The Quiet Ones Are Always The Most Dangerous

[CokeSnortingTory]

I think what Darling is missing is that the economy is dependent on that level of spending. It's not as if we can just sack all the diversity officers and make to with less diversity: it's the knock-on effect of their demand and debt-servicing ability, and the shock to an economy that's adjusted to their existence.

There's also the question of undoing New Labour's benefit/entitlement culture and re-establishing a work-ethic (which has never featured strongly in modern Britain in any case). New Labour has wasted much more than money.

Yes, but the point is that that sort of economy, based on that level of spending, is no longer possible. It isn't a "choice" that we have - the diversity officers have to go and find some more useful, productive activity. All Darling can do really is draw out the pain over as long a period as possible to minimise the social disruption. However, the pain has to be felt, and at least he recognises that. He's the only really good candidate for the Labour leadership, I think. Anybody else, and the party will die.

[GrillsBears]

Yes, but the point is that that sort of economy, based on that level of spending, is no longer possible. It isn't a "choice" that we have - the diversity officers have to go and find some more useful, productive activity. All Darling can do really is draw out the pain over as long a period as possible to minimise the social disruption. However, the pain has to be felt, and at least he recognises that. He's the only really good candidate for the Labour leadership, I think. Anybody else, and the party will die.

It's more than that. The economy never could cope with that level of spending. Profligate debt spending allowed this. Diversity officers are only nominally productive.

on edit

"Mr Darling told the newspaper that electors support his plan to balance the books. "Most people know that public spending has doubled over the last 10 to 12 years, so we are coming off a much higher base, " he said. "We are not talking about a situation where we have already cut to the bone.""

Really is very telling. What public services were so bad 12 years ago that spending needed doubling in order to make them effective? Whilst I can understand the likes of absolute zeros solidarity with his co workers what has happened in 12 years is social engineering. Labour have spent money to build a client state of non productive workers. It is correct that removing these non productive "workers" will impact the economy, but not to do so only guarantees that the pain will come later. Public sector spending is unsustainable.

Edited January 9, 2010 by GrillsBears

[Pindar]

But to be fair, if it is mostly Brown's fault, why is it that the same economic situation prevails in other parts of the world, namely the US, where government has also been allowed to grow out of all proportion to economic activity that sustains it through taxation?

I'm no defender of the man, I think he was a convenient placeholder, a cardboard cutout, no more capable of managing an economy than an alcoholic navvy would be of landing a 747 but really, wasn't he just following orders from on high from higher up the food-chain of command?

Does anybody seriously think that he would have remained as chancellor if he'd really pursued a policy of grim austerity, credit rationing and sensible lending?

We talk about government being in control but we always fail to identify the true source of the last 20 years which was deregulation of financial services, the most significant of which took place under the Thatcher regime in the 1980s. As a result, a flood of cheap US and EU money came washing ashore from 1999 on, changing the landscape forever and creating the basis for the biggest debt bubble the world had yet seen.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Pindar

[oracle]

The two go hand in hand. Sack the diversity workers and tell them it's time to go foraging.

send em down the salt mines to get that grit that ought to be on the roads.

I'll happily pay for the shovels out of my council tax.(oh....I am already!)

there is something to be said for these senior managemnt types getting in touch with the grass roots.

I can't think of a better way than getting them clearing pavements manually.

Edited January 9, 2010 by oracle

[porca misèria]

there is something to be said for these senior managemnt types getting in touch with the grass roots.

I can't think of a better way than getting them clearing pavements manually.

Lots of grass on your pavements?

[tahoma]

In my view, Brown had a scorched earth policy he was about to carry out, in order to

1. Punish the electorate for being so ungrateful and unworthy of their Great Leader, and

2. Make life hard for the Tories, possibly taking the flak for 5 years then letting Labour get back in to re-smash a by-then recovering economy.

Luckily, Mandleson and Darling have stepped in, shot him in the neck politically and are preparing for an orderly handover of Government. For that, they should be respected to some extent.

[spivT]

It's more than that. The economy never could cope with that level of spending. Profligate debt spending allowed this. Diversity officers are only nominally productive.

on edit

"Mr Darling told the newspaper that electors support his plan to balance the books. "Most people know that public spending has doubled over the last 10 to 12 years, so we are coming off a much higher base, " he said. "We are not talking about a situation where we have already cut to the bone.""

Really is very telling. What public services were so bad 12 years ago that spending needed doubling in order to make them effective? Whilst I can understand the likes of absolute zeros solidarity with his co workers what has happened in 12 years is social engineering. Labour have spent money to build a client state of non productive workers. It is correct that removing these non productive "workers" will impact the economy, but not to do so only guarantees that the pain will come later. Public sector spending is unsustainable.

What does removing these productive workers mean in reality ? It means transferring to the private sector. So in effect

the private sector is given a subsidy to provide a public service, it takes on the burden of employing and managing the

staff. These companies too are prone to huge waste and timewasting. One thing i have learned is that while there are

people in charge of budgets in the public sector who i wouldn't personally put in charge of running a newspaper stand,

there are some in the private sector who are also having a bubble with some of the stuff they are trying to get away with,

on the justification of providing a public service supposedly more 'efficiently' [which for some bizarre reason some still

mistakenly believe equates to 'cheaply'. it doesn't.] Most people don't know the half of it.

Part of this process allows public sector bodies to implement natural wastage where they don't have the budgets to

replace staff jobs. So where the public sector bodies can't outsource or retire off, they are stuck with staff whether they

need them in those positions or don't.

As huw says, there won't be a widespread culling of such jobs, infact much of the spending currently propping up the

economy is public sector job creation NOT destruction.

Plus the retirement thing is a tricky one. Many in the public sector who have 'retired' have the experience required to

help those public bodies to implement the latest initiative or targets set down from govt. It's preferable for them to

tap into that knowledge at a consultancy rate, and so you have a lot of people floating around taking advantage of the

govts. inability to sit still for 2 seconds. Initative. Target. Report. Assess. Fund. Initiative. Target. Report. Assess. Fund.

And repeat until nulabour and the local govt. have the numbers they like the look of.

huw is correct. It isn't just money that labour has wasted.

The client state extends far beyond creating a lot of public sector non-jobs. It's subsisting a lot of what is happening

in the private sector also. And the sheer maddening complexity of this ecosystem and what it's supposed to be doing

is quite impressive.

That's labours fault. They created these ecosystems and kept feeding them with budgets. Absolutely the amount spent

is totally disproportionate to the 'achievements' that can be quantified.

[spivT]

But to be fair, if it is mostly Brown's fault, why is it that the same economic situation prevails in other parts of the world, namely the US, where government has also been allowed to grow out of all proportion to economic activity that sustains it through taxation?

I'm no defender of the man, I think he was a convenient placeholder, a cardboard cutout, no more capable of managing an economy than an alcoholic navvy would be of landing a 747 but really, wasn't he just following orders from on high from higher up the food-chain of command?

Does anybody seriously think that he would have remained as chancellor if he'd really pursued a policy of grim austerity, credit rationing and sensible lending?

We talk about government being in control but we always fail to identify the true source of the last 20 years which was deregulation of financial services, the most significant of which took place under the Thatcher regime in the 1980s. As a result, a flood of cheap US and EU money came washing ashore from 1999 on, changing the landscape forever and creating the basis for the biggest debt bubble the world had yet seen.

So brown jumped on an ideology. Several infact. And ran with it.

He wanted to use the financial liberalisation and to an extent modern monetary practice to his advantage in his social

engineering program. The turn of the millenium was always going to be a great time to funk money on the flagship, the

iconic, the big ideas. And then what you do if your nulabour is, you find away to keep extending these budgets every 18

months to 2 years.

That was brown and nulabour wasn't it. On the one hand what they said was......we will not totally inhibit people making

money in the financial markets and corporate profit seeking. We will use the relatively benign economic conditions to run

budget deficits to allow us to commit vast sums to projects over short timeframes that we'll continue to find justifications

to fund, but our timescale is short so we need to get something going shaprish. Therefore we won't really know if much

of what we spend is going to make much of a difference.

But that mattered little because of prudence. This idea of his spending being fully funded with metrics that added to this

prudent chancellor myth.Interest rates the very symbol of moderation thanks to brown putting the central bank in charge.

So the money and the budgets just kept coming. Where did they all end up.......that would make for some paper trail. Ultimately

it fuelled a lot of nonsense. But then everyone was content in knowing they got to nibble at some of the crumbs that fell of the

cake. however small. Perhaps he fed into the public sector the idea that there was no such thing as bad spending. Spending

ultimately had some effect. A Diversity officer matters to someone and means one less person being economically inactive.

[Si1]

A Diversity officer...means one less person being economically inactive.

wibble?

[Si1]

Quacks and coppers maybe, but nurses and teachers? I don't think so!

dur - really?

[bogbrush]

Perhaps he fed into the public sector the idea that there was no such thing as bad spending.

No "perhaps" about it. In fact it stopped being "spending" and became "investment".

A Diversity officer matters to someone and means one less person being economically inactive.

I had to read this three times. Are you serious?

Edited January 9, 2010 by bogbrush

[laurejon]

One only has to know there is no honour among thieves.

New Labour will go down in history as being the most destructive party the UK has ever seen, not just on a national scale, but also on a Global Scale.

What we know about the evil of Labour, Brown Blair and their entourage is merely the tip of the iceberg. They will be brought before the Hague in the future, thats for sure. However its going to take the bravery of a new generation to pluck up the courage and take the steps necessary to bring the prosecution to fruition.

[bogbrush]

I saw on another thread that Badger is out and about big time now; this time it's Ed Balls on the receiving end;

Asked about the Schools Secretary, Mr Darling said pointedly: ‘Ministers get moved around, Ed may be doing something else in the future.’

Labour MP Eric Joyce said: ‘Judging by Mr Darling’s comments, it would appear there has been a major power shift in the Cabinet.’

Another Labour MP said: ‘The price Gordon has paid for hanging on to power is to agree to do what the Cabinet tells him to do.’

I more and more think that Matthew Parris was right in that the coup was never expected to actually replace him, just fatally wound him so he's become nothing more than a puppet.

[scepticus]

bloody hell you people do like to focus on the trees rather than the forrest.

For sure Labour have cocked things up - but look at the wider world around you. China is a vast ponzi scheme, the USA is a mess of rampant crypto fascism masquerading as socialism and the EU is home to huge and unsustainable financial and socio-economic shear.

Meanwhile the oil is running out.

The collapse of global capitalism (already zombified for arguably the last 100 years) is underway and you think all this can be blamed on Gordon?

It all smacks of a rather desperate attempt to feel that you all can have some control (or revenge of some kind) by electing a new government that is basically the same as the last in all but name, while at the same time totally misunderstanding the dynamics of the system as it was and as it is likely to be in the future.

Get a grip and get some perspective. Having said that I do agree with bogbrushes original sentiments regarding Mr Darling.

[1929crash]

bloody hell you people do like to focus on the trees rather than the forrest.

For sure Labour have cocked things up - but look at the wider world around you. China is a vast ponzi scheme, the USA is a mess of rampant crypto fascism masquerading as socialism and the EU is home to huge and unsustainable financial and socio-economic shear.

Meanwhile the oil is running out.

The collapse of global capitalism (already zombified for arguably the last 100 years) is underway and you think all this can be blamed on Gordon?

It all smacks of a rather desperate attempt to feel that you all can have some control (or revenge of some kind) by electing a new government that is basically the same as the last in all but name, while at the same time totally misunderstanding the dynamics of the system as it was and as it is likely to be in the future.

Get a grip and get some perspective. Having said that I do agree with bogbrushes original sentiments regarding Mr Darling.

You are so right. Look at all that change Obama brought with him, and the crowd on here are placing their faith in Cameron!

[bogbrush]

You are so right. Look at all that change Obama brought with him, and the crowd on here are placing their faith in Cameron!

Are they? I doubt there are any posts here to back that up.

I think you'll find most people are dubious about Cameron at the least. It''s just that having anyone but a mentally disturbed egomaniac with severe delusional disorder would be an improvement.

Edited January 9, 2010 by bogbrush

[tinker]

Are they? I doubt there are any posts here to back that up.

I think you'll find most people are dubious about Cameron at the least. It''s just that having anyone but a mentally disturbed egomaniac with severe delusional disorder would be an improvement.

Personally I've not a lot of confidence in Cameron - they seem to have got the debt and budgeting problem (finally), but this Labour government is a disaster and we will be counting the cost of this for a long time.

Debt = wealth

Spending = investment

etc.

But anything would be better than more of the same. I believe that the one after next will be the most important election - it could be the one where the LabConLib axis is finally broken.

[1929crash]

Are they? I doubt there are any posts here to back that up.

I think you'll find most people are dubious about Cameron at the least. It''s just that having anyone but a mentally disturbed egomaniac with severe delusional disorder would be an improvement.

There are a fair few Cameroons on here, but I suppose a lot of Americans voted for Obama on the basis that he wasn't Bush. I think they are waking up to the fact that at best, he is bush-lite, in hoc to the corporations and the military -industrial complex.

Cameron will be a more socially engaging version of Brown, that's all.

Edited January 10, 2010 by 1929crash

[Guest Steve Cook]

bloody hell you people do like to focus on the trees rather than the forrest.

For sure Labour have cocked things up - but look at the wider world around you. China is a vast ponzi scheme, the USA is a mess of rampant crypto fascism masquerading as socialism and the EU is home to huge and unsustainable financial and socio-economic shear.

Meanwhile the oil is running out.

The collapse of global capitalism (already zombified for arguably the last 100 years) is underway and you think all this can be blamed on Gordon?

It all smacks of a rather desperate attempt to feel that you all can have some control (or revenge of some kind) by electing a new government that is basically the same as the last in all but name, while at the same time totally misunderstanding the dynamics of the system as it was and as it is likely to be in the future.

Get a grip and get some perspective. Having said that I do agree with bogbrushes original sentiments regarding Mr Darling.

yep

[Guest Steve Cook]

Are they? I doubt there are any posts here to back that up.

I think you'll find most people are dubious about Cameron at the least. It''s just that having anyone but a mentally disturbed egomaniac with severe delusional disorder would be an improvement.

Brown's main problem is that he is autistic. Bright, but autistic.

I'd bet money on it.

[MarkG]

The collapse of global capitalism (already zombified for arguably the last 100 years) is underway and you think all this can be blamed on Gordon?

It's post-war international socialism that's collapsing, as it inevitably had to once the money ran out.

[Lambie]

Brown's main problem is that he is autistic. Bright, but autistic.

I'd bet money on it.

I do a lot of work with autistic kids, and he doesn't quite fit the profile

my money's on narcissistic manic depressive.

whatever it is, he's a very, very ill man.

[Lambie]

Darling a good guy? You're too kind. He's one of this bunch of gangsters that has taken this country to the cleaners. I take your point, but the guilt by association is too strong to forgive.

Darling reminds me of that strange haired alien in Babylon 5, the one who some sort of alien in his head that told him what to do and had to drink until nearly unconscious in order to have some minute part of himself back, making him blurt out the truth at random intervals.

[laurejon]

I do a lot of work with autistic kids, and he doesn't quite fit the profile

my money's on narcissistic manic depressive.

whatever it is, he's a very, very ill man.

I think you could be right. Any man that calls his wife Mummy should not be elected Prime Minister, or rather Subprime Minister as is the case with Gordon Brown

[spivT]

bloody hell you people do like to focus on the trees rather than the forrest.

For sure Labour have cocked things up - but look at the wider world around you. China is a vast ponzi scheme, the USA is a mess of rampant crypto fascism masquerading as socialism and the EU is home to huge and unsustainable financial and socio-economic shear.

Meanwhile the oil is running out.

The collapse of global capitalism (already zombified for arguably the last 100 years) is underway and you think all this can be blamed on Gordon?

It all smacks of a rather desperate attempt to feel that you all can have some control (or revenge of some kind) by electing a new government that is basically the same as the last in all but name, while at the same time totally misunderstanding the dynamics of the system as it was and as it is likely to be in the future.

Get a grip and get some perspective. Having said that I do agree with bogbrushes original sentiments regarding Mr Darling.

In other words. started in america. hpi over the last 10 years non issue. Not Gordons fault. vote labour because it's the right thing to do.

Your such a transparent troll job. QFT.