'I don't agree with Nick'
If Nick Clegg had stayed in Liverpool - instead of heading Stateside - on the day after his leader's speech, he would not have liked what he would have heard.
Speaker after speaker this morning has criticised the coalition's deficit reduction plans. One called George Osborne the "reaper of death" and dubbed "simply contemptible" his statement that welfare was a "lifestyle choice" for some.
Another insisted that "what most threatens the vulnerable... is ill-timed and excessive reductions in public expenditure and investment". Rebel-in-chief Bob Russell declared that "I do not accept that cuts are fair - they are a contradiction in terms."
The key anxiety here is that, far from holding the Tories back, Nick Clegg is urging them on to cut deep and fast. It was summed up by the delegate who called Clegg "Mini-Me". I put that worry to the deputy prime minister in an interview this morning. You can read the transcript below:
Nick Robinson: Deputy prime minister, why did you tell the country, the party, to hold its nerve?
Nick Clegg: Because I think these are difficult times and we all know that this government, frankly any government, that has inherited the mess from Labour, the huge black hole in the public finances, is having to take decisions which are difficult, which are controversial, which provoke anxiety in people and yes, will possibly provoke unpopularity for a while as well. But we are absolutely convinced that if we don't take difficult decisions now, we'll only be making life worse for ourselves and for our children and our grandchildren later. So that's why I think we all, not just the Liberal Democrats, we all need to hold our nerve, do the right thing for the long-term benefit of the country.
NR: Isn't there another reason why they're anxious here and in the country? They thought you'd hold David Cameron back. They thought you'd hold the Tories back. You're the one urging them on, saying: go on: cut, cut as fast as you can.
NC: Well, I don't think that's fair. I think what we've done together is said: look, let's have a five-year plan during which we deal with the deficit problems so that by the next general election people are confident that the debt problem has been sorted. And by the way, that five-year plan is longer than many deficit-reduction plans elsewhere in Europe where they've had their hand forced by panic in the markets.
NR: Before the election, you said, not now, not this year, don't risk the recovery.
NC: Well, what I actually said before the general election, constantly and consistently, was that the timing of deficit reduction needed to be governed by economics. And economics clearly has made it absolutely essential that this government shows that we're going to get on top of this problem, not as a sort of mathematical accounting exercise. Because if you don't - I think people need to be quite clear about this - if you don't, we end up asking our children and our grandchildren to start paying our debt interest on our debts, money which should be going on their schools and hospitals. It isn't a fair thing to do.
NR: But you made a very big claim yesterday. You said two heads are better than one. This is the best government we could have had, not the Lib Dems on their own or the Tories on their own. This is it. This is the right government to have. And what some people would say to you, if there's any purpose in coalition, it's for a party in the centre like yours to say to the Tories: woah there, not so fast.
NC: Clearly there's a lot of evidence, I think, of the way in which we've been putting our particular imprint on things. It was our plan, for instance, which meant that 900,000 people on low pay have been taken out of paying any income tax altogether in the first Budget. It was our push for decency in old age, dignity in old age that has given the triple guarantee to pensioners, that the earnings link will be restored or their pensions will go up by inflation of 2.5%, that we were absolutely adamant that child poverty should not be affected. We've increased child tax credit and of course other things beyond the deficit: political reform, civil liberties and so on. So I think the mix, but I think the point I was trying to make, is that when the country faces such acute difficulties and not just the deficit, the war in Afghanistan, the disadvantage of too many children not getting the fair start in life they deserve, sometimes, sometimes it's not a bad thing if politicians say: look, to deal with these problems, we've got to set aside our differences and govern in the national interest.
NR: But are you capable, are you ready, if unemployment goes up in Sheffield, the city you represent or elsewhere, to say: hold on a second, this is causing more problems than it's solving? Are you ready to be the restraining hand?
NC: We've already been very explicit, and I feel this passionately as an MP who represents constituents in Sheffield, that we don't repeat the mistakes of the 1980s. That's why we've been very very clear that, for instance, we won't cut further in investment in buildings and in infrastructure which happened in the '80s, which meant that we had these crumbling school buildings and hospital buildings.
NR: Forgive me, it's largely words at the moment. People see cuts coming. They see that they're on a scale not since the 1920s and they think: what on earth did we put him in government for?
NC: Well, let's be clear, first in terms of the scale. The scale that Labour was planning is already the vast bulk of what we're planning. Four-fifths of the departmental cuts in a number of Whitehall departments were already planned by Labour. They say 20% over five years - that's about 5% every year over four years. We say 25%, that's about 6%. The differences are significant but they're not as big as some people think they are. Any party that was in power now would have to take some difficult decisions but we've, you say it's just words, we've set up a billion-pound regional growth fund to be specifically targeted at places like this in Liverpool.
NR: You've scrapped the regional development agencies. These budgets are higher than that £1bn.
NC: Wel,l actually the net, if you really want to look at the budgets of the regional development agencies, which is a rather arcane subject, you'll find that, actually there was a net loss in the whole arrangement.
NR: I'm going to ask you about your role in government. Are you the guy, have you already been the guy who is in that room, in power, saying: stop, enough, I am a restraining hand on you?
NC: I am the guy in the room who is saying if we're going to do this and do it in a way that is acceptable and understandable to the British people, it's got to be done as fairly as possible and I think we've already shown in the budgets with some of the examples I've given you that we're trying to do that. And I think you'll see, for instance, in the Comprehensive Spending Round that yes, there's going to be bad news but there's also going to be good news. We're going to provide additional money to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, something I've been advocating for the last decade, so that targeted help goes to those children from poor families who aren't getting the help they need in the classroom. That is a progressive thing to do.
NR: Now, in some areas, you're pushing this coalition on. One seems to be green taxes. Do you want it to be more expensive to drive?
NC: Well, we've been very clear that in our coalition agreement that we think the overall portion of taxes which deal within environmental problems needs to go up a bit because it's actually gone down in recent years. Whether it falls on motorists, that's not, that's certainly not the -
N: It's important to people watching. Do you want them to pay more to drive their car?
C: I totally understand this. Nothing has been decided. It's not all going to fall on the shoulders of motorists. We've been very open in the Budget already, for instance, that we're going to reorganise aviation taxes which is a classic example but can I just make the -
NR: It might be more expensive to fly and to drive. Will it be more expensive to eat at your house, put the electricity on?
NC: Can I make the most important point of all: it's going to be less expensive to work. That's the thing that's gone wrong, that for far too long, there's been this incentive for people to stay on benefits and taxes on work have been too high. We're going to bring taxes on work, particularly low-paid work, down because what I want is a tax system which is good for the environment, but even better as an incentive for people to work because that's the route out of poverty, that's the route out of this recession.
NR: So it's a deal, effectively? What you're saying is: yes, you will pay more in green taxes, but we hope to give you some money back?
NC: Well, we're already giving people money back. We're giving 900,000 people the freedom not to pay any income tax at all.
NR: One of the delegates at this conference called you "Mini-Me". I think what she was saying rather crudely is: you look like a Tory, you sound like a Tory, at the moment, you're behaving like one. Isn't she?
NC: Well, I mean, I laugh, only because I feel very comfortable in my own skin as someone who is a Liberal to his fingertips. Anyone who knows my views on everything from Iraq, to civil liberties, to political reform, to reform of the tax system knows that what I represent, as leader of the Liberal Democrats is a long, proud tradition of radical, progressive liberalism and it's different to the kind of heavy-handed statist sort of approach of government-knows-best from Labour and it's different from the kind of Conservatism that the Conservative party's represented down the ages and I'm very proud of the fact that we're now able to implement those values in government.
NR: And have you yet had to say to David Cameron: "no"?
NC: Of course.
NR: "Not in a coalition government, not in my name, not with my party involved"?
NC: Of course, and he's done it to me. We both constantly have to say: now hang on a minute, this is not your government, it's not my government, it's our shared government and therefore we need to share it together.
NR: And you'd like to share the list of things you've said no to with the British public, no doubt?
NC: No, because I don't think it's, I don't the British public wants to see, you know, politicians constantly display their dirty laundry. I think what we're doing, which I think is a refreshing change, is say we don't agree on everything. We know that. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown disagreed on everything but they pretended they didn't. We're open about the fact where our disagreements are, but we work in a partnership government to overcome those disagreements and explain to people what we're going to do and then get on and do it for the benefit of the country.
I'm 
Page 1 of 2
Comment number 1.
At 14:40 21st Sep 2010, Robert wrote:I was a liberal in the 1970's when the party stood for personal choice, personal responsibility, local action, liberty (light personal regulation) and a small state.
I am thrilled to have my party back from the rump of socialist Labour deserters we picked up in the 80's
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 14:51 21st Sep 2010, Robert wrote:I have two children. I have tww because that is the number that fit in my house and I can not afford a bigger on. This does not stop the government dipping into my wage packet to give bigger houses than mine to families that have doe nothing but have children they can not afford. And then dip again to send social workers round to fuss over them. My mother was a social worker and yes allot of her clients were inadequate. That does not mean the only thing we should reward them for is to have more children!
With tax and benefit we reward all the wrong things at the margin of society. Work results in a rapid loss of benefit but that is the thing we say we are looking to encourage. We took the dysfunctional and institutionalised them in the community.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14:53 21st Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:Nick Clegg says:
'...we end up asking our children and our grandchildren to start paying our debt interest on our debts, money which should be going on their schools and hospitals. It isn't a fair thing to do.'
This is just Tory rhetoric and economic ignorance. Two-thirds of this debt interest is going to UK citizens and institutions. Cleggeron just don't want to tax the right people. See https://www.futureeconomics.org/2010/06/camerons-deceitful-cuts-rhetoric
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14:55 21st Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:Has it dawned on the BBC that this coalition is going to stay together?
Or are we to be subjected to endless pointless attempts to drive bits of cigarette paper throught the colaition partners?
The announcer on R4 this morning sounded almost depressed that so far the libdems hadn't managed to tear lumps out of each other at their conference, that we hadn't had a 'Cleggover' experience and that, horror of horrors, we might actually see the coalition last the full five year term.
Finally, people are starting to realise that this is for good. Finally people are starting to realise that newlabour have the prospect of a lurch to the left under Ed Miliband or a lurch to the Iraq invading, extraordinary renditioning, biggest peacetime deficit creating old ways of his brother David.
Wellcome to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition benches, newlabour. Find a seat; get comfortable.
It's a great time to be a tory...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14:58 21st Sep 2010, virtualsilverlady wrote:In a way you can't blame most of the people for being confused about this talk of cutting the deficit.
A lot of them don't even understand what the deficit means.
They hear about debt and deficits but for most of them reality looks very different. A bit of tightening here and there but with low interest rates most homeowners actually feel better off.
Those struggling with debt are hardly given a mention so there is no-one giving a balanced view of the state of the economy for those hit by high debt and job losses.
The real story hit this morning when we saw the amount the country is having to borrow to pay its bills still rising and that it will continue to do so despite the cuts in government spending.
Perhaps all this talk of deficit is only camouflaging an even more horrific scenario down the track which no-one wants to talk about until it happens.
It was always questionable who would have the stomach to take this on and those in the firing line should be admired for they are the only ones who really know the true extent of the mess they will have to manage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15:02 21st Sep 2010, Adrian B wrote:I love the contradictions in Nick Clegg. Robinson - "Will you share where you've disagreed with Cameron." Clegg - "No" then later "we're open about where our disagreements are". Can't see any restraining hand where I'm sitting.
It's basically gone from "I agree with Nick" to "Nick agrees with Dave".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15:10 21st Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:Well, if Bob Russell doesnt like it that much, he can always resign and force a by-election or cross the floor to the other bunch. Likewise with Mrs Mini-Me.
Put up or shut up... when you've got your snout in the trough for the first time in 80 years instead of sniffing round on the floor for acorns, its not usually a good idea to upset the chief pig.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 15:15 21st Sep 2010, U14613388 wrote:Nick Clegg has now delivered his speech to the Liberal Democrat conference in Liverpool. It is the first time in more than half a century that the Liberals were in Government, a time long before many conference delegates were born. Clegg's own story is itself striking: three years ago he was not party leader and three years before that he was not a MP. Six years from first-time candidate to Deputy Prime Minister (and as a Liberal Democrat) is quite a feat. The kind of feat that only the happenstance of electoral politics can conjure up.
Yesterday, Clegg appeared to be on a clear mission: to convince party members to stand firm and turn a blind eye to those who say that the party has in any way been outmanouevered by the Conservatives. The BBC reports here that "The Liberal Democrats have not "lost our soul" by going into coalition with the Conservatives, party leader Nick Clegg has said. In his conference speech, he urged members to "hold our nerve" by serving a full five years in government."
There is much of interest to be found in his speech. First, this was a speech aimed at his party. Sometimes, politicians deliver a speech to their party conference whose primary intended audience is the wider public. The idea is that the party delegates are already in step and their support for certain policies may help sell them to the wider public [. . .]
The rest of my analysis can be found on my blog, The Brooks Blog, here:
https://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2010/09/nick-cleggs-conference-speech-please.html
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 15:27 21st Sep 2010, Guy wrote:[quote]
One called George Osborne ... dubbed "simply contemptible" his statement that welfare was a "lifestyle choice" for some
[/quote]
Clearly whoever this speaker was, they have never been out in the society I live in!!!
Many many people are genuinely unemployed and need all the assistance they can be given, but let's not pretend that there isn't a core problem of people who choose not to work too!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 15:29 21st Sep 2010, Chris London wrote:What irks so many is that the coalition appears to be holding its line, its not their policies or even the cuts. The demise that was predicted has not materialised.....
I must say that even I didn't think they would gel so well.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 15:35 21st Sep 2010, Sasha Clarkson wrote:"Reaper of Death" - I heard the lady speak; I think that one's going to stick.
Mr Clegg looks and sounds like a Tory wrestling with his conscience.* The trouble is, sympathy is cheap: it butters no parsnips. What does "equitable" impact of the cuts mean?. If you are poor and lose your job, or 10% of your income, then it's a disaster. If you are wealthy and pay 10% more tax, then it's an inconvenience. For example, part of my income comes from dividends, in the UK taxed at a flat rate of 10%. Why can't we follow other countries and tax dividends at full income tax rates?
Very often politics boils down to a decision about whose side you're on. For all his crocodile tears, Mr Clegg has shown that he prefers to impose disaster of a significant number of poor people, rather than inconvenience the class from which he came. That is the CHOICE he has made.
*Some Labour politicians seem the same, but without the conscience.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 15:35 21st Sep 2010, excellentcatblogger wrote:What strikes me is that there so many people (politicians, members of a political party, trolls and the lowest of the low journalists) that are totally unable to think for themselves and simply regurgitate the editorial views of the Grauniad, Ed Balls etc. Original thought? No chance.
I am more impressed with Cclegg month by month. The more he is interviewed with facile questions such as per above the more like Geoff Boycott he becomes as he deploys a forward defensive to swipe the bowler away. Nick R, if you are going to bother the batsmen you will have to seriously lift your game.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 16:03 21st Sep 2010, labourbankruptedusall wrote:The libdem "i-don't-agree-with-nick" people can go take a running jump.
They might not like spending cuts, but they don't have a choice.
Well, they do have a choice:
1) Cut spending
or:
2) Go bankrupt within the next 6 months and be back in the stone age.
I'd rather cut spending, because if we don't then the results would be far far worse.
You can't borrow more (or the same amount) when the interest on your debt can never be paid for by growth. The interest alone on our debt is about 5 times what growth could ever wipe out. At labour spending/borrowing rates the accumulated debt would just increase exponentially because growth could never even pay the *interest*, let alone the capital.
Without cutting spending it's simply mathematically impossible NOT to go bankrupt within 12 months.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 16:05 21st Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:3#
Same old left, deficit denying apologism. Heard it before, didnt believe it then, dont believe it now.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 16:09 21st Sep 2010, RYGnotB wrote:Wow. Looks like the Tories called it right when, just before the election, they accused the Lib Dems of "behind closed doors" politics.
It's good to know the liberals are restraining Clegg who is restraining the Tories who are restraining Clegg who is ignoring the liberals.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 16:18 21st Sep 2010, Cocteau8 wrote:@rockRobin7
'It's a great time to be a tory...'
Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a coalition, with the 'moderating impact' of the Lib Dems, this phrase just about says it all!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 16:19 21st Sep 2010, rjaggar wrote:I suspect Mr Robinson, you would do better focussing not on how to wreck the coalition but on what the next election might focus on and why the two coalition partners might see things considerably differently.
That would be useful, it would be forward-looking, it wouldn't be mischief for mischief's sake.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 16:37 21st Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:"Finally, people are starting to realise that this is for good. Finally people are starting to realise that newlabour have the prospect of a lurch to the left under Ed Miliband or a lurch to the Iraq invading, extraordinary renditioning, biggest peacetime deficit creating old ways of his brother David." - rr7 @ 4
Robin, I'm not sure why any and every move Labour make must constitute a lurch. Can they not simply effect a move? - you know, a policy shift ensuring that they "lurch" back into power in 2015 (or, more likely, 2012).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 16:57 21st Sep 2010, DWLake wrote:As a Lib-Dem voter with I like to think progressive views on most things, can I join Nick Clegg and ask party activists to calm down? Talk of betrayal, selling our soul, etc is the sort of apocalyptic talk I expect from the Labour Party, and I thought you were better than that. Also, many active Liberals with extensive Local Authority experience ought to know that Lib-Tory held councils are commonplace throughout the country, including in my home town of Walsall. You are being asked to work with Mr Cameron and his colleagues- as a compromise that is nothing compared to what decent people in the Labour Party (there are some) had to do as they watched blair and his minions pervert everything that a left of centre party should stand for. For years I observed new labour, watching for them to just say or do something that I could find agreeable. It never happened. In contrast I have got from the present coalition serious well thought out sentiments, on the economy environment and law and order, that I nod in agreement with. This is not the 80s repeated it is a historic opportunity to undo the damage that new labour did to this country, and I can't think of anything more progressive than that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 17:05 21st Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:I'm not surprised some of his own party are a tad unhappy.
They probably feel BETRAYED that he would do a grubby deal with the party of evil just to obtain his own short period of power.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 17:26 21st Sep 2010, Whistling Neil wrote:Haven't been able to hear the interview but perchance did NR or anyone else ask Clegg the obvious question which should have been asked?
I understand the PM read your speach beforehand and approved it , did the Prime Minister edit it also?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 17:30 21st Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:Fubar_Saunders #14
Same old right, tax avoiding apologism!
Are you denying that most holders of government debt are in the UK? And that therefore it is in large part nonsense to say that this is a generational, as opposed to a simple wealthy v. the rest of us issue? Or do facts just get in the way of your blinkered ideological picture?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 17:36 21st Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:sagamix..
I seem to remember you predicting Ken Livingstone opening the London Olympics too. But you are silent about Ken and Oona having less added together than Boris who in the latest ComRes poll is set to romp home in 2012.
Perhaps your silence is related to the latest ComRes opinion poll expressing 65% support for Boris' proposal to ban strikes on the tubes.. strikes proposed by your paymaster the UNITE union.
It's a great time to be a tory...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 18:00 21st Sep 2010, LondonHarris wrote:3. At 2:53pm on 21 Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:
Nick Clegg says:
'...we end up asking our children and our grandchildren to start paying our debt interest on our debts, money which should be going on their schools and hospitals. It isn't a fair thing to do.'
This is just Tory rhetoric and economic ignorance. Two-thirds of this debt interest is going to UK citizens and institutions. Cleggeron just don't want to tax the right people. See https://www.futureeconomics.org/2010/06/camerons-deceitful-cuts-rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your Link rightly saids it ALL, but Why, O'Why do many of the General Public allow their own politically leaders statements to marr their judgements and in doing so simply repeat what Cameron or Clegg saids.
I offen get the feeling that many People CANNOT weigh up whats is going on ALL around them, and would much prefer to live in some false Comfort - Zone hoping that C&C are right, when in reality these same believers of half - truths have as much and perhap even more to lose than the next Person which will very soon strikingly come to pass once we embark upon the road of "Cuts" by a thousand Swords.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 18:09 21st Sep 2010, John1948 wrote:The next two years' politics are going to be rally boring and not worth bursting a blood vessel over.
The LibDems might make a few noises, but they are not going to rock the boat as a snap election now will see them lose half their seats. If they try to rock the government they will get the blame for everything. Labour will not have got their act together and they might just hold on to the seats they have got, but they will not be able to form a credible government. An election now would lead to a large Tory majority.
In two years' time we will have some indication whether the tough medicine is working. If it is, the LibDems will become irrelavent and Labour can sttle down to a long time in opposition. If it isn't working, then things get interesting. The LibDems will say that they only did it so that we had a stable government (citing that in private they always had reservations) and Labour might see an opportunity to develop a policy which distances them from Brownanomics.
The critical time will be the party conferences post-Olympics. Will he be able to say to his troops, "Well done, you held your nerve and we are heading in the right direction"? Will one of the Millibands be saying to the other, "The coalition has not got the economy moving, why aren't your policies starting to get us moving again in the poles?"
Basically party politics will be dead after the present round of party conferences. People will be waiting to see if the good ship UK has turned around.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 18:11 21st Sep 2010, GillieBollie wrote:I have been reading this blog for a while and have to say that many of the comments make me laugh! It is fine for all of us to have our own political views and I really don't understand the need for such aggression and vitriol as many of you demonstrate through your posts. I am a labour supporter but only became a party member earlier this year because I really believe we can make a difference. I believe that the coalition is working at the moment because it is in the interests of both parties to make it work.
I find Nick Clegg to be very aggressive in interviews and he only answers what he wishes to - perhaps the same as most politicians. I predict that over the next twelve months the coalition will fall apart and that we will have another election by this time next year.
Watch out for the new labour leader and their party conference next week. I think some of you condems will have cause for concern once you see what the party is going to do. Despite the valiant efforts of Harriet Harman the real opposition will start in a couple of weeks. Watch out for us - we're coming back soon!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 18:12 21st Sep 2010, LondonHarris wrote:19. At 4:57pm on 21 Sep 2010, Lake_D wrote:
As a Lib-Dem voter with I like to think progressive views on most things, can I join Nick Clegg and ask party activists to calm down? Talk of betrayal, selling our soul, etc is the sort of apocalyptic talk I expect from the Labour Party, and I thought you were better than that. Also, many active Liberals with extensive Local Authority experience ought to know that Lib-Tory held councils are commonplace throughout the country, including in my home town of Walsall. You are being asked to work with Mr Cameron and his colleagues- as a compromise that is nothing compared to what decent people in the Labour Party (there are some) had to do as they watched blair and his minions pervert everything that a left of centre party should stand for. For years I observed new labour, watching for them to just say or do something that I could find agreeable. It never happened. In contrast I have got from the present coalition serious well thought out sentiments, on the economy environment and law and order, that I nod in agreement with. This is not the 80s repeated it is a historic opportunity to undo the damage that new labour did to this country, and I can't think of anything more progressive than that.
---------------------------------------------------------
I like your reference too Calm Down?
Are you therefore suggesting that any Lib-Dem Ministers should seek prior approval for any Statements that they might make by consulting their Con Over-Lords in the by far larger portion of their Coalition blunder-brigage. Or will Clegg be demoted from his current position of First Butler to the PM, along with being also His Masters Voice and Head Tea-Maker to Boot.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 18:55 21st Sep 2010, pdavies65 wrote:Robin @ 4 wrote:
Finally, people are starting to realise that this is for good. Finally people are starting to realise that newlabour have the prospect of a lurch to the left under Ed Miliband or a lurch to the Iraq invading, extraordinary renditioning, biggest peacetime deficit creating old ways of his brother David.
>>
If this is true, why do all the latest opinion polls show a reduced Tory lead of only around 2 percent over Labour?
They must be asking the wrong people ...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 19:07 21st Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:@ catch
Speaks to the oft used phrase “we’re spending more than we earn”. It may be true, need to do the calculation aggregating the relevant data, but the fact we’re running a deficit on the public finances in no way means that it is. Separate thing. All the deficit means is the government’s net fiscal cashflow is negative – public spending is higher than tax receipts. The government could be running a deficit, yet the country could be getting richer. Likewise we could have a surplus but be getting poorer.
Don't know if we remember the storm in a teacup election issue of the £6 billion "extra cuts" versus "cancel labour's job tax". What a nonsense that was (wasn't it?) - on both sides. Really summed up the paucity of the campaign, thus lack of a mandate for the winners. Not that there were any. But I digress. Point is that anyone who does - who does remember it - will be amused that the same people who attacked Brown (wrongly, as it happens) for not recognising the difference between the government and the economy re that issue, tend to be the ones who make this very mistake here.
Robin.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 19:10 21st Sep 2010, johnharris66 wrote:#3 Diarmidwp
Your figures (proportion of gilts held by foreign investors) is distorted by the Bank of England's QE program. The largest growth in gilt sales in the last two years has been to overseas investors.
There are links betwen gilt yields and other markets, something you seem to be denying.
And so on.
Your piece is mainly or exclusively political (which is, of course, your right), but it should not purport to be serious economic analysis.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 19:16 21st Sep 2010, were doomed wrote:I am pretty well reminded of George Orwell's winston being asked how many fingers am I holding up winston? what ever number you say Nick!
Yes you are going to change this country for good, sadly it will not be for the better, only more right wing, perhaps pinnochet would fit in with your Lib Dem values of the future!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 19:23 21st Sep 2010, johnharris66 wrote:#29 sagamix
I agree with your post (sorry though, I suspect this conversation is not going anywhere).
It's interesting that so far there has been a lot of heat (from all sides) over relatively small amounts of money.
What will happen, politically, when the numbers become bigger? If they affect people's daily lives then of course there will be an uproar. But if they remain abstract then I don't think many people will appreciate the difference between 6 billion and 60 billion.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 19:24 21st Sep 2010, kaybraes wrote:However hard the coalition might be when it comes to reducing the deficit, the alternative to the Con/ Lib pact is too awful to contemplate: another 5 years of Labour incompetence possibly in alliance with the the same Lib / Dem dreamers and the aid to the Pope who mentioned "third world country" might well have been right. Labour has never been capable of running anything efficiently in the past, and their record over the last few years of destroying what remained of Britain's industrial base with the assistance of their European mentors and building the biggest number of unemployed,disabled , benefit dependents and general layabouts is without equal.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 19:38 21st Sep 2010, manningtreeimp wrote:33.
Are you Nick Clegg ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 19:45 21st Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:No John (32), guess we're not (going anywhere). Given we also now agree (ish) on a 25 (ish) year timeframe for fiscal health restoration (a.k.a. zero deficit and debt at 40% GDP) ... although with the caveat that future growth is both the biggest factor and the biggest unknown ... but given that too, we may not be going anywhere for quite some time. At least on matters economic. Thankfully, there are still little matters such as bank reform, tax policy, education, the Euro, funding of care for the elderly etc for us to quibble furiously about.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 19:47 21st Sep 2010, sasquamp wrote:nic clegg has just told ch4 news that coalition efforts will improve the lives of the worse off in society and bring more long term unemployed off benefits and into work. my question is how?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 19:48 21st Sep 2010, Thindime wrote:On the Libs lip service to some more well timed banker bashing to appease the masses facing cuts
A wee opinion from the financially challenged so to speak
The bankers screwed up and get richer the rest of us do our jobs and get poorer
Whose running this country the banks who are too big to fail or the people who are too small to prevail
Its too simple to blame past governments for this financial mess.
Where all the govs of the western world to blame at the same time for the bankers greed getting out of hand. The last time I checked the credit crunch was a financial crisis caused by no one bar the lenders of money, money they pulled from the ether
Let’s face it they sold products on credit they could not afford if the loans went Deep South.They got themselves over the top bonuses and commissions with not a care in the world for the rest of us who are now picking up the tab
They need to pay more a lot more for their mess
Lets hope someone has the balls to take them on and if they want to leave let to greedy pastures new them go. We can always replace their high paid jobs with other people who are as productive, more honourable and certainly less greedy
Thindime
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 19:51 21st Sep 2010, Andrew wrote:I think its time we got scared not only for our selves but the Vulnerable in our comunity and hope we can have a concerted effort to make it all realy fair. May I comend the following VULNERABLE ALLIANCE idear to all who care about our country and ethical standards and those who are least able to protect and stick up for them selves.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
CMAMT
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 19:58 21st Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:johnharris66 #30
And the coalition's 'economic analysis' is NOT political? Come off it.
What the economics can tell us is what CAN be done given our current resources and accounting system. What we SHOULD do is always political.
Your other points are just quibbling (and somewhat contradictory).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 20:00 21st Sep 2010, pb396 wrote:Sasha Clarkson writes
For example, part of my income comes from dividends, in the UK taxed at a flat rate of 10%. Why can't we follow other countries and tax dividends at full income tax rates?
Well of course, if you don't declare it then you will only pay the tax withheld at source but then again that would be illegal, so maybe I'm missing a trick here.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 20:13 21st Sep 2010, LondonHarris wrote:36. At 7:47pm on 21 Sep 2010, sasquamp wrote:
nic clegg has just told ch4 news that coalition efforts will improve the lives of the worse off in society and bring more long term unemployed off benefits and into work. my question is how?
---------------------------------------------------------
In truth NO ONE knows HOW, since if it was this simple to solve, then don't you think Gordon would have solved it.
The Answer at best lays in being 50% Guest Work, followed by another 50% Praying.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 20:20 21st Sep 2010, johnharris66 wrote:#39 diarmidwp wrote:
"What we SHOULD do is always political."
Completely happy to agree with this. Politics is not a dirty word for me.
I'm also quite willing to acknowledge a significant political component in the coalition's economic policies. As there was for the previous government, and as there are in the economic pronouncements of Ed Balls, for example. Of course successful political parties usually manage to align politics and economics.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 20:22 21st Sep 2010, Thindime wrote:Sasha Clarkson
There mighy be a problem with this, if you are a shareholder who can afford to keep a second home in a tax haven you have options.
I expect share holders who live in the UK with no chance of escape will pay more than those like Sir Philip Greens missus who live in Monaco
The great escape overseas by the rich would become a stampede if they get taxed not to thier liking, personally speaking if they want to go away somewhere else to count and keep their money by all means let them go....permanently
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 20:29 21st Sep 2010, sasquamp wrote:kaybraes .... third world country is not far off but our euro mentors are still here brussels still swallows vast amounts of our money, mostly to subsidise animal cruelty in spain (bull fighting and fiestas), french farmers swimming pools and mercedes for the kids,and greeks who spend the money but refuse to pay tax themselves. we have growing numbers of eastern european homeless on the city streets and even on the canal by my home, catching thefish and eating them,which i have viewed with my own eyes. we have hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who of course pay tax without actually benefiting our economy. thr truth is the open door migrant polcy for the uk is of no value to us but it does take the strain off those countries therfore helping them to improve themselves while our health, education and welfare services suffer under a huge extra strain and struggle to cope. if you earn low wages you are entitled to claim tax credit which is often more than the tax you have paid which is strange to me because as soon as you give more than you receive you are in the red add that to the amount of money sent home by migrant workers (more money leaving our economy), tax and child tax credits sent home to kids who dont reside in this country,(more cash leaving),this cannot be better for our economy than using migrant workers to fill essential posts where we are short in skills. if people refuse to work for no good reason they should have sanctions taken against them to encouarage them to work rather than claim benefits and if these people are british at least most of the wages and even any tax benfits are lots more likely to spend all the money in this country. this is a better way to help the economy and therefore the poorer in society.i have no problem with someone coming here to make a living but i thnk to get the benefits of living here you should first have to pay taxes for a set period.we are spending millions and millions paying sickness benfits to migrants who have come here as workers. if they cant work why are they here? if the coalition can step out of our euro brothers shadows and stand up for britain maybe some of your layabouts would actully have a chance to better themselves and therefore the communities they live in. as yet i have seen no evidence of this standing up for their own. rather this coalition is already struggling to make a fair difference, and with a lack of backbone i can only see this continuing use of our country to prop up the rest of almost bankrupt europe.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 20:41 21st Sep 2010, LondonHarris wrote:42. At 8:20pm on 21 Sep 2010, johnharris66 wrote:
#39 diarmidwp wrote:
"What we SHOULD do is always political."
Completely happy to agree with this. Politics is not a dirty word for me.
I'm also quite willing to acknowledge a significant political component in the coalition's economic policies. As there was for the previous government, and as there are in the economic pronouncements of Ed Balls, for example. Of course successful political parties usually manage to align politics and economics.
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the word Politics is one of those Theme Words that within can be buried Ideas of the very few, and other Sub-Topics that can be instantly created On-The-Hoof, and dished out to be have obliged, for the many to follow.
Or, in other Words, Politics is an easy way to Fool and Brain-Wash the many, so do come and follow, "We're ALL in this together".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 20:43 21st Sep 2010, girth wrote:I have watched the Libdem conference with increasing disbelief and anger. I have voted liberal all my adult life since 1983. I have never seen such a shamelessly stage-managed farce in my entire life. Nick Clegg is just the mouthpiece of the tories and many of the delegates took unctious sycophancy to new vomit-inducing levels during his Q&A session. There appears to be a fear amongst genuinely concerned liberals to speak out against crippling cuts in public services.
After having voted liberal at the election along with my wife our reward as taxpaying civil servants is a 2 year pay freeze, our pensions slashed and thousands of job reductions - thanks Mr Clegg - a multi-millionaire ex public school boy who tells us it is "fair" that those like him and cameron can moralise and patronise public sector workers about the defecit when the crisis was created by their chums in the City and banking sectors. The Liberals will pay a terrible price for selling us all out and are like over eager henchmen in their unseemly haste to ruin the lives of their ordinary supporters who aren't poor enough to benefit or don't fit their tory masters dogma on reducing the size of the public sector for ideological reasons only! I will NEVER vote liberal again. It fills me with dismay that genuine liberal values are lost in the rush to get a ministerial post and taste power at all costs,
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 21:00 21st Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:johnharris66 #42
'Of course successful political parties usually manage to align politics and economics.'
Not sure what you mean by this, unless that they attempt to falsely close off the economic options to suit their politics. Which is precisely what the coalition are doing. Whether this will be successful or not in the long-run remains to be seen.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 21:25 21st Sep 2010, HD2 wrote:#35 sagamix
Insane economics, as usual, from you and your Socialist thought-processes.
The ONLY level of Debt which is acceptable, tolerable, or economical sane is... zero (averaged over an economic cycle).
That means running a fiscal surplus of between £25 and £100 billion a year each and every year for the next 2 decades, to recover what Brown blew in just under 5 years from 2002-2007 (plus the effects of compound interest since 2008).
Nauseating, is is not, that we've abolished long, slow, painful death penalties for treason?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 21:28 21st Sep 2010, Wageslave256 wrote:I find all of this rather depressing.
Politics the same as it always was despite promises to change; politicians answering straight questions with half truths or not even bothering to answer the question but rather answering the one they would have liked to be asked.
Debate focussed around laughably simplistic soundbites and yah-boo stuff like 'must cut the defecit or the UK will be doomed and we will condemn or children to poverty forever'.
No-one sensible is denying the need cut teh defecit and get UK debt under control but there is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about the speed of the cuts and the effect of taking such large sums of money out of the economy so soon when the recovery is so fragile.
Despite simplistic arguments to unquestioning media, the nation's finances are just not like a household's. The paradox of thrift.
Reactionary talk of benefit cheats; of course there are some but the vast majority claim what they need. And as austerity bites there will be more need than ever for the social safety net.
Because what this government is doing will hit the poor disproportionately hard.
Something the Liberals had no appetite for in opposition. But the prospect of power seems to have, rather distastefully, washed all of these lines in the sand away.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 21:28 21st Sep 2010, FairandTrue wrote:Why do you keep trying to get a split! The country is delighted that politicians from different parties can discuss things and come to a compromise, why can't you Nick? and the rest of the press.
We the majority of the electorate are totally sick of journalists trying to make up splits and all the other rubbish. We just need no more lies, spin, smear, and duplicity from government, or the press/bbc.
Try and make an honest living reporting the facts.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 21:33 21st Sep 2010, bobz wrote:I thought this Coalition Goverment were going to takle Public Borrowing and the get their "House in Order" hence the looming spending cuts! How strange to hear on the news that the Borrowing figure for August was a record high; they cant blame that one on anyone else's mismanagement or can they?
The libdems especially Nick seem to be the mouthpiece for everything that happens so I wonder where the blame will fall in five years. Wonder who will be spouting "Not me Nick"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 21:34 21st Sep 2010, Tony wrote:Interesting that he finally points out Labour were planning to make cuts and they were underway, they have been underway since January at least.
Labour voters should take note of this too, there would have been pain under Labour too, just not as deep and not as quickly, which was of course something the Lib Dems agreed upon.
As the difference in policies isn't that great, as Clegg agrees, why does he then spin into nonsense about our grandchildren paying off the debt if things weren't cut so deep, so quickly, he's making absolutely no sense for his u-turn on how quickly and deeply the cuts should happen, if anything he's strengthening the Labour alternative, as it was only slightly alternative, but it would have more chance of protecting the extremely fragile recovery.
The part about not washing dirty linen in public and then saying they're open about where they disagree was comedy gold.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 21:40 21st Sep 2010, FairandTrue wrote:Nick. I hope you are watching how many contributors to your blog have switched off. Same on QT, Andrew Marr Show and Daily politics. This constant bias against the coalition is turning huge amounts of people off the bbc in particular (Sky as well to a much smaller degree)and newspapers who just want to paint what the coalition is trying to do as negative. Blair, Brown and labour had almost 13 years of total support from the media and they have contributed to the mess the country is in.
How about the media and the bbc at least giving the coalition a chance and our country a chance?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 21:51 21st Sep 2010, manningtreeimp wrote:Wageslave256.
Shouldn't mention the paradox of thrift if I were you...just makes them angry.
Good post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 22:02 21st Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:HD @ 48
Hello there, sounds a bit "neither debtor nor creditor be" type thing. Nice sentiment but if taken to extremes, it spells death spiral.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 22:31 21st Sep 2010, laughingdevil wrote:NR: It might be more expensive to fly and to drive. Will it be more expensive to eat at your house, put the electricity on?
NC: Can I make the most important point of all: it's going to be less expensive to work. That's the thing that's gone wrong, that for far too long, there's been this incentive for people to stay on benefits and taxes on work have been too high. We're going to bring taxes on work, particularly low-paid work, down because what I want is a tax system which is good for the environment, but even better as an incentive for people to work because that's the route out of poverty, that's the route out of this recession.
-------------------
New Politics? PAH! The bloke still won't anwser a striaght question!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 22:55 21st Sep 2010, MaxWax wrote:53. At 9:40pm on 21 Sep 2010, FairandTrue wrote:
Nick. I hope you are watching how many contributors to your blog have switched off. Same on QT, Andrew Marr Show and Daily politics. This constant bias against the coalition ........//////////////////////
FairandTrue, just because popular opinion is changing does not mean that the BBC is biased. In what sense have they switched off? Do you mean the Central Office interns have gone back to their real jobs? Thought so!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 22:55 21st Sep 2010, Will Smith wrote:Hi Nick,
What is your contact email address? Id like to ask you a few questions about your work.
Thanks,
Will Smith
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)
Comment number 59.
At 23:01 21st Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:These politicians have resorted to terrorism - they are terrorising the poor, the unemployed, the sick and the elderly. They are terrorising them by threatening to destroy the whole welfare system they are rellying on to survive. The work shy scrounger does not exist outside your horrible tabloid newspapers, every single person who is unemployed would bite your hand off for a real job that is anything better than dead end or injurous by it's very nature. If you think it is that good on benefits - move over - and let someone else have your job. Truth is - you might have no choice in that matter when these new cuts are slashed into our society.
Lets not forget the economy is really in this mess because of the illegal pyramid system operated by the financial industry with their implementation of loan to deposit ratios at 175% and as high as 320% in the case of Northern Rock.
The situation is still this - the pyramid is still in situ and ready to collapse again, taking all the money we all pumped in, estimated to be 850 billion pounds, and the governments own advisors still admit - they dont know the size of the liquidity gap in the financial system. The solution to the current mess has been known for 2 years or more and only now are the financial experts coming to recognise it - 2 years of the illegal pyramid growing larger exponentially and needlessly whilst this spiteful vicious headline grabbing cowardly deputy prime minister goes after the unemployed. Where are the jobs?? where are the jobs your going to create??? Look at what has happened when you were already warned if you made cuts now - would happen - namely another 16 billion has had to be unexpectedly borrowed.
https://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2009/04/largest-heist-in-history.html
The first poster with his horrible notion that he only had two children because that is all he could afford - glad you are able to ensure your firtility rate so reliably - what if you couldnt?? are you supposing the poor should not have children - you have no right to decide that. That choice used to belong to God the Almighty alone - not people like you - what's next only torys can have children??
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 59)
Comment number 60.
At 23:50 21st Sep 2010, rhododendrons wrote:the Lib Dems speaking today after Mr Clegg had departed know too well that the public's judgement will come soon. we will all wake up to the impact of the cuts. we will not accept the effect of the cuts on so called protected services (does anyone believe that the NHS will actually be protected? no, we will see actual closures, cuts, reductions in health services, but they will be called efficiencies).
soon a poll tax like revolt will occur, when we realise that the majority of us hold in high regard our welfare state and the social care services, and policing services and housing services and much else including our armed forces and emergency services.
very soon Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron will be asking their spin masters to talk them through the business of selling a major U Turn in their Deep Cut programme
Complain about this comment (Comment number 60)
Comment number 61.
At 00:21 22nd Sep 2010, PJohnston wrote:"NC: It was our plan, for instance, which meant that 900,000 people on low pay have been taken out of paying any income tax altogether in the first Budget... we were absolutely adamant that child poverty should not be affected. We've increased child tax credit.."
In beefing up the tax credit scam we can blame the Lib Dems for yet more subsidization of low wage jobs and more "pull factor" attracting low skilled immigrants to head to the UK. Upshot being what Nick? The total casualization of EVERY job in the economy (except your own of course)?
Dress it up as altruism all you want Nick but really you are just doing the bidding of whichever business lobby interests you and Vince "let them all in" Cable work for.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 61)
Comment number 62.
At 00:58 22nd Sep 2010, telem wrote:Just love Fubar_Saunders comments (No 7)
Great joke, Sagemix comment (No 18) Labour back in power maybe early as 2012... Split my sides...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 62)
Comment number 63.
At 01:47 22nd Sep 2010, Michael Richards wrote:It's a classic politician's scam, isn't it, as patented by Tony Blair: either you do exactly as I propose, or you do nothing at all. I suppose the surprise is that I'm still surprised that everyone gulps it down. No-one's suggesting that nothing should be done - the questions are, how much and to whom? And the answers from our jolly coalition: too much, and to the poor. But then again, the poor won't be asked to the dinner parties where our dynamic leaders sound the pulse of the nation (aka their, er, chums.) So who cares if the poor drop from sight? Well, it appears to be a price worth paying for that savoury taste of power... Yum!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 63)
Comment number 64.
At 07:44 22nd Sep 2010, mightychewster wrote:#46 girth,
I'm glad you only got your pay freeze this year, before I moved out of the UK I didn't have a pay rise for 3 years - and when I got one it was 1.1% which was a lot below the rate of inflation, year on year I was about 3/4% worse off - every year
Sorry mate but the vast majority of folks haven't had a pay rise for a long time. You have been lucky to keep getting them regardless, please don't take this as being heartless but there is no reason that the public sector shouldn't be taking the same cost saving measures as every other business in the UK. Why should civil servants not have to have a pay freeze? At least your pension is safer than mine!
I don't see the reductions as being purely idealogical either, they are needed; but I do agree that they should be done more slowly over a longer period of time. The economy needs to adjust and it can't do it very quickly, more thought needs to be put into how and where the savings are made - not just a blanket 'lets chop 20% off everything' which to be honest is a useless way of going about it
As an aside - what as a LibDem did you think you were ever going to get for your vote? It was always going to be a coalition government, which means that the chances of all LibDem policies being implemented were about zero. Coalition government's never get what any one party wants, it's always a watered down version of something
Complain about this comment (Comment number 64)
Comment number 65.
At 08:22 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:"One ... and dubbed "simply contemptible" [Osborne's] statement that welfare was a "lifestyle choice" for some."
But it is. For some. I'm not saying the majority but for a minority it it is a choice. If they aren't actively looking for work what other conclusion could you come to than that these people have decided to live on benefits?
Whoever made that statement is simply living in denial.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 65)
Comment number 66.
At 08:31 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:46 - "After having voted liberal at the election along with my wife our reward as taxpaying civil servants is a 2 year pay freeze, our pensions slashed"
The ONS reported in January this year about "public workers enjoying an average annual pay rise of 3.8 per cent in the three months to the end of November. Meanwhile private sector employees saw their salaries rise by just 0.2 per cent, as thousands of firms froze their workers' pay as part of a desperate bid to cut costs in the recession."
There's no guarantee that private sector workers will get any pay rise this year either, or the next.
Less than 10% of private sector workers have final salary pension schemes, over 90% of public sector workers do. There are no plans to take away pension rights built up by public sector workers, only to change the rules going forward. Over half of private sector workers have no pension plan at all, many of those who do have no employer contributions at all and rely entirely on their own contributions.
During 2009, over 700,000 private sector jobs were lost due to the recession. In 2009 the number of public sector jobs went UP by 47,000.
And you still complain about what you've got? You'll have to excuse my lack of sympathy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 66)
Comment number 67.
At 08:52 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:22#
But you would say that wouldnt you? You accusing me of letting the facts get in the way - dont make me larf. You can make the data show anything you want. I just dont buy your version, thats all.
As JH66 has asked you, are you aware quite how much sterling is held by the Chinese and the Middle East? Or is that another thing you'll quite happily sweep under the carpet so that you can keep on perpetuating the "them and us" line?
And the fact that you knee-jerk into calling me a tory purely because I dont buy your version tells me all I need to know.
Bye-bye.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 67)
Comment number 68.
At 08:54 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:60#
Shouldnt you be running down the street wearing a wedding dress with a saucepan on your head screaming "we're doomed, we're doomed, run for your lives, the baby eaters are coming!!!"????
Complain about this comment (Comment number 68)
Comment number 69.
At 08:54 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:60#
Shouldn't you be running down the street wearing a wedding dress with a saucepan on your head screaming "we're doomed, we're doomed, run for your lives, the baby eaters are coming!!!"????
Complain about this comment (Comment number 69)
Comment number 70.
At 08:54 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:60#
Shouldn't you be running down the street wearing a wedding dress with a saucepan on your head screaming "we're doomed, we're doomed, run for your lives, the baby eaters are coming"????
Complain about this comment (Comment number 70)
Comment number 71.
At 08:57 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:59#
Careful, your tinfoil hat will fall off if you keep beating your chest that hard.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 71)
Comment number 72.
At 09:03 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:26#
"I think some of you condems will have cause for concern once you see what the party is going to do. Despite the valiant efforts of Harriet Harman the real opposition will start in a couple of weeks. Watch out for us - we're coming back soon!"
Ooh.... quaking in boots at the prospect of machine-gunning more fish in barrels.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 72)
Comment number 73.
At 09:31 22nd Sep 2010, eye-wish wrote:#66 andy
And you were telling us at the end of last year that you got paid three grand for filling in someone's tax return.
What are you complaining about?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 73)
Comment number 74.
At 09:50 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:Fubar
Do you think the left are basically having a hard time of it simply because the Government have not yet reintroduced serfdom, nor thrown out of the country anyone less than 5th generation British, nor starting to roast the babies of the poor at country club BBQs whilst quaffing champagne.
I mean that IS the picture they'd painted of what the country would be like if David Cameron ever got into power.
This leaves them thrashing about like a freshly landed mackerel desperately trying to make something out of cuts that Labour would have been forced to make anyway and igoring things like increases in CGT rates and planned increases in personal tax allowances that to their shame Labour never 'quite got around to doing' although they supposedly represent the less well off and were supposed to be aginst 'get rich quick city types.
If it weren't so funny watching them flapping about, I'd almost feel sorry for them.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 74)
Comment number 75.
At 09:53 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:"66 andy
And you were telling us at the end of last year that you got paid three grand for filling in someone's tax return.
What are you complaining about?"
Did I? Must have put my rates up as the usual fee is around £450 (plus VAT where applicable).
Besides, where was I complaining? Merely pointed out to a moaning civil servant that he hasn't got much to moan about.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 75)
Comment number 76.
At 10:38 22nd Sep 2010, diarmidwp wrote:Fubar_Saunders #67
YOU were the one who made this an ideological issue.
YOU were the one not answering the questions I put, simply turning them into accusations.
YOU are the one confusing foreign sterling cash holdings with foreign sterling debt holdings.
I was simply stating the incontrovertible, but largely ignored, fact that the majority (but not all) of UK government debt represents obligations of the state to its own wealthier citizens, and THAT debt COULD (SHOULD is a different debate) be reduced by increased tax obligations on those same citizens.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 76)
Comment number 77.
At 10:44 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:59 - "Lets not forget the economy is really in this mess because of the illegal pyramid system operated by the financial industry with their implementation of loan to deposit ratios at 175% and as high as 320% in the case of Northern Rock."
So if you had a deposit of (say) £10,000, Northern rock would have lent you £32,000?
Seems very safe. Or did you mean something else but aren't really too sure of your subject?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 77)
Comment number 78.
At 10:48 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:59 "2 years of the illegal pyramid growing larger exponentially and needlessly whilst this spiteful vicious headline grabbing cowardly deputy prime minister goes after the unemployed."
Two years ago the deputy Prime Minister was Harriet Harman. Don't let Saga catch you insulting her. He has a poster of her on his bedroom wall so she is the last thing he sees as he drifts off to sleep.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 78)
Comment number 79.
At 10:49 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:74#
They're still ploughing the same old hatred furrow mate, divide and rule, whilst at the same time reaching around their backs for the shortest of spoons to continue supping with the devil.
And the mugs they purport to represent are too dumbed down to see it. So long as they keep on throwing them crumbs and promising them the continuation of "the struggle" on their behalf, whilst bribing them with their own money, they lap it up.
Got to admit though, as troughing-two-faced-self-satisfying-do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do political strategies go, its a killer.
Who says you cant fool most of the sheeple most of the time?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 79)
Comment number 80.
At 11:24 22nd Sep 2010, Chris London wrote:60. At 11:50pm on 21 Sep 2010, rhododendrons wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apathy is all you can expect from our once proud nation.
There will be no rioting in the streets or even sit down protests.
The vast majority in the UK just can't be bothered.
This is not just down to apathy but realisation of the facts, we have been living well above our means. And now its time to pay the piper......
For if we do not take our medicine now what is around the corner will be a lot worse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 80)
Comment number 81.
At 11:25 22nd Sep 2010, Chris London wrote:Apathy is all you can expect from our once proud nation.
There will be no rioting in the streets or even sit down protests.
The vast majority in the UK just can't be bothered.
This is not just down to apathy but realisation of the facts, we have been living well above our means. And now its time to pay the piper......
For if we do not take our medicine now what is around the corner will be a lot worse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 81)
Comment number 82.
At 11:34 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:26#
I presume then, as you're trumpeting the arrival of your new leader that you'll be happy to take questions on this then...
https://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/21/mi6-consulted-david-miliband-interrogations
After all, if Coulson's feet can be held to the fire by you lot for something he did before he started working for No10, then surely, we are entitled to ask questions of the former foreign secretary of the last government before he becomes the person who could be our next Prime Minister - like "did you condone the extraction of information by torture and then lie to Parliament and the Country about it?"
I mean, you can hardly accuse the Grauniad of being a Murdoch stooge paper, can you?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 82)
Comment number 83.
At 11:51 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:76#
"To its own wealthier citizens"?
Like who then, big boy???
I've just re-read your submission again from top to bottom and see absolutely no reason whatsoever to change my view. Whilst you do raise some salient points, it is a great pity that your dear leader didnt do anything about it when he had the chance.
You know what gave it away? You're constantly banging on about "well, what would the tories have done about it?"
The ideological angle drips from every pore of your original article, which you, voluntarily sought to publicise.
Dont you blame me for starting it!
That ship has looooooooooooooong since sailed buddy, no one doubts for a second (beyond the tribalists anyway) that there would still have been a credit crunch, there would still have been a bursting of the credit bubble, regardless of who was in power.
The differences would have laid around the edges of it and whether the situation was compounded by what the previous administration did or did not do. Like the setting up of the tripartite system, which failed to work. Like the failure to ensure adequate capitalisation, instead knighting Fred The Shred for services to banking. Like appointing as head of the FSA one of the guys who had led HBOS to the brink. Like forcing a marraige between HBOS and Lloyds that was unwanted and unwarranted. Like selling the gold at a rock bottom price and telegraphing it. Like not doing anything about Northern Rock when it was an open secret in the square mile that their business model was as ropey as Bob Maxwell's pension funds.
None of these were the exclusive CAUSES of the problem, but you conveniently leave that to one side and laud Browns' Keynesian policies when had he been concentrating a bit more on EFFECTIVE regulation and reform rather than stabbing the PM in the back for 10 years, whilst adjusting the length of the economic cycle to suit himself, maybe just maybe the effects wouldnt have been so catastrophic.
And its all well and good going on about taxing the asset holders. So, why didnt they? Oh, hang on, he did. Wouldnt we class the removal of the pension dividend credit as being part of that? You know, the move that screwed everyones private sector pensions for 12 years?
Nobody KNOWS what Hague or IDS or Howard would have done, they werent in power. New Labour were. What the tories would have done is utterly irrelevant. It didnt happen on their watch, it happened on YOURS.
For the left to get all sanctimonious about it now is a bit ripe and more than a bit late.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 83)
Comment number 84.
At 11:55 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:re 77 Seems very safe. Or did you mean something else but aren't really too sure of your subject?
WHY dont you read the posted I linked?????????????? A know it all who knows nothing except what he wants to.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/144/144w254.htm
and just in case you NEED it - a simpler version for you to follow.
https://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2010/06/short-tale-about-bailiff-and-good-man.html
And whilst i am about - the truth is non of the political parties can make the system work - it is unfit for purpose. You will need more than a tin hat in the next few years and niether your gold or your silver will save you.
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 84)
Comment number 85.
At 12:34 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:Lib/dems defending the indefencible - you're all for the cuts so long as most are going to be slammed onto the victims of the systems failures, namely the poor, the unemployed, the sick and the elderly. What a bunch of cowardly cretins who are also failures. Un able to tackle the real problem the countries financies are facing - 30 years of 'poor policies' as stated by the FSA namely Lord Turner. These 'poor policies' included the allowance of an illegal pyramid scheme to be run in our financial services.
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11385475
and the real solution which slowly but surely IS being implemented (but not without terrorising the victims of a failing system) has been well known for months. No offer of help or assistance from the Government - just point the finger and wag. Useless cowardly clueless cleggites.
https://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2010/06/prime-minister-sort-out-this-mess.html
The tories know how it is!! - they are using the situation to smash first the welfare state and then the lib dems - watch yer face because they aren't even being very subtle about it. They are going to smash your party with ever more unpopular and probably un successful policies until either you welch or you lose your seats and then your of no use anyway. Either way they will blame your lack of conviction for anything that fails and tout their brilliant policies for anything that works. Power starved political mugs.
Best regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 85)
Comment number 86.
At 12:43 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:59#
Are we saying the poor shouldnt breed?
Well, if you cant afford a dog, then why should anyone have kids that you cant afford to bring up?
Oh yeah....
...Because someone else'll pick up the tab and it unlocks a few other free money doors into the bargain. Very responsible, eh?
You got one thing right though - or rather the Labour MP quoted did:
"The sad truth is that by failing to regulate the financial sector adequately, the government has been hoist by its own neoliberal petard. The participants in this tax dodge will be allowed to walk away with millions, when workers may lose their jobs and the taxpayer risk billions."
Dont tell Saga though.... or Vince though, for that matter.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 86)
Comment number 87.
At 12:48 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:84 - Happy to stand corrected.
Posted in haste.
I liked the story about the Bailiff. Did a character called Gordon fit into the story?
As for gold and silver, I thought they WERE a safe haven in times of trouble.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 87)
Comment number 88.
At 13:07 22nd Sep 2010, pdavies65 wrote:Sagamix @ 55
Indeed. On the one hand, we keep being told that debt has created the economic crisis. On the other, everyone's in a flap because the banks have stopped lending, thereby paralyzing economic growth.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 88)
Comment number 89.
At 13:15 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:re 86 your joking rght?? poor people's children are to likened to 'dogs'??
Do poor people have less right to live a life?? To most people a full and rewarding life is one in which they have and raise a family. You think you can justify saying that because of the failure of a financial system, they should just go die childlessly?? A lot of poor families do a far better job of raising successful children in a loving and respectful environment. What on earth has this country come to??
As for putting your faith in gold and silver - we will see whatever is the folly in that.
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 89)
Comment number 90.
At 13:36 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:re 88 - they are not lending money because there isn't any - the 850 billion bailout was reported to have left the country within hours of having beeen injected into the financial services - withdrawn by the foriegn investors. The illegal pyramid is conservatively guestimated to have a liquidity short fall of 4 to 5 quadrillion dollars, a large disproportional part belonging to the UK. The pyramid HAS to be closed down no matter how painful otherwise it is just good money thrown after bad.
https://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2010/07/dont-jump-over-yet-it-will-get-worse.html
https://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2010/09/james-k-galbraith-fraud-at-root-of_1256.html
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 90)
Comment number 91.
At 13:40 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:85#
I agree with the five remedies put forward in the Gregpytel blogspot, absolutely. But the hystrionics are doing your argument no favours at all.
"You're all for the cuts so long as most are going to be slammed onto the victims of the systems failures, namely the poor, the unemployed, the sick and the elderly."
What, you mean after "24 hours to save the NHS" and years of record investment, thousands on thousands of jobs, new hospitals, new schools, etc, the system is STILL failing?? NO! Say it aint so!!
"What a bunch of cowardly cretins who are also failures. Un able to tackle the real problem the countries financies are facing - 30 years of 'poor policies' as stated by the FSA namely Lord Turner."
Poor policies? What, Gordon didnt save the banks or the world after all? Surely not!
And, I wouldnt exactly say that Vince's endorsement adds up to much. Like another 'sleb who'd turn up to the opening of a paper bag providing there were free drinks. Cable is just a ligger.
"It is astounding that neither the government nor the opposition, then and now, can foresee such glaringly obvious very high risk scenario."
Which means one of three things. One, there is nothing glaringly obvious. Two, they're all in on it anyway and the fear of the apocalypse is a good way to keep the sheeple under control (furtively looks around and dons Bacofoil hat) or three, they're plain out of their depth talking heads who are voted in by the mug public because they say what they want to hear.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 91)
Comment number 92.
At 13:48 22nd Sep 2010, AndyC555 wrote:"As for putting your faith in gold and silver - we will see whatever is the folly in that."
Yes, Gordon Brown wasn't fooled by gold's false promises. He wisely sold 400 tonnes at around 235 USD an ounce, cleverly avoiding the trap of holding until now when it's over 1,200 USD an ounce.
RedTez
Your outlook is uniformily gloomy. Is there no hope for any of us?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 92)
Comment number 93.
At 13:54 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:89#
If you cant afford something, you cant afford something, plain and simple, yes?
If you cant afford to buy, look after and keep a pet, you dont buy one, right?
So, why do people seem to think that they can quite happily keep on breeding, placing more demand on scarce world resources like space, food, etc if they cant afford it? You telling me that everyone who ends up being parents, intentionally or inadvertently actually gives the cost of it any consideration? The country and the planet is overcrowded enough as it is. Continued growth is unsustainable. Life expectancy is also longer than it has been in the past.
No. I would venture that a significant number dont give it any thought at all. Because they know that someone else will pick up the tab. It is effectively subsidising them to breed, when it may not be in the best interests of either of the parents or indeed the child. Some parents are not even fit to look after goldfish, let alone kids.
Yet there are others who put off having a family until they have a stable enough financial and emotional base to do it or they decide to pursue their careers first and then have kids. Only they're the ones who end up getting stiffed for subsidising the rest who know of no such self restraint.
Historically, the poor, regardless of country of origin, used to have large families because of very high levels of childhood mortality and the concept always was that as the parents grew older the children would, over the course of time, look after the parents in their dotage. The essential model of the nuclear and extended families.
Things that over the last 30 years or so have been eroded and devalued from the top down, propagating an entitlement generation who use new life as a tool to unlock the doors of the welfare state.
Those days of high childhood mortality are long gone, certainly in the first world countries like the UK. Most of the diseases that produced these results have either been eradicated all but completely or have been neutered by medical advances to the point where their impact is negligible.
If that means that some go childless, by choice or otherwise, then thats the way it is. I dont see why I should be obliged to subsidise other people bringing kids into the world that they cant afford.
What has the country come to, indeed you may well ask. Dont think you have to look too far for the answer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 93)
Comment number 94.
At 14:10 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:90#
Pytel also says in response to other queries by people interested in what he has to say and I quote:
"I cannot give you any advice as I simply do not know. I have some instincts which may prove wrong. So if you rely on any of my thoughts you are doing at your own risk. Times are unprecedented and I really do not have a clue."
Right! Good old evidence based blogging in action! His "gut feeling" in your words trumps everyone elses considered, thought out measured opinions because it fits a grand conspiracy theory!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 94)
Comment number 95.
At 14:25 22nd Sep 2010, allandown wrote:The following interchange during the interview is quite revealing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NR: You've scrapped the regional development agencies. These budgets are higher than that £1bn.
NC: Wel,l actually the net, if you really want to look at the budgets of the regional development agencies, which is a rather arcane subject, you'll find that, actually there was a net loss in the whole arrangement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The regional development agencies had a collective annual budget of about £2 billion. The Regional Growth Fund, £1 billion to cover two years is therefore a quarter of what has previously been invested to help grow local economies and create jobs. The only net loss in the whole arrangement is the Coalition Government's cut of 75%.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 95)
Comment number 96.
At 14:36 22nd Sep 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:92#
The kind of guy who runs from door, sticking cucumbers through the letterboxes shouting "The martians are coming!"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 96)
Comment number 97.
At 14:53 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:The cause of the financial crisis was an illegally operated pyramid scheme at the heart of our financial system, not over spending, (itself bad enough, the 'FIX' is in the linked blog i posted for you to read, it suggests the cutting of public spending is amongst the last of the steps the government should be taking.
30 years goes well before G.Brown and even T.Blairs reign of terror, but i think you know that really. Poor policy has let the whole Uk down, no surprise there then?? however the well paid politicians and advisors all took their portions of gold and silver, and provided us with 'poor policies'. (Lets not mention the expenses scandals)
The selling of the countries gold looks like a right blundering farce but i guess he needed money from somewhere to try to rebuild the country after the last tory government got the books in order, and deverstated the country as a whole, what with high unemployment - decrepid schools - and disasterous public ownership which we are only now realising we are getting fleeced by in our over inflated fuel bills. (The USA Enron scandal??)
The answer is not however to play 'whack a mole' with public services or destroy the countries benefit system - it is to close down the pyramid and begin creating 'real' jobs. Something no political party has done except in times of war, so what is next?? is it WW3?? Highly unlikely i hear you saying but if you look at the desperate acts of the world's nations (dash for the North pole) it isn't so hard to imagine another disasterous world conflict.
Gloomy outlooks i would suggest are the order of the day because the coalition government are cowards - they are too frightened to tackle the real problems with our countries finances, namely the illegal pyramid scheme which is still very much alive and kicking, draining even more money away from what really was the Anglo/American empire.
Religously speaking, i confess, i can see the pre-warned outcome is ever more likely to happen, more likely everyday the pyramid is left unchecked and yet the money used to prop up the nation like a huge crutch, is kicked away and replaced with a false promise of jobs which dont and wont exist anytime soon. Unemployment is set to rise to confound the situation. We need to kill the pyramid and prosecute the perpertrators and recoup any monies left in the system.
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 97)
Comment number 98.
At 15:14 22nd Sep 2010, Mark wrote:Words can't express how I feel about "Captain Clegg" and his band of merry turncoats.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _____
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . .\ _/___________
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . ..
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :O : ‘-, . . .
. . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :h ‘-, . .
. . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; .
. . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\
. . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;|
. . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . .
. . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . .
,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . .
\ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘s### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . .
. \/ /---‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (H##1 : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . .
. /,’_3E_ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ :; ‘t,__,!‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . .
. ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_'’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . .
. .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/\ . . . .
. .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ .
. .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \,
./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-
.| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :
: : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘
: : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / :
: : : : : :¯''~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : :
Complain about this comment (Comment number 98)
Comment number 99.
At 15:22 22nd Sep 2010, RedTez wrote:re fubar "You telling me that everyone who ends up being parents, intentionally or inadvertently actually gives the cost of it any consideration?"
No my friend - i think your telling me that. If we ever considered what being a parent would be like - i doubt any one of us would be a parent. A good thing we never do think everything through and at the age of consent - i wouldn't expect anyone to have a clue what being a parent really means.
If i saw a homeless dog with puppies, i would give it a home, i would give it food and water further more I would give it reassurance, protection and love. That's what makes me a human and not a wild animal. A wild animal most likely would ravage it's defenceless offspring and send the hapless animal rigidly on it's way.
Alot of the poor, the unemployed, the sick, and the elderly didn't set off in this condition, they arrived there often through NO fault of their own and a lousy government who thinks they can blame the victims of a failing policy for it's failure is quite frankly cowardly.
Once, we would rightly blame the useless government, if unemployment was either soaring upwards or staying stubbornly high, now since thatcher and the new labour governments - we blame the unemployed for their own fates. How sick is that, the government should get off their high laurels and earn the money we pay them and produce policies that at least damn well work!!
Why would a company, a large nationwide company, advertise jobs in their relevant local job centres, when there is not a vacancy?? This is currently happening up and down the country, people who are responsible for advertising these jobs have told me, i don't know why we are advertising for staff, we don't have any vacancies and havent had since before last xmas.
When you work out what that is about then maybe you might start to understand what British democracy has become, and then we were saying how good it is and tried to enforce it on countries around the world?? Jeesh!!
Just for good measure - look how great and wonderful the USA operates with its miniscule welfare system. Take a look and think about things - would your wealth be much use to you if the rest of the nation began to look like this??
https://abigailanddolley.blogspot.com/2009/12/detroit-case-study-part-1.html
Before starting to work out what caused this, try to work out what might have prevented it and maybe begin the turn around?? Welfare is not money for nothing despite what your tory friends might lead you to think.
Oh well, at least stop the thieves who are ripping off quadrillions before you cut off the less fortunate than yourselves. We obviously never need a NHS it's just a waste of money, UNLESS you fall ill or suffer an accident or go into labour unexpectedly!!! We dont need unemployment benefit, unless you lose your job and your area becomes a jobless region!! We dont need incapacity payments unless you have an accident at work and cant work anymore!!
The lib dems have shown their true colours, power hungry manipulators qith little or no integrity when it gets in the way of a taste of political success. The tories do what tories do - greed and err greed. The Labourites just spend and spend and spend and errr spend. Lots of political party supporters gettheir noses in the troughs or they huff and puff and join another party, one where they feel nearer to the trough i would guess.
Still - we still got death to look forward to!!! (P.S. Another reason why any body planning on being a caring parent, considering fully the pros and cons of such a notion, would have a good reason to maybe leave it out!!)
Best Regards
Complain about this comment (Comment number 99)
Comment number 100.
At 15:40 22nd Sep 2010, Mark wrote:"96. At 2:36pm on 22 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
92#
The kind of guy who runs from door, sticking cucumbers through the letterboxes shouting "The martians are coming!"
Nobody cares what a Tory public sector worker who doesn't even live in the UK thinks.
More news at 11.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 100)
Page 1 of 2