SE23 Forum

Yes a few zeros missing from my figure. So when all the debts are repaid we will be in an even better position. A day to be looked forward to so that the country can put this disastrous episode behind us.
When you are gambling with others money honesty is required. But what came to light was that not all those in the games were playing by the rules in fact some were acting in a criminal way although we have been adverse to prosecuting anyone preferring to leave the Americans to fine our banks for their actions.

I rather liked Iceland's approach - jail the bankers.

"Everyone loves a bit of reactionary populism, don't they? Demonise a group of people, blame them for a systemic collapse, then join the pitchfork wielding mob and exact your revenge."

Seems to be OK on some discussions on this forum to do this to social housing tenants, benefits recipients i.e. those that suffer the consequences of austerity.

The headline figure was not disputed but the possible explanations for that were various and therefore added more complexity or nuance to the discussions.

According to what our Prime Minister once said, 'we are all in this together'. This suggests there is no 'them' and 'us'. Since the term 'urchin' is usually related to children, who are entirely dependent on adults, it would appear they are expected to fend for themselves. It all sounds rather Dickensian.

This certainly seems to have support from both Right and Left perspectives but there are some issues. One is whether there should be conditionality which means there would be similarities with current welfare systems and so not so much of a break in practices and another is what to do about housing costs especially where they are high in particular areas. It would be more straightforward where costs are not so variable nationally perhaps where there are some central controls.

And in the meantime - the lazy idle farkers sit at hone coining in it while I work and pay my way - magic

Discussion's good, isn't it?

If we had a properly growing economy there wouldn't be any need for austerity. All I see from the osbourne era are a few large incumbent companies being favoured so there is very little support for innovation.

This is odd from a conservative government that you would think would encourage competition. The problem is that osbourne thinks deregulation is the answer to every problem. All that does is make he wealthier more weathy and the monopolies more monopoly. There is a role for the state in fostering innovation but the current crop of grey, nigel lawsonesque tories will never see this.

Large corporations pay roughly as much tax as they like - osboure is tinkering to satisfy the wall of outrage but at the end of the day his ideology is that these companies should be favoured. None of this would matte if we had an economy less dominated by huge unwieldy [/b]firms and more competition.

The facts dont bear out those statements though and it doesnt seem like its working for the Tories.

The Tories are using austerity and associated arguments as a means of dismantling and restructuring the state to keep the establishment in place and to reduce the opportunities and educational and social capital of the majority of the community.

But you wont find those arguments in the Murdoch press or the right wing BBC. Suggest a little more critical reading might help.