IT IS reported by some that during the great fires in Rome in AD 64, Emperor Nero ignored the inferno and instead sat up in his ivory tower playing a string instrument whilst people and property were razed to oblivion.
Blackpool’s systemic arson problem may not quite be a parallel to this ancient Roman blaze, but the attitude of its council continues what Nero began so many years ago.
In recent weeks I reported that the Green Parrot on Clifton Street had closed its doors. The Gasjet reported the same yesterday, announcing it as a mystery. There’s nothing mysterious about a business not being viable. There’s nothing mysterious about the council blowing the coffers until there’s nothing left, and the aftershocks of this are radiating through many businesses that in these hard times could do with a bit of support.
Since Yates’ burnt down, Clifton Street has had a black carcinogenic cloud above it: it has been left gloomy and miserable. Ask any trader in that area and they will tell you that whilst Cllr Wynne’s businesses at either end of Birley Street have been rewarded with a £5m light show on a whim, Clifton Street has been left to fend for itself following what Cllr Callow called an ‘upsetting’ and ‘tragic’ fire.
So tragic was the fire that even almost 18 months later the street remains in the same state of decimation as it was following the blaze – apart from some odd paintings that have surrounded ‘ground zero’ at a cost of £20,000.
To this day, businesses such as the award winning La Fontana restaurant are suffering, and Pauline Lai of the Mandarin put it perfectly in February 2009 when she said in the Gasjet;
“The only thing that will help all the businesses down the street, is if people know that a lot of shops and restaurants down this road are open.”
In the same month last year, Cllr Callow said;
“This fire has destroyed one of Blackpool’s iconic buildings and it is particulary upsetting as Yates’ had recently spent half a million pounds restoring the building to its former glory.
“I officially opened Yates’ last year after the painstaking work had been done and I know how proud people were.
“This fire is tragic because the opening of the nearby Travel Lodge and the completion of the revamp of Rumours had seen Talbot Square looking very fine again.
“We will now be talking to everyone concerned to see what is the best way forward.”
Presumably everyone concerned has now been spoken to by the council, but nothing has happened because just like Gordon Brown, the town hall circus went on a spending rampage leaving no money for a rainy day (unless you’re Blackpool Pleasure Beach).
Business operators have been calling for the council to publicise and illuminate Clifton Street for almost 18 months, but the town hall fiddlers have remained sat on their big fat pension pots waiting for businesses to go to the wall.
loading…
I don’t care if the council Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems or Monster Raving Lunatic they should be able to do the job. This one in Blackpool is failing all across the board and has to be replaced.
loading...
Totally agree interested;callow has to go,just Fisher mark 2.
loading...
I have to agree with interested to an extent, as Phil rightly said party politics doesn’t have as much meaning locally but I don’t want that smug Simon Blackburn as Council Leader. I couldn’t think of anyone worse for the job.
loading...
I can Callow.
loading...
Peter Callow is by no means perfect but I would rather have him over Blackburn anyday. Personally I think the ideal man for the job would be a council equivalent of Paul Maynard. Someone young, dynamic (not a socialist!!!) and hard-working dedicated to the area. My biggest beef with Me Callow is his age and I don’t mean that in an ageist point of view. I simply mean his views and visions are sometimes out of touch with a younger Blackpool resident like myself with aspirations for a 21st century Blackpool.
loading...
Simon Blackburn would be ten times better than Callow!
loading...
I disagree personally, I can’t stand Blackburn. Having him and Marsden would be like my worst nightmare. It is bad enough Marsden was re-elected, Blackburn being Council Leader would be a double whammy it would be like a resurrection of Roy Fisher.
loading...
I agree TB myopic hang up over Simon being a socialist would make little or no difference on the Local level. As for this age Cowell age has nothing to do with this age if it comes with experience is more of a benefactor then a hindrance. The key word being experience and not I have lived in Blackpool all my life and a council member for 25 of them.
loading...
I am not being ‘myopic’, I may hate socialism but I don’t like Blackburn anyway as a councillor political ideologies aside, I find him cocky and smarmy. His partner can have a go all she wants but that’s my view and I am entitled to it. I do not want to see him as Council Leader, Roy Fisher II.
loading...
I would rather be called a socialist then a Capitalist any day of the week.
loading...
In contrast I would rather be called a capitalist than a socialist anyday. I hate socialism with a pure passion.
loading...
Tory cuts will devastate public services, halt recovery and hit the poor and vulnerable and the working class – starting with public sector employees, punishing them for a financial crisis they did not cause. Meanwhile, those who did cause it are still collecting their bonuses. Their risks of failure are borne by taxpayers, while the greedy rich continue their self-enrichment. Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy collected £5.2 million in pay and bonuses, excluding pension contributions, last year. He will retire at 55 on a pension of around £1 million a year. Ordinary workers have take pay cuts, work until they drop and get measly pensions – always assuming that the cuts leave them with a job. Your right lets all become capitalists.
loading...
Robert Owen father of British socialism you should hate this man he stopped children of ten and under working in coal mines and textile mills and educated them instead your right socialist scum.
loading...
I have nothing against Robert Owen. It is modern socialist scum like Bob Crow, Tony Woodley, Derek Simpson and George Galloway who I despise. I find these men repulsive.
loading...
Once again personalities and not policies TB
loading...
It is not personalities, I cannot stand the politics of these men as much as them themselves.
loading...
Labour caused the financial crisis with their spendaholic ways. This is NOT ‘Tory cuts’ they are necessary cuts. Don’t give all that ‘the poor and vulnerable will suffer’ stuff, under Labour the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Sir Terry Leahy has worked bloody hard to get where he is and he is a chief executive why shouldn’t he be rightly rewarded for such a demanding job. Are you saying binmen and train drivers should all be paid a king’s ransom just because the Tesco boss is? You make your own wealth as far as I am concerned. I hate the way socialists sit there jealous of better who are better off than them and trying to rob them of their hard earned wages.
Richard Littlejohn made a fantastic comparison of socialists and capitalists. A man drives down the street in a top of the range Jaguar. The socialist says ‘Let’s get that flash get out of that car, if we can’t have one noone should’. The capitalist says ‘If I aspire to better things get a good job and work hard I could be in that Jag one day’, my sentiments exactly.
loading...
I don’t agree, but I’m going to write a post about it instead!
loading...
I look forward to reading it Phil.
loading...
I look forward to pointing out your wrong.
loading...
You won’t because I am not wrong, I am entitled to an opinion.
loading...
Challenge of the week for you, create a new post summarising both capitalism and socialism and demonstrate why capitalism rules!
loading...
That’s a good challenge, but really I have just done that with the Littlejohn quote. But in a sentence. Socialism is the politics of envy and jealousy. It preaches laziness and is the reason we have people sat on their lazy arses expecting handouts they haven’t worked for. Capitalism promotes hard work, aspiration and basically says if you want something then work for it.
loading...
Impossible challenge as we are in this economic mire because of capitalism.
loading...
No we are not it is because of socialism and their spend spend spend, borrow borrow borrow mentality. The banks are not the reason we are £166bn in debt.
loading...
TB you convinced me we should scrap all socialist spending in this country. Free healthcare gone, Free education gone, Government pensions gone should I go on?
loading...
Free healthcare is gone. I am a chronic asthmatic of 18 years and I have to pay for prescriptions which I require quite regularly. I have to pay for dentists and eye tests. Also Labour ended free education by bringing unfair tuition fees in making university even more expensive.
loading...
I think Simon deserves a chance to be heard, Callow is appalling,a friend of mine who is true blue acknowledges this as well,Callow is inept.
loading...
Ten times nought equals….
loading...
As a Councillor, I could work alongside Simon Blackburn ( and most of the Blackpool Councillors) but not with either of the Callows or Ian Fowler. It isn’t a party political thing or even a personal thing, they just epitomise everything that is wrong with local government.
loading...
Agree, they breath… Like that Councillor Jack Fertilizer who got all the accolades for “ORGANISING” the veterans trip to the D-Day landing site, then left some of the real veterans off the list after promising them passage. Political expedience?
loading...
Labour caused the financial crisis with their spendaholic ways.
No they didn’t the banks caused the current economic crisis capitalist to the core quick profits fuck everything else.
loading...
Labour supporters always blame the banks with their myopic memories. The reason we have a £166bn deficit is because Labour kept on wasting money they never had. The banks are only part of the problem.
loading...
Your right Labour did waste public money like buying banks and paying of the capitalist mismanagement.
loading...
I am talking about before the recession, they have continously squandered money on non-causes and that is the reason we have a £166bn deficit, why can myopic Labour supporters not accept that?
loading...
So the debt is nothing to do with supporting banks? Fuck me all these economists don’t know what they are talking about do they fucking idiots. Then again perhaps there right and your wrong who knows.
loading...
You’re at it again, myopically denying that Labour is behind this massive deficit that we have. The deficit has been rocketing all the miserable years Labour was in power.
loading...
Public spending in 2008 go’s up to support the banks and the banks economic crisis which has led to the recession. 2008 37 BILLION 2010 160 BILLION. Oh done call me a Labour supporter because at present I am not and have not been for a decade.
loading...
Fair enough but you certainly act like a Liebour supporter.
loading...
No i act like a socailist just because i disagree with you doesn’t make me wrong.
loading...
Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean I am wrong either as you seem to think.
loading...
Its true, the banks have screwed us and both parties have by and large let them off the hook,so much for the tobin tax!
loading...
Free healthcare is gone. I am a chronic asthmatic of 18 years and I have to pay for prescriptions which I require quite regularly. I have to pay for dentists and eye tests. Also Labour ended free education by bringing unfair tuition fees in making university even more expensive.
How do you know you are a chronic asthmatic did a government paid doctor tell you? Prescriptions faction of what they cost. Dentist capitalists they could work for the NHS and some do but not many because their capitalist you can’t complain about that it what you want. How do you know your clever enough to go to uni did the state pay for your education until you were 18 (or in your case 21).
loading...
Typical Labour supporter again trying to deny what they have done and twisting it. Many prescriptions are not a fraction of what they cost. Yes I did pay for my education at university and I plan to return to university to train as a doctor but Labour is making it more expensive. Tuition fees are unfair and hypocritical. They were forced upon England by Scottish Labour MPs because of our corrupt system. Also every MP in the House who attended university never paid a penny to go to university so why should I?
loading...
Sorry TB thought you were a nurse thought nurses didn’t pay tuition fees thought nurses got bursaries. You are right about free education a good socialist policy we are talking about socialism and not Labour. As for prescriptions if you look at medication given out by the NHS and what people pay for it I think it is a fraction but again you are right free healthcare good socialist policy but way am I surprise a capitalist resents any contribution to it.
loading...
Prescriptions are not a fraction of the cost with many medicines. My friend got a private prescription off hs dentist for some antibiotics and paid £4.50, on the NHS that would cost £7.20.
loading...
Often if the cost of the drugs is lower than the standard prescription price they will tell you and you can do this. I think it’s fair to say that in most cases the £7.20 is far less than the drug company receives – especially if you’re on a long course of medication.
There was an article in the Daily Fail a few months back about drugs companies hiking their prices by up to 1000% in two years because the NHS “doesn’t care about the cost of medicine”.
An example of the public sector fuelling capitalist greed, no?
Here’s the article.
loading...
A case of incompetent public sector staff not being properly held to account. They similarly made a right mess of GP contracts and the NHS dental system. Caveat emptor applied (buyer beware) – and if you are an idiot prepared to pay anything most people will say thank you and pocket the money.
The problem is that most drugs need a prescription – and private prescriptions are often quite expensive, and worse very variable depending on who you use.
It’s not helped by prescriptions being just £3 in Scotland and free in Wales and Northern Ireland.
loading...
Your are right TB lets scrap the NHS and only people who can afford to pay for healthcare should get it that way i done have to support all these sick people.
loading...
I never said that so stop twisting my words. That is exactly what Labour has done to universities made it so that ability to pay is a factor in going to university.
loading...
No I did my nurse training with the diploma but had to pay for my degree when I did the top-up course.
loading...
but you had 21 years of free education you were paid for a dipolma which allowed you to practice your profession but as a capitalist you feel should never pay for your education it should always fall down to people like me who have worked in full time empolyment since i was 16 way you lie round taking exam after exam what is fair in that i don’t see why i should pay for anyone education other then my own children or is that capitalism and as i am a socialist then i should support then education system for all?
loading...
Most prescriptions cost more than the drugs. If you get a copy of the BNF you’ll see that quite clearly – but because a prescription is required to get the drug you don’t have a choice. Ventolin inhalers can be bought for £7.24 if you buy them in a 5 pack – the NHS buying in enormous bulk will be paying far less. The prescription item cost is £7.20 so the NHS is probably winning on that score. Arthritis drugs such as diclofenac are far cheaper than the £7.20 item charge (costing less than 30p a dose) – and the cut backs on the amount that can be ordered on a single prescription means that increasingly profits are being made on most prescriptions to subsidise the more expensive drugs. An amoxicillin pill can be bought for 27p for just 270 pills (again the NHS will get huge economies of scale to reduce that cost) – so your 5 pill treatment costs the NHS less than a pound for which you pay £7.20. I don’t know if you can get access to the BNF online for free – but you can try to register here: http://bnf.org/bnf/ if you’re interested.
Why do you think TB was diagnosed for free though? Or that his education was free? The cost of that originally was bourne by people like TB’s parents through their taxes – and now he pays tax to pay his own way and to contribute for others. It’s not free at all if you work in this country. It’s only free if you are a bone-idle layabout who is a drug or alcohol addict who pees on monuments or Nazi salutes veterans and has never (and will never) contribute a penny to this country or their own living costs. We’re being lied to about who pays for what. Like this graduate tax – it’s a terrible idea. If a person going to university earns more as a result then they pay more income tax into this country. They’re also likely to either employ people, or contribute at a higher level to our industries to keep our businesses competitive or contribute to essential public sector services such as the NHS, schools etc. And if a course doesn’t produce people that earn more, they should be shut down.
loading...
Excellent comment Frustrated. Also interested because I work I pay a damn sight more tax than workshy layabouts who I am subsidising.
loading...
so you are saying TB because you pay tax everthing you want should be free? are you saying because my kids are not in the government education system i should pay less tax? or are we saying people have a scoial resposibilty and if you are like me and my wife because we pay more we still shouldn’t be allowed to opt out of the tax system?
loading...
Interested – I take your point about the banks’ greed and the global financial problems that resulted. But in the UK we also had a substantial structural deficit. This was nothing to do with the banks. We repeatedly spent more than we took in taxes and upped borrowing. And I despise Gordon for that because in his very first budget speech he ranted on about how paying interest was a waste and we should have low debt levels founded on economic prosperity he had inherited (and the Conservatives have claimed the credit for work done by Labour too, but two wrongs don’t make a right). When you constantly pay your running expenses on your credit card when you’re earning a lot, how on earth do you expect to be able to cope when the rainy days come?
Added to that we got lots of lovely public facilities (hospitals, schools, health centres) on PFI which means they’ll end up costing us a fortune and we can’t get out of the cost of that. So yes, Labour should be blamed for the mess we’re in – not the bank part which will actually make the country a large profit when we can gradually start selling the shares on the open market – but for the structural deficit part. Just as the Conservatives can be blamed (as can Gordon for the gold reserves) for selling off so many assets to the private sector. I understand that unions made public sector management unfeasible but the unions should have been made to behave rather than the privatisations going ahead.
loading...
These are Labour ideas and not prue socialism and i agree if labour had managed the tax payers money better then we would not be so far up shit creek and if we were we might have a paddle or two. I am not defending the Labour government but socialism. I am also not defending unions although i do feel there is a place for them a good strong union stops bad practices i point to TB union body (i know its a professional body but it takes the place of the union).
loading...
Some good points there, but I think unions in their present form should be abolished. They are just left-wing pressure groups run by champagne socialist militants who want to wreck the country unless they get their way. I think they should be banned from funding political parties and banned from having links to parties. They should be non-partisan. The main reason among many others I will not join Unison is because I will not pay subs and support an organisation which backs and funds Labour.
loading...
I agree TB, unions should concern themselves with workers concerns and thats it;not align themselves with any political party.
loading...
You are right Harold unions should put their members first but it is naïve to feel that unions will stay apolitical. Lets take today the Torys are sacking civil servants but because they are the government of the day they can introduce laws that can circumvent agreements that the government had with unions to pay good redundancy payments. So it is in unions (and therefore their members) interest to have influence within political parties and to introduce laws to stop such support then you are trying to stop workers representation but it would still be alright for very rich business man to give donations to political parties so they could have influence.
loading...
It would not stop workers having representation. What annoys me about unions is that they don’t work for the members they work for political gains. When Labour is in power they play nicely and work with them. But when there is a Conservative Government they go all out to try and grind the country to a halt with their militancy. Like right now how they threatening waves of strikes. We have just come out of one of the worst financial crises for decades and all they can think about is striking to get back at the Tories out of spite. And yes it is alright for rich businessmen to fund political parties. I assume you are pointing the finger at people like Lord Ashcroft saying that. There is a difference. These rich businessmen are donating their hard earned money. Unions are donating money paid to them by workers some of whom are not Labour supporters to the Labour Party. Also I think you will find Labour takes donations from rich businessmen also. Alan Sugar is a well-known Labour donor and so is one of the richest man in Britain steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal. I have no problem with that.
loading...
Bit confused by this last statement you seem to be saying either only the rich can have political influence because they work hard for their money OR people who are not so rich should not be allowed to collect their money and have similar representation because they don’t work hard for their money?
loading...
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying trade unions should be banned from donating because they represent and collect subs from people across the political spectrum and refuse to join unions because I don’t my money backing Labour. But with the businessmen they are donating money they have gained through business.
loading...
You can opt out on paying political subs so no problem then. People who don’t opt out don’t mind this.
loading...
I know that, but they still make massive objections to the Labour Party something I have a strong moral objection to and they have links with Labour which I also object to. Unions should be politically impartial. They are just militant bullies who use their influence to attack the Tories when in Government.
loading...
Going by what Tony Blair said last night on Andrew Marr, he said big business donors rarely asked for anything and the main problem was the unions wanting something back.
loading...
Tony Blair is to be believed in everything he says particularly now he is looking for patronage from these single donors.
loading...
Pure socialism does not work though, particularly in a country that has a proportion of middle and upper income groups like yourself.
Without a market economy, the chances are you would not be earning your six figure salary, private education wouldn’t exist so you’d be forced to use the state system whether it was good or bad. Similarly there would be no private healthcare system, in fact no private anything in a full socialist state. We would all become pawns in a socialist machine.
Is this what you want?
The chances are the state would be – as the NHS is often touted as being – inefficient because there are no targets and no monetary constraints.
Any government operated institution is a ‘socialist’ institution, but that doesn’t mean that NHS supporters are advocates of socialism as a mechanism for governing the whole economy.
Aspects of socialism can and do exist with capitalism (the UK obviously being an example of that) and I would certainly argue that without the capitalism bit the socialism bit would cease to exist, merely because the socialist bit needs someone to pay for it.
Arguably there is more money available for the socialist bits due to the capitalist market.
loading...
Phil I am not saying we should be a dictatorial socialist country but neither should we be a free capitalist only country. When people make statement like socialism is wrong and evil then they clearly don’t look at what positive effect socialism has had on the country they live in. I feel this country would be better of if we had more socialist policies then at present. The prime example of this is banks they shouldn’t be allowed to run and operate the why they have for the last 30 years; UK depends on them to much for this to be the case. Do I think the banks should be nationalised no but must of them are. Do I think low paid civil servants should become unemployed because the capitalist banks became bankrupt because tax money is being used to bail them out NO. it would seem to me that capitalist are happy to be capitalist until they need government money to help them out then it would appear a bit of socialism is alright.
“Arguably there is more money available for the socialist bits due to the capitalist market.”
Tell the banks that one.
loading...
The so-called banking crisis is set to net the treasury something like £30bn over the next few years when it decides to sell its preference shares. So yeah, it’s extra money for the socialist bits.
The shares of Lloyds Banking Group are already at the stage where the government makes a big profit if they sell, but they’re hanging on for more.
It’s not the banks that are causing the civil servants to be unemployed though: it just meant that it happened sooner.
What socialist policies would you implement that don’t include banks? Clearly if your kids are in private education then you appreciate that capitalism can have benefits in those terms.
Similarly if you work in or use private health the same applies.
loading...
Also, you have to remember who pays for the public sector in Britain – it’s the capitalist private sector.
Companies are doing worse, staff are being paid less, and so less is available to pump into civil service salaries and pension pots.
The private capitalist sector sustains the public sector. Since the private sector is doing shit, which it is, the public sector has to make efficiencies.
In a true socialist environment of course, they would have technocrats running the civil service replacing every human interaction with a machine. Would you want that?
loading...
Exactly Phil socialism is all about spending other people’s money. How do socialists get money? It is of course capitalists that create wealth.
loading...
I could argue very strongly about the banking system here phil but I am in London at 10.30 tomorrow so I am going to bed but I think I will post on Sunday.
loading...
I’m doing an article about all this anyway so you can fuel yourself up to smash it to pieces when I finish it!
loading...
Why do you think TB was diagnosed for free though? Or that his education was free? The cost of that originally was bourne by people like TB’s parents through their taxes – and now he pays tax to pay his own way and to contribute for others. It’s not free at all if you work in this country.
This is what is called Socialism. If you go back in history and see what is was like before the socialism movement developed this was not happening.
loading...
That’s socialism lite. In a strict socialist society people receive a salary based on their labour contribution to society determined by the government, because the government controls everything.
So for example, if you spent 10 hours digging a hole, it would count more than you painting a picture for 5 hours even if the painting was the Mona Lisa.
Innovation and creativity is basically shut down in a socialist society – look at China as a shining example of zero creative output. Any art, music, or innovation? Nope.
loading...
Spot on Phil excellent comment. interested it is like I said the other day do you really think the cabin crew should be paid the same as the pilot despite the obvious gulf in skills and training just because they work the same hours.
loading...
Phil you may say it is socialism lite if you go back a 120 years would the socialist of the time feel the same way. Or are you comparing it to dictatorship countries which twist socialism and you call that socialism hard. Do I think communism works no do I think we should stop all capitalism in the country no do I think capitalism should have free rain to do whatever they feel brings them the biggest profits NO.
How about the Russian artists , Ilya Kabakov, Ernst Neizvestny Mikhail Shemyakin, , and Vera Mukhina how about the Russian school of ballet all were strong under communism.
loading...
Most prescriptions cost more than the drugs. If you get a copy of the BNF you’ll see that quite clearly – but because a prescription is required to get the drug you don’t have a choice. Ventolin inhalers can be bought for £7.24 if you buy them in a 5 pack – the NHS buying in enormous bulk will be paying far less. The prescription item cost is £7.20 so the NHS is probably winning on that score. Arthritis drugs such as diclofenac are far cheaper than the £7.20 item charge (costing less than 30p a dose) – and the cut backs on the amount that can be ordered on a single prescription means that increasingly profits are being made on most prescriptions to subsidise the more expensive drugs. An amoxicillin pill can be bought for 27p for just 270 pills (again the NHS will get huge economies of scale to reduce that cost) – so your 5 pill treatment costs the NHS less than a pound for which you pay £7.20. I don’t know if you can get access to the BNF online for free – but you can try to register here: http://bnf.org/bnf/ if you’re interested.
Can you afford to bulk buy?
loading...
You wouldn’t need to bulk buy if the public were allowed to buy these things direct from the wholesaler. True you might not get them for 27p each – but given a standard course is around 10 pills you’d still pay a lot less than £7.20 even if a hefty mark-up was added by the pharmacy that would still buy in bulk.
loading...
TB says
I hate socialism with a pure passion.
BUT he wants the socialist dream of free education something that socialist decry the Labour party for abandoning.
TB says
I hate socialism with a pure passion.
BUT he moans that he has to pay for some of his healthcare but if it wasn’t for socialist there would be no national free healthcare at all.
TB says
I hate socialism with a pure passion.
BUT when dentist practice capitalism by opting out of the NHS he seem to be critical of government for letting them do this.
TB says
I hate socialism with a pure passion.
Because he think socialists are work shy which he has no prove for and is a mass generalization bit like me saying anybody who supports capitalism are Nazis and want to set concentration camps up to gas anyone who they think are subhuman.
loading...
You are twisting my words yet again. I never said socialists are workshy, I simply said socialism promotes laziness in certain quarters. People sit around feeling sorry for themselves thinking hard working people like me should subsidise them and I don’t agree with that. I believe if you want wealth you want a nice car, a big house and a good disposable income then work for it, I feel socialism discourages aspiration because socialists want to hammer people who do well in life. I was not criticising dentists for going private I believe in the free market and they have every right to go private. I go to a private dentist anyway, before I was simply pointing out how Labour does not represent free healthcare and education as some myopic Labour supporters claim.
loading...
I thought you were saying I hate socialism with a pure passion. Not I hate the Labour party but it would seem one of your problem with the Labour party is the fact they are abandoning socialism.
loading...
I hate socialism and the Labour Party with a passion. I am not bothered they are abandoning socialism. I am pointing out how myopic Labour supporters say silly things like ‘Labour believes in free healthcare and education’ when they clearly don’t. I am a capitalist I support doctors/dentists etc who want to go private and I have no problem with private schools something else Labour supporters are obsessed with.
loading...
I thought we were talking about socialism you seem to be saying you want the socialist principals of free education and health and you hate Labour party for not supporting them? Very confusing that.
loading...
No that is not what I am saying. I am blasting Labour for claiming they represent those things when they don’t. Like that mypoic Labour supporter ‘frustrated of blackpool’ made a ridiculous comment once. He said ‘As a Labour supporter unlike the Tories I believe in free education and healthcare’ but Labour doesn’t represent those. But what really gets on my nerves is people like Andy Burnham saying stupid things like ‘Only the rich could afford to go to university under the Tories’ when he went to Oxford for free. University was free under the Tories. I am not a socialist so please stop trying to insinuate I am.
loading...
I know TB you hate socialism with a passion yet you seem to like some of the socialist policies again I don’t see what hating socialism has to do with the Labour party.
loading...
I do hate socialism you are the one generalising now. You are saying just because I support the NHS and complain about the unfairness of tuition fees I am a socialist which I am not. I am more pissed off about tuition fees because Labour lied and they were voted in by Scottish MPs which I find unfair because of the corrupt system. There is more to socialism than ‘free education and healthcare’. It is the whole ‘everyone should be equal’ bit I despise because I believe it is nonsense and I oppose Government interference especially in the NHS something socialism also believes in.
loading...
I wouldn’t dream of calling you a socialist TB all I am saying many socialist policies are something you feel strongly should be left alone (free health and education). You say you despise government interference in peoples lives but you are a strong supporter of the no smoking band isn’t that government interference in peoples lives? You say you oppose government interference in the NHS but without socialist there would be no NHS. “‘everyone should be equal’ bit I despise because I believe it is nonsense” I don’t think its nonsense just because I was born in a council estate and you were born in a “middle class” area doesn’t mean you are better then me, just because you got a degree at 21 and I got one at 35 does mean you are better then me, just because I earn six times your salary does mean I am better then you.
“There is more to socialism than ‘free education and healthcare’” you are right there is a social responsibility is part of it. Just because you are too old to work doesn’t mean that all your years of work and tax paying into society should be ignored and they should be looked after. You used Littlejohn jag as some sort of symbol for capitalism well lets carry on with this just because you can afford a 4litrre engine and all that pollution that engine generates does mean you should be allowed to forget your social responsibility to the plant and the generations that follow you. Capitalism as abandon the idea of responsibility to everything but money.
loading...
You are completely twisting my words. You don’t know if the NHS would exist or not without socialism. I never said ‘I am better than you and I did NOT get a degree at 21 I did my nurse training later on. I never said I despise all Government interference, I feel it is acceptable to a certain extent like the wonderful smoking ban. You keep banging on about ‘social responsibility’ but I don’t agree with that and that is my view doesn’t mean I am wrong. I don’t believe people who are too lazy to work should be able to leech off hard-working people like me and I certainly don’t believe everyone should be equal I think that is nonsense
loading...
USA greatest capitalist country in the world do they have a NHS? Maggie Thatcher the first lady of conservatism capitalist to her bones was quite willing to give large tax breaks to people who took out private health insurance so if enough people did this she could all but abandon the NHS.
So TB you don’t agree with social responsibility but you still think NHS should be paid for by tax and education should be paid for by tax and can you square that circle. Isn’t it less socialist for people to pay for their own healthcare and education (like charging students tuition fees up front like the greatest capitalist country in the world does).
I don’t feel people who don’t work and are capable of work should leach of the rest of us but neither does socialism.
You don’t believe everyone should be equal why not surly that’s a god given right or would you wish a society to say he’s not getting medical care because he to old, to fat, smokes to much and or drinks to much.
loading...
No it is not a god given right to be equal, I meant equal in terms of wealth I didn’t mean health and education. Why should everyone be equal? People who work in more highly skilled jobs often get paid more that is fair as far as I am concerned.
loading...
I think the major objection to socialism as it seems to be working in this country is that too many layabouts exist who know all about their “rights” to claim this, and claim that – and have no “reponsibilities” in return. They aren’t made to conform to many laws because any fines are paid out of money given to them. If they are unable to work because they have turned themselves into alcohol or drug addicts they are given extra incapacity benefit without any need for them to be making a genuine effort to change. I don’t mind being taxed to pay for people to get education and skills to enable them to work – or healthcare to make them well again even if that is to reverse self-inflicted harm provided they don’t endlessly continue to harm themselves. But that’s not how it’s working. It’s about buying votes. Uselessness = a guaranteed Labour voter because they’ll get most money given to them that way. And as well as being wrong, just how long are the rest of us going to work when we wouldn’t be much worse off financially sitting at home all day and certainly our quality of life would be a lot better?
loading...
Is it socialism or new labour which has brought us to the welfare state problems we have in this country? Socialism has nothing to do with handing out money to people who don’t work.
loading...
So what is your version of socialism with regards to supporting people without work?
loading...
If I had the answer to that you would already know about it because I would be the PM. Here are some of the things I think. I agree with the minimum wage people do need a set amount to live on I mention this because there are thousands of jobs out there that do need filling but because of the cost of living in this country is high people can’t afford to take them. People shouldn’t be paid large amounts not to work but they perhaps should be supported in grants for travel and or accommodation particularly in the short term to help them go for jobs which involve to much traveling expense. Perhaps a fairer system of credit supports for the minimum wage people. Perhaps we shouldn’t pay people in money but in vouchers if they are unemployed so we know that the support they receive is being spent on the basics of life and not pissed away at the pub. Perhaps people who are unemployed should spend 37 hours a week at job centers applying or attending job interviews. It is interesting to note that in communist Russia and China everyone works.
loading...
Actually I think minimum wage is a bad idea because I think it encourages employers to offer just that whatever and a lot of people equate minimum wage to requiring only minimum work. Of course just to abolish it wouldn’t be fair because some employers would unreasonably cut what they pay and whilst there’s a never ending flood of people from Europe willing to do the work for very little supply and demand for labour can’t alone keep wages fair.
Not sure if grants for travel would work, but I’m very much for improving the transport system – be it public or via car. If you read government studies (some pre, some post the election) it seems towns like Blackpool aren’t getting any help because they’ve given up on the idea of encouraging work to places outside cities. If that’s so we need far better opportunities for commuting.
Benefits is an interesting one. I’d like them structured so that no-one can be worse off working, that there’s one minimum level of income for your personal circumstance and they top it up provided there’s a safeguard for stopping certain salary levels being set and employees told their wage is actually better in reality because they will get tax credits as happens now. I’d certainly like to see less rigidity in the system of you must apply for x number of jobs. The number of cvs you get from clearly disinterested people with no skill for the job is now enormous. Far better to train or help them be suitable for areas where there are likely to become jobs available and keep or get them into working mode with some voluntary work type system. Vouchers would be a good idea for some – though money and teaching them to budget and have responsibility has to be the first aim. And what’s the point in sending trained professionals to work in supermarkets stacking shelves? They aren’t going to stay all that long and someone else could have the job long-term who’s unlikely to be able to do much better for themselves. And point out to people that lower-wage jobs are often a lot easier and less stressful than well-paid ones.
loading...
I certainly agree with the vouchers thing. I can’t understand why that doesn’t happen.
In Russia and China the standard of living is lower than in Britain, wouldn’t you say?
I am assuming they don’t have a minimum wage either. So they might ‘work’, but could it not be closer to slave labour?
loading...
Why no vouchers?
Stigmatism as being on welfare
No responsibility in managing the money they get – leading to even further decline in looking after themselves
Black market trading in vouchers / fraud etc.
The Chinese are using slave labour (and not just pay rates but lack of breaks, food, sleep etc.) – but they’d argue that this is their industrial revolution that we had in the 1800′s and we didn’t treat staff all that well for a long time. But whilst they have slave labour and poor ethical standards, how can we compete on price whilst we don’t have any tariffs? We’re killing our own economies off so that a few investors get exceedingly rich off slave labour arguing that if we didn’t they’d starve altogether.
loading...
I meant I supported vouchers instead of cash
loading...
Its a good idea, why not have vouchers instead of cash? Has this ever been tried?
loading...
I think vouchers is an excellent idea, it would stop benefit claimants squandering their benefits on drugs, fags and alcohol. I really can’t understand why that wasn’t brought in years ago, why should people get cash handouts.
loading...
When I said vouchers I done mean paper vouchers or books but a credit card system and perhaps not all the money paid on the credit card. I also don’t think all people spend it on drugs drink and what ever and now that TB agrees with me I think I most be wrong.
loading...
Firstly I never said all benefit claimants spend it on those things but having worked in an off-licence in a past life I know of many people on benefits who would be in the shop at 7am buying bottles of spirits already stinking of booze and I see it in the hospital as well.
loading...
In answer to an earlier comment from interested;
The USA doesn’t have a NHS because the people in the USA don’t want one.
They had the opportunity to vote it in, but the middle classes were not prepared to pay extra tax so that those without healthcare under the current system could have it.
It is said that Mr Obama lost a lot of his brownie points by trying to implement his healthcare reforms.
loading...
Glad i live in the UK then.
loading...
This is one reason why pure capitalism doesn’t heres a few facts about the USA medical system.
According to WHO one of the best ways to measure healthcare in a country is to see how long the average person lives. People in the UK lives 3 years longer then in USA, we spend two fifths on healthcare then USA and WHO feels UK system is better. So the question is why does the USA want to have a more costly less affected health system? The answer is follow the money who makes money out of the healthcare system in the USA the capitalists who own medical insurance companies and what did they do when Clinton and Obama wanted to bring in a NHS system launched a massive advertising campaign to make sure the USA voters feel this is a bad idea. They told out right lies about the UK NHS and even got British politicians to join in these lies. This is what I mean when I talk about social responsibility can’t be left in the hands of capitalists because they don’t care as long as they make money.
loading...
And socialists don’t care whose money they spend or how much and then when we get a £166bn deficit they blame the banks and the capitalists have to clean up the mess. Sound familiar??
loading...
what a silly comment.
loading...
No it is not silly, it is true, socialists just spend other people’s money. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it is ‘silly’ I am entitled to an opinion.
loading...
You right TB we waste on the NHS and Schools.
loading...
Yes socialist governments do waste money on schools and hospitals. We don’t need shiny new buildings, it is the hard work of teachers, nurses and doctors that makes the difference. There are schools in Blackpool with shiny new buildings but no improvement in standards. Also there is so much waste in the public sector on non-job bureaucrats and red tape. Spending should be cost-effective.
loading...
I will say this slowly
Labour party — Socialism DIFFERENT.
I am not defending the Labour party.
loading...
I know that, but I hate them both with a passion.
loading...
That may well be the case, however if you have seen through these supposed lies, then surely a decent chunk of the Yanks did too.
I think the point is that in the USA, the ‘haves’ already have their healthcare, so they wonder why they should pay more for the same thing. They don’t care whether the ‘have nots’ remain so. Quite honestly I can sympathise with that, although I don’t think I would be so callous as to vote against the health reform.
In terms of an economy I think the American capitalist model is an example of something that works in terms of wealth generation but the demographics in America are totally different to here. There are many more people in poverty and the gap between rich and poor is massive. House prices are a fraction of what they are here and a first time buyer can get a home for under $15,000.
Fortunately the Americans see prosperity as a goal, ‘the American dream’, whereas we see it as something that should be taken away from someone at all costs.
The ‘have nots’ have been left behind in America, and some state controlled health, education and a welfare state would undoubtedly have helped them close the rich/poor gap. But this is a democracy, and Obama is now afraid to propose any more measures like this in case it costs his party seats like the healthcare reform did. So even the people’s hero, Mr “Yes We Can” has lost interest in equalizing his social demographic because of his own political interests.
On another point, you seem to be staunchly against the job losses in the civil service, so why is it all fine for medical insurance and other related companies to end up closing down in the USA as a product of what would have been a socialist measure? Furthermore, those medical staff that remained within a newly state controlled health system would inevitably have to take on huge salary cuts.
Maybe those evil Tories have something in common with socialism after all!
loading...
I think you have misunderstood me a bit about the civil service job losses. I don’t have a trouble civil servants being made redundant I do have problem with a government (when a country is in recession) deciding it is a good time to make the recession worst by throwing 1000s of people on the dole. I also a problem with a government who feels they can re-write the law so they don’t have to live up with their legal responsibilities to pay their agreed redundancies payments.
loading...
But that is precisely the time when staff we can do without need to be put on the dole because this is the time we cannot afford to pay them. In recession this is precisely what the private sector is doing – and the public sector needs to act more like them in this respect. Of course some parts should be protected and even increased (such as proper job advisers and business start-up help – though most at the moment are of very low quality that aren’t much help anyway). Of course if we’d not signed up to so much inward immigration we’d not have the costs of having to deal with so many children not speaking English as a second language which adds enormously to our education costs as well as holding English speakers back and of the course the crazy unnecessary costs of providing translation services for adults who choose to come here. Most of Europe have the common sense to make you either learn the language or pay for a translator yourself. And meanwhile we have low skill jobs being done by non UK citizens which is crazy. And even for skilled jobs we have the crazy system whereby training is in very short supply as it’s easier for most smaller firms on budgets to just get someone else in who can already do the jobs.
loading...
But that is precisely the time when staff we can do without need to be put on the dole because this is the time we cannot afford to pay them
No its not. This is a fundamental difference on how governments should manage recession (and to a certain extent on how big companies should manage recession) countries come out of recession quicker and stronger if employment during the recession remains high (this is a historical fact) so it makes sense to follow this model. Plus why you are saying we don’t need these staff why are the civil service recruiting 1000s of temporary staff to replace them?
loading...
Do you have any links I can check regards this mass employment of temporary staff to replace those that are being axed?
Are you sure it’s not just a transition period so the civil service can be remodelled and the jobs being done by the temps can be absorbed by others?
The private sector has been axing jobs for 2 years due to this recession yet the public sector has remained oblivious to it. Unfortunately the belt has to be tightened sometime, and this time would have come under any Government due to the size of the structural deficit (unless they were going to really ramp taxes up but no Government would do that unless it wanted to be voted out).
I’d be more than happy to see them impose a 99% tax on any earnings above £40,000 for example. The ultimate socialist measure, tax the middle class to pay for the poor and in the process wipe out anyone amassing any kind of wealth. It would also help retain loads of public sector jobs. Would you vote for it though, interested?
loading...
That is just why I despise socialism, it is a jealous and envious vision of people with wealth. It is ‘robin hood politics’ and I don’t agree with that. Generally speaking people who earn more money contribute a lot more the country and economy than poor people. More well-off people pay a lot more tax, spend more money and take a lot less out of public services.
loading...
IDS want to reform the welfare system to a cost of 3 billion;to simplify it, cos as we know its become toocomplex,wastefull and open to fraud, he will need to retain staff to achieve this.This is an ongoing battle between him and the Treasury.
loading...
My post was how governments in the past has successfully managed recessions keynesian economics has proved time and time again that this works and a purely driven free market fails. I take phils point about the private sector in some, case my company has increased it’s staffing levels and is spending large amounts to increase its size. This constant rubbish about socialism wants to tax the middle classes out of being are rubbish. Phil the free market approach is failing that’s why (or at least one reason) we are in a recession. So very carefully this is not about retaining public sector jobs this is about getting a country out of recession. It is also about why a government shouldn’t be allowed to go back on their agreements.
Now how can we generate money to afford this well naturally we can loan from the world bank, which we are doing and we do have to pay back, however after we are out of the recession there would be more private jobs therefore we can then let people leave public employment were they would fine work in the private sector and as expenditure falls government income would increase therefore loan would be paid back. We can generate more tax not by taxing the middle classes like this government is going to do or increasing VAT (a really great tax).
The Government has announced a levy on banks that will yield £2 billion-£2.5 billion a year. This is based on a percentage of a bank’s liabilities booked in the United Kingdom. Yet the IMF says banks are under-taxed and we should aim for higher tax of around £6 billion a year. Banks are masters of tax avoidance and will artificially shift taxable transactions to secretive tax havens. Analysts at UBS, the global financial services firm, say they expect the legislation in this country to lead to a significant review of group structures and where trading activity is booked in order to minimise the tax charge. So we need to be proactive. We can raise much more than £6 billion by closing the loopholes. We should make directors personally liable for any tax avoided. We should auction of deposit-taking licenses every five years or so this brings banks under regular public scrutiny at set intervals. There should be a Tobin tax levied on foreign exchange transactions at 0.05 percent would generate £255 billion world wide 45% coming to the UK est. so we could generate great amounts of monies without taxing the working classes. This would allow continuing public sector payment into the economy drag the country out of recession not give a high tax burden on the people or most business. These are socialistic policies I have yet to see the it is a jealous and envious vision just should and sensible practices.
loading...
Rubbish. Keynes talked about supply and demand and then said that more or less everything wasn’t as simple as that because we don’t have a perfect free market. It’s not the free market that fails – simply that we don’t have one.
Socialism has to tax the middle classes most (just as every government does) – because the rich can structure their affairs to avoid a lot and there aren’t enough of them anyway and the poor don’t have enough to pay for what they use from state benefits.
The argument that we should pay for public sector staff in a recession so that they can continue to buy goods is deeply flawed. Why pay several multiples of the benefits they would be on just so that they can go on a shopping spree compared to everyone else out of their taxes (because state employees don’t really pay taxes as all their income is paid for out of taxes).
Banks are a clear example of Keynesian economics not applying – the barriers to entry of having enormous capital reserves mean there aren’t enough of them. Given how much Blair and Brown relied on the banking and financial sector to fund our economy we can’t afford to piss them off and them go elsewhere as we’d miss their money too much. And I think you’ll find if you look properly that directors are personally liable for most debts when their business goes bust. If they did anything wrong they are liable for taxes – most have personal guarantees on loans taken out for their businesses if the business didn’t have sufficient assets to cover their loans. And hitting business owners any further when everything goes wrong is going to discourage many more businesses from starting up or entreprenuers trying again to start up avoiding the mistakes of last time. It’s hard enough to persuade people to start their own businesses as it is without trying to enforce tougher penalties if they fail. No wonder so many moan on about not having jobs – just who do they think is going to create them when business owners are seen as the enemy? And masters of tax avoidance? Haven’t you seen the anti-avoidance legislation that’s been in place for years that means every transaction of this type has to be reported to the Treasury so that they can legislate against it the next year if it does work?
loading...
Sorry you spell it entrepreneurs
loading...
Further to what Frustrated has said, to think that hammering banks for tax doesn’t tax the working classes is naive. They will simply push their charges up. Current accounts will no longer be free, rates of borrowing will be higher, pensions and investment returns will drop.
The overall outcome would be the bank makes the same money but everyone else pays for it. But hey, we’re “taxing the banks” so it’s all ok.
loading...
We have a fundamental disagreement on how to manage recession your approach to recession is close down the hatches and weather the storm and you say that’s how private business operate. I say the government should act like large private companies (like the one I work for) and use money and expand admittedly the percentage profit would drop but after recession it pays off. I feel government is not about pounds and pence its about people look at recessions which have made millions of people unemployed and good percentage of these people have stayed unemployed for long periods if not forever. The civil servants who will be made unemployed spend money in the economy and without that money the economy falls further in recession, more people in private industry will become unemployed check out the new car industry at present, history tells us governments that do not respond to recession spend longer in it and do not come out as quick. I am not saying civil servants should have jobs for life if they are not productive then they should not be employed but not in recessions. I talked about how to fund this and nowhere did I say it should fall onto individual Taxpayers or business but banks. Your point about Keynesian not applying to banks is because is in part true but only in part governments (and I mean this in a international way) managed banks in a poor way.
Frustrated you seem to have misread my post and phil you seem to feel banks have the right to do what ever they feel with no monitoring or control. Frustrated I know directors are responsible for debts I said personally liable for tax avoidance. Bank are being under taxed governments should stop this. Or are you saying we should have one rule for the rich and another for the poor? The present tax avoidance laws are a joke as far as Banks are concerned and I guess you agree with me when you say the government can alter laws to stop this so you are in agreement that banks should be taxed correctly along with everyone else at present they are not so if we do we will raise a large amount of tax I am not only saying banks should be taxed but the should face the taxes everyone else’s face. Do you know why banks at present are taking such unbelievable risk because the governments are willing to bail them out anytime they need them too? Therefore I feel at present a Tobin tax is fair for all banks that have had government cash (it was right for the government to support the banks at the time and I point to Keynesian economical policies to justify government input at a time of recession)
As for phils comments they would push their charges up to recover their tax liabilities I point out my comment “auction of deposit-taking licenses every five years or so this brings banks under regular public scrutiny at set intervals” if banks are doing this the license would be taken of them and at present many banks own their survival because of government intervention so we could make sure this charges rise doesn’t happen. Other banks that don’t follow these rules would never get government support if they hit financial problems at any stage and in this present climate this would seriously affect the banks share prices therefore they would toe the line.
loading...
You say the government should expand like a private business, but unfortunately the government is not a business, and by expanding, all it does is generate higher overheads with a net drop in tax income (since it’s paying the wages and pensions of all the civil service staff).
I don’t see why banks should be treated any different from other businesses to be honest. Sure, close any tax avoidance loopholes and apply legislation to restrict the risks that banks are allowed to take, but obsessively taxing banks because you deem them to make too much money is no different from me saying you should be obsessively taxed because you earn a six figure salary.
You can obtain just about any information you want on any bank. The figures and accounts are all freely available. It’s not their fault that nobody has scrutinised them.
loading...
I have already spoken why you should follow the keynesian economic policy during a rescission because historically it works. I agree we can’t really compare government to companies all I was suggesting is that not all companies feel during the recession a need to cut jobs so when you people say the government should follow private companies policies of reducing outgoing during a recession that in itself may not be the case. I repeat my case the government should keep spending money to keep unemployment low (because if the government lay off thousands of people they will stay unemployed and revenue they generate to private companies disappears) because historically governments who have done this have come out of recession quicker and stronger then governments who haven’t, then the government should reduce the expenditure (at this point the economy should be strong enough to absorb job loss from the government so as expenditure falls there should be no fall in tax pounds received). This is nothing to do with socialism as some people think it’s an economical proposal for countries in a recession.
I agree phil banks shouldn’t be treated differently but they are being did Woolworth’s get a bail out when it went bankrupt? You already stated that nationalised banks share prices are going up has all the debt which bankrupted them gone away where’s it gone or has our government agreed to cover these losses. Because banks know they can take these risk and that governments will ultimately cover them then yes they should be closely monitored “auction of deposit-taking licenses every five years” which is a tax but makes bank control themselves or they lose the licenses. Where have I said (except from the tobin tax we should tax banks excessively (and as far as I am concern the tobin tax should be a one off considering the banks which this should apply to wouldn’t be there unless for government involvement)) all I have talked about is taxing them correctly and not letting them get away with tax avoidance schemes.
As for your last sentence you are not that naïve to feel that it is that simple you are to intelligent to think it is.
loading...
Yes banks should certainly be treated different to say Woolworths. There’s plenty of evidence of what happened pre the BOE being lender of last resort. Dodgy banks went under and all their customers (personal and business) went bankrupt overnight. Given the size of these banks we really couldn’t afford that sort of immediate overnight recession/depression that could result. It’s not about being nice to the banks – it’s protecting their customers and the wider economy which is paramount.
loading...
If banks are going to be treated differently then other private businesses then surly they should be some tax difference as well.
loading...
“There should be a Tobin tax levied on foreign exchange transactions at 0.05 percent would generate £255 billion world wide 45% coming to the UK est. so we could generate great amounts of monies without taxing the working classes. This would allow continuing public sector payment into the economy drag the country out of recession not give a high tax burden on the people or most business. These are socialistic policies I have yet to see the it is a jealous and envious vision just should and sensible practices.”
Thats what I support Interested, the TOBIN TAX;the banks created this mess we are in and both parties have let them them off,to a degree.I even went on the TPA site asking why the TPA doesnt do any articles about the banks given that taxpayers money was used to support them: no reply.The private sector was fucked by the banks, now the public sector is to get its cuts (I mostly agree with them to get rid of non jobs and inefficency) but the people who caused this have walked away laughing.
loading...
You think banks pay a Tobin tax? Maybe nominally but the money comes from businesses that import and export. There’s no easy way to get the banks – they aren’t a free market, more of an informal cartel. Look at the tax on bonuses. They still got the same amount in their hands despite royally screwing up whilst people with mortgages and savings accounts were screwed on their margins. I’m all for getting the bastards who got us in this mess – but I haven’t heard of one way that will actually get them yet.
loading...
So there is an agreement that banks should be taxed and we need international laws to impose these changes. Five years ago this would be laughed at but not now the crisis has effected every western country there would be little or no public support of banks if laws to control them where put in place. But we do need international laws and to get international laws in place would be easier because we are in the EU (I wait for the four letter responses to the last statement).
loading...
I agree the banks have to be controlled, there are the enemy.
loading...
I wholeheartedly agree international controls are needed – but taxes as a tool will come out of our pockets, not the bankers’ bonuses. And this is not an EU issue as all countries would need to sign up or all the banks would just relocate to another country needing the money the banking industry brings. I can’t see it happening in reality.
loading...
Just seen a bloke on Sky News who said what we actually do need is a way for banks to go to the wall and their customers be protected from it, i.e. get transferred to another bank or whatever.
This way we wouldn’t need the government to step in to save a bank again and the free market could rule.
I don’t really feel that taxation even of bonuses will make any difference: taxing bonuses is just the jealous majority trying to hit back at the bankers that take more bonus home in a year than many people earn in a lifetime. It wont make any difference to risky banking practises, but it will probably mean that bankers go abroad to avoid the UK’s taxation.
loading...
Haven’t seen this so I need help in understanding it. So the banks go bust and the others take on their debts and assets but that would make them grow fast overnight without enough capital reserves, a failure risk themselves especially when the speculators get their hands on them (unless we suspend all dealing in all bank shares on such an event whilst the bank builds up those reserves but that’s like signing them off as bankrupt). And even then the losses are all born by the shareholders – which are usually British pension funds. I really can’t think of a way in which banks can be allowed to fail and that’s why the BOE has been the lender of last resort since the 19th century (and the IMF the international version)
loading...
The bit about customers going to other banks was something I added but can’t really see any other way a bank could be allowed to fail.
You see, often the likes of Mr Cable say Bank X is ‘too big to fail’, but even if you took Lloyds and broke it up into TSB, Lloyds, Halifax, Bank of Scotland, etc, each of them would still be too big to fail.
Even a comparatively small bank such as Northern Rock was deemed too big to fail and was taken over.
So what is not too big to fail?
Surely no banks can be allowed to fail, ever.
loading...
How free is the free market, or is it rigged by banks?
loading...
Rigged in what way?
Obviously banks tend to be needed to provide capital for businesses, but take the banks away and you take the businesses away. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
loading...
I dont know,Vince cable said it was rigged,the market was, just asking if you knew.
loading...
Yep – banking / money lending is regulated so that you have to be huge to start up (a huge barrier to entry) so you lose the perfect market because there are far too few in it, and they choose to do the same thing rather than compete properly because they all do well out of it.
loading...
Cheers frustrated, so our economy is dicated by a cartel;time for change!
loading...
Well the pure socialist argument would have the economy regulated by one entity – the government. I’m not so sure this is something I would want, not after Gordon Brown had a crack and gave us this mess.
loading...
The free market generally (not just banks) is underpinned by banking but I wouldn’t say that it was ‘rigged’.
loading...
In the US, when capitalism was risking the State of Nation, the put in place a co-ordinated and legal framework to prevent it from intimidating the Government and had Standard Oil split into smaller units. When the Banks went cap in hand to Lieber, Gordon had not the wit to say to his business dumb cohorts, “put contract law into place”. Make the consideration such that those responsible were made to repay, with enormous interest, so that they could never repeat the futile and senile experiment with bogus US banking specials, and immediately empower a honest and true regulatory body to stand guard of OUR money.
No. Those same spineless shits who diddle petty cash through Westminster continue drinking the bankers unearned champagne; Lieber supporters dogmatically refuse to see no trees in the desert, everyone seems happy because it really has not affected them, even though their feeble mindedness in accepting 13 years of Lieber maladministration and ill thought through laws has resulted in the worst fiscal situation an all our lifetimes. Those responsible ultimately is YOU and Me, the electorate.
Apart from that, the sight of that Fat Bootneck with his tongue down that former Mayors lug hole is a sight to see. Is it on camera, folks?
loading...
Ive just moved to blackpool and looking to start a small new business in manufacturing,the problem ive found over here is that there is absolutely NO help.Theres no low rental start up units,no start up grants,no rate free periods,simply nothing apart from help doing my books so i can be a good tax payer as soon as i start earning.
Could someone tell me,why should i open a new business in blackpool when theres no help whatsoever and yet if i opened in preston or blacburn,there are start up units,grants available,ill be on the motorway network etc etc,the way the local council are going on,blackpool will become a ghost town full of empty shops and the unemployed,trying to get by on past glories and long lost reputations.
loading...
Neil, you have summed up Blackpool council period: Totally inept and NOT fit for purpose.
loading...
I am no supporter of labour or the inept Roy Fisher by any means as you know TB but Callow and co are part of the problem and NOT the solution;the solution being achieved only when he and his ‘conservative’ cartel go.The Callows were and still are, part of the political class (both labour and tory), that have managed Blackpool’s decline over the last 40 years.Their only experience/expertise in managing Blackpool has been in managing its decline, NOTHING ELSE.
For example where was Peter Callow crying out for a plan B when HE backed the casino bid??
On that point alone I could rest my case.
Blackpool will only improve when fresh,younger, business- minded,progessive and transport focused councillors come onto the political scene,REGARDLESS of party. Paul Galley being one noteworthy example.The state of Blackpool has gone beyond party politics now as regardless of party its been run to the ground; in fact you could argue over the last 40 years the ‘conservatives’ are more to blame as they have been longer in power as Blackpool is a conservative town.
I use quotation marks around conservatives as imho they are not true conservatives; they are a unique breed,parochial and backward looking,vision deficit.
Lets start backing individuals who show the right instincts for Blackpool regardless of party and then and only then will we be able to take those steps towards improving the town
loading...
I see what you are saying Harold, but Peter Callow was calling for a Plan B, it was the Conservatives who took Storm City on board in March 2007 a few months before the election while Fisher and Labour slammed the door on it. Sadly Storm City turned out to be a pipedream, the company behind it had the vision but not the capital. Blackburn is typical Labour he loves blasting the Tories but never offers workable solutions himself. He has no ideas.
loading...
I agree TB.
Peter Callow & co have some excellent ideas,from planning to remove much used and needed railway stations and lines (which ought to be extended) and creating massive congestion by constricting roads on the seafront.The completion dates of the tatbot gateway which of course will draw in massive crowds to wonder at the new council offices,the reclad slum of a bus station and a new supermarket, will mean that Preston for example will be on its NEXT round of regeneration; speaking of which hes willing to squander 10000s on lawyers to fight against Preston who have the guts/vision to make a go of their town,whilst selling houses for 3 quid; bought with millions of TAXPAYERS money whilst his Fowler cronies (who do their best to deter visitors with outrageous parking charges) pocket closer to 200k, for me can only mean one thing about Peter Callow who is taking Blackpool for a ride on a loss making ghost train.
He is the best thing to happen to Simon Blackburn and labour,who must surely view him as their best vote winner to date.
TB, If labour do well in the next local election in Blackpool, its down to Peter Callow and co,vote winners and recruiting officers for Blackpool Labour party, thats what they will achieve for Blackpool.
loading...
“Peter Callow was calling for a Plan B, it was the Conservatives who took Storm City on board in March 2007 a few months before the election while Fisher and Labour slammed the door on it.”
Whoever told you that TB either had a good imagination or a really bad memory.
There was a notice of motion asking for a plan B and a referendum on the casino that both Fisher and Callow ordered their members to vote against.
It wasn’t Fisher or Labour who slammed the door on Storm City, it was Steve Weaver who simply asked them to produce some due diligence.
Storm City was a great idea but that is all it ever was – a great idea.
All of the three main parties swallowed the bullshit put out by Weaver, Cavill and Co.
You could count on two fingers the number of Councillors who consistently questioned the hype being put out on a daily basis about the Casinos. It was the nearest I’ve seen to The Emperors new clothes in Blackpool.
Anyway – nice work fellas, you really fucked up Blackpool for a whole generation.
loading...
Well said Jon,Blackpol,s aprlous state is beyond party politics.Whovere gets in next year has to sack Weaver for a start.Blackpool needs people such as yourself and Paul Galley.
loading...
One of the posters commented that Callow is doing more for the Blackpool Labour group than any one else. Quite true. Whilst Cllr Callow, and his in fighting continues, Labour will continue to amass votes and support. Whilst Callow continues to stitch his fellow councillors, ie the ones who dare to voice an opinion thats not his, this town will have a successful tory council.
Callow never had a plan B, Blackpool didnt have a plan B. We need new blood, now whilst simon blackburn aint perfect (far from it) at least he does have some balls…….. Thats what we need now to stand up against the tory/lib goverment and fight for what we the people of this town need.
OK TOURISTS play a part in the town, but what about you and me the locals. Note when snow and ice on ground were got gritted not the streets were i live………. only round hotels etc…… FAIR POINT….
Whats the answer, I really dont know, but sorry Peter, Maxine and Lilly it aint you…….. NOt this time.
AS FOR IAN FOWLER your a disgrace with your scaffolding company, taking money out of tax payers pockets all for your own greedy profit……………. GIVE IT BACK IF YOU HAVE ANY BALL’s Ian.
Callow and Fowler have done more damage to this town than Roy Fisher could ever done, at least he admitted he was dense……..
AS FOR Ron Bell……………. Well enough said……………….. A disgrace to his Commission and all the decent honest service men out there.
The wrong Bell brother is standing down, at Least Gary has some gravitas…….
RANT OVER
Merry Christmas (belated I know)
loading...
Maybe Callow behaves in this way though as a way to counteract what is clearly childish politicing on some issues by the likes of Simon Blackburn? Blackpool’s problems aren’t going to be easily solved and playing one party off against another isn’t helping. I get the feeling Simon Blackburn enjoys the fight against the opposition more than standing up for what is right when you look at the timing of his outbursts and note that some of them are going to sound good to the masses but aren’t when you know more background and how things work in practice. Maybe Blackpool’s willingness to switch allegiance from one party in control to another encourages short term thinking when clearly longer term thinking is what is so desperately needed?
I don’t know what the answer is – or who out of the current line up would be best. I do know a lot of them need their heads knocking together though to work for the public rather than putting on a political floorshow.
Oh and Ian Fowler has never ever been shown to be doing anything wrong or benefitting from his position – a very important point. Of course I’d agree that it’s unwise for someone with such business interests to also be a leading councillor as it does not look good and people will always ask questions as to his probabity as a result. I’m not sure admitting you’re not bright means you’re any better at running things though (perhaps just more honest) like Roy Fisher did and his admission didn’t stop him going onto PCT work. Agree re Ron Bell – it’s high time he got out of frontline politics as he’s only continuing to bring his party into disrepute.
loading...
Indeed Frustrated, this infantile bickering between both parties is doing Blackpool no good,they are equally contemptable in my eyes.
I would like to see someone from the CBI parachuted in to seize control of the council and remove the rotten elements, regardless of party.The town needs radical solutions from the business sector by someone who has no partisan loyalty to these so called political parties, both of whom have shown utter ineptitude and neither are fit to run the town,except into the ground.
loading...
Precisely Frustrated, Blackburn is only interested in negative campaigning and political pointscoring. He doesn’t care about Blackpool, he is like the local equivalent of Marsden.
loading...
as is Peter Callow……..
loading...
I agree Voice of Reason, I am sure Simon Blackburn said on a video that westmisniter had a low opinion in general of Blackpools politicians, REGARDLESS of party; hes is right.
loading...