Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You support Labour which is fair enough  I'm done arguing with you. However, purely to correct a personal point, you have no idea who I do or don't support, or indeed what basis I use for deciding who to vote for in any specific election. Fair enough. I stand by everything I have said in this thread. The government is not obliged to provide cradle to grave support for people, no matter how self-destructive their behaviour. If people keep fucking up, at some point we have to hold our hands up and say "you reap what you sew". Because some people will sink as far as they are allowed to, particularly if they constantly have people making excuses for them.  Should there be a safety net? Of course. Should there be unlimited safety nets? No, of course not.  I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's explanation as to how Labour are absolved of responsibility for having to bail out the banks 12 years into their government, and how they are absolved of responsibility for allowing house prices to soar so high that many people with jobs struggle to pay rent and where home ownership is a feasible option for far fewer people than it EVER was under the previous Tory government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You support Labour which is fair enough  I'm done arguing with you. However, purely to correct a personal point, you have no idea who I do or don't support, or indeed what basis I use for deciding who to vote for in any specific election. Fair enough. I stand by everything I have said in this thread. The government is not obliged to provide cradle to grave support for people, no matter how self-destructive their behaviour. If people keep fucking up, at some point we have to hold our hands up and say "you reap what you sew". Because some people will sink as far as they are allowed to, particularly if they constantly have people making excuses for them.  Should there be a safety net? Of course. Should there be unlimited safety nets? No, of course not.  I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's explanation as to how Labour are absolved of responsibility for having to bail out the banks 12 years into their government, and how they are absolved of responsibility for allowing house prices to soar so high that many people with jobs struggle to pay rent and where home ownership is a feasible option for far fewer people than it EVER was under the previous Tory government.  The gap between rich and poor extended under a labour government, that much is true. And scandalous, given their policies. I have to ask though, are you coming at this from the point of view of a tory supporter? Or simply someone who dislikes Labour, I'll hold any further comment until you explain that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I certainly dislike Labour more than I like the Tories. I've voted Labour once, and never voted Tory (mainly due to living in areas where they don't stand a chance). I actually believed in Labour in 1997, which makes what they actually did once in power even harder to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Right. Well Mr Lister had a very good point, to blame Labour for the financial collapse is possible with hindsight, as long as one knows the sub prime stocks that entered the system were a time bomb and knows how to ensure they don't get traded. However, to be fair to Labour- world wide it caught people completely off guard. You're talking most western governments and all trading banks - no-one saw it coming and to suggest it was a labour mistake, rather than a world wide over-sight. Is wrong. To suggest brown, obama, and all the others shouldn't have bailed out the banks is fucking moronic, you're not talking about simply making the banks learn their lesson. You're talking about total, world wide collapse of the capitalist system. You simply can't allow that, and if you think you can you don't understand enough about economics to have an opinion. And you probably don't actually know how Gordon Brown bailed out the banks, do you think he just gave them large quantities of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Right. Well Mr Lister had a very good point, to blame Labour for the financial collapse is possible with hindsight, as long as one knows the sub prime stocks that entered the system were a time bomb and knows how to ensure they don't get traded. However, to be fair to Labour- world wide it caught people completely off guard. You're talking most western governments and all trading banks - no-one saw it coming and to suggest it was a labour mistake, rather than a world wide over-sight. Is wrong. To suggest brown, obama, and all the others shouldn't have bailed out the banks is fucking moronic, you're not talking about simply making the banks learn their lesson. You're talking about total, world wide collapse of the capitalist system. You simply can't allow that, and if you think you can you don't understand enough about economics to have an opinion. And you probably don't actually know how Gordon Brown bailed out the banks, do you think he just gave them large quantities of money? I don't know the exact details of the bail out, but clearly there wasn't any kind of restrictions in there regarding the paying of large bonuses. I would hazard a guess that the banks knew they could hold out for whatever they wanted because the government weren't about to let them go under. Â And you can bet your life that someone knew what was going to happen, and likely made a killing when it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Gordon Brown did, he bailed the banks out by buying stocks, at a knock down price, that the banks were forced to create. The British Taxpayer thusly owns 40% of Lloyds, some similar amount of RBS, etc etc. And we can sell these stocks , when they're worth more (which they're already are, but they're waitiing). It's a fucking smart move, the banks needed to be stopped from collapsing, and we needed to make a profit. But if you don't know any of that, you're not really in a position to be having a go, cos you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. But if we move on to the bonus point, lloyds and rbs are taxpayer owned, meaning it's in our interest to ensure they do well. What happens if he bans all bonus's from lloyds and rbs, where do the good bankers go? And just out of interest, do you think we bailed out all the banks? Or just a few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I'm not the one blaming the bankers for the plight of the homeless! I am aware that we own shares in the banks and can sell them back at profit. Â The people most at blame for the homeless are the people that allowed housing to increase in value far beyond wages. And that is Labour. Â It is also Labour's fault that they were running up a deficit even during the boom period, which would eventually result in cuts having to be made whether there was a recession or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You were the one blaming Labour for what happened to the economy, and bailing out the banks. When you had it explained, in very simple words, what actually happened. Then were asked to profer some degree of knowledge on the subject. At which point you decided to have a completely different conversation. This is why lister was angry with you, you're a fucking moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You were the one blaming Labour for what happened to the economy, and bailing out the banks. When you had it explained, in very simple words, what actually happened. Then were asked to profer some degree of knowledge on the subject. At which point you decided to have a completely different conversation. This is why lister was angry with you, you're a fucking moron. Can you stop dropping f bombs please? Is it any wonder the politics thread is pretty much a no-go area for all but a few posters? Â The Independent journalist blamed the bankers for the fact that services for the homeless were being cut. In reply, I blamed Labour for the fact that the bankers could hold the country to ransom. I'm not ignorant. I'm not an expert either, but I am aware that the money proffered to the bank is in the form of the government owning shares in the bank. I don't see how commenting on the fact that Labour allowed house prices to increase far beyond affordability for most working-class people (you know, the people Labour are supposed to reprsent) is a "completely different conversation" since the discussion is about homelessness. Â In any case, there is no set beginning and end for any discussion on this thread because it is ongoing and covers politics in general, not specific political topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 The Independent journalist blamed the bankers for the fact that services for the homeless were being cut. Â No he didn't, he blamed the bankers for causing the financial crisis. He blamed David Cameron for cutting the services to the homeless: Â All of these cuts to services for the homeless could have been stopped if Cameron had moved one figure on a spreadsheet: if he had taken the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 How can Cameron take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Cameron isn't responsible for providing services to the homeless. That is up to local councils. Clearly homeless people are not high on their list of priorities. Â Possibly, I mean I do not really agree it's that simplistic but I appreciate this is a position that a particularly sociopathic intenet libertarian proponent of localism could take. But if people voluntarily want to give food to other people, without requesting help from the government, how the fuck is making that illegal in line with voluntarism/'The Big Society'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I don't know. It's a tricky situation. Clearly Westminster is a touristy area and the government doesn't want homeless people hanging around there begging or harassing tourists. If I was a business owner in the area I doubt I'd want homeless people hanging around outside my establishment. And I very much suspect that few if any of the homeless people were housed in Westminster before becoming homeless. Â Services for the homeless should be provided in areas where people are actually being made homeless, to prevent them from gravitating towards "showpiece" areas of cities. And the police should enforce zero tolerance in city centres when it comes to public drinking, begging or other anti-social behaviour. Not to mention dropping cigarette ends. How can it be fair when working people are fined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Services for the homeless should be provided in areas where people are actually being made homeless, to prevent them from gravitating towards "showpiece" areas of cities. Â So what exactly do you mean by 'homeless services should be provided'? Who should provide them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Services for the homeless should be provided in areas where people are actually being made homeless, to prevent them from gravitating towards "showpiece" areas of cities. Â So what exactly do you mean by 'homeless services should be provided'? Who should provide them? Local councils. Although it should be up to the local council in particular to consider what their taxpayers want. Â Apart from anything else, homeless people hanging around commercial areas is bad for business. It makes financial sense to provide services for them, as well as any sense of benevolence. But as I say, the police should enforce zero tolerance on vagrants within town and city centres (and no, that isn't victimising them, it's holding them to the same standards as anyone else). Â I would say that homeless services should be run using a mixture of professionals and volunteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts