Tory boy John Glen.. fu**ing a**ewipe

[jucyberry]

So, so very angry.. Just seen a piece on C4 news about  food banks. Something I have never heard of, where people donate items of food to help the poor in times of hardship..

Aparently as I myself and I know others will understand too well if they are in a low to minimum wage sometimes you have to make a choice eat or pay bills. It's one of the more depressing aspects of being not exactly financially solvent.

Acording to this tory tit however there is no need for anyone to starve, that obvoiusly the silly simple poor are spending unwisely. Being frivolous.

Smug self satisfied, f**king Kitsoning litte t**t. f**k I loathe tories....

Now off to wash my mouth out with soap....    

OMG, the swear filter is down....  

[Sheepskin Stu]

You're a woman of spirit Deborah.  

[DN8ROVER]

The Torys are a set of selfish Kitsons....always have been and always will be.Every time that smarmy t**t oily Dave is on the telly i have an urge to put by boot through the screen.

[BobG]

I always thought I could never loath anyone as much as I loathed, and loath, Margaret Thatcher. But maybe I was wrong.......

BobG

[bobjimwilly]

They have no bread? Let them eat cake!

 :angry:

[Glyn_Wigley]

But how are the lower orders ever going to learn how to budget properly unless you make them as poor as possible??  :side:

[BillyStubbsTears]

Over the last 15 years I'd almost forgotten how much I f**king well despise this bunch, but they are reminding me quickly.

Here's THE classic interview by their heroine, their ideological leader who set the moral standard that the current t**ts aspire to

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

That's the \"No such thing as society\" interview. In the Tory world, everything is rosy apart from feckless people leaning on the State. We are all masters of our own destiny and leaning on a concept called Society is a cop out.

Utter b*llocks.

At the time she wad smugly saying that, her Govt had ripped the hearts out of communities like mine. In the mid80s, the unemployment rate in Mexborough was 28%. That was a result of her own policies, destroying mining and steelworking industries and leaving entire areas without an economic raison d'être.

If you live in those circumstances, you learn pretty quickly that Society very much DOES exist and it's NOT all down to decisions that individuals make. Society is the collective situation that we live in. It decides your economic circumstances, your chances, your aspirations.  Our societies in South Yorks were functional and vibrant, if hard. They were then destroyed by her Govt's policies and she had the f**king cheek to turn round and say all the problems were down to the individuals living there. While fostering the repulsive consumerism of the South East yuppie culture that showed what sort of Society we should be aspiring to.

Well many of those individuals took her at her word and said \"f**k Society, I'll look after myself.\" Men who had been honest hard workers ended up doing fiddle jobs for cash in hand to make ends meet. Or they did smuggling booze and fags runs to Calais and sold them in illegally in the pubs. Or they fenced dodgy gear with no questions asked. That includes some decent, honest men in my own family who did that rather than see their families go poor. They were the living embodiment of Thatcherism.

It's that smug, patronising glibness of the Tories that I despise. They have no concept and no experience of the lives of the people they pass judgement on. They have nade it good in a Society that gave them the chances they needed. They then say, \"but that was all down to my own ability and hard work,\" and pour scorn on people who are birn into Societies that break them.

Thatcher, Tebbit, Glenn, Pickles, Osbourne, the f**king lot of them all chips off the same disgusting block.

Nye Bevan was right 60 years ago when he said the Tories were lower than vermin. And they haven't changed since.

[Nudga]

Maybe we should be taking to the streets like the middle eastern countries are doing at the moment. This country is rapidly turning to rat shit with countless job losses and panic austerity cuts, why haven't the banks been made to pay back what they owe?
It's about time we got our heads together and brought this country to a stand still until this government does the honourable thing and steps down.
I don't claim to know much about finance or politics but I would have thought that our country would be a lot stronger with a huge and happy work force who pay taxes and also have money in their back pockets to keep the economy moving.
If this government had been pro-active and kept things going I reckon we would have been out of the shit a lot quicker. But as far as I can see, the current world climate was a blessing in disguise for this government as they seem to be looking after their own and shitting on millions of the working class.

[coventryrover]

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Dont know the figures exactly but doing that would save most of the cuts going on now.

[Filo]

coventryrover wrote:

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Because t**ts like Gideon have their inherited millions stashed away in tax havens to avoid contributing to the country`s coffers, we`re all in this together my arse!

[Nudga]

So what can WE do? I reckon the students had the right idea a couple of months ago, just a shame the trade unions and joe public couldn't organise something on the same week.

Who's up for parking your cars on the motorway networks around this area and bringing the area to a stand still? Let's see if the rest of the country follows.

British people love to moan about stuff like this but do absolutely nothing about it. Our country and the people in it doesn't have a back bone.

[River Don]

Nudga wrote:

So what can WE do? I reckon the students had the right idea a couple of months ago, just a shame the trade unions and joe public couldn't organise something on the same week.

Who's up for parking your cars on the motorway networks around this area and bringing the area to a stand still? Let's see if the rest of the country follows.

British people love to moan about stuff like this but do absolutely nothing about it. Our country and the people in it doesn't have a back bone.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/list

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/312

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hey Debs. Type John Glen Tory into Google and have a look at the fourth link.

[jucyberry]

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8860447.MP__done_up_like_a_kipper_/

I did find this....

Unless C4 completely fragmented each word and then put back together in a totally different way, I don't see how he can worm out of his comments, and lets face it , the camera adds pounds, it doesn't add the sound of contempt in a persons voice..

Worms, snakes.....they all slither along don't they?

[jonrover]

So what can WE do? I reckon the students had the right idea a couple of months ago, just a shame the trade unions and joe public couldn't organise something on the same week.

Who's up for parking your cars on the motorway networks around this area and bringing the area to a stand still? Let's see if the rest of the country follows.

British people love to moan about stuff like this but do absolutely nothing about it. Our country and the people in it doesn't have a back bone.

As I've mentioned on here before, there is a demo in London on the 26th March. And I'd urge anyone who are opposed to what is happening to get down there and support it. My trade union, Unite are putting on free trains and coaches for members, friends and family. I assume other unions will be doing something similar. But a word of warning to anyone going by coach. I've been told that the police have said there will be no coaches allowed into central London whatsoever, and they will be sent to Wembley and people will be shuttled in on the tube. Strange that, considering the stop the war demo a few years ago drew half a million and coaches were allowed an unrestricted journey into the capital. Orders from the Tories maybe to dilute the protest as much as possible or am I just being cynical?  

Locally, Doncaster has one of the more vibrant, organised anti cuts movements, even if the left in Doncaster has been split in two in the past year. Luckily, they are not sectarian when it comes to fighting the Tories and our fascist mayor! There is a protest in Donny tomorrow at noon, which unfortunately I can't make because I'm getting over pneumonia. Then there is the Coalition of Resistance meeting on the 2nd March at the Danum, which should be a good event.

But we need to do more than attend meetings and wave flags on demos. The masses who are being affected by these cuts need educating and informing that there is another way to tackle the deficit, and that we are being drip fed a lie, which is that this crisis is not Labours crisis but a global crisis, caused by greedy bankers. And the Tories are using this lie to justify rolling back the welfare state, which is an ideological measure, not an economic necessity. Next time you watch the news and a Con-Dem MP is being interviewed, take note at how they make sure they mention the crisis is Labour's doing. Every single time this happens and it is a complete f**king lie! The trouble is, if you get fed this shit every day, you will take it as gospel unless you are politically and economically aware, which unfortunately 99% of the population in this country is not. To promote the alternative this myth must be put to bed.
And the alternative is simple. The deficit can be lowered by collecting the £120 billion of tax the rich and corporations avoid paying. A progressive taxation of the rich. Scrapping Trident. End the futile war in Afghanistan. And most importantly force the banks to repay what they were given as a bailout by the taxpayer. Then we need investment in the public sector to create the jobs that will grow us out of the deficit in the form of rebuilding the council housing stocks that Thatcher sold off, rebuild crumbling schools and hospitals, repair our highways, bring the railways into public ownership and invest in its infrastructure, invest in manufacturing and force the banks to lend to small businesses to create jobs, all of which will increase tax revenue, lower welfare payments and grow the economy, decreasing the debt as a measure of GDP at a more sedate and sensible pace.

Its not revolutionary, just fair. Something the Tories have no concept of, because they have lived in a bubble of privilege all their lives and have no idea what it feels like to struggle on a pittance. But hey, we're all in it together...apparently.

[SpaceShowerTeleVision]

Over the last 15 years I'd almost forgotten how much I f**king well despise this bunch, but they are reminding me quickly.

Here's THE classic interview by their heroine, their ideological leader who set the moral standard that the current t**ts aspire to

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

That's the \"No such thing as society\" interview. In the Tory world, everything is rosy apart from feckless people leaning on the State. We are all masters of our own destiny and leaning on a concept called Society is a cop out.

Utter b*llocks.

At the time she wad smugly saying that, her Govt had ripped the hearts out of communities like mine. In the mid80s, the unemployment rate in Mexborough was 28%. That was a result of her own policies, destroying mining and steelworking industries and leaving entire areas without an economic raison d'être.

If you live in those circumstances, you learn pretty quickly that Society very much DOES exist and it's NOT all down to decisions that individuals make. Society is the collective situation that we live in. It decides your economic circumstances, your chances, your aspirations.  Our societies in South Yorks were functional and vibrant, if hard. They were then destroyed by her Govt's policies and she had the f**king cheek to turn round and say all the problems were down to the individuals living there. While fostering the repulsive consumerism of the South East yuppie culture that showed what sort of Society we should be aspiring to.

Well many of those individuals took her at her word and said \"f**k Society, I'll look after myself.\" Men who had been honest hard workers ended up doing fiddle jobs for cash in hand to make ends meet. Or they did smuggling booze and fags runs to Calais and sold them in illegally in the pubs. Or they fenced dodgy gear with no questions asked. That includes some decent, honest men in my own family who did that rather than see their families go poor. They were the living embodiment of Thatcherism.

It's that smug, patronising glibness of the Tories that I despise. They have no concept and no experience of the lives of the people they pass judgement on. They have nade it good in a Society that gave them the chances they needed. They then say, \"but that was all down to my own ability and hard work,\" and pour scorn on people who are birn into Societies that break them.

Thatcher, Tebbit, Glenn, Pickles, Osbourne, the f**king lot of them all chips off the same disgusting block.

Nye Bevan was right 60 years ago when he said the Tories were lower than vermin. And they haven't changed since.

I have to disagree with you BST. A person is neither solely a product of their environment, nor solely a product of themselves. Surely it's an interaction between the two. There are many examples of people from very difficult backgrounds who succeed despite where they come from. Equally there are those who decide to toss it off, sit on benefits, or take drugs drugs and commit crime. In fact it's the other shower of tossers in red who encourage this particular set of behaviours to manifest through their collective state nannying those 'unfortunate soles' to take the easy life.

Of course there are also those from very good backgrounds who never amount to anything, and end up making  a negative contribution to society.

Regarding what to do about it - yes you could protest. I'm not sure what that will achieve in the UK. Somebody cited the student protests as an example. How did that work? Did they get what they wanted after all the media frenzy had settled? Is it a change of government people want? Well the other option had a hand putting Britain in this mire, so they don't fill me with confidence.

My solution? I got the hell out of dodge, and don't intend to return for the foreseeable future. It's a sad state of affairs, but Britain really does seem to me to be broken. A relic of a once great nation, in the last throws of a slow death.

[RobTheRover]

coventryrover wrote:

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Because t**ts like Gideon have their inherited millions stashed away in tax havens to avoid contributing to the country`s coffers, we`re all in this together my arse!

Just heard on Radio5 that Barclays paid just 2% tax on their profits last year.  Corporation tax is currently 28%.

Shut them down, and prosecute the directors for tax evasion.

[Muttley]

Prior year losses and making most of your profits overseas (where understandably it is taxed by other countries) is your answer Rob.

No doubt they've been smart avoiding tax wherever possible...but don't we all do that - only the same as paying the plumber in cash with a nod and a wink for a tenner discount

[The Red Baron]

coventryrover wrote:

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Because t**ts like Gideon have their inherited millions stashed away in tax havens to avoid contributing to the country`s coffers, we`re all in this together my arse!

Just heard on Radio5 that Barclays paid just 2% tax on their profits last year.  Corporation tax is currently 28%.

Shut them down, and prosecute the directors for tax evasion.

Err... hang on. That was for 2009, on the sainted Gordon's watch.

Perhaps if Brown and Darling had driven a harder bargain for baling out the banks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And if Brown had put in a proper system of bank regulation when he was Chancellor...

[Filo]

coventryrover wrote:

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Because t**ts like Gideon have their inherited millions stashed away in tax havens to avoid contributing to the country`s coffers, we`re all in this together my arse!

Just heard on Radio5 that Barclays paid just 2% tax on their profits last year.  Corporation tax is currently 28%.

Shut them down, and prosecute the directors for tax evasion.

Err... hang on. That was for 2009, on the sainted Gordon's watch.

Perhaps if Brown and Darling had driven a harder bargain for baling out the banks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And if Brown had put in a proper system of bank regulation when he was Chancellor...

Ah...... regulate the banks! was n`t it the Tories that de-regulated them the last time the electorate was stupid enough to vote them in?

[The Red Baron]

The Tories did indeed deregulate the banks, and had they been in government during the period 1997-2010 I am sure they would have maintained a regime of \"light touch\" regulation. Similar to that introduced by Gordon Brown (ably assisted by the current Shadow Chancellor) who handed responsibility for bank regulation to the hopelessly ill-equipped Financial Services Authority.

Just because both main parties think something is right doesn't make it so. In fact, when there is broad consensus on an issue, I usually fear the worst. What strikes me as deeply hypocritical is to hear Labour politicians- Balls being one of the worst offenders- carrying on as though the last 13 years never happened and how, given the chance, they'd do things totally differently. They had the chance- and they didn't.

[BillyStubbsTears]

coventryrover wrote:

Why hasn't the fecking tax loops holes being closed and all the taxes owed collected?

Because t**ts like Gideon have their inherited millions stashed away in tax havens to avoid contributing to the country`s coffers, we`re all in this together my arse!

Just heard on Radio5 that Barclays paid just 2% tax on their profits last year.  Corporation tax is currently 28%.

Shut them down, and prosecute the directors for tax evasion.

Err... hang on. That was for 2009, on the sainted Gordon's watch.

Perhaps if Brown and Darling had driven a harder bargain for baling out the banks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And if Brown had put in a proper system of bank regulation when he was Chancellor...

Easy targets TRB.

Ignores the fact that we were in desperate times back in Autumn 2008 with the whole if western capitalism looking over the precipice.

You slag off Brown and Darling for not finessing every detail?

Well, they could always have taken the route that Gideon urged (and you yourself argued for at the time). Leave it to the markets and it will all sort itself out.

Have you any comprehension what world you'd be living in at the moment had we done that?

[The Red Baron]

Easy targets TRB.

Ignores the fact that we were in desperate times back in Autumn 2008 with the whole if western capitalism looking over the precipice.

You slag off Brown and Darling for not finessing every detail?

If by \"not finessing every detail\" you mean that they basically said to the banks \"take this money and carry on as before\" then yes, I do criticise them.

The Government was in the position of a man with an alcoholic friend who needed help. The could say \"I'll help you, but you must agree to change your lifestyle.\" Instead they said \"come to the pub and I'll buy you a few more.\" A crude analogy, but it is an apt one.

Let's face it, ever since the Northern Rock crisis broke- back in the Autumn of 2007, not 2008, the government must have known that having to bale out or even nationalise parts of the banking industry was a distinct possibility. So to argue that somehow the crisis was sprung on them is a nonsense. They would (or should) have had some idea of the banks' exposure. What they don't seem to have thought through is what they would ask for in return for that financial support- for example, an end to large-scale bonuses, a guaranteed amount of business lending and the splitting up of the investment (\"casino\") and retail arms of the banks.

To go back to the original point that I commented on- yes, Barclays ARE having a laugh when they can get away with paying corporation tax at 2%. But they are allowed to do it because they are not answerable to the taxpayer- they remain answerable to their shareholders. So they will exploit every avenue to avoid paying tax, and do so using rules that existed long before the coalition was a glimmer in Nick Clegg's eye.

Oh and one last thing- I wonder if you'd be so understanding of my \"easy targets\" if, say, Cameron and Osborne had held those offices at the time rather than Brown and Darling?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hang on TRB. You're not getting away with that. The technical term for what you said there is \"revisionism\". Re-writing history to suit a particular ideological viewpoint.

It's easy to forget now, but back in late 2008, we really were on the edge of a horrific precipice. What Brown and Darling did was on the hoof repairs to a system that was about to explode. If it was so easy to have spotted it, to see what was going to come and to prepare for it, then why didn't Dave and Gideon (and your good self) realise that when calling for the markets to be left to sort out Northern Rock in 2007? Clearly, no-one on the Right had any comprehension how badly brokne the world banking system was, otherwise they wouldn't have said something as fundamentally dangerous and stupid as that.

If it was so easy to spot what should be done, why did Bush's administration get it so spectacularly wrong over Lehman Bros, when they DID allow them to go to the wall - an event that turned an major crisis into a once-a-century catastrophe?

If it was so easy to see how to get out of that problem, why did Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman say that of all the world leaders, only Brown understood the nature and potential horror of the banking crisis in Oct 2008 and how to point the way to avoid the worst effects?

If it was so easy, why did Dave and Gideon vanish for two months back then, sitting on their hands and waiting until wiser heads had sorted out the imminent catastrophe? Could it be because they knew (and still know) only one economic mantra - the old Thatcherite cry, \"leave it to the markets\"? Could it be because it suddnely became horrifically clear to them that it was those very markets which had failed and their rulebook had no answers on what to do?

You ask what we would say if Dave and Gideon had allowed Barclays to have a situation where they paid so little tax. It's a non-question. If those two had been in power in 2008, and applied thier policies, the question could never have arisen, because there would BE no banking sytem today.

Maybe Brown and Darling did get it wrong on not imposing harsher conditions. That's dead easy to say with hindsight. Their bigger concern in Autumn 2008 was ensuring that we had a banking system full stop. Had they imposed swinging taxes immediately and a further banking crisis had immediately occurred as a result of the banks being enfeebled, would THAT have been a better solution? The plan always was to pragmatically see how the banks recovered, then tighten the tax screw as they got back on their feet. Let's see if Gideon is capable of doing that when half pf the Tories' funds come from the City, eh?


Your sniping comments are like blaming Churchill for us not getting to Berlin before the Russians, and ignoring the fact that he was crucial in us winning the whole bloody war!

Finally, two points.

1) Barcalys can get awa with paying 2% Corp Tax in large part because they can offset the previous year's losses against the present year's profits. Just like any other company. You want to change that law? You'll put 20% of companies out of business overnight.

2) Inconvenient fact, but Barclays did not receive any bail out funds in 2008. So how exactly was Brown to blame for not then dictating terms to them?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I have to disagree with you BST. A person is neither solely a product of their environment, nor solely a product of themselves. Surely it's an interaction between the two. There are many examples of people from very difficult backgrounds who succeed despite where they come from. Equally there are those who decide to toss it off, sit on benefits, or take drugs drugs and commit crime. In fact it's the other shower of tossers in red who encourage this particular set of behaviours to manifest through their collective state nannying those 'unfortunate soles' to take the easy life.

Of course there are also those from very good backgrounds who never amount to anything, and end up making  a negative contribution to society.

Regarding what to do about it - yes you could protest. I'm not sure what that will achieve in the UK. Somebody cited the student protests as an example. How did that work? Did they get what they wanted after all the media frenzy had settled? Is it a change of government people want? Well the other option had a hand putting Britain in this mire, so they don't fill me with confidence.

My solution? I got the hell out of dodge, and don't intend to return for the foreseeable future. It's a sad state of affairs, but Britain really does seem to me to be broken. A relic of a once great nation, in the last throws of a slow death.

I couldn;t agree more that people are the product of their own drive and their environment. O agree 100%. The reason why I despise the Thatcherites, is that they insisted that the environment (AKA Society) didn't matter and anyone who failed only had themselves to blame. Sheer ideological evilness.


I'm not passing judgment here by the way, but your own decision to clear out of this area is a fully Thatcherite one. I entirely understand it on your personal level, but the result of that on a societal level is to drain talent and rive out of these societies. Tebbit would have applauded it. You got on your bike. What that lot seemed oblivious to was the utter wickedness of encouraging such a policy instead of directing investment into areas such as ours.

Leave it to the markets and it'll all work out OK. Well no. Leave it to the markets and SOME will work out OK. And f**k the rest.

And the ones who DO work out OK become rootless economic migrants. Leaving the societies that they and their families grew up in to settle in some faceless satellite town. Like modern-day migrants from the DustBowl, leaving behind their own society because the Govt has allowed it to rot away. And the logical conclusion is that THEIR political attitude becomes, \"f**k the poor. I got out. Why should I pay taxes to help them out?\" And in a very Thatcherite way, Society does evaporate.

[The Red Baron]

Hang on TRB. You're not getting away with that. The technical term for what you said there is \"revisionism\". Re-writing history to suit a particular ideological viewpoint.

It's easy to forget now, but back in late 2008, we really were on the edge of a horrific precipice. What Brown and Darling did was on the hoof repairs to a system that was about to explode. If it was so easy to have spotted it, to see what was going to come and to prepare for it, then why didn't Dave and Gideon (and your good self) realise that when calling for the markets to be left to sort out Northern Rock in 2007? Clearly, no-one on the Right had any comprehension how badly brokne the world banking system was, otherwise they wouldn't have said something as fundamentally dangerous and stupid as that.

If it was so easy to spot what should be done, why did Bush's administration get it so spectacularly wrong over Lehman Bros, when they DID allow them to go to the wall - an event that turned an major crisis into a once-a-century catastrophe?

If it was so easy to see how to get out of that problem, why did Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman say that of all the world leaders, only Brown understood the nature and potential horror of the banking crisis in Oct 2008 and how to point the way to avoid the worst effects?

If it was so easy, why did Dave and Gideon vanish for two months back then, sitting on their hands and waiting until wiser heads had sorted out the imminent catastrophe? Could it be because they knew (and still know) only one economic mantra - the old Thatcherite cry, \"leave it to the markets\"? Could it be because it suddnely became horrifically clear to them that it was those very markets which had failed and their rulebook had no answers on what to do?

You ask what we would say if Dave and Gideon had allowed Barclays to have a situation where they paid so little tax. It's a non-question. If those two had been in power in 2008, and applied thier policies, the question could never have arisen, because there would BE no banking sytem today.

Maybe Brown and Darling did get it wrong on not imposing harsher conditions. That's dead easy to say with hindsight. Their bigger concern in Autumn 2008 was ensuring that we had a banking system full stop. Had they imposed swinging taxes immediately and a further banking crisis had immediately occurred as a result of the banks being enfeebled, would THAT have been a better solution? The plan always was to pragmatically see how the banks recovered, then tighten the tax screw as they got back on their feet. Let's see if Gideon is capable of doing that when half pf the Tories' funds come from the City, eh?


Your sniping comments are like blaming Churchill for us not getting to Berlin before the Russians, and ignoring the fact that he was crucial in us winning the whole bloody war!

Finally, two points.

1) Barcalys can get awa with paying 2% Corp Tax in large part because they can offset the previous year's losses against the present year's profits. Just like any other company. You want to change that law? You'll put 20% of companies out of business overnight.

2) Inconvenient fact, but Barclays did not receive any bail out funds in 2008. So how exactly was Brown to blame for not then dictating terms to them?

Interesting that you bring ideology into it. Joseph Stiglitz (another Nobel laureate) wouldn't have much in common with the Tory/ Republican free marketeers, but he also thinks that letting bad banks fail might have been a better option:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4424418/Let-banks-fail-says-Nobel-economist-Joseph-Stiglitz.html

Anyway, capitalism as we understand it is f**ked. Basically there was a choice in 2008 between a quick death for the old system or a slow lingering one. I can understand why those in power would choose the latter, but in doing so they've removed any chance of rebirth, at least for a decade, if not a generation. And by that time, the Chinese economic model will probably have established its hegemony.

One final point- you are quite right to say that Barclays was not bailed out by the government. However, as the MP who raised this issue in the first place said, they benefited from the measures taken to rescue the banking system. But hey, we can't expect them to be grateful, can we? Just think of the noise they made when Osborne managed to screw a measly £2bn out of them recently.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Look at the date of Stiglitz's comments. Four months after the sudden, unforeseen tipping point of the banking crisis.

That smacks of an economist thinking long and hard over his bourbon for several months. Considering what actions may have been beneficial or problematic. He didn't have the responsibility of making the decision on the hoof. One of the reasons that I respect Krugman's opinion is that he was saying it in the very heat of the problem. He was an economist caught up in the tidal wave along with everyone else, and was one of the very few who were prepared to put their head above the parapet and give an opinion and a steer.

The rest of them went hull down and theorized. Coming up with their prognostications after the worst part of the storm had already passed. Just as the Tory Party did. It vanished off the radar back in Autumn 2008 because it had not the faintest idea what approach to take as the crisis broke.

A standpoint that gives no credible suggestion at the time of crisis, then says, \"Ah well, of course you got it badly wrong\" six months later is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It's the worst sort of self-indulgent academic masturbation.

And after all that time, Stiglitz says, \"There is an argument for letting banks fail.\" (Which, incidentally, is very different from what the Telegraph's headline says - f**king journalists eh?)

And I do like his little aside. \"It may cause turmoil...\"

Well the last time that approach to a banking crisis was tried, it caused the Great Depression, 30% unemployment and the Second World War. I'd call that \"turmoil\".

EDIT: I fully agree by the way that the banks must be restructured in such a way that none of them ever again becomes too big to fail. I agree with Stiglitz that the banks such be underwritten only to the extent that the deposits of ordinary people are covered - their contracts with other big organizations HAVE to carry the risk of default that occurs in any other line of business.

That's very different from saying that the banks should have been allowed to fail back in 2008. They were simply too big for us to allow that to happen. The effects on our economy and on the whole of the West would have been devastating. You can perhaps point a finger at Brown for not having addressed this previously. I'd agree on that. But there's the counter argument of how he could have done that in the 2000s without seriously hobbling our economy as the banks upped and left to more de-regulated states.

The challenge now is to achieve a world-wide re-structuring of banking that prevents the problem re-emerging. THAT was precisely what Brown was talking about in the last year before the election. That is one reason among several that Krugman described Brown as \"Intellectually more impressive than any Amercian politician I have spoken to.\"

As I said before, we'll see how big a priority this is for a Tory Party that is bankrolled by the City.

[SpaceShowerTeleVision]

I couldn;t agree more that people are the product of their own drive and their environment. O agree 100%. The reason why I despise the Thatcherites, is that they insisted that the environment (AKA Society) didn't matter and anyone who failed only had themselves to blame. Sheer ideological evilness.


I'm not passing judgment here by the way, but your own decision to clear out of this area is a fully Thatcherite one. I entirely understand it on your personal level, but the result of that on a societal level is to drain talent and rive out of these societies. Tebbit would have applauded it. You got on your bike. What that lot seemed oblivious to was the utter wickedness of encouraging such a policy instead of directing investment into areas such as ours.

Leave it to the markets and it'll all work out OK. Well no. Leave it to the markets and SOME will work out OK. And f**k the rest.

And the ones who DO work out OK become rootless economic migrants. Leaving the societies that they and their families grew up in to settle in some faceless satellite town. Like modern-day migrants from the DustBowl, leaving behind their own society because the Govt has allowed it to rot away. And the logical conclusion is that THEIR political attitude becomes, \"f**k the poor. I got out. Why should I pay taxes to help them out?\" And in a very Thatcherite way, Society does evaporate.

Your points Billy are as usual well thought out and made.

Regarding your point on migration being a drain on society, this only stands if the flow is one way. However, as has been widely discussed elsewhere, in the UK we also experience high levels of immigration. Whilst there are those who bring nothing to the country, there is also massive employment of immigrants in welfare organisations such as the NHS and in the service industry - who all contribute to 'society'.

I also disagree that 'the ones who DO work out OK become rootless economic migrants'. Culture is transient, new cultures spring up where disparate 'tribes' mesh together to share identity. People also generally retain a strong pride in their 'home' culture/country - often planning to return at some point in the future. They certainly do not automatically think \"f**k the poor, I got out\" - alternatively they might think - \"my family are poor - I give them a better chance/standard of living by sending my earnings back to them\". Whilst this may not be apparent in places such as Maltby and Rotherham where outsiders and foreigners will remain a threat, in multicultural centres it truly is an inspiring set of beliefs.

There also appears to be a flaw in your argument - \"leaving behind their own society because the Govt has allowed it to rot away\". Surely from your own philosophical standpoint it is societies responsibility. After all, government represents the people and does not/should not shape the people?

What is clear is your contempt for an ideology from 30 odd years ago is driven by very strong emotions. The people you mention such as Tebbit will be unknown to many, if not most people in this country. It may have more impact to stick to 21st century politics. The drive for power, whether it be Roman acquisition of territory, or American acquisition of resource is inherent within history and politics. Take Clegg for example. What position is he and the Lib-Dem party left in now? His greed for positional power may well have destroyed the future of his party. The bankers were driven by the power associated with increased personal wealth. Is the drive for power wicked? I prefer not to put my own subjective judgement on it. I would argue it is inherent within organisms - whether it is ants, sharks or people - power = survival, because only the strongest will survive.

I fear Britain will not survive. It is on it's knees, through a variety of factors, however, I will make sure I give my family the best chance I can give them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Forgive me, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by \"economic migration\". I actually meant the drain of talent and drive from areas like South Yorkshire to areas like the South East, rather than emi- or immigration. That was the logical conclusion of Thatcherite policies, as satellite towns round London prospered and suckked talent in while the periphery was hammered by indutrial closures, neglected and left to rot.

The Right believe for ideological reasons that you shouldn't interfere with the market. You should let businesses decide where is best for them to base themselves. And then people have to migrate to where the jobs are.

That has always appeared morally objectionable to me. It places business needs above those of well established societies. It means that societies must necessarily collapse when the market decides that it has no more use for their skills/location/industries. We know it does, because that ideology was given full rip in South Yorkshire in the 1980s and we have still not fully recovered today.

In my book, one of the roles of Govt is to restrain the excesses of the market, and to intervene to re-assert the balance between people and business. The Tories could have done that in the 80s. They could have directed preferential business tax rates at companies who set up in the North. They could have taxed more heavily the companies who were sucked into the rabid growth in the South East (which, incidently, led directly to the overheating of the economy and the crash on 90-91). But they didn't because they think people should uproot themselves and societies should wither when the market says so.