Thread: Anyone esle fed up with the Tories blaming Labour for EVERYTHING?

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

I don't think that private sector pension provision, of which your example is a subset, would be advanced by even the most looney Labour supporter as any sort of success, though we can test that. Is Ashie about?

I'm talking about the price, and I speak as an Independent Financial Advisor.

The worst thing to happen to Private Sector Pensions was actually the abolition of Compulsory membership of Occupational Schemes. It allowed people to opt out of ( usually ) very good Final Salary schemes, taking their accrued benefits with them. This weakened schemes funding strength markedly, and gave very poor value to clients. When this misselling was addressed, the Trustees of the schemes would simply not allow their employees to rejoin the scheme ( as the employer would have to fund the benefits. ) This meant that the people who opted out uslayy had markedly worse pensions provision than those who stayed. Google "Miners Pensions" to see what went wrong.

This disatrous policy was introduced by the Thatcher Governmet.

Originally Posted by whitecity

You invented an imaginary crash into a bus full of kids that you had in your 135mph Audi and tried to pass the blame onto Audi.

He did nothing of the sort - he was explaining how foolish it would be to do such a thing. This isn't the sort of mistake you usually make WC, nor is the ranting reply you gave to an off-the-cuff thread about Iran yesterday. Did something nasty happen to you while you were away from the forum? The generally logical person we were used to seems to have been replaced by someone who has had a serious head injury.

[QUOTE=FORMER_FYRDMAN;3386771]

Originally Posted by Micawber

Well print it off and colour it in then.

Shyte brown, mainly, with dull flecks.

I take it, then, that you are not in favour of taxation, a contribution by an individual against his own short term interest but worth it because it helps ensure the success of the social group - a socialist activity if ever there was one.

I'm not a welfare mong either, but no matter how hard I manage to exploit the advantages that were handed to me at birth I doubt I will ever be able to afford my own independent nuclear deterrent, however I'm quite happy to chip in socialism style so we can all share one.

How far down the socialist road you care to travel is another thing entirely but we are all on it to one extent or another, and this fashion of using 'Socialist' as a term of abuse is just a spillover from the language propaganda used by the Tea Party lunatics in the States.

But back on thread, I'm quite happy to blame New Labour for anything and everything for years to come - they were utterly appalling.

I heard Tony Blair on a R4 documentary about the history of the climate change debate yesterday in the car.

He was assessing some no-account historic political manoeuvre regarding the Chinese but he used the phrase 'It was the right thing to do' and his voice using those words still made my blood run cold.

Cunt.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

So State Control is vital - tad of a Socialist viewpoint, really? By the way - did the Tories disagree when Labour loosened Regulation on the Banking sector? Actually, no - they agreed with it.

So?

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

No; I raised the question of blame. You droned on in a Most Righteous and Important manner, even using a long-winded example to prove ( sic) your position. I then used your *exact* words, but changed eg. "bank" for Audi, and "borrowing" for speed. Using your words in this manner completely supported my point, and also usefully served to destroy yours.

I note you have not actually mentioned this; why would that be? ( no need to answer. )

Why wouldn't I want to answer?

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

You really are in a hole here, best stop digging.

You state that I cannot blame Audi if I chose to drive a car capable of >135 mph. But you also state that I cannot blame the Banks if they choose to lend recklessly. You also say I'm ignoring my own responsibility for driving at excess speed, but you seem to have have no problem with the Banks ignoring their own responsibility for reckless lending.

You seem to be somewhat confused.

You seem to think you've caught me out because, in your opinion, I'm arguing that blame/responsibility should not be passed on. Unfortunbately, you seem incapable of understanding the concept of personal v social responsibility and the existance of legal restrictions.

You, the driver of the Audi - the banker, are wholly responsible for the accident since you have ignored common safety sense and the legal speed limit. You have pushed yourself beyond your own capabilities.

But, since there was no reasonable speed limit (ie banking regulation to discourage suck recklessness) suggesting that speed (greed) was acceptable and, moreover, it was the bus driver who jumped a red light into your path, responsibility begins to shift.

Indeed, it is YOU that is arguing the complete opposite of what you want and strengthening my position. It was within the government's remit to regulate and 'control' recklessness, and the government who was driving the economy (bus).

Originally Posted by parapauk

He did nothing of the sort - he was explaining how foolish it would be to do such a thing.

Indeed it would because, the government has determined restrictions that are accepted by society in the interests of road safety. He, the driver, chose to ignore them and got caught out.

On the otherhand, the government didn't set reasonable banking restrictions, indeed encouraged the 'success' that came from the bankers recklessness and drove the economy into the crash.

And before you crow, yes, it was the Conservatives that first fired up the bus and took on the passengers. But they did not chose the route in the latter stages nor were at the wheel when the crash happened.

Originally Posted by parapauk

This isn't the sort of mistake you usually make WC, nor is the ranting reply you gave to an off-the-cuff thread about Iran yesterday. Did something nasty happen to you while you were away from the forum? The generally logical person we were used to seems to have been replaced by someone who has had a serious head injury.

I've yet to see where the mistake is that you accuse me of. It seems to me, those trying to shift all blame for the financial crisis off government and onto banking are the ones playing 3 monkeys with reality.

And I still maintain getting irked by a mild insult by Iran against a couple of French wenches is PATHETIC!

"II raised the issue as I was getting fed up with the Tories blaming Labour for everything, presumably because its easier to point fingers than to come up with solutions. The Conservative party website this morning has a main heading - OSBORNE SLAMS LABOUR'S ECONOMIC POLICY FAILURE and five subsidiary / sidebar headings:"

Just out of sheer interest. When was the LAST time the New Labour Government blamed the previous Government ? I'm fairly sure that it took about 13 years before they stopped blaming John Major....

[QUOTE=Micawber;3386871]

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

(Snip)

I take it, then, that you are not in favour of taxation, a contribution by an individual against his own short term interest but worth it because it helps ensure the success of the social group - a socialist activity if ever there was one.

I'm not a welfare mong either, but no matter how hard I manage to exploit the advantages that were handed to me at birth I doubt I will ever be able to afford my own independent nuclear deterrent, however I'm quite happy to chip in socialism style so we can all share one.

(Snip)

You seem to be arguing that all taxation and collaborative activity equates to Socialism, in which case there have been some very strange Socialists throughout history. Socialism is defined by centralised social structures, objectives and control. Buying Instant Sunshine to keep society safe is an excellent use of money, subsidising the terminally indolent is not.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Just out of sheer interest. When was the LAST time the New Labour Government blamed the previous Government ? I'm fairly sure that it took about 13 years before they stopped blaming John Major....

I'm talking about current affairs, not history.

Originally Posted by whitecity

I've yet to see where the mistake is that you accuse me of.

Naturally you say you cannot see it, even though it has been clearly explained to you three times now.
Despite this you can see it*, but having adopted the position of Ponifex Minimus you feel unable to admit it.

You are like that rather amiable Iraqi chap who denied that the Americans had invaded, as the Abrams tanks crossed behind him.



*I have assumed you are not as intellectually challenged as your feigned position of incomprehension would indicate.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

I'm talking about current affairs, not history.

Labour's legacy is going to be with us for years, why is it unfair that they are held to account for policies affecting all of us now which they did so much to engender? If people had remembered '77-'79 a bit better, we might not be in as much dwang as we currently are.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

I'm talking about current affairs, not history.

In this case, that doesn't count. New Labour trotted out the mantra that it was the fault of the previous Government for at least the lfirst 13 years of their regime, ignoring the fact that they'd, nominally, been in charge for 13 years. It's now blindingly clear that if Gordon Brown didn't like the idea, it wasn't going to get a penny of money from him.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Naturally you say you cannot see it, even though it has been clearly explained to you three times now.

On the contrary, you have spend at least three attempts to deny your own foolishness.

In your counter-productive analogy, the 'automatic' presumption of responsibility upon the driver is premised by both the legal and sociatal understanding that driving at 135mph is wrong. Take away that premise, by assuming that no law exists to proscribe driving at 135mph and that society is conditionned to the notion that driving around at reckless speeds is not just the norm but recommended as less time at the wheel makes a more efficent working day, and the presumption of responsibility upon the driver falls away. It is this latter narrative that surrounds the banking failures: no regulation and a societal understanding that banking risk created solid profits for the benefit of all.

Although you were deliberate in avoiding mentionning the legal speed limit and background value, they are explicit in the recognition of responsibility.

It seems to me that you didn't think through very well your 'clever' attempt to get me to agree with you.

From the beginning of this thread, I have suggested that the New Labour government should shoulder a significant part of the responsibility for the economic and financial collapse due to not regulating responsibly (proscribing speed limits) and by driving the economy (the bus) towards the crash.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Despite this you can see it*, but having adopted the position of Ponifex Minimus you feel unable to admit it.

Boomerang

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

You are like that rather amiable Iraqi chap who denied that the Americans had invaded, as the Abrams tanks crossed behind him.

Boomerang

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

I have assumed you are not as intellectually challenged as your feigned position of incomprehension would indicate.

In your case, I'm beginning to wonder. I've explained my position and thought process. You simply repeat I'm wrong and do nothing to work your argument through....

[QUOTE=FORMER_FYRDMAN;3386994]

Originally Posted by Micawber

You seem to be arguing that all taxation and collaborative activity equates to Socialism, in which case there have been some very strange Socialists throughout history. Socialism is defined by centralised social structures, objectives and control. Buying Instant Sunshine to keep society safe is an excellent use of money, subsidising the terminally indolent is not.

For my money, socialism is a voluntary, national or communal set of values which aims to produce the greatest amount of good and well being for the greatest number of people in a shared effort.

Yes there does need to be some central control to make things work, and this may include force - ie to compel the payment of taxes - but it is all a question of degree and as socialism must be democratic the will of the majority of people will prevail.

It is the system that all the decent, and it cannot be a co-incidence, successful countries in the world use to one extent or another.

What I object to is the weaponisation of the word by people looking to conceal their own rabidly undemocratic far left or far right, often racist, views thinking that if they use socialism and communism as interchangeable terms often enough people will start to believe it.

Socialism is not a word of abuse, it is the most human way of going on, but it is a term that some very un-sociable regimes have used to cloak themselves.

In the same way most of the worst regimes in history had the word Democracy in their title, it does not mean they were democratic any more than the Nazi National Socialist or the old USSR were socialist.

And I maintain there is no such thing as this 'freedom' the jingoistic knobs bang on about, there is only 'freedom from....' but that would be best left for another day/thread.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

*I have assumed you are not as intellectually challenged as your feigned position of incomprehension would indicate.

Originally Posted by whitecity

In your case, I'm beginning to wonder. I've explained my position and thought process. You simply repeat I'm wrong and do nothing to work your argument through....

I have clearly made a mistake in my assumption that you are not as intellectually challenged as indicated. Not only have I tried to explain my point on numerous occasions and as simply as possible, but others have done so as well. Your refusal to admit comprehension was amusing at first but is now somewhat tedious and suspiciously close to deliberate trolling.

I'll not waste any more of my time on this.

Feel free to adopt the Stalin rebuttal method - ( or was it Goebbels? ) - tell the lie often enough and people will believe it.

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Labour's legacy is going to be with us for years, why is it unfair that they are held to account for policies affecting all of us now which they did so much to engender? If people had remembered '77-'79 a bit better, we might not be in as much dwang as we currently are.

Once again, my complaint about the Tories is not in support of Labour, its a comment on my boredom with the Tories blaming Labour for everything. Not the same thing. As I've mentioned above, the Conservative Party website yesterday had a main heading moaning about Labour, and five sidebars of which four where moans about Labour ( including an issue from 1997 with spectacularly selective "supporting" quotes ). One did actually look into today, in that they mentioned releif for victims of the floods in Pakistan.

Comment about what they are doing about the current economic and fiscal situation ; nil. Zip. Nicht. Rien.