that "emerging economies" would place a demand on commodities of all sorts.

By the 90s, it was bloody obvious that new economies would suck in resources which were previously the preserve of the "mature economies". Didn't take a genius to work that out. Brown and Co

"Nothing to do with people (yes, people, not the government) living beyond their means for the best part of a decade?"

For more than a decade, Labour has provided the governance of the UK's economy.

If Brown were truly prudent, he'd have made it impossible for financial service companies to be as stupid as they were allowed to be.

Not allowed companies to lend money on rediculous multiples of salary. Imposed control on cerdit card companies, to stop them simply jacking up the borrowing limits with no reference to the individual's ability to pay.

Sum total of Brown's action?

Still waiting.

GB has been in power for over a year now and it has become clear to the vast majority of the electorate that he is a thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable man with no political vision or principles. A fact highlighted by his disgraceful removal of the 10p tax band. How could a man who loves to talk about his moral compass do such a thing?. No, this man is clearly unfit to be prime minister and the sooner he is removed the better.
We simply can not go on with this constant dithering at the heart of government, as a leader GB is proving to be detrimental to the well being of the UK as a whole. I am not a Conservative, but I will certainly be voting Conservative if that is what it takes to remove GB from power.

#21 - TAG
#25 - Phoenixarisen

A government of national unity is a good idea but for two things. Firstly, the ideology has gone from British politics. It is all about crossing Ts and dotting Is. Ideologically, you could not get a fag paper between the big two parties which are essentially both centrist. Secondly - and paradoxically - there is no national unity. Despite being so close together ideologically, the parties constantly bicker about detail in what is little more than a game of one-upmanship.

In order to a unity government to work, there has to be a shared objective. More or less everyone agreed about the need to defeat the Nazis so obviously national unity was credible and laudable. There is no such common cause in modern Britain.

Now if we had PR and an end to indecently large majorities which do not reflect popular sentiment, politicians would have no choice but to form alliances and work together. That way we might all get a better result.

Nick, most of us know Gordon doesn't inhabit the real world. Question is - do you?

You know what you come over as? You come over as one of those people who's constantly whining, whenever something goes wrong, that it must be someone else's fault (Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Richard and Judy, whatever) instead of taking personal responsibility.

Naaaah. If I was like that I'd be Harriet Harman. Or Gordon Brown. A typical Labour voter.

The fact is that the US had a government which flooded the economy with borrowed money just so them pesky Islamists didn't precipitate a recession post 9/11. Remember that?

I was over there in 2001. The economy was practically in recession before 9/11. The US literally flooded their economy with cash. Go out there, spend, be patriotic.

And Gordon Brown took the opportunity to sneak under the radar and do a spot of pump-priming of his own. Except our economy didn't need it. We were in great shape. The Tories had fixed it all back in 1992. It just needed..... nothing at all doing to it.

But Gordon took the opportunity to 'employ' almost a million make-weights to massage the unemployment figures further. After all, if America is borrowing bazillions, I'll borrow bazillions.

This million make-weights took one look at their monsterous salary (compared to the unemployment benefit they were getting the previous week) and went bonkers. They forced up the price of available housing. Everybody else was forced to compete. The less intelligent remortgaged their house for a new Audi TT (his and hers) and a long-distance holiday.

Just like they'd done in the last housing boom/bust in fact.

Gordon Brown knew exactly what was going on. You'd want to be plankton not to see what was going on for the last five years. The only question was what would be the trigger to make people realise that the nation and the population at large had mortgaged their future for a bit of 'feel-good' today.

A 'prudent' chancellor would have stopped this borrowing in its tracks. National and personal. This was never going to end well. He chose however to keep his gob shut and claim the whole house of cards as evidence of his 'miracle' economy. And now he wants to blame the yanks because nobody can borrow any more.

IT WAS BORROWING THAT GOT US IN THIS MESS.

Borrowing more, or 'freeing up the credit markets', isn't going to make it go away. We need to pay back this money. That's going to hurt. That's why we are going to have a monsterous recession. Because while we're paying this money back we're not buying new cars, foreign holidays, meals out. Which means jobs will be lost.

But we're still stuck with one million make-weights from 2001. All expecting payrises for their pretendy jobs.

And that's why it's Gordon Brown's fault.

go on prime minister instead of a labour leader contest why not call for a general election and see who many labour mps who are willing to back ypu on that.

In his last TV interview, Harold Macmillan foresaw what was going to happen with uncanny accuracy. The problem is, he said (I paraphrase) that there were too many jobs in the service sector and not enough people making things. It was, in effect a phony economy and it was going to get worse.

Twenty odd years on, it is all to evident. As the recession bites deeper and property values fall, the British public will be selling less property, taking fewer holidays, eating out less and the dole queues will be packed with estate agents, account managers, short order cooks, stock brokers and sales executives who were paid for moving money around and are no b*****y use to anyone when there is no money to move around.

The problem is that such people do not generate real wealth at all because there is nothing tangible at the end of it. In this sense, it is simply Monopoly money. The tragedy is that the millions who do a make a useful contribution will have to suffer along with those who grew fat in a fantasy economy and blew it all and borrowed more.

New Labour thrived in this atmosphere and encouraged people to believe in the never ending bubble. They ended up believing their own propaganda and living way beyond their means. If they are consigned to political oblivion, they only have themselves to blame.

Harriet Harman as leader? Now there's a scary thought. She'd make castration a manifesto commitment; I can hear the bricks clinking together already...

...still, she might suggest stab vests for all - a novel way of tackling knife crime.

Mr Bean seems to be turning back into Stalin - purging his party of all who oppose him. But, whether he likes it or not, his days are numbered. All the talk now is of who'll replace him - this thing has its own momentum now.

Nick,

Going back to your post for a second if we can.

In fact, I do recall that I saw a BBC programme about how Tony Blair had reformed the Labour Party to become "new Labour" and one of those things was to stop a leader in power being voted out.

This was in response to some worry that was explained in Public Relations terms I forget.

It is a shame that Gordon Brown hasn't figured out the only way to stop Cameron having power is to push though PR for Westminster because it was once an Manifesto Pledge. He could even slip in central funding for political parties, to give him a future...

Throwing up the

35. SudaNim

Harriet Harman as leader? Now there's a scary thought. She'd make castration a manifesto commitment; I can hear the bricks clinking

She would probably volunteer to do the work herself!

re: 37

Aye, and she'd probably devour the castrated parts, deep-fried like a Scottish mars bar.

Is there no limit to Harman's depravity?

Who will be the next PM Nick.
The very least Labour can do is replace GB.
They have sat on their hands and perpetuated the lies, stealth taxes, green taxes, refused their promise to vote on the EU, 42 days detention, broken our society, spent all our money, closed our pubs and clubs, banned fags, and made me ashamed to be British.
If they wanted to ruin the country they have suceeded.
I am angry at GB, and the Labour Party, I am heart sore at the state of this country.

All this talk about the removal of the 10p tax band.

Has everybody forgotten how it was under the watch of Gordon Brown that there was a pension increase of 75p, or was it 50p a week, which was in line with the rate of inflation.

In the meantime I am looking forward to seeing my pension increase by 5% in line with the RPI, whilst the people who really work get their 2% or less when they have to pay income tax and national insurance, whilst I only pay income tax, so I get to keep more of it than the workers do.

And just to upset some workers even more my pension is actually more than many lower paid workers receive for working, great to be a pensioner in a socialist country.

Outdated tory re-actionist....all calling for blood.....not a policy among any of them....no, not one jot.......

Talk about out of cycle..just pedalling that one....spoke about that before I think''''
anyway all wheels and no steering.......well.. thats hope your still straddling your saddle "DAVE"

38. power_to_the_ppl

That is so GROSS! I was eating my supper, and the thought of that happening made me sick.
Alas, there is no limit to her depravity!

re: 42

Lol

Fortunately for us, such an event will only take place in her feverish dreams of power.

Fortunately for us she will perish with Nu-Labour.

Blair 'parked' Brown in the Treasury knowing that this, the most entrenched, reactionary and powerful Government department, would ensure that he couldn't do anything innovative - not that he would have thought of anything anyway.

Brown didn't even understand the long-term impact of PFI - yes, it meant hospitals, schools and other infrastructure got built without the Government having to borrow money, but it has saddled the state with annual payments it can't afford far into the future.

A bit like a mortgage you can't really afford on your salary??

Brown seems to think of himself as a great manager. He isn't. He's easily managed by others -

(1) the City slickers who saw the ongoing revenue bonuses of screwing the goverment and the NHS with PFI, and made sure they influenced the Teasury and hence Brown into embracing it

(2) those who sought self-advancement by pandering to his misplaced belief he could be a great PM

(3) the Treasury, whose pervasive influence (and that of its overpaid consultants) has totally emasculated any Government attempt to address either the slump in the housing market or the rising costs of energy as this would upset the delicate balance of the City/Treasury applecart

The only problem is, Labour have nobody who could replace him and turn things round; the Tories are so far into fantasy land and up the City's backside to understand the key issues; the LibDems just don't have the clout.

Well, at least we don't have Bush.....

From 'The Mail' web site:-

"Incredibly, some Labour officials were blaming BBC political editor Nick Robinson for inadvertently sparking the attempted coup.

They claimed the rebels were prompted to take action after Mr Robinson told listeners of yesterday’s Today programme that the threat to Mr Brown appeared to be over.

‘Robinson’s report was like a red rag to a bull. They were panicked into doing something because they feared it would be too late if word got round that Gordon was in the clear,’ said one."

Fashion Correspondent in Ulam Batur for you then Nick!

#38 - power_to_the_ppl

Is the recipe in the school kids' cook book?

#44

Would that be Bosh////not Bush

Can you imagine a tory government and Bush admin............in todays world.......

Despite GB's pension smash and grab and the untold damage to public confidence in all matters financial.

Despite dismantling perfectly good PEP and similar instruments (TESSA etc) for an utterly second rate and incomprehensibly complex set of ISA's.

Despite selling off our gold reserves - unopposed and at a ludicrously low rate.

Despite having no control over immigration until it was too late anyway.

Despite allowing County Councils, the Police, all other public agencies and just about almost any tom, dick or harry to operate a fine now - ask questions later despotic regime (and if you can't fine then clamp).

Despite being in the higher echelons of government for 10+ years without apparently once assessing UK operational risk.

Despite completely ignoring the farce of conveyancy law (i.e. gazumping and the like) - and similar day-to-day real issues.

Despite forcing through criminal law changes over and over and over and over again to nil effect since the previous 300 years worth were OK to start with.

Despite continuing with the totally heinous inheritance tax.

Despite introducing 100+ stealth taxes.

Despite allowing the banking system to run amok, standing by to watch as the system eplorably penalisese its own customers and arrogantly makes up it's own rules, then following the inevitable collapse - comes whimpering with hands out.

Despite making a total mess of education, education, education - failing all primary/secondary targets and leaving post grads with watered down degrees and massive loans.

Despite proving that if you throw as much money as possible at a problem (i.e. the health service or IT or data security - take your pick) - it still won't go away.

Despite never having run a company or being employed in any capacity whatsoever outside politics and thereby being totally out of touch with no experience to lead/listen/decide.

Despite creating a statistical monolith out of every possible government department - from which all my personal details can be purchased for a small sum from my local villain.

Despite not actually helping the 99% work weary, tax paying, law abiding people of this Isle (voted the most beautiful and varied island in the world) a single jot.

Despite allowing the Human Rights Act to drive a coach and horses through almost every part of normal existence.

Despite all these things I do like the idea of independant interest rate control - but this is a smal leaf on an extremely otherwise barren oak tree of achievement.

The notion that that our current position is not in most part directly attributable to the 10 year Brown/Blair fiasco (and I haven't even mentioned the war and the long term destruction of our International credibility) is TOTAL FANTASY.

In my day he and all of his ilk would have walked the plank long ago.

derekbarker

I really dislike the intense tribalism that pops up on sites like this.

I think Blair was a charlatan. Also think Brown was a bad Chancellor, though he - his party (and a subdued press) - projected himself as a wonderman.

WE have spent a fortune to pay for all sorts of stuff. Some of it worthwhile, some of it wasted.

Blair and Brown allowed patronising Hewitt to approve a rotten deal with GPs and consultants. Then Brown bounced back with a display of force to make GPs do some other stuff. But why was the initial deal allowed to go ahead?

No idea of how to deal with commercial negotiations.

Yet they still plunge ahead. IT contracts are almost always stuffed. This bunch hasn't worked out - even with the hordes of "special advisors" - that most projects don't deliver all that was wanted, within a cost and timeframe that was agreed.

Why? Because there are so few MPs and Ministers who have ever earned a living in the real world.

That frightens me, as I don't see too many on the Tory benches who have real experience.

I didn't neccesarily agree with Old Labour MPs who came out of industry. But at least you knew they'd been in a real-world environment.

For goodness sake, Awful Al Campbell called Miliband "Brains". As if that means anything. I've worked with people with proof of intellectual capability far beyond young David's claims. Well received, at an intellectual or strategic level - but NEVER made it big in the tough world, as they couldn't handle all the stuff that goes along with creating wealth businesses.

No wonder the Russian Foreign Minister told him to F off.

Brown seemed pretty good for 2 or 3 years. He inherited a strong economic position (and I assumed he'd try to adjust to make it a little more social-friendly). For a while, he even started paying down national debt.

Then it all went wrong. Find an idea? Tax it. Need a bit more (for what?) and there is bound to be a way to impose an obvious or stealthy tax.

What's a bit depressing is some of the chat that talks about a future Tory government (which looks likely) will be in hock to big business.

As if Labour has completely shunned business for a decade... Remember TB "I'm a pretty straight kind of guy" stuff when the Ecclestone million broke a short while into New Labour? Cash for honours? Etc.

Maybe GB's moral compass is set differently. But, if he was affronted by the cosying up to business - he could have resigned and probably brought Blair down. Did he?

Thought not.

Somebody knew that Byers was fixing the demise of RailTrack (and had lied to Parliament). And that he intervened to screw up the future of MG/Rover.

Exactly who on the government benches stood up and claimed a moral imperative to intervene?

I see no moral compass in taking too much of people's income away and making them crawl back to reclaim a part of it.

Don't like a state that thinks it should intervene to bring up children.

Dislike politicians of any party who piss away tax-payers' money in the name of "progress".

And those who screw up education to the point when more than 10percent of children are functionally illiterate.

Apart from that, I think New Labour have been a wonderful addition to the pages of history - just hope I live long enough to read some of the "objective reviews" of what they have added to the UK's growth.

re: 45

As a matter of fact it is. (Lol BTW make sure you don't look up the black-pudding recipe, you'll get more than you bargained for).

#48

fairlyopenmind


I wouldn't exactly call that a non partizan approach. However, your memory has some poignant points.

The problem that exsist in society as a whole is the common failure to understand the tax issue, many haven't got their head around tax, and many seem too escape its purpose.

Tax is relevant to all things, its the essence of government.There was no bigger stealth tax forced apon society than that of the thatcher government (poll tax) its a non story, if you try to pin tax to one party.

I certainly hope that this nation can have a real debate about the need to tax those in higher earning brackets more, close the loopholes which allow the ritchist peoples to escape there tax duty (it is a moral duty)


Tax creates wealth, wealth that can be measured in terms of public services, I would always but the needs of schools, hospitals, houses, employment, transport ect long before the size of my wallet.

#26 - igiveup2

Loved the poem - nicely said and so to the point

Here is my little ditty:

Brown, Brown you have let us down
You've taken the cash and gone to town
You've squandered the lot - it's gone, we're all bust
You have wasted it all and now lost our trust
So please go now and just let me rest
So I can put my own house right as only I know best
Please leave us NuLabour you have done quite enough
After eleven years you have made my life tough
You've changed my country for the worst I can see
Please leave it to others - JUST GO NOW is my heartfelt plea
But you won't - 'cos your selfish, and stupid and cruel
And you think that I need you and your awfully bad rule
But I don't ever want to see NuLabour again
Let's hope soon that you'll all be washed down the drain
FOREVER!!!!!

Nick,

I think that is big news hidden today which will require a serious investigation. I am talking about the breaking news about GCHQ and the Omagh bombing.

This should be taken into account with the Gibraltar action where three suspected IRA terrorists were shot and killed.

It should also be taken into account with regard to the shooting and death of the young innocent Brazilian De Menezes.

It should also be taken into account with regard to the weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, and the deaths which have followed.

It should also be taken into account when there is the fact that there has been no inquest into the death of Doctor David Kelly.

It should also be taken into account when we know of the acquittal of terrorists accused of trying to set off explosions on planes flying to America.

It should be taken into account with regard to the allegations of a shoot to kill policy operating in Ireland.

It should be taken into account when looking at the BBC and what I will call the Gilligan affair. Is the BBC really independent anymore. Some of us have looked into the General Strike and the action of Lord Reith, and again let us not look at the BBC with rose tinted glasses.

There must be a full inquiry into the war in Iraq, it is the war which is going to bring about the downfall of Brown and this government. It will also bring about the end of this parliament.

With a new government in power, hopefully one of national unity, because the splits in our society are now reaching seismic proportions. Things have been done in my name I don't like it. I don't like it at all.

I am afraid that this country is very deep in the mire, it is not politics at fault, it is politicians, and I feel so very sad.


There is a pattern beginning to evolve and I don't like what I see.

#47 and #48

Spot on.

No government is perfect, but Labour take incompetence to a new level in some areas.

One thing they have also managed is the huge divisions that have opened up in the UK. The divisions are not helped by certain areas of the media - and the BBC is guilty - of stirring things up.

The Liberals managed to get wiped out a few decades ago, and have never returned to being even close to power. Labour may not suffer the same fate but they could be slaughtered even more than the Tories were at the next election.

Perhaps it is time to have certain qualifications and conditions before you put yourself up for election as an MP - the primary one is that you have worked in an industry - public, private, charity, Armed Forces - for at least ten years. There are too many who have started their careers within Government as "special advisors", more so on the Conservative side. However, Labour is good at providing ex-coucillors who are totally unsuited to be running the country - a certain ex-health secretary comes to mind. Defence posts should also have a proviso that the incumbent has actually served in uniform. I think the last person to do so was Tom King.

But all this is fantasy. Politics, like most other things, is all about who you know, not what you are.

There's quite an irony that the government has managed the economy in the same way that the public has managed their personal finances over the last umpteen years - ride the good times, don't worry too much about the future.

You can take advantage of things when they're good and have a ball. When things are good you can relax your control and at the same time live it up. Gordon can even say that the good times are all down to his event management skills - that's debatable, but if that is the case then he also has to take responsibility for clearing things up in the morning.

The truth is we're in a global mess now not because of some unavoidable global recession over which our influence is minimal. The whole world is here because a small handful of financial institutions in Britain and the US weren't able to control their enthusiasm for living for the moment. The government WAS warned about the banks culture of rewarding short sighted high value returns which were only storing up problems for the future - the financial equivalent of moving the dust around. They chose to do nothing about it. And that IS down to Gordon Brown.

All of a sudden the financial foundations of the whole world started to wobble, confidence plummeted, nobody then trusts anybody else, and here we are.

The problem is a global one, but make no mistake, it came about because of the weakness of just a couple of people. They didn't act when it mattered because that would have put a dampener on all the fun. Seems that government and public are pretty similar after all. Problem is I'm paying them to be better than that. I want a refund.

derekbarker

You're may be right! My posting did "get at" Blair, Brown and New Labour. But it was about what they did or didn't do in government, not just because it was NewLab in power.

I think you misunderstand the nature of stealth tax. Thatcher's folly - the Poll Tax - was certainly NOT that. It's a tax that is not declared to Parliament in a Budget, but is discovered in the small print. It's a tax that doesn't seem to have an impact on direct income - but erodes real spending power.

Most of us understand the nature of tax.

"Tax creates wealth, wealth that can be measured in terms of public services, I would always but the needs of schools, hospitals, houses, employment, transport ect long before the size of my wallet."

It's perfectly justifiable to argue for greater of less involvement of "the State" as an owner of assets and provider of services. That's politics.

What should not be arguable is that money taken out of the economy as tax MUST be properly managed.

That's my beef with a decade of Labour. (And was sometimes a beef about Tories before them.)

I believe there has been enormous waste. Many people in Public jobs are paid far more than is justifiable. (Look at the Local Government leaders getting big bucks. They argue they deserve the reward, as they are in "risky" jobs. Risky? Their "customers" have no choice but to pay tax. Customers in a "real" economy can and do exercise choice. I can't opt to pay to and receive services from an adjoining Council if I believe mine is lousy!)

And, for the record, there are way too many people in private companies picking up huge salaries and bonuses with limited retribution if they screw up.

I'd like a "tar and feather" clause in contracts for financial services folk. So, if the wonderful deals they do - and get paid big bucks for - prove damaging to their customers, shove 'em in a public place for redicule.

(There you go. I've just laid myself open to criticism. Someone will no doubt think I'd abuse chicken to pinch their feathers!)

It's laughable how a government that lived of externally created good news (Global cheap credit, cheap Chinese goods to keep inflation down) now claims "it's them" when it all goes wrong.

Some of us have been saying for ages that Britain has switched from a "producer" economy (one whose success you rate on how well it trades with everyone else) to a consumption one (where you assess wealth on the basis of what we buy). If you ran a business that way you'd be gone in a month.

And don't forget the immense burden of PFI that Gordon has foisted on us and still runs as off-balance sheet financing against all decent accounting principles.

You think it's bad? 99.9% have no idea how bad it's going to get. This country could serious go through unrest, and not like the '80's. I mean nasty.

The guy will go down as the worst chancellor ever and a non-entity PM.

#21 - George Osborne as Leader of National Unity! I see a lot of nonsense on here but this must be the best example I can recall.
Terrific.

The Chief Constable of a county police force earns about 130 thousand pounds per annum.

A junior executive in an investment bank earns about 200 thousand pounds per annum.

Just listening to David Millibland on Radio 5.

Now listen this is really important, we are not resting on our laurels, we are thinking afresh.

Gordon is a man of real deep values, such deep values that he did not resign over the war in Iraq, therefore he must have agreed with it.

Yes thinking afresh says Millibland. The nationalisation of Northern Rock, now that really is not old labour, I mean they nationalised Coal, Steel, the Railways, etc...and they were so succesful. They have not nationalised the energy companies and the water companies, now that would be thinking afresh!

So, what sort of difference will these people make when they wake up in the morning. So get your act togther, listen this is important.

So what does labour believe in? Gordon was not elected, he held no election, can these people not understand that they are trying to rewrite history and some of will not accept.

They are all going to sink and they are going to take us down with them.

So, what are they going to do about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Dafur, Treaty of Lisbon and Ireland.

Team GB is sinking fast, where is the lifeboat, oh that's right it's full already.

Labour are in a no-win situation. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The damage has already been done.
If Gordon Brown stays, the rebels will continue to highlight his weaknesses and the british public, who clearly hold Brown responsible for our current financial difficulties (whether rightly or wrongly) will ensure he does not win another term in office. If he goes, the party will be in public disarray with very little time to reinvent and regain public confidence. Either way, the party will implode. If Brown had the initial confidence to be bold and show real innovation to help the British public both long term, but equally importantly, in the short-term too, then he could have saved the party. But I fear it's all too late. The long-term "environmental" strategy unveiled last week is sound in theory but has been dogged with inconsistencies and confusion. But the British public need and expect their government to help them in the here and now and if Brown continues to show timidity, then he will continue to incur our wrath. He argues that he will not compromise the economy. I think it's naive of him to think that you can't be bold and innovative in the short-term without harming a fragile economy.

Just heard Gordon has decided to launch a review of the party leadership process - due to report late 2010.

Nick,

Are you saying this as fact of just "recollection" ?

For heavens sake you're meant to be the BBC's top political journalist.

Will you PLEASE stop listening to spin doctors and just report the news ?
You've already managed to be compared to Fish as making one of the worst forecasts ever.
Isn't it you time to review your own standing if this is your idea of investigative journalism ?

sagamix

You won't find me defending outrageous remuneration in private companies (financial, manufacturing, services - whatever).

I am totally relaxed about people in public services being well remunerated. In act, I'd encourage it. As long as there is some balance.

I am against the dramatic increase in salaries for political appointees who run bits of the country - often not very well.

(As previously posted - I dislike the sheer greed of many in the private sector.)

I absolutely hate the constant interference of government in education. The latest "news" that government is building a pool of potential headteachers to man Academies is shocking.

A not-yet built Academy is of no importance. Getting the best headteachers actually into yoke where they are needed TODAY should be the priority of government. Not trying to bolster a future political position... For goodness sake an academy is just a school. So why is government offering much higher salaries for heads in academies, compared with similarly sized organisation?

Bloody disgraceful.

(And, to return to a favorite theme, if the PM and other Ministers need so many special advisers, why should we pay for them through tax? If Brown has dozens of these types running in and out of No 10, how can he possibly focus on the simple bones of running the country? If he needs that much support, the Labour Party should pay for them!)

I have just heard/read/whatever, that Clegg of the Lib Dems is starting to become more EU sceptic.
If this is so he will definitely get my vote.
It was the only thing stopping me.
Quite frankly the othet two are both living in their own particular version of a "fools paradise"
Vine Cable has "been there, done that" Thats the kind we want, not more "Blairs babes" etc.

Nick,

You seem fascinated by this tedious bit of Labour Party procedure.

I think we both know that were there serious numbers of Labour MPs wishing to trigger a contest then the Party would issue the papers and call a contest.

At the moment all we have is a handful of has-beens with personal grudges. More fool them, and more fool you for giving it credence.

#57

So I take it that you don't think it a good idea then!

Maybe you therefore ought to ask yourself then who is actually really setting the Tory agenda, you don't actually think it is David Cameron, who I regard as a front man for some very unpleasant people.

You don't seriously think that Cameron is capable of setting an agenda do you, seriously I mean.

As a result of years under the grey regime of nu-labour, a nasty jealousy of those who work hard, and achieve a decent standard of living is widespread. Reading through the various forums, I note one especially spiteful attack by a blogger who vents his personal dislike on a fellow poster, who does not share his socialist views.
The fact that a person pays a very high rate of tax does not mean they are a millionaire, nor that they gain their money in a dishonorable way. Indeed, the high tax payers are financing most of the benefits the genuinely poor, and ther genuinely idle reap.
The reason taxes of 40% and more are thrust at citizens is not because theyy are earning such huge amounts, but rather because Gordon Brown taxes us like a vampire, determined to draw out the last drop of blood.
This envy extends to resentment, not only of individuals who succeed despite the odds, but also to companies which manage to keep afloat and even expand in these very difficult times.

Poor old Brown. He's a technician caught sitting in a leaders chair.

A true leader sees the broad picture, points the way and holds course because it's bleeding obvious that if you see the way then you stay on it, even if it's bumpy. We used to have one like this. You know who I mean, she changed things and knew where she was going.

This guy is truly hopeless because he's got little vision and even less nerve to go through trouble to get there. He's haunted by the knowledge that he's screwed things up for years when all he was bothered about was gaining power. Trouble is, I don't see any others (in any party) with any more clue. There are certain respectable politicians (e.g. Frank Field) but they are too gentle to be PM.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. In '79 she came along, but who is there now with the strength to tell the British public the truth they don't want to hear - the nation lives beyond its means, we can't afford our utopian dreams, we have to compete with the World, we have to put our nation first and let the rest of them look after themselves (by which I mean stop military intervention ANYWHERE for ANY reason)?

I don't see tham anywhere.

derekbarker @50 wrote:

"Tax creates wealth, wealth that can be measured in terms of public services..."

What utter claptrap!

Productive people create wealth.

Taxes are taken from the wealth produced by productive people.

Taxes can be used for 'good' things (defense, police, judiciary, basic infrastructure) or 'bad' things (wars I don't agree with, state-funded sex-change operations, the London 2012 Olympic Games).

What is a 'good' or a 'bad' use of tax money is entirely subjective.

But then idea that taxes 'create wealth' is socialist nonsense. Next you'll be saying that apples fall upwards....

63. fairlyopenmind to sagamix

You won't find me defending outrageous remuneration in private companies (financial, manufacturing, services - whatever).


Well I will, they can pay themselves what ever they want, its not our money.

There is no connection what so ever.

#55 fairlyopenmind

Do you consider the tories as competent tax spenders?

I would say....the majority of people on this blog are calling for, direct lower taxation in their earnings.

Again I make the point..tax cuts will lead to a reduction in public services.

Its not rocket science....lower tax, high unemployment and less services.

I dont think you want a-return to the 1980's

Do you?

50. derekbarker.

Odd you seem almost lucid at 2:01am


Any luck with that list of assets yet ?

Breaking news


A picture that looks like a normal portrait of The PM, until upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the image is a collage of male private parts, may be withdrawn.

What could possibly have been the source of the artists inspiration.

Orders being taken now.

https://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4748594.ece

#69
MaxSceptic

Newtons law??

Who do you interpret, as productive people.

Let hope its not those who fleece off the working class.

Do you really consider the olympic games as a good use of tax - spending

The apple never falls far from the tree...Eh...

sorry tories.....charging again....

71 derekbarker.

Yes please, if you mean a return to addressing the fundamental weaknesses of the country.
No, I didn't enjoy the pain it required (and will require again) but since it took us out of the self-induced coma we'd lapsed into and now have relapsed into, yes I think we need a return to '80's-style fundamental repair jobs.

Oh, and I agree with the other guy that tax is an application of wealth, not its creation.

"Again I make the point..tax cuts will lead to a reduction in public services.

Its not rocket science....lower tax, high unemployment and less services."

I know it's a hopeless challenge explaining why this is wrong, but call me a glutton for punishment.....

My own business now produces twice what it did a few years ago with far less total resources. It's achieved through efficiency, smart investment (no, not the "investment" Brown refers to wasting money as) and hard work.
Rather than standing there with your hand out saying I need more to do less.

67 Phoenixarisen

Im sure Maxsceptic can take it. He is only here to wind people up so if he can't take it he shouldn't dish it out. I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less. You mustn't upset yourself about it. No wonder I thought you were a girl.

If you are talking about my comment( you do little else on here). I meant he could go to the golf club or something or go driving round a council estate sneering at people. Instead of sitting at a computer all day.

I don't wish to defend labour over this petty Blairite rebelion and there is far too much white noise on this site at the moment. Its like an untuned radio in word form. you get the occasional signal. but then it fades back into tory repetative drivel.

May I tell Nick Clegg that people are not giving up on politics. What I am doing is giving up on politicians.

They wouldn't care about politics if you wrapped it up in gold leaf. They, politicians, only know what is best for them. They know nothing of politics, or if they did they forgot their principles long ago.

They don't have a clue. When the time is right about a Euro referendum says the liberal democrat leader. The time was right when we would have got a better rate than what it is today. Just think what rate we would have got for our pound when the rates were agreed.

I want to know about cash for honours, and I want to know about loans to political parties. I want a public inquiry into the war in Iraq. Now, give me that then a lttle of my faith may just be restored, somehow, though I will remain outside the grubbiness of the political parties.

#76

I think you are describe the managment of your process ( just in time) efficiency in your work place, is your choice..

I'm sure your work-force dont challenge your managment.....but reserve the right to challenge the way they are managed...

I dont think you can generalise your success to that of a needy community-in terms of services......

And now the equally atrocious Scottish Branch vote in another Brown/Blair clone as 'leader'. Wee Alex will be having a laugh !

77. dhwilkinson


"You mustn't upset yourself about it. No wonder I thought you were a girl."

You obviously would like to come from a sector of society where "real men" wear undervests and burp over beer cans and are allowed no sensitive feelings.

"If you are talking about my comment( you do little else on here)"

Your egotism knows no bounds. I never mention you, and after our shame-making clash on the forum a few weeks ago, I believe we agreed not to bait each other, nor wind each other up, when we both finished having posting removed by the moderators.
Please note, this is only being written as a reminder, and all future postings issued by yourself will be ignored.

re: 81

I remember dhwilkinson saying this to you on more than one occasion ("You mustn't upset yourself about it. No wonder I thought you were a girl.") It's probably the least ambitious form of antagonism I've ever seen on this site, and from one of the blandest bloggers.

Carrots

Mine: "You won't find me defending outrageous remuneration in private companies (financial, manufacturing, services - whatever)."

Yours: "Well I will, they can pay themselves what ever they want, its not our money.
There is no connection what so ever."

I'm talking about PLCs. The companies are owned by their shareholders. It's NOT "their money" - they just manage it on behalf of shareholders. (And that includes the pension schemes of those in private employment...) There aren't too many plcs still (largely) owned by their entrepreneur creators.

Remuneration Committees
seem like a magic circle. I don't object to people gaining big rewards if they deliver. But don't see too many failures being punished. If you can stuff a company, but parachute out with a few million quid, it hardly represents a or fair good risk/reward ration.

derekbarker
"Do you consider the tories as competent tax spenders?
I would say....the majority of people on this blog are calling for, direct lower taxation in their earnings.
Again I make the point..tax cuts will lead to a reduction in public services...
I dont think you want a-return to the 1980's"

I've been talking about our Government. The Party has been in power for more than a decade. It's the USE of tax-payers' money I go on about.

"Its not rocket science....lower tax, high unemployment and less services."

Tax is always a variable. Depends on how much people pay directly and indirectly, corporate profits that can be taxed, etc.

Lower tax means less employment and less service? Why?

What does a company do that struggles a bit and imposes a 1 or 2 percent cost cut? It doesn't have to mean a mass exodus of staff. Cut some of the marketing excess, travel in economy rather than first or business class. Drop some expensive consultants. Look at ways of doing as much - or more - rather better.

What do we get?

Miliband hopping on an aircraft from the Queen's Flight, when he could have flown via one of many scheduled services.

Loads of special advisers. Dumb, badly thought through IT "solutions".

Quite frankly, if you couldn't take 3 or 4 percent out of the cost of delivering State services, you shouldn't even think about being a business manager.

bogbrush 76

I agree.

A useful word is `productivity'. This can be enhanced by using technology in a practical way, training and motivating employees and simplifying the business process,

The more this government has spent on public services the more the productivity declined. This is a known fact and proves that public services funded centrally by the taxpayer are the most inefficient form of provision.

It would be more effective if public services were provided locally from local funding. It would place the consumer and the taxpayer in a better position to control inputs and outputs.

Of course, public sector management conditioned to the principle that more money has to be better lack the skills and the authority to implement such improvements as you have to your business.

In my view the writing is on the wall for the public sector. It has failed the people of this country and needs to be drastically reformed.

# 50 fairlyopenmind

"Tax creates wealth"

Actually, it's the other way around! Taxes are derived from people's income, and therefore decreases wealth. We are taxed as we earn, taxed as we spend and taxed when we die!

In a civilized society, governments are obliged to levy taxes in a variety of ways. The hallmark of good governance is where revenue raised from taxation is put to good use and wisely spent. But if the government wastes money (as this one does) on ill-thought out grand projects, then they deserve to be booted out of office.

Labour still doesn't get it. Instead of being obsessed with how to divide the national 'cake' into more pieces, they should focus on creating the conditions to allow people to bake more cakes.

82. power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 81

Hi pal,

Maybe the nameless one thought Hardperson got to me. The first part with the clinking bricks is bad enough, but the frying like a Mars bar! (our disgraceful exchage last night),

#83 fairlyopenmind

Yes, you do make some clear point. I do agree with many areas your pertaining to.

I also hold to the ground that efficiency savings are often the mistake for alternative measure (in the real world ,efficiency savings are measured by the over-heads and wage cost) more often than not, its the workers that pay for the idea of an effective cost cut.

"I'm sure your work-force dont challenge your managment.....but reserve the right to challenge the way they are managed..."

I think most people love the idea that they earn far more than before because they've contributed to dramatic productivity improvement. Those trapped in the "derek" mindset are unable to grasp this possibility and so remain constrained to the ideas of forced labour (Gordon and his targets) and more expense (Gordon all over).

That's why he was a hopeless Chancellor.

CURE for all Labour Woes: Get back to what Labour is meant to stand for (SOCIALISM) Make every one of them read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressell! Even after 100 Years the working class is still sweated and left to rot under Brown and his 'Capatialist Brigands'

#88 bogbrush

If you have a profit related earning scheme, good for you.........What percentage of profit do you distribute to your work-force and how will you improve on it (profit)

If you are suggesting, as seems, your business it not a fix rate settlement...Is there a week on week out differential to related profit....

re: 86

Lol yeah! But they're only minor punishments... If Harridan 'my time has come' Harmonster had her way, we'd all be [censored] and [censored] and then she'd [censored] our [censored] and ... This post is now the property of the Labour party. Power_to_the_ppl will report to his local police station tomorrow at 7am for re-education, by order of Her Majesty Harriet Harman PM, Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Inquisition and High Commander of the Independent-Thought Removal Department, on pain of death.

DistantTraveller

# 50 fairlyopenmind

"Tax creates wealth"

I'd just like to point out that I was quoting another source, from which this comment came!

Does not reflect my view, in any way.

I'd still bet that people can spend their own money more effectively (and with less overheads) than any government.

But acknowledge that tax is required to sustain certain areas of life, which help society.

That's it.

I was incensed when the French bailed out a failed bank (Societe Generale) several years ago. Not too happy that Northern Rock was let off the hook.

If Governments intervene, using OUR money, to support financial service companies, I believe they should also intervene to re-write the contracts under which directors and managers gain enormous benefits regardless of whether they add value or fail.

Of course, that could diminish their future employment prospects when they become ex-Ministers...

derekbarker @74

Try an experiment:

1. read a comment.
2. understand it.
3. engage brain

then

4. type a reply.

Nick?

Oddly this dull bit of Labour leader protocol gets to the heart of Labour's failure in government.....

Labour politicians have a 6th form-esque approach to politics. They love fighting elections and loathe anything to do with 'delivery'.

They spend hours in the Labour common room obsessing about unworkable ideology and the fighting of elections.

Reform of the House of Lords was a hopefull attempt to get in some electioneering - a nice battle over who should and shouldn't be elected in a new house. Trouble is they got bored when they realised they didn't know how to 'deliver' reform, so we have a semi reformed house.

Irish, Scottish, Welsh parliaments, Mayor of London, even a proposal for a government body for the north east - all just an excuse for what they like to do most - 6th form electioneering.

Then we get to the true crime of Labour. Brown and Blair at 6th form war and not focused on delivery.

Brown expected to become PM in the second term and built up a huge war chest of cash to splurge when he got the top job - arguablly this battle in the 6th form common room over who was more electable has been their central obsession in government and NOT delivery.

The Conservatives are good at delivery. Once again we are about to ask them to clear up the mess of a Labour Government. The necessary medicine will taste bad and as our memories dim the public will now doubt look back on the good times of excess and splurge and want to bring Labour back.

Personally I think Labour are institutionally 6th form and can't change. If they do get in to power again - I hope they bring in some people who know about delivery (and not just Blair's Babes as a 6th form electioneering stunt).

.... in conclusion - this bit of party policy about leadership elections is at the heart of what these people like to fight over. They are not interested in delivering what the country needs -they are interested in the fight for power itself, not how they how they should use the power.

#93 maxsceptic

Look if you cant give an answer...
then dont throw stones at glass houses..


Some-people...catalyist...load the gun then run from their own argument.....

Whats the answer Septic- mind....

83. fairlyopenmind

But market forces still apply. If there was glut of individuals able to run these plcs then remuneration packages would fall.

Shareholders do get to vote on who runs these firms and they do get to pick up their ball and leave.


Im not sure most here argue for tax cuts. Personally, Im happy with the tax I pay, the source of annoyance is the value Nu Labour provide for it and how it gets spent.

Nu Labour to me predominantly = WASTE and inefficiency.

To me it seems services get dumbed down and the costs go up. You look at the private sector and you see the opposite in action. This principle is driven by market forces and desire to make money and lots of it. Greed is good.

93. MaxSceptic

He only does 4.

Its good to know hes out there though, makes me smile.




Any news with that list of assets yet Derek ?

94 jonathan_cook

As we can't refer back to the previous Conservative government. Because many of you think its irrelevant. How do you know the Conservatives are good at delivery?

We are comparing the clarity of the negatives of the present with the nostalgic selective memories of the distant past. What did the Conservatives deliver exactly over their 18 years? If they did deliver anything it was very slowly and inefficiently.

Ken Clarkes economic miracle arrived so you say after 18years just as the Conservatives were about to lose the election. Unlucky!

I wouldn't mention 6th form politics if I were you. Or electioneering. Or make up stuff about war chests, or get self righteous on behalf of the Conservative party about Iraq the war they would have joined if they were in power.

#93

In your own words you were being subjective.

Good/bad Bad/good

"what is a "good" or a "bad" use of tax money is entirely subjective"

if you think that the olympics is a bad use of tax money, then be more clear...

derekbarker

"I also hold to the ground that efficiency savings are often the mistake for alternative measure (in the real world ,efficiency savings are measured by the over-heads and wage cost) more often than not, its the workers that pay for the idea of an effective cost cut."

Derek, I've been there. On both sides of the divide. Introducing "efficiency solutions" and actually suggesting that a role I filled would have to go.

The problem is that "efficiency" is very often enabled by technology. Even if Thatcher had not diminished the mining community, technology was already reducing the number of people needed to do an appalling job.

The big break-throughs in IT were driven by investments in computer systems for banks and airlines. (OK some government stuff was done earlier - but that was when IBM said they could only forecast a global market for 17 computers. Hard to imagine now, heh?)

Now, you couldn't run an airline without IT support. But the total number of people employed in the aviation arena is massively more than 30/40 years ago. Despite the fact that a lot of tasks can ONLY be done with a dependence on technology.

You amalgamate "overheads and staff costs". Some pretty good companies have pretty bad management. I worked for an innovative part of a UK plc that wasted huge amounts on bloody daft "HR initiatives". Specially produced purple boxes, into which to put corporate information, personal targets, self- and management-assessments, etc.

After two years, I couldn't find anyone outside the HR group who had bothered to keep more than a couple of sheets.

BUT - all that crap was part of "overheads" and made it difficult for staff to win real business. (By the way, sales people were sometimes told that a potential deal was not within the strategic White Book. But, when they asked what was actually IN the book, they were told it was confidential... Goodness knows why the Senior Board took all that garbage for years. But, I'd hazard a guess that you could throw away thousands - millions - of cost by just telling people to do what they are paid for. If we lost jobs in flakey consultancies and special advisors, do you really think that public services would suffer?)

If you took all those "purple box" aspects out of central and local government, you'd be able to employ a lot more people doing real things.