PDA

View Full Version : Gordon Brown rallies against the free market


Mad Tony
29-09-09, 20:29
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said financial markets need "morals" if they are to function properly.

Speaking at the Labour conference in Brighton, he defended the government's handling of the financial crisis and stressed his economic credentials.

He vowed that the banks that were bailed out would pay back taxpayers.
And Mr Brown said the government would pass new rules covering bankers' behaviour, including disqualifying those unfit to run banks.
"Any director of any of our banks who is negligent will be disqualified from holding any such post," he said.

Earlier this year, Financial Services Authority chief executive Hector Sants said the regulator was "committed to holding senior managers to account" and had fined or prohibited a number of directors where there had been evidence of "culpable misconduct".

"This financial crisis has demonstrated that we can no longer rely on senior management judgements," Mr Sants said in a speech in May.

New rules

Gordon Brown also told the Labour conference: "Markets need what they cannot generate themselves; they need what the British people alone can bring to them, I say to you today; markets need morals."
Governments in the UK, US and other nations have been debating how to reform banks after several almost collapsed and brought down the global financial system last year.

Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling have said that banks should be able to "claw back" bonuses if they later suffers losses, and that bonuses should be deferred.

"We will pass a new law to intervene on bankers' bonuses whenever they put the economy at risk," Mr Brown told his party in Brighton.
Under new Financial Services Authority rules scheduled to take effect in January, bonuses will not be guaranteed for more than a year and will have to be spread over three years.

The new rules are designed to link pay more closely with the long-term profitability of banks.

The prime minister also vowed to create a new 1bn national investment corporation to "provide finance for growing manufacturing and other businesses"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8281004.stm

Video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8281529.stm

I've been following this conference and it's been full of the same socialist crap I expect from the Labour party, but this really does top it.

First they were saying how Labour intervention stopped a depression and brought about the recovery we might soon be seeing, then Gordon Brown listed Labour's "achievements" which included things like devolution and the tripling of foreign aid - as if they're achievements. And now this. We're in desperate need of an economically conservative prime minister - luckily we'll probably be getting just that come next June with Cameron certain to be elected. He may not be Thatcher, but he's damn better than what Labour and the Lib Dems can offer us.

"The freer the market, the freer the people"

Dennis's Mom
29-09-09, 20:34
I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that bonuses should be tied to a company's tangible success. You hear about companies needing bailouts and yet . . . someone still earned a bonus? Color me reactionary, but if your company is failing so badly it needs to be rescued, you don't deserve a bonus.

I'm no socialist, far from it, but there seems a be a dearth of actual common sense morality on some levels of enterprise.

Mad Tony
29-09-09, 20:57
I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that bonuses should be tied to a company's tangible success. You hear about companies needing bailouts and yet . . . someone still earned a bonus? Color me reactionary, but if your company is failing so badly it needs to be rescued, you don't deserve a bonus.

I'm no socialist, far from it, but there seems a be a dearth of actual common sense morality on some levels of enterprise.My main problem here is not him talking about the lack of morals but his opposition to the free market. He even referred to it as "right-wing fundamentalism". Honestly, how did these people get voted in three times in a row?

I do wonder sometimes how people can call New Labour right-wing, especially after this speech.

Cochrane
29-09-09, 21:23
My main problem here is not him talking about the lack of morals but his opposition to the free market. He even referred to it as "right-wing fundamentalism". Honestly, how did these people get voted in three times in a row?

I do wonder sometimes how people can call New Labour right-wing, especially after this speech.

There seems precious little problematic in that article, though. Do you have more links you could show us? Or are you referring to the bonuses?

Mad Tony
29-09-09, 21:35
There seems precious little problematic in that article, though. Do you have more links you could show us? Or are you referring to the bonuses?I'm referring to the video which is on the link I gave.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8281529.stm

Edited it into my original post.

Encore
29-09-09, 21:37
Completely free and unregulated market is a disaster. I'd assume everyone had realized that by now. It's a completely outdated notion.

Mad Tony
29-09-09, 21:38
Completely free and unregulated market is a disaster. I'd assume everyone had realized that by now. It's a completely outdated notion.|I didn't here people complaining when we experienced however many consecutive quarters of economic growth before this mess started. The left are fine with the free market when it's doing well, or rather, they don't speak up against it, but when the economy is doing badly (which it will do at some point, it's just part of the natural cycle) they start complaining and pushing for socialism.

Catapharact
29-09-09, 21:40
How ironic that Mr. Brown is telling the people as to what the Markets need. The people ARE the Market! They always have the power and they always will continue to have it. How many investors do you think will line up behind a corporation that ends up breaching public trust? The markets adjust themselves to the whim of the people. IMO the British system already has more then enough checks and balances present in the general frame work.

Lemmie
29-09-09, 21:49
When you say, he may not be Thatcher...

What exactly do you mean?

Mad Tony
29-09-09, 21:57
When you say, he may not be Thatcher...

What exactly do you mean?Well, Cameron isn't as conservative and strong as I'd like him to be but I still think he's the better than the other candidates.

Lemmie
29-09-09, 22:03
Well, Cameron isn't as conservative and strong as I'd like him to be but I still think he's the better than the other candidates.

If he was as conservative and strong as you'd like him to be, I'm not sure he'd have the same appeal. I doubt anyone would have gained the Conservatives as much ground by emulating Thatcher.

I'm watching the entire speech now with great interest.

Mad Tony
29-09-09, 22:17
If he was as conservative and strong as you'd like him to be, I'm not sure he'd have the same appeal. I doubt anyone would have gained the Conservatives as much ground by emulating Thatcher.

I'm watching the entire speech now with great interest.Of course. A lot of people still don't trust the Conservatives for some reason, so I guess it makes political sense to move more to the center.

TRfan23
29-09-09, 22:25
Of course. A lot of people still don't trust the Conservatives for some reason, so I guess it makes political sense to move more to the center.

I know a lot of people didn't like Margaret Thatcher because of how she got on with things and how strict she was, also because of her attitude with Ireland around the time with the protestants and catholics fighting over eachother. Personally I would like another one of her doing the job :)
I'm kinda surprised myself why there's people who'd prefer Labor to Conservatives, but I think it could be linked to human rights or something? But then again Labor wouldn't care much for that either... though they did most for it :rolleyes:

Lemmie
29-09-09, 23:02
An interesting speech. Lots of things I agree with, some things that I don't. It's not yet enough to make me vote Labour in the next General Election.

Andariel
30-09-09, 01:07
I'm for the free enterprise system but not for corporate welfare. Companies should never be too big to fail. That's socialism for the wealthiest and I'm against it.

LaraLuvrrr
30-09-09, 01:31
Oh I see.... now the question I have is...

Who sets the morals?

wut a dumb thing to say...

Lemmie
30-09-09, 01:42
Oh I see.... now the question I have is...

Who sets the morals?

wut a dumb thing to say...


Well it's not moral for people who endangered millions of families' entire financial futures to be paid huge bonuses even after the economy has begun to stablilise is it? The concept of being rewarded for bad behaviour and irresponsibility is hardly something that a moral person would agree with.

The important thing about speeches like this is that they are half policy promises and half party rhetoric - and I'm glad in a way to hear something like this from a more-often-than-not silent PM.

Unfettered capitalism is not something I support, because especially when you deal with banks with multiple different functions and companies who provide health insurance, I would prefer them to be regulated to government standards. Companies who are motivated by profit cannot be trusted to also think of the best interests of their customers.

Ward Dragon
30-09-09, 02:43
I'm for the free enterprise system but not for corporate welfare. Companies should never be too big to fail. That's socialism for the wealthiest and I'm against it.

I agree. If a company did something horribly wrong and is about to fail, then it only hurts the economy for the government to waste so much tax money bailing that company out. Why reward their failure? Keeping a failing company afloat only serves to pay off incompetent people with public money while simultaneously preventing new companies from being able to compete. If the company just failed and got out of the way, new and probably better companies would be able to establish themselves instead of having to compete with a government-owned corporate mess that gets all sorts of special advantages because the government says it's "too big to fail" :hea:

wantafanta
30-09-09, 03:16
If the company just failed and got out of the way, new and probably better companies would be able to establish themselves instead of having to compete with a government-owned corporate mess that gets all sorts of special advantages because the government says it's "too big to fail" :hea:

Except that - in the case of the recent bailouts - to have let some of these giant money lenders fail would have destroyed the US economy. This is what some people just don't grasp. This had to be done. A lot of folks wanted to let the 3 US automakers die. To do so would have a ripple effect which would have cost millions of jobs - from the aftermarket, dealerships, contractors like AC Delco, Firestone, etc.

You cannot wait for "economic Darwinism" to work. In the years it would take tiny companies to replace the biggies, millions of lives would have been ruined. None of us lived during the depression of the 30s, but believe it, we wouldn't want that to repeat!

LaraLuvrrr
30-09-09, 03:31
Well it's not moral for people who endangered millions of families' entire financial futures to be paid huge bonuses even after the economy has begun to stablilise is it? The concept of being rewarded for bad behaviour and irresponsibility is hardly something that a moral person would agree with.

The important thing about speeches like this is that they are half policy promises and half party rhetoric - and I'm glad in a way to hear something like this from a more-often-than-not silent PM.

Unfettered capitalism is not something I support, because especially when you deal with banks with multiple different functions and companies who provide health insurance, I would prefer them to be regulated to government standards. Companies who are motivated by profit cannot be trusted to also think of the best interests of their customers.

I don't think what those corporations and banks did were "moral." But that's just a part of freedom. We have freedom of speech for example and sometimes it helps bring positive change and sometimes it causes chaos. But the point is freedom. Imagine if the government wanted to only have moral speech. Again who decides what's moral? The government? Then it's not a democracy unless of course the people vote on it but most bills are not voted on directly by the citizens. What worries me about this so called moral crap is that it is open to interpretation of what is moral. Communists usually vow to fight immorality and create "change" then become immoral themselves. Like Fidel Castro and his revolution.

My point is that there's a fine line between a government setting a system of morality in a market that is meant to be free (capitalism) and controlling the system entirely according to what they believe to be moral...

Ward Dragon
30-09-09, 04:24
Except that - in the case of the recent bailouts - to have let some of these giant money lenders fail would have destroyed the US economy. This is what some people just don't grasp. This had to be done. A lot of folks wanted to let the 3 US automakers die. To do so would have a ripple effect which would have cost millions of jobs - from the aftermarket, dealerships, contractors like AC Delco, Firestone, etc.

You cannot wait for "economic Darwinism" to work. In the years it would take tiny companies to replace the biggies, millions of lives would have been ruined. None of us lived during the depression of the 30s, but believe it, we wouldn't want that to repeat!

That's the exact sort of fear-mongering that is always used to take away freedom.

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 06:15
I think it could be linked to human rights or something? But then again Labor wouldn't care much for that either... though they did most for it :rolleyes:What do you mean exactly? :confused:

An interesting speech. Lots of things I agree with, some things that I don't. It's not yet enough to make me vote Labour in the next General Election.I pretty much disagreed with everything beside the obvious things like "cut down on crime", "stricter rules for MPs" etc etc, things which Labour probably wont do anyway if they got elected. Of course, there's other things that he mentioned that I completely disagreed with like devolution and more foreign aid. He also mentioned about how to tackle unruly teenagers. That's fair enough but he said something along the lines of "punish those who refuse to change and reward those who do". So basically people who always misbehave will continue to get rewarded when they bring themselves up to the standards of everyone else for a short while.

And this is all without mentioning his extreme hypocrisy. He finally admitted there will be cuts (which I see as a good thing) but then promised loads of costly programs and projects for the future.

The reason why I didn't really approve of much in the speech is because it was mainly aimed at the left and other fans of big government. I doubt he's gonna reach out to the Conservatives but then again, he's lost a good chunk of the left since he came to power anyway so I guess he's gotta get them back first.

And now Brown has just lost the backing of The Sun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8281859.stm

It's all good :)

Reggie
30-09-09, 08:13
And now Brown has just lost the backing of The Sun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8281859.stm

It's all good :)

Labour is finished and they have done a damn fine job in alienating whatever core vote they would have had with the latest conference. I hear there's a debate going ahead between Brown, Clegg and Cameron next month on Sky News - I'd like to see what happens there. :D I just hope that Labour's reputation gets damaged enough for people to see the third party as viable which it is - at least much more so than Labour!

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 13:07
Labour is finished and they have done a damn fine job in alienating whatever core vote they would have had with the latest conference. I hear there's a debate going ahead between Brown, Clegg and Cameron next month on Sky News - I'd like to see what happens there. :D I just hope that Labour's reputation gets damaged enough for people to see the third party as viable which it is - at least much more so than Labour!Well, that's if Gordon Brown doesn't back down - he know's Cameron and Clegg would run rings around him.

I too would like to see the Lib Dems get some more seats in parliament. What a disaster it'd be for Labour if the Lib Dems came in second ahead of Labour. Now while I don't exactly agree with many of the Lib Dems policies, I think they're a lot better than Labour. Makes me wonder sometimes how anybody could support Labour given how the Lib Dems are a much better party for those who lean to the left of the political spectrum.

I just caught the end of the speech made by the racist and sexist minister for women and "equality" Harriet Harman. Absolutely despicable. She wants to give minorities and women an advantage and discriminate against white men. She also went on to talk about clause 1 the new "equalities" bill which states that local councils are legally obliged to help bring down the wealth divide that "the Tories left in their wake". What's this gonna mean? More welfare for the poor and higher taxes on the rich.

This video springs to mind actually

okHGCz6xxiw

EDIT: Jesus Christ one of the speakers at the Labour conference just said "comrades". What is this, the Communist party congress?

Super Badnik
30-09-09, 14:02
I'm not sure i really want David Cameron. He's just so smarmy and smug all the time and i have doubts the situation would actually be so much if he was PM instead.

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 14:05
I'm not sure i really want David Cameron. He's just so smarmy and smug all the time and i have doubts the situation would actually be so much if he was PM instead.Surely he's better than Gordon Brown? You may not like Cameron's demeanor but he's got some good policies.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 14:06
What do you mean exactly? :confused:

Wasn't it Labour that brought in anti-discrimination law for black people's rights, gay people's rights and woman's rights? Unless if I've cocked that up? Just I don't know and haven't heard the conservatives do anything for rights for people... Though I personally prefer the conservatives view on the human rights act (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jun/26/uk.humanrights) to be replaced by the bill of rights act ;) To me human rights make it sound as if they're limited in a way, calling it the bill of rights makes it just sound better imo :) Though obviously that's not the reason why Cameron back in 2006 said he wanted it's name to be changed...

If that's the case then that could be why many people prefer Labour?

As per the video few posts below, Margaret has a posh convincing voice :)

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 14:12
Wasn't it Labour that brought in anti-discrimination law for black people's rights, gay people's rights and woman's rights? Unless if I've cocked that up? Just I don't know and haven't heard the conservatives do anything for rights for people... Though I personally prefer the conservatives view on the human rights act (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jun/26/uk.humanrights) to be replaced by the bill of rights act ;) To me human rights make it sound as if they're limited in a way, calling it the bill of rights makes it just sound better imo :) Though obviously that's not the reason why Cameron back in 2006 said he wanted it's name to be changed...

If that's the case then that could be why many people prefer Labour?

As per the video few posts below, Margaret has a posh convincing voice :)I'm not sure, but all the main parties are pretty similar on human rights, except Labour of course, who are in favor of "positive" discrimination.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 15:24
I'm not sure, but all the main parties are pretty similar on human rights, except Labour of course, who are in favor of "positive" discrimination.

What? How can discrimination be positive? :confused:

TRhalloween
30-09-09, 15:38
What's your news source? I know the news is true but every piece of news you post is really right-sided.

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 15:38
What? How can discrimination be positive? :confused:That's just what they call it. Of course discriminating in favor of minorities (which in turn means discriminating against the majority) can never be positive, but that's just what they're like.

What's your news source? I know the news is true but every piece of news you post is really right-sided.It's all here. Most of the stuff I've referred to have been parts of some of the main Labour leaders speeches.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2009/party_conferences_2009/default.stm

How can the news I've posted be right-sided? I've given my opinion which happens to be on the right, but the news I've been posting is just what they've said.


EDIT: Oh God could these people get anymore stupid. I'm watching this conference and they have speaker after speaker preaching a bunch of politically correct crap about how the Tories hate blacks and gays, or how we need to do more to combat this alleged inequality. They're also preaching about how laws need to be made so that more black and Asian people get into parliament. What does this mean? All-black or all-Asian shortlists in some areas which means people from other backgrounds will be barred from trying to run for MP.

The Labour Party conference debate on equalities is just one giant cesspool of political correctness. Why can't people be judged solely on their character and qualifications dammit!?

One guy even compared Margaret Thatcher to Lord Voldemort lol.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 19:38
That's just what they call it. Of course discriminating in favor of minorities (which in turn means discriminating against the majority) can never be positive, but that's just what they're like.

Oh right, I got you now.

It's all here. Most of the stuff I've referred to have been parts of some of the main Labour leaders speeches.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2009/party_conferences_2009/default.stm

How can the news I've posted be right-sided? I've given my opinion which happens to be on the right, but the news I've been posting is just what they've said.


EDIT: Oh God could these people get anymore stupid. I'm watching this conference and they have speaker after speaker preaching a bunch of politically correct crap about how the Tories hate blacks and gays, or how we need to do more to combat this alleged inequality. They're also preaching about how laws need to be made so that more black and Asian people get into parliament. What does this mean? All-black or all-Asian shortlists in some areas which means people from other backgrounds will be barred from trying to run for MP.

The Labour Party conference debate on equalities is just one giant cesspool of political correctness. Why can't people be judged solely on their character and qualifications dammit!?

One guy even compared Margaret Thatcher to Lord Voldemort lol.

LOL Labours run out of ideas and ways of getting themselves sorted lol. Don't worry I'm 99.9 recurring% certain the Tories will win the next general election ;)

When the Tories win the next election, what will happen to Labour? I can imagine them protesting outside parliament for rights to be in power again lol.

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 19:47
LOL Labours run out of ideas and ways of getting themselves sorted lol. Don't worry I'm 99.9 recurring% certain the Tories will win the next general election ;)

When the Tories win the next election, what will happen to Labour? I can imagine them protesting outside parliament for rights to be in power again lol.Of course. It may look from the Labour conference that they've got a good chance but they haven't, certainly not with Gordon Brown as prime minister. Nobody trusts him, and rightly so! I remember watching Today At Conference last night and Andrew Neil was interviewing business secretary Peter Madleson and he asked him why would the public trust Gordon Brown after he lied about making cuts. Mandleson just kept on dodging the question and eventually got visibly annoyed because of Andrew Neil's persistence in asking this very straightforward question.

They wont protest. :confused: That's not what parties do when they loose elections.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 20:10
Of course. It may look from the Labour conference that they've got a good chance but they haven't, certainly not with Gordon Brown as prime minister. Nobody trusts him, and rightly so! I remember watching Today At Conference last night and Andrew Neil was interviewing business secretary Peter Madleson and he asked him why would the public trust Gordon Brown after he lied about making cuts. Mandleson just kept on dodging the question and eventually got visibly annoyed because of Andrew Neil's persistence in asking this very straightforward question.

They wont protest. :confused: That's not what parties do when they loose elections.

I was joking, but it would make me laugh if they randomly did, first time a party protests. I was mocking them of their stupidity ;)

Reggie
30-09-09, 20:17
Well, that's if Gordon Brown doesn't back down - he know's Cameron and Clegg would run rings around him.

I too would like to see the Lib Dems get some more seats in parliament. What a disaster it'd be for Labour if the Lib Dems came in second ahead of Labour. Now while I don't exactly agree with many of the Lib Dems policies, I think they're a lot better than Labour. Makes me wonder sometimes how anybody could support Labour given how the Lib Dems are a much better party for those who lean to the left of the political spectrum.

Exactly so. Perhaps its because you and I have grown up in a country where Labour has never really been the real voice of the left - the liberal democrats have always seemed the obvious choice to me and I would sooner vote Conservative than Labour if push came to shove anyway but I have totally lost faith that Labour are even capable anymore. They're a total sham and no one of any political persuasion has a good reason to vote for them anymore unlike the Conservatives who, while I don't agree with their policies actually look like a credible party in comparison to what we've got, I also assume that the Conservatives are going to win so its good thing I've never really hated the party unlike the extreme lefties who are probably despairing right now about what's to come (what a load of delusional nonsense from Labour's conference about them still having a chance at winning! :p). They should thank their lucky stars if they even get away with a coalition with the Lib Dems - it would be sweet justice to see them go begging to the 'third party'. :D

I just caught the end of the speech made by the racist and sexist minister for women and "equality" Harriet Harman. Absolutely despicable. She wants to give minorities and women an advantage and discriminate against white men. She also went on to talk about clause 1 the new "equalities" bill which states that local councils are legally obliged to help bring down the wealth divide that "the Tories left in their wake". What's this gonna mean? More welfare for the poor and higher taxes on the rich.

This video springs to mind actually

okHGCz6xxiw

EDIT: Jesus Christ one of the speakers at the Labour conference just said "comrades". What is this, the Communist party congress?
LOL The Labour party has demonstrably made the poor struggle even more while the Richer have gotten just gotten richer and overall everyones struggling more these days! I must admit that Thatcher hit the nail on the head 20 years early! For all the critcism she's gotten, it was refreshing to see a prime minister actually have some decent speaking and debating skills where they can actually deliver a decent comeback to the question they've been given. A more genuine time when people believed a bit more in the system I suppose. I just hope that this general election and the subsequent Tory government will shake things up enough to wake people up about politics again. At the end of the day, I might go on flights of fancy about idealistic societies in certain threads but at heart, I'm a moderate who responds to politics in a common sense way aware of what the challenges of the real world bring which is why, if anyone's wondering I'm attacking Labour, giving moderate praise to the Conservatives and putting myself behind the Lib Dems (the 'moderate' party). Just making sure people don't try to pick out contradictions from what I've said. :p

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 20:46
Exactly so. Perhaps its because you and I have grown up in a country where Labour has never really been the real voice of the left - the liberal democrats have always seemed the obvious choice to me and I would sooner vote Conservative than Labour if push came to shove anyway but I have totally lost faith that Labour are even capable anymore. They're a total sham and no one of any political persuasion has a good reason to vote for them anymore unlike the Conservatives who, while I don't agree with their policies actually look like a credible party in comparison to what we've got, I also assume that the Conservatives are going to win so its good thing I've never really hated the party unlike the extreme lefties who are probably despairing right now about what's to come (what a load of delusional nonsense from Labour's conference about them still having a chance at winning! :p). They should thank their lucky stars if they even get away with a coalition with the Lib Dems - it would be sweet justice to see them go begging to the 'third party'. :DOh yeah, I'd love to see Labour as the third party. Notice how Gordon Brown proposed election reform that will give smaller parties a better chance? I wonder if that's because secretly he knows there's a good chance the Lib Dems and Labour will swap around with Labour becoming the new third party. :D


LOL The Labour party has demonstrably made the poor struggle even more while the Richer have gotten just gotten richer and overall everyones struggling more these days! I must admit that Thatcher hit the nail on the head 20 years early! For all the critcism she's gotten, it was refreshing to see a prime minister actually have some decent speaking and debating skills where they can actually deliver a decent comeback to the question they've been given. A more genuine time when people believed a bit more in the system I suppose. I just hope that this general election and the subsequent Tory government will shake things up enough to wake people up about politics again. At the end of the day, I might go on flights of fancy about idealistic societies in certain threads but at heart, I'm a moderate who responds to politics in a common sense way aware of what the challenges of the real world bring which is why, if anyone's wondering I'm attacking Labour, giving moderate praise to the Conservatives and putting myself behind the Lib Dems (the 'moderate' party). Just making sure people don't try to pick out contradictions from what I've said. :pI still can't get my head round why anybody would vote Labour. Obviously not everyone would want to vote Conservative because of course, not everyone is conservative, but surely those on the left must see that the Lib Dems would be far better than Labour? I think it's because some people still feel like voting Lib Dem would be a wasted vote (despite the fair amount of seats they have in parliament) and of course, they'd never "go back to those dark Tory days" and would rather keep an incompetent government in than try something new to try and get our country back on track.

I've gotta say though, I expect this'll be a repeat of 1979. After the election next year I can't see Labour getting in again for at least another 10-20 years, if ever. Remember, there's a good chance the Lib Dems will become the second party. Good times are ahead my friend. :)

Reggie
30-09-09, 21:15
Oh yeah, I'd love to see Labour as the third party. Notice how Gordon Brown proposed election reform that will give smaller parties a better chance? I wonder if that's because secretly he knows there's a good chance the Lib Dems and Labour will swap around with Labour becoming the new third party. :D
Could well be. I suspect that when Labour first loses they will still be the second largest party. Thereafter its anybody's guess what will happen when they try and survive in the political 'wilderness'. If the Lib Dems were ever going to get a foothold it would be by proving they were the more worthy opposition as Labours struggles with its inevitable soul searching while the Lib Dems more or less know what they're going for and still have a sense of legitimacy. Its kind of come full circle really because it was Labour that originally edged out the Liberals all those years ago!


I still can't get my head round why anybody would vote Labour. Obviously not everyone would want to vote Conservative because of course, not everyone is conservative, but surely those on the left must see that the Lib Dems would be far better than Labour? I think it's because some people still feel like voting Lib Dem would be a wasted vote (despite the fair amount of seats they have in parliament) and of course, they'd never "go back to those dark Tory days" and would rather keep an incompetent government in than try something new to try and get our country back on track.

I've gotta say though, I expect this'll be a repeat of 1979. After the election next year I can't see Labour getting in again for at least another 10-20 years, if ever. Remember, there's a good chance the Lib Dems will become the second party. Good times are ahead my friend. :)
That's what I hear from some of my friends who still say they're going to vote labour - they would vote lib dem but don't want a 'wasted vote'. What is a wasted vote? Its not like Parliament functions on a win-lose basis where the ruling party is like a dicatatorship. If your vote gets that party the extra seat they need, regardless of winning, that is supposed to be one more voice for what you believe in there in parliament representing the party you actually supported. I doubt that's an attitude that's going to go away anytime soon which is why I'm hoping that people will begin to look at the current 'third party' as the 'next most viable' party to support. This is all hypothetical of course but interesting nonetheless. :)

Ward Dragon
30-09-09, 21:20
That's what I hear from some of my friends who still say they're going to vote labour - they would vote lib dem but don't want a 'wasted vote'. What is a wasted vote? Its not like Parliament functions on a win-lose basis where the ruling party is like a dicatatorship. If your vote gets that party the extra seat they need, regardless of winning, that is supposed to be one more voice for what you believe in there in parliament representing the party you actually supported. I doubt that's an attitude that's going to go away anytime soon which is why I'm hoping that people will begin to look at the current 'third party' as the 'next most viable' party to support. This is all hypothetical of course but interesting nonetheless. :)

I don't really get it either. I mean, in the US that mentality makes some sense because third parties have extremely little power and no chance of winning any major positions (occasionally there's a Senator or a few members of the House who are neither Democrat nor Republican) but pretty much it's always a Democrat or a Republican that wins. In the UK though the third parties actually matter, so why would it be a "wasted vote" to vote for a third party there? :confused:

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 21:30
I don't really get it either. I mean, in the US that mentality makes some sense because third parties have extremely little power and no chance of winning any major positions (occasionally there's a Senator or a few members of the House who are neither Democrat nor Republican) but pretty much it's always a Democrat or a Republican that wins. In the UK though the third parties actually matter, so why would it be a "wasted vote" to vote for a third party there? :confused:Some people just wont vote any other party. It's normally Labour supporters who are like that, I have no idea why.

Oh, just remembered something else. Labour are always harping on about "equality" and yet they didn't want to give the Gurkhas equal rights. How pathetic. Honestly, out of all the minorities here the Gurkhas are the most deserving of support.

That's what I hear from some of my friends who still say they're going to vote labour - they would vote lib dem but don't want a 'wasted vote'. What is a wasted vote? Its not like Parliament functions on a win-lose basis where the ruling party is like a dicatatorship. If your vote gets that party the extra seat they need, regardless of winning, that is supposed to be one more voice for what you believe in there in parliament representing the party you actually supported. I doubt that's an attitude that's going to go away anytime soon which is why I'm hoping that people will begin to look at the current 'third party' as the 'next most viable' party to support. This is all hypothetical of course but interesting nonetheless. :)It's stupid. Surely if you lean to the left you're going to vote the party that represents your beliefs most? (which would be the Lib Dems)

The way I see it the Lib Dems are the left party while Labour are just authoritarian trade unionists with a strong focus on the advocation of political correctness and bureaucracy.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 21:53
Oh, just remembered something else. Labour are always harping on about "equality" and yet they didn't want to give the Gurkhas equal rights. How pathetic. Honestly, out of all the minorities here the Gurkhas are the most deserving of support.

Though this is slightly :off: but I'm confused about the event with the Gurkhas? All I know was that woman who played on James and the Giant peach tried to help them out, as apparently she's related to some Gurkhas?

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 22:04
Though this is slightly :off: but I'm confused about the event with the Gurkhas? All I know was that woman who played on James and the Giant peach tried to help them out, as apparently she's related to some Gurkhas?What it was was that the government were not giving Gurkha veterans the same rights as all the other veterans. I have no idea why, since apparently they're the party of equality and the Gurkhas have just as much right to the veterans benefits as anyone else.

The government will happily let thousands of asylum seekers come here and leech of the state but they wont let some of the Gurkhas and their families live here.

Eventually the government caved because practically everyone was against them, and rightly so.

TRfan23
30-09-09, 22:10
What it was was that the government were not giving Gurkha veterans the same rights as all the other veterans. I have no idea why, since apparently they're the party of equality and the Gurkhas have just as much right to the veterans benefits as anyone else.

The government will happily let thousands of asylum seekers come here and leech of the state but they wont let some of the Gurkhas and their families live here.

Eventually the government caved because practically everyone was against them, and rightly so.

Oh lordy, ah thanks now I understand :) :hug:

Mad Tony
30-09-09, 22:10
No problem :)

wantafanta
01-10-09, 01:29
That's the exact sort of fear-mongering that is always used to take away freedom.

That is just plain not true. I personally lost $90,000 in the stock market in just a few short months - half my life savings. And I am just a little store clerk. The country lost trillions of dollars of personal wealth and savings - whoosh - down the drain. What do you think would have happened if the bailouts were not made? The stock market would have completely tanked. All confidence in the US economy would have vanished. I am speaking from personal experience. This is not fear mongering. The entire real estate market and the US economy is based on credit. You cannot let giant lending banks go belly up and stand idly by watching. It just could not be done.

Mr.Burns
01-10-09, 02:44
That is just plain not true. I personally lost $90,000 in the stock market in just a few short months - half my life savings. And I am just a little store clerk. The country lost trillions of dollars of personal wealth and savings - whoosh - down the drain. What do you think would have happened if the bailouts were not made? The stock market would have completely tanked. All confidence in the US economy would have vanished. I am speaking from personal experience. This is not fear mongering. The entire real estate market and the US economy is based on credit. You cannot let giant lending banks go belly up and stand idly by watching. It just could not be done.

If you were a pure, true to your roots Capitalist and advocate of small government, you would stand by while the system collapsed. It's the nature of Capitalism. Survival of the fittest.

Mad Tony
01-10-09, 16:25
Another problem with this conference is that Labour have given the BNP too much publicity. Bar the Conservatives, the BNP are the party Labour have mentioned most.

Ward Dragon
01-10-09, 22:01
That is just plain not true. I personally lost $90,000 in the stock market in just a few short months - half my life savings. And I am just a little store clerk. The country lost trillions of dollars of personal wealth and savings - whoosh - down the drain. What do you think would have happened if the bailouts were not made? The stock market would have completely tanked. All confidence in the US economy would have vanished. I am speaking from personal experience. This is not fear mongering. The entire real estate market and the US economy is based on credit. You cannot let giant lending banks go belly up and stand idly by watching. It just could not be done.

All of the government actions during the Great Depression served only to drag it out and make it last longer while FDR stole as much power as he could. The same thing is happening again. Because of all of the government interference in the economy back then, World War II is the only reason the Great Depression ended. If Obama follows the same path, we'll need a World War III to undo the economic damage. Or does he plan to prolong the Iraq war and ramp up the war in Afghanistan instead? That actually does seem to be what he's doing, so I guess his actions do make sense after all. He can continue to buy tons of weapons and supplies for the wars and then claim that the economic boost is due to his socialist policies of giving bailouts and nationalizing companies.

EmeraldFields
01-10-09, 22:09
All of the government actions during the Great Depression served only to drag it out and make it last longer while FDR stole as much power as he could. The same thing is happening again. Because of all of the government interference in the economy back then, World War II is the only reason the Great Depression ended. If Obama follows the same path, we'll need a World War III to undo the economic damage. Or does he plan to prolong the Iraq war and ramp up the war in Afghanistan instead? That actually does seem to be what he's doing, so I guess his actions do make sense after all. He can continue to buy tons of weapons and supplies for the wars and then claim that the economic boost is due to his socialist policies of giving bailouts and nationalizing companies.

They never taught it that way in school!:ton:

jackles
01-10-09, 22:34
Another problem with this conference is that Labour have given the BNP too much publicity. Bar the Conservatives, the BNP are the party Labour have mentioned most.


tbh I am not aware of that at all. The thing I have noticed most was the complete stropping from them over The Sun. That didn't make things look very good. I felt they could have handled that far better.

Ward Dragon
01-10-09, 22:49
They never taught it that way in school!:ton:

I would imagine the school didn't have my horribly sarcastic slant on it :p But still, I'd be very surprised if the school didn't teach about FDR intentionally passing unconstitutional laws and then trying to pack the Supreme Court with his men in order to prevent the laws from getting overturned. He's the reason presidents have term limits now. He was in office for so long and did so much damage that afterwards Congress actually added an amendment to the Constitution saying that a president can only serve two terms just so that would never happen again.

EmeraldFields
01-10-09, 22:52
I would imagine the school didn't have my horribly sarcastic slant on it :p But still, I'd be very surprised if the school didn't teach about FDR intentionally passing unconstitutional laws and then trying to pack the Supreme Court with his men in order to prevent the laws from getting overturned.

All of those incidents were mentioned. In fact, we had to write an essay about it!:p

He's the reason presidents have term limits now. He was in office for so long and did so much damage that afterwards Congress actually added an amendment to the Constitution saying that a president can only serve two terms just so that would never happen again.

But, the reason my teacher stated the term limits were set was because of Truman and Congress wanted to limit his time in office. I can't remember anything specific since it's been a year since I've been over it.:)

Ward Dragon
01-10-09, 23:06
All of those incidents were mentioned. In fact, we had to write an essay about it!:p

Ah, there we go :D So all you were missing was the horribly cynical light I cast upon the facts :p

But, the reason my teacher stated the term limits were set was because of Truman and Congress wanted to limit his time in office. I can't remember anything specific since it's been a year since I've been over it.:)

Not quite. When Truman took office, he appointed a commission to review the federal government and suggest changes to it. That commission then suggested to make it law that a president could only serve two terms. That was the precedent set by George Washington and no president served a third (much less fourth) term until FDR (although a few attempted to run for a third term but lost).

EmeraldFields
01-10-09, 23:14
Ah, there we go :D So all you were missing was the horribly cynical light I cast upon the facts :p

You and your cynicism!:smk:

Not quite. When Truman took office, he appointed a commission to review the federal government and suggest changes to it. That commission then suggested to make it law that a president could only serve two terms. That was the precedent set by George Washington and no president served a third (much less fourth) term until FDR (although a few attempted to run for a third term but lost).

LMAO! I wrote an essay about that too!

My teacher mentioned that as well, but there was another element to it which I fail to remember.:p

wantafanta
02-10-09, 01:21
If you were a pure, true to your roots Capitalist and advocate of small government, you would stand by while the system collapsed. It's the nature of Capitalism. Survival of the fittest.

So should a pure capitalist stand idly by and watch mergers become monopolies, toy-makers use lead paint? I really don't want my system to collapse. I don't know how much of a capitalist I am, but I will say this. I am not INSANE!

All of the government actions during the Great Depression served only to drag it out and make it last longer while FDR stole as much power as he could. Because of all of the government interference in the economy back then, World War II is the only reason the Great Depression ended.

So when FDR closed the banks and halted the run, you would rather he did nothing and let people take all their money out and store it in coffee cans under a floorboard in the kitchen? All the banks would have folded in a week and nobody could write a check.

And you were against the FDIC which insured people's bank deposits and restored faith in our banking system and economy, right?

And what about the TVA and the rural electrification systems which brought electricity and telephones to half the country which gave us a quantum leap toward modernizing our culture and industrialization.

And what about Social Security which safeguarded the futures of the elderly in this country and made retirement possible, which millions upon millions still depend upon.

You know what? THANK GOD FOR FDR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr.Burns
02-10-09, 01:57
So should a pure capitalist stand idly by and watch mergers become monopolies, toy-makers use lead paint? I really don't want my system to collapse. I don't know how much of a capitalist I am, but I will say this. I am not INSANE!


Of course you're not insane, I never said anything to suggest that. I am merely pointing out that if a capitalist is to remain true to the ideals, then yes, all those things should be allowed to happen. Capitalism in the pure sense is a system without government intervention. Even if it is for a greater good, said intervention goes against the free market concept. Now moving past the theoretical concepts, both socialism and capitalism are fundementally flawed because of greed. The desire of the few or one to have more than the other allows for the corruption we have seen in the current US financial system and in socialism, the idea of the benefit of the community means putting a lot of power into the hands of a select few and usually when one is given that kind of power, it's hard to let go.

wantafanta
02-10-09, 04:17
Now moving past the theoretical concepts

I didn't think you were calling me insane. I was saying that it would be insane to let Darwinism run its course while my country collapsed in ruins, quite a high price to pay to adhere to pure capitalism. And that would be insane.
Yes, you have to move past the theoretical - something which a few in this forum don't understand or wish to do. "Survival of the fittest" was a biological phrase describing how evolution works in the plant and animal kingdom - and in the kingdom of primitive man. However - in civilized society - we watch out for one another. If your house is on fire, the fire department comes to put it out and save you. That is government interference in a purest sense. I think that is good. And if the economy is on fire, likewise, the government should do something. To take "survival of the fittest" literally and adhere to it dogmatically while the economy crumbles is sheer lunacy. It was never meant to be taken that far. I really don't think some people realize how close the US and the rest of the world came to an economic holocaust.

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 06:43
tbh I am not aware of that at all. The thing I have noticed most was the complete stropping from them over The Sun. That didn't make things look very good. I felt they could have handled that far better.If you watch some of the speeches you'll see they've mentioned the BNP quite a lot. As I said, far more than all the other parties (even the Lib Dems) except the Conservatives.

To be honest Labour showed their true colors over The Sun's choice to stop backing them. They acted like a bunch of spoilt children over that. They kept on going on about how they don't need The Sun to win an election or how newspapers don't decide elections and yet they spent half the conference rallying against them and tearing up copies of The Sun in anger.

jackles
02-10-09, 18:06
If you watch some of the speeches you'll see they've mentioned the BNP quite a lot. As I said, far more than all the other parties (even the Lib Dems) except the Conservatives.

To be honest Labour showed their true colors over The Sun's choice to stop backing them. They acted like a bunch of spoilt children over that. They kept on going on about how they don't need The Sun to win an election or how newspapers don't decide elections and yet they spent half the conference rallying against them and tearing up copies of The Sun in anger.

I think they are scared but are misguided if they believe that the average joe in the street will defect to the bnp. Most people I know hate them. It is sad that the Labour party have used their energies to the wrong purpose in that way. Jn fact misguided in many ways especially over the Sun fiasco. Who ever is getting the party spin out is ballsing up.

Mad Tony
02-10-09, 19:02
I think they are scared but are misguided if they believe that the average joe in the street will defect to the bnp. Most people I know hate them. It is sad that the Labour party have used their energies to the wrong purpose in that way. Jn fact misguided in many ways especially over the Sun fiasco. Who ever is getting the party spin out is ballsing up.Well, Labour and the BNP both have similar socialist economic policies, but that's about it. So yeah, I don't think the average guy on the street, let alone Labour supporters, would ever think about defecting to the BNP given the BNP's racist and fascist policies.

Labour should've handled The Sun fiasco with calm and not made it look like they cared. As it happens, they didn't.

Believe it or not for a brief moment I actually agreed with David Miliband in his speech on foreign policy and why we're in Afghanistan. Then he mentioned "the need" for a Palestinian state and that's where I started disagreeing with pretty much everything. I have to say though, the only thing where I don't disagree with Labour on everything is foreign policy.

Ward Dragon
02-10-09, 21:39
I didn't think you were calling me insane. I was saying that it would be insane to let Darwinism run its course while my country collapsed in ruins, quite a high price to pay to adhere to pure capitalism. And that would be insane.
Yes, you have to move past the theoretical - something which a few in this forum don't understand or wish to do. "Survival of the fittest" was a biological phrase describing how evolution works in the plant and animal kingdom - and in the kingdom of primitive man. However - in civilized society - we watch out for one another. If your house is on fire, the fire department comes to put it out and save you. That is government interference in a purest sense. I think that is good. And if the economy is on fire, likewise, the government should do something. To take "survival of the fittest" literally and adhere to it dogmatically while the economy crumbles is sheer lunacy. It was never meant to be taken that far. I really don't think some people realize how close the US and the rest of the world came to an economic holocaust.

Economic holocaust? That term doesn't even make sense, although I wonder if it is offensive to holocaust survivors to hear everything compared to the holocaust whenever someone is desperate to get what they want through inspiring fear. What we have now is nowhere near close to how bad things were during the Great Depression, and back then the government took advantage of the situation to gain ridiculous amounts of power that it still hasn't given back yet. That damage to the country has lasted far longer than the economic damage which was repaired during World War II (mainly because every other major country in the world got the **** bombed out of it so we were able to make a lot of money selling them stuff). Now Obama has run up truly staggering amounts of debt (Bush started it, but Obama sure as hell is continuing it). There really is no way we can pay all this back to other countries. And what do we get out of it? Now the government owns and/or controls banks and previously private companies. That's the exact opposite of what should be happening. Unemployment is at the highest it's been since the '80's because all of this "bailout" money gets spent on unions, rich CEO's, and pimps from ACORN meanwhile the actual workers are still getting laid off :hea: Better to let the companies fail now and suffer a bit of short-term damage instead of rushing in without thinking and causing irreparable harm to the country which will far outlast the economic recession.

PS: I'm not insane, that's just how it seems ;)

wantafanta
03-10-09, 04:50
Economic holocaust? That term doesn't even make sense, although I wonder if it is offensive to holocaust survivors to hear everything compared to the holocaust whenever someone is desperate to get what they want through inspiring fear. What we have now is nowhere near close to how bad things were during the Great Depression, and back then the government took advantage of the situation to gain ridiculous amounts of power that it still hasn't given back yet. That damage to the country has lasted far longer than the economic damage which was repaired during World War II (mainly because every other major country in the world got the **** bombed out of it so we were able to make a lot of money selling them stuff). Now Obama has run up truly staggering amounts of debt (Bush started it, but Obama sure as hell is continuing it). There really is no way we can pay all this back to other countries. And what do we get out of it? Now the government owns and/or controls banks and previously private companies. That's the exact opposite of what should be happening. Unemployment is at the highest it's been since the '80's because all of this "bailout" money gets spent on unions, rich CEO's, and pimps from ACORN meanwhile the actual workers are still getting laid off :hea: Better to let the companies fail now and suffer a bit of short-term damage instead of rushing in without thinking and causing irreparable harm to the country which will far outlast the economic recession.

PS: I'm not insane, that's just how it seems ;)

You continue to claim that I am trying to inspire fear. I just told you, I lost 90 thousand dollars in the stock market. And I was lucky! 14 Trillion dollars of purchasing power was lost. The only reason it wasn't far worse was because of the banking bailout.

I really have to chuckle at all this sudden deep concern over deficits. And no, they didn't start with Bush. When Jimmy Carter left office, our debt was still under $1 trillion. After 8 years of Ronald Reagan, our debt mounted to $5 trillion. Because he irresponsibly cut taxes for the wealthy from 70% down to 28%. That is where your deficits came from.

Show me where the bailout money went to unions, please! I am in a union. We did not get any bailout money. And neither did the UAW. So I don't know what you are talking about. And I don't think ACORN got it either. Only 25% of the bailout money has been spent so far.

The reason unemployment is so high is because this is a credit based economy. Banks are not lending money because they had to swallow so many bad loans, i.e. foreclosures. If we did not bailout these banks so they could cover those loans, then they would all fold and we would never get out of this mess.

But you have a right to call this fear mongering if you want. I can't explain it any better than I have done.

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 11:51
That coward Gordon Brown has finally agreed to a televised TV debate "in principle"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8288424.stm

Reggie
03-10-09, 12:01
It'll be interesting to see how copes, I think he could end up getting overshadowed by Clegg and Cameron. I also think its a really positive thing that the debate is considered a 3-way one rather than just a Brown vs. Cameron debate as if they're the only two parties to choose from. Clegg could proove himself and the party in this as everyone who cares about politics will be watching. :tmb:

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 12:04
Let's hope Clegg picks up some support and it becomes a Conservatives vs Lib Dems election, with Labour having to settle for third place! :D

Reggie
03-10-09, 13:56
^I try not to get my hopes up but any publicity for them is going to help. Their main problem has always been that the media has traditionally ignored them and made them less visible. I guess the lib dems will probably get a lot of votes from my area anyway because Cornwall has traditionally been a lib dem stronghold. The Labour party hasn't got a single seat down here in the council! :vlol:

Mad Tony
03-10-09, 14:16
^I try not to get my hopes up but any publicity for them is going to help. Their main problem has always been that the media has traditionally ignored them and made them less visible. I guess the lib dems will probably get a lot of votes from my area anyway because Cornwall has traditionally been a lib dem stronghold. The Labour party hasn't got a single seat down here in the council! :vlol:The south-east has always been Conservative although I happen to live in one of the only Labour-held constituencies in the entire region! :mad: Really, if people wanna vote left why the hell don't they vote Lib Dem? That'll change though come next year. I'm certain the Conservatives are gonna win here. :D