March in London on the 26th?

Slam62 said:
No, but the banks put themselves in an untennable fiscal position through reckless lending, this meant they had to with draw or charge more for all sorts of other funds lent to the uk economy, this in turn caused the economy to crash which massively reduced the tax take leading to the deficit we have now.
Click to expand...

The banks were allowed to do that because the previous government deliberately reduced regulation on them so that they would massively increase lending. It was instrumented by the government. There were also a very large number of people who were greedy and wanted to jump on the bandwagon of BTL and throw money they didn't have on what was essentially a pyramid scheme. So in a nutshell the banks were encouraged to do it, and a lot of Joe Public were quite happy for them to do so at the time.

When it went wrong (which it was obviously going to do), everyone wanted someone to blame and the banks (who I'm not saying were blameless) were the obvious choice.
 
Kemik said:
What do you think would have happened if the Government hadn't stepped in? It would have crippled the economy!

It definitely won't be decades before the shares are worth more than the BE point for the Government. Where did you get that figure from?

Are you also saying the bail out of the banks directly caused the recession?

I personally think the government shouldn't have stole (that's what they've done) the Northern Rock shares from shareholders. There have been reports that Virgin were willing to buy them for a higher price than the Nil that the Government acquired them for.
Click to expand...

I'm not criticising the bank bailout - you're right it would have been worse if the government hadn't stepped in, I'm criticising the banks for catastrophically mismanaging their industry to the point that it was necessary.

Likewise the bank bailout didn't cause the global recession, but the banks screwing up did - having to recapitalise, calling in loans, not lending etc all had a massive effect on the real economy that should not be underestimated.
 
Duke said:
Because you're wrong? ;)
Click to expand...

haha :p

I'm more then open to people to actually construct an argument to support the Tory cuts or even be critical and take another view point and explain.

It said a lot when one of the first replies I got was just getting told to F myself.

I didn't want this to be a debate, I just honestly thought that there would be a few OcUK people going.
 
There are lots of people going so dependant on where you are that Saturday just be mindful FF.

There are lots of coaches going down, were rumours about forcing them to Wembley and caging them in (we were just going to be marching, but marching from Wembley TO the centre is a long way) so I wasn't going to go if this was true.

Aye, I hope it's good natured, but I'm sure there will be a few who will spoil it for the many.
 
Slam62 said:
yeah well the tories have been argueing for years for greater deregulation, deregulation is a good thing as Cameron is now trying to do so for SMEs, however with deregulation and freedom comes responsibility.

So the point being that you are suggesting paralysing the whole economy through regulation.
Click to expand...

Erm, no?

Quality over quantity. Why do people (and by people, right now I am referring to you) have this ridiculous belief that taking an opposing argument to illogical extremes somehow discredits said argument and verifies your own?


Slam62 said:
well no because point 2 is complete rubbish, all you end up with is high unemployment and a bigger deficit. Not that there is any other choice.
Click to expand...

At the risk of another suspension, I have to ask if you were born mentally challenged at birth or if it was the result of continuously huffing paint?

Look at the statistics for unemployment in the UK. During the 1980s it peaked at just over 3m on the highest measurements but fell way back to around 2m by 1990. Tory cuts created unemployment, granted, but the private sector picked up the slack. By 1997 unemployment was at its lowest level in three decades. This is all information easily accessible from the ONS StatBase and is thus non-partisan. Unemployment is a wholly USELESS statistic without some kind of contextual background. Pursuing policies of full employment are suicidal because the only way that it can realistically be achieved is by relentless hiring within the public sector, which is not only economically unsustainable, but also creates higher-than-normal inflation, which is harmful to everybody.

I'm 10,000 words into a thesis on economics. I'm no world-class intellectual, nor an authority on economics. However, I have had two research papers published by peer review (which is apparently stellar performance for a lowly undergraduate, I am told) and have spent more time than I care to count sifting through reams and reams of hard data and academic journals over the past fortnight, so I feel I'm pretty qualified to weigh in on the subject on an internet forum. Especially when you're clearly in blind support of policies advocated by a particular political slant, rather than the realities of economics.
 
Last edited:
Tummy said:
There are lots of people going so dependant on where you are that Saturday just be mindful FF.

There are lots of coaches going down, were rumours about forcing them to Wembley and caging them in (we were just going to be marching, but marching from Wembley TO the centre is a long way) so I wasn't going to go if this was true.

Aye, I hope it's good natured, but I'm sure there will be a few who will spoil it for the many.
Click to expand...

I think the plan with Wembley is to force people to get the tube, then they have them on CCTV.
 
Theophany said:
I'm 10,000 words into a thesis on economics. I'm no world-class intellectual, nor an authority on economics. However, I have had two research papers published by peer review (which is apparently stellar performance for a lowly undergraduate, I am told) and have spent more time than I care to count sifting through reams and reams of hard data and academic journals over the past fortnight, so I feel I'm pretty qualified to weigh in on the subject on an internet forum. Especially when you're clearly in blind support of policies advocated by a particular political slant, rather than the realities of economics.
Click to expand...
You see, there you go bringing facts into the debate again where the pinnacle so far from the "other side" of the argument has been vague waffle with no real factual or realistic basis culminating in....
amigafan2003 said:
No, because arguing a Socialst viewpoint of tech forum full of stuck up Tories (and the odd screwball Lib Dem) is the quick path to a recipe for a straight jacket and a padded cell.
Click to expand...

A cogent and well reasoned arguement there from the career trade unionist I think you'll agree. That'll be the same view of economics from the trade unions that made the UK the laughing stock of world manufacturing in the 70's driving the economy into the ground with power cuts, 3 day weeks, and all the other fun stuff the unions brought to help the common man - untill Maggie thankfully broke them. ;)

It's good to see a few posters like Theophany and Kemik with genuine insight into the realities of "real world" economics contribute informative posts which counter the twaddle posted here sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Theophany said:
I have had two research papers published by peer review (which is apparently stellar performance for a lowly undergraduate, I am told)
Click to expand...

I've had six papers published so :p

A cogent and well reasoned arguement there from the career trade unionist I think you'll agree.
Click to expand...

Thanks :-)

That'll be the same view of economics from the trade unions that made the UK the laughing stock of world manufacturing in the 70's driving the economy into the ground with power cuts, 3 day weeks, and all the other fun stuff the unions brought to help the common man
Click to expand...

And here was me thining it was poor management and lack of foresight that crippled the UK manufacturing industry.

untill Maggie thankfully broke them.
Click to expand...

Did she, did she really?

Maggie didn't break Trade Unionism in this country, she just restricted it's power. It was only the mining unions that were really hurt and that was more down to the batty Scargill than Thatcher. Beware the enemy within!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I'm here - bit of a party atmosphere already.

I've been tasked with running some of the anti kettling tactics - just as well I have about 4 spare phone batteries so I can keep the websites updated!

Oh, and thumbs up to Richard Branson for providing cheap 1st class tickets to protesters travelling down today and tomorrow on Virgin trains (all 1st class seats were £10 quid cheaper in advance than std class) - he loves to stick the boot into the toffs :-)

Roll on tomorrow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes because making the Police service spend even more money they don't have dealing with a bunch of people throwing a tantrum is exactly how to combat the cuts.

Good one socialists. Again.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Lets hope Ed addresses why cuts are needed when he mingles tomorrow. His party's fiscal ineptness would be a good start.
Click to expand...

Mingles? He doesn't have the Balls. He's not marching, he's just talking, for once.

Just got everything ready. If you see a guy with a really old fashioned looking camera bag then then you know who you're dealing with ;) This is going to be fun...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom