M.E.N. reports Hyde United "wound up"

[oafc0000]

we need a new party

 

No we dont!!! Sod the party and start electing people again!!! 90% of people in a general election vote for a party instead of a person!! and then you all moan when you realize you just elected a bloody crook who is fiddling their expenses!!!

[Corporal_Jones]

I wouldn't think that. I agree with the poster on a good independent. sadly though we need a new party as the main 3 are only in it for a career and the country is irrelevent. they sign Lisbon purely for selfish reasons and their own power trips and the rest of us can whistle as our democracy and freedoms are removed.

 

 

 

Any and all parties with a chance of getting elected wouldl end up doing the same things in one way or another. The imperatives of our economic and social system dictate it.

 

And then you've got to remember the role of the twelve foot lizards.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

No we dont!!! Sod the party and start electing people again!!! 90% of people in a general election vote for a party instead of a person!! and then you all moan when you realize you just elected a bloody crook who is fiddling their expenses!!!

 

 

 

Nothing to stop an independent fiddling his expenses.

 

Although when you look at the big picture the fiddling of MPs expenses are the least of our worries.

[oafc0000]

Nothing to stop an independent fiddling his expenses.

 

Although when you look at the big picture the fiddling of MPs expenses are the least of our worries.

 

I think my point passed you by

[downender2]

Any and all parties with a chance of getting elected wouldl end up doing the same things in one way or another. The imperatives of our economic and social system dictate it.

 

And then you've got to remember the role of the twelve foot lizards.

 

 

And then you've got to remember the role of the twelve foot lizards.

 

the illuminati...

[opinions4u]

Indirectly, you can trace the ignominious end of the BP redevelopment (and the club?) to Thatcher's election in 1979...

I might regret this.

 

Go on, expand on this one!

[leeslover]

As for the country being busted, that's what comes of uncritically following the neo-liberal economics pioneered by the Thatcher governments that saw the financial markets freed up to the extent that the banks could do what's in large part landed us in the mess. All New Labour did was embrace it.

If by the country being busted you mean the national debt, I seem to recall the Thatcher government paying off c£30-40 billion off per year during the boom years of the 80s. We are crippled now because Brown carried on borrowing throughout the longest boom in history (one allowed by a consequence of the supply side reforms of previous governments and the rapidy expanding world economy). He called it investment. You would perhaps call it Ambition.

[Max Damage]

I would call it out and out stupidity from a guy who couldn't organise the accounts of the local cub scouts. Spend everything we got, start selling everything off so we can spend more, then start borrowing like mad, and then blame the banks when you are busted.

 

Do not take that as someone not blaming the banks because I hate them and their actions and lies as thier lies cost me alot of money.

[oafc0000]

He called it investment. You would perhaps call it Ambition.

 

lol

[opinions4u]

Spend everything we got, start selling everything off so we can spend more, then start borrowing like mad, and then blame the banks when you are busted.

WTF has Mrs o4u got to do with Hyde Utd?

[Max Damage]

Lol's

[Corporal_Jones]

If by the country being busted you mean the national debt, I seem to recall the Thatcher government paying off c£30-40 billion off per year during the boom years of the 80s. We are crippled now because Brown carried on borrowing throughout the longest boom in history (one allowed by a consequence of the supply side reforms of previous governments and the rapidy expanding world economy). He called it investment. You would perhaps call it Ambition.

 

 

 

Perhaps he did. But what's tipped us over the edge is the bailout necessitated by the actions of the banks. As already noted, these actions were made possible by the Thatcher governments' deregulation of the financial markets. And then we have to take the so-called quantitative easing into account-the (virtual) printing of money undertaken by the B of E in a desperate attempt to prevent the financial crash mutating into a worlwide depression-the eventual consequences of which nobody seems to know.

 

It should be noted that a wide variety of governments have undertaken these measures, whether they are, in formal terms, centre-right or centre-left. Similarly, the crisis they are responding to came about as a result of all of them adhering to the new orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics. The pioneer of these, in government, was Thatcher (and her personal friend, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile.)

Edited September 24, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

I might regret this.

 

Go on, expand on this one!

 

 

 

It was a quip based on the fact that the inevitable financial crash brought about by the economics Thatcher and co. pioneered eventually put paid to the BP redevelopment.

[Corporal_Jones]

I would call it out and out stupidity from a guy who couldn't organise the accounts of the local cub scouts. Spend everything we got, start selling everything off so we can spend more, then start borrowing like mad, and then blame the banks when you are busted.

 

 

Brown did this, yes. But he did it on the basis of an economy structurally weakened by successive Tory governments' decimation of the country's industrial base, replacing our lost industries with a call-centre McJob economy. This economy will prove to be inadequate to any genuine economic recovery from the current fiasco, as we will find out over the coming decades.

 

As for the seeling off of things, Labour, again, have only finished what the Tories started, with their selling off of the nation's assets to their cronies in big business, and the selling of British jobs to the cheap labour markets of the far-east and elsewhere.

 

[real]

Brown did this, yes. But he did it on the basis of an economy structurally weakened by successive Tory governments' decimation of the country's industrial base, replacing our lost industries with a call-centre McJob economy. This economy will prove to be inadequate to any genuine economic recovery from the current fiasco, as we will find out over the coming decades.

 

As for the seeling off of things, Labour, again, have only finished what the Tories started, with their selling off of the nation's assets to their cronies in big business, and the selling of British jobs to the cheap labour markets of the far-east and elsewhere.

 

 

Bang on corp. Anyone who actually directly blames brown for the current mess is failing to see where the problem originated:- deregulation. Ok, major; blair; brown didn't change it, but thatcher started the wheel rolling, it was her plan.

Similarly she set in motion the attack on the public sector (traditionally a staid, adequately rewarded sector) by failing to regulate pension (resulting in companies rading pension funds), and was followed by blair/brown who taxed funds to death. Ergo: No private sector pensions; Outcome : Attack on public sector pensions.

 

Ultimate outcome: Worse pensions for all. Equality of poverty.

[opinions4u]

Bang on corp. Anyone who actually directly blames brown for the current mess is failing to see where the problem originated:- deregulation.

Ironically the FSA is the strongest regulator the banking industry has ever had. It's a Government appointed QUANGO full of Government appointed staff that was their to do what the Governent wanted. It was too focused on issuing 17 pages of paperwork to customers getting a simple insurance quote to actually regulate the capital requirements of the banks.

 

Expand lending to grow the economy to generate Stamp Duty, IHT and VAT receipts on the back of the over-inflated housing market.

 

The banks are culpable but it was Government policy to allow it to happen.

 

Ok, major; blair; brown didn't change it, but thatcher started the wheel rolling, it was her plan.

Similarly she set in motion the attack on the public sector (traditionally a staid, adequately rewarded sector) by failing to regulate pension (resulting in companies rading pension funds), and was followed by blair/brown who taxed funds to death. Ergo: No private sector pensions; Outcome : Attack on public sector pensions.

 

Ultimate outcome: Worse pensions for all. Equality of poverty.

Pension funds surpluses were the norm under Thatcher.

 

Pension fund deficits are the norm under Brown.

 

If my old age income has paid for something worthwhile I might consider it worth the loss.

 

I look at the crappy politically correct society that has accelerated under Blair and Brown and realise it hasn't paid for anything other than to create an economic illusion of prosperity to get Blair/Brown re-elected while a useless opposition failed in its task to make the nation aware of reality.

 

I know where the fault lies on pensions. Absolutely totally with Gordon Brown's early budgets. And it didn't get value for money.

Edited September 25, 2009 by opinions4u

[oafc0000]

Bang on corp. Anyone who actually directly blames brown for the current mess is failing to see where the problem originated:- deregulation. Ok, major; blair; brown didn't change it, but thatcher started the wheel rolling, it was her plan.

Similarly she set in motion the attack on the public sector (traditionally a staid, adequately rewarded sector) by failing to regulate pension (resulting in companies rading pension funds), and was followed by blair/brown who taxed funds to death. Ergo: No private sector pensions; Outcome : Attack on public sector pensions.

 

Ultimate outcome: Worse pensions for all. Equality of poverty.

 

I mean seriously was it ok to have allowed de-regulation to continue for nearly 20 years after she left power ??

 

Brown...Blair...Major are all as much to blame...

 

Thatcher f*****d up big style but she surely wont be used as a get out of jail card for another 20 years ??

Edited September 25, 2009 by oafc0000

[Corporal_Jones]

The banks are culpable but it was Government policy to allow it to happen.

 

 

 

Yes-because, as already pointed out, the government had embraced the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. New Labour has generally stood for an intensification of Thatcherism, taking the neo-liberal approach into areas where Thatcher never dared to go due to the strength of opposition at the time. Labour had the luxury of operating when any opposition to neo-liberalism had been successfully marginalised.

 

[Corporal_Jones]

I mean seriously was it ok to have allowed de-regulation to continue for nearly 20 years after she left power ??

 

Brown...Blair...Major are all as much to blame...

 

Thatcher f*****d up big style but she surely wont be used as a get out of jail card for another 20 years ??

 

 

 

They are all as much to blame as each other. Again, it's because they basically all stand for exactly the same things-the very things that have been exposed by the current economic crisis as so much window dressing with nothing substantial behind it. As I said, they embraced the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy.

[oafc0000]

They are all as much to blame as each other. Again, it's because they basically all stand for exactly the same things-the very things that have been exposed by the current economic crisis as so much window dressing with nothing substantial behind it. As I said, they embraced the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy.

 

I totally agree... Besides the bolded bit... I havent got a clue what the hell that means

[Corporal_Jones]

Pension funds surpluses were the norm under Thatcher.

 

Pension fund deficits are the norm under Brown.

 

If my old age income has paid for something worthwhile I might consider it worth the loss.

 

I look at the crappy politically correct society that has accelerated under Blair and Brown and realise it hasn't paid for anything other than to create an economic illusion of prosperity to get Blair/Brown re-elected while a useless opposition failed in its task to make the nation aware of reality.

 

I know where the fault lies on pensions. Absolutely totally with Gordon Brown's early budgets. And it didn't get value for money.

 

 

 

The point is that it is the financial deregulation begun by the Thatcher governments that enabled Brown to operate as he has done.

 

The destruction of a major part of the country's industrial base leaves very little scope for anything substantial behind illusions of prosperity. America, having undergone a similar process of deindustrialisation, has just seen two right-wing Republican administrations, yet has been revealed to be labouring under almost exactly the same illusions as Britain after twelve years of government by the supposed centre-left. Nothing will change if Cameron becomes PM. Whichever party gets elected, all the next government can do, without an industrial base, is reinflate the same bubbles that burst last autumn.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[leeslover]

It should be noted that a wide variety of governments have undertaken these measures, whether they are, in formal terms, centre-right or centre-left.

Simply proves that even the so-called free market governments in the world are essentially actually socialist in nature and act in unison at the beck and call of their shape-shifting lizard masters

 

As already noted, these actions were made possible by the Thatcher governments' deregulation of the financial markets.

 

No they weren't. You've already made the point that every country in the world has been affected. Did the Thatcher government of 1979-1990 deregulate the banking systems operating in Malaysia, 2009? The crash was caused by the masses of toxic debt arising in substantial part from Clinton’s policies which made it extremely difficult for US mortgage suppliers not to offer mortgages on the basis of their ability to pay, as this came to be perceived as postcode discrimination and racist, as an above average of people who would previously have been refused mortgages on the basis that they lived in slums where nobody worked are black.

 

 

Perhaps he did. But what's tipped us over the edge is the bailout necessitated by the actions of the banks. As already noted, these actions were made possible by the Thatcher governments' deregulation of the financial markets. And then we have to take the so-called quantitative easing into account-the (virtual) printing of money undertaken by the B of E in a desperate attempt to prevent the financial crash mutating into a worlwide depression-the eventual consequences of which nobody seems to know.

 

It should be noted that a wide variety of governments have undertaken these measures, whether they are, in formal terms, centre-right or centre-left. Similarly, the crisis they are responding to came about as a result of all of them adhering to the new orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics. The pioneer of these, in government, was Thatcher (and her personal friend, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile.)

 

 

Similarly, the crisis they are responding to came about as a result of all of them adhering to the new orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics. The pioneer of these, in government, was Thatcher (and her personal friend, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile.)

There were many things wrong with the Governments of Mrs Thatcher and General Pinochet. To name but one, the Thatcher Government raised the level of taxation and didn’t break the Doctors and Lawyers, and it’s failure to abolish the Town and Country Planning act of 1946 and the Child Labour Laws is a serious blot on it’s record. And there was some unfortunate stuff in Chile (the price and wages policy and the state sponsored murders, although in mitigation most of the victims were Communists, Socialists, school teachers and so on). Overall though Thatcher stopped the UK from becoming the new Czechoslovakia and Pinochet stopped Chile becoming the new Cuba. Chile incidentally adopted monetarist economic policies at about the same time as Communist China, so pinning all of the violence in Chile on Milton Friedman is a bit harsh.

Edited September 25, 2009 by leeslover

[Corporal_Jones]

Simply proves that even the so-called free market governments in the world are essentially actually socialist in nature and act in unison at the beck and call of their shape-shifting lizard masters{/quote]

 

 

 

Yes, I'm familiar with this argument. It's usually made by drooling rednecks on Youtube who call the Wall Street puppet Obama a Marxist and tell people to stock up on 'ammo.' They haven't thought of it themselves though. They rely on the various fourth-rate minds and pseudo-intellectuals of the Ayn Rand school of thinking for their nonsense. They remind me of those kind of lefties who constantly tell you that socialism has never been tried anywhere just because the outcome turns out different than what the holy books say.

 

So after a long period of financial deregulation and privatisation of everything profitable, resulting in a massive widening of the gulf between rich and poor across the globe, we get the inevitable crash, and the bailing out of the multi-millionaires at the taxpayer's expense. And then some clowns try to tell us that this is somehow socialism. As various extremely non-socialist voices like Nassim Taleb keep telling us-the only credence you can give to that argument is that it's socialism of the mega-rich at the expense of everybody else. Or, as Gerald Celente-a man actually much loved by the ultra-right radio show hosts in the US says-economically it's actually closer to fascism than anything else.

 

Who was the world's best-known disciple of Ayn Rand? Alan 'there was a flaw in the model that we didn't see' Greenspan. Enough said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldhamSheridan]

The point is that it is the financial deregulation begun by the Thatcher governments that enabled Brown to operate as he has done.

 

And it was the rejection of Barbara Castle's White Paper which allowed Thatcher a free for all with dismantling industry/unions come election and allowed your neo-liberal economic orthodoxy.

 

It's all Jim Callaghan's fault.

[Corporal_Jones]

There were many things wrong with the Governments of Mrs Thatcher and General Pinochet. To name but one, the Thatcher Government raised the level of taxation and didn’t break the Doctors and Lawyers, and it’s failure to abolish the Town and Country Planning act of 1946 and the Child Labour Laws is a serious blot on it’s record. And there was some unfortunate stuff in Chile (the price and wages policy and the state sponsored murders, although in mitigation most of the victims were Communists, Socialists, school teachers and so on). Overall though Thatcher stopped the UK from becoming the new Czechoslovakia and Pinochet stopped Chile becoming the new Cuba. Chile incidentally adopted monetarist economic policies at about the same time as Communist China, so pinning all of the violence in Chile on Milton Friedman is a bit harsh.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how serious you are about all this LL, as you come across like some identikit 'Hang-Nelson-Mandela-shock-a-liberal' Young Conservative before Tebbit closed them down for showing the Tory Party up.

 

Are you into flicking naked men with damp towels in steamy dressing rooms?