Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Cuts Margaret Thatcher could only dreamt of watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blind Monk)
    As will the present government.
    Which means real term cuts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It just annoys me to the core. Why should workers face hard times because of the bankers mistakes? We effectively nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, it is a completely unethical system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blind Monk)
    As will the present government.
    I guess we'll have to wait and see what our GDP will be in the next few years. Thatcher managed to increase government spending while lowering taxes due to an economy growing. I'm not sure if the current government will be able to do the same?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wallace32)
    Why are you mention Labour? This is an issue because Conservatives are in power. Labour didn't get in, Conservatives did and they are exploiting the economic climate do what they always want to do which is essentially keep the rich, rich
    What exactly is wrong with rich people being rich? For example, if the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting richer, would you see this as a bad thing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    It just annoys me to the core. Why should workers face hard times because of the bankers mistakes? We effectively nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, it is a completely unethical system.
    For once I agree with a Socialist. However, I suppose we would have different solutions. Mine would have been to let the banks go to the wall and then implement our version of Glass-Steagall. I suppose you would nationalise everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    What exactly is wrong with rich people being rich? For example, if the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting richer, would you see this as a bad thing?
    It's not fair that their should be greed in the midst of poverty. Ken Loach said the richest 10% of Britain have over £4 TRILLION in personal wealth alone. A tiny tax on that could wipe the entire national debt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    It's not fair that their should be greed in the midst of poverty. Ken Loach said the richest 10% of Britain have over £4 TRILLION in personal wealth alone. A tiny tax on that could wipe the entire national debt.
    Can you not do maths or do you just have no idea what our debt is?? Maybe we have very different ideas of the word tiny?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    For once I agree with a Socialist. However, I suppose we would have different solutions. Mine would have been to let the banks go to the wall and then implement our version of Glass-Steagall. I suppose you would nationalise everything.
    Glass-Steagall that was FDR doing that at the moment for A2 O.o
    I agree that if we had have kept speculative investment separate from people's savings perhaps the recent banking crisis could have been overted.
    But yes as a socialist, I would like to go further than FDR and take the banks into full democratic accountable public ownership.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goose1990)
    Can you not do maths or do you just have no idea what our debt is?? Maybe we have very different ideas of the word tiny?!
    Ok perhaps I meant to say deficit which is what 40 odd. 40 billion is 1% of 4 trillion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You should have CUT that 't' from the title.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labour would have done the same under Gordon Brown
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by joe3469)
    Glass-Steagall that was FDR doing that at the moment for A2 O.o
    I agree that if we had have kept speculative investment separate from people's savings perhaps the recent banking crisis could have been overted.
    But yes as a socialist, I would like to go further than FDR and take the banks into full democratic accountable public ownership.

    But for banks to work they must be independent as is the nature of banking. So really privatization would not make much of a difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    What exactly is wrong with rich people being rich? For example, if the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting richer, would you see this as a bad thing?
    Well firstly you can't have that. You can have total equality and everyone has the same amount of money or inequality where some people have more than others. So i have a problem with the rich getting richer because this can only increase the level of inequality.


    What is wrong with it in the context of Thatcherism is 28% of children in Britain were believed to be under the poverty line when Thatcher resigned and according Gini coefficient inequality rapidly increased.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wallace32)
    Why are you mention Labour? This is an issue because Conservatives are in power. Labour didn't get in, Conservatives did and they are exploiting the economic climate do what they always want to do which is essentially keep the rich, rich
    I didn't raise the issue, but it certainly is pertinent: you claim that public sector cuts are 'ideological' - well if it's an ideology, it's one shared by the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour.

    You're right, by the way. I want to keep the rich rich. However, I also want to make other people better off too, and ensure that those with ability become wealthy. What's your ideological commitment? To make people poorer or perhaps to hound them out of the country in pursuit of some egalitarian ideal where we can all be poor together? Sounds terrific.

    There isn't some sort of limit on the number of people who can be well-off. Acquiring wealth doesn't have a one-in, one-out policy: and I'm proud to say that, largely as a result of the Conservatives efforts in the 1970s, more people have become better off in this country.

    (Original post by ikoghoo)
    Actually, the conservatives PROMISED to ringfence the NHS budget. Remember those billboards "I'll cut the defecit not the NHS" with David's shiny face on?
    That's what I said, dear.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    It's not fair that their should be greed in the midst of poverty.
    Poverty in this country is no longer primarily an issue of economics, it is a social problem: and I've yet to see left-wing policies do anything to address it. Perhaps if they stopped suggesting that legitimate self-interest was greed and that there was some sort of nobility in not getting above your station and being dependent on the state, then maybe the poorest in our society would be living rather more fulfilled lives.

    Ken Loach said the richest 10% of Britain have over £4 TRILLION in personal wealth alone. A tiny tax on that could wipe the entire national debt.
    Believe it or not, just because something is a small fraction does not mean it is insignificant. As an example, I could trim a tiny fraction out of a vital part of your brain: I'm sure you'd notice it.

    Likewise, this whole nation is significantly overburdened with tax. I think the idea that half of a person's income - and I don't just mean the people paying 50% on income tax alone - can or should be taken by the government utterly obscene.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wallace32)
    And also the fact it clearly further supports this article:
    http://johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the...itish-politics
    That article is retarded. Yes we know national debt has been higher in the past, no one is arguing it wasn't, with the world wars and all. However we aren't cutting to get rid of the debt, we are cutting to get rid of the defecit. The DEFECIT.
    Big difference. Even with these supposed 'savage' cuts for the next four years we will still be increasing our debt. That's how bad this country's finances are.
    So Japan's debt is 300% of GDP. Good for them. How is that relevant to the UK? We already pay £40bn a year just on interest of our 70% debt. Would you be happy paying £170bn a year just in interest? Thought not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    It just annoys me to the core. Why should workers face hard times because of the bankers mistakes? We effectively nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, it is a completely unethical system.
    You seem to be forgetting that leading up to this crisis people were taking out mortgages they had no hope of affording and we had the highest personal debt ratio in the history of our country, it was higher than our GDP. The whole of the last boom cycle was based on the availability of cheap credit and a housing boom.

    Sure the banks have to take their share of the blame, but so must everyone who speculated on their mortgage and maxed out their credit cards. Also the previous government has to hold its hands up.

    It was foolish to increase government borrowing during an economic growth period (labour's second term in particular) and they did nothing to control consumer debt and the property boom that was fuelling it. Instead they buried their heads in the sand, changed from RPI to CPI and hoped it would all go away. It didn't


    (Original post by wallace32)
    Well firstly you can't have that. You can have total equality and everyone has the same amount of money or inequality where some people have more than others. So i have a problem with the rich getting richer because this can only increase the level of inequality.


    What is wrong with it in the context of Thatcherism is 28% of children in Britain were believed to be under the poverty line when Thatcher resigned and according Gini coefficient inequality rapidly increased.
    I think what you're confusing is inequality in monetary terms and inequality of opportunity. It is the latter that disgusts me and should be made the top priority of any statist government to solve. p.s. I don't believe in positive discrimination.

    If two people had the same opportunities in life and one had accumulated more wealth than the other, what would be wrong with that?

    Also poverty or "relative poverty" that you are discussing is a fallacy. Currently if you earn less than £15k a year you're classed as in poverty.

    Every student in this country is then in poverty. I suggest if you believe this to be poverty you need to travel more to some poorer countries and see what "absolute poverty" is all about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When will people realise. Every single year if we dont cut back we will be borrowing 160 BILLION more. Thats going to be added to our National Debt of a Trillion+

    We are living beyond our means. This type of spending constantly is unsystainable, we pay around 70 Billion pounds in interest alone, imagine what they money could be used elsewhere?!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    Ok perhaps I meant to say deficit which is what 40 odd. 40 billion is 1% of 4 trillion.
    Budget deficit is be £149bn in 2010/11,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's what I said, dear.
    But they HAVE cut the NHS budget, that's my point dear. If you have been paying any attention to what's been going on, you would have heard about how some doctors and nurses have been losing their jobs.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.