BBC LDN wrote:
I think that's a very simplistic - and naïve and skewed - view of things.
Fine by me, I am not an economist nor a politician, so I don't mind having simple views.
BBC LDN wrote:
Yes, Europe is in crisis, but it's either insane or ill-informed to suggest that we were "led" there by Europe and the US. In fact, I find it bizarre that you're so open in your hypocrisy here - on the one hand you're lambasting the Prime Minister for laying all the blame on Labour, yet your assessment fails to acknowledge that Labour and the United Kingdom shared any complicity in the actions that led to the crisis that the global economic system now faces.
The lack of strong regulation [remember the Tories voted against the little regulation we did have], as well as the over reliance on the financial sector had a lot to do with how hard the UK was hit by the global financial crisis, but nor was it all Labour's fault as David Cameron was saying throughout the elections, criticising Gordon Brown when he mentioned it was a global problem. Now he is running things, suddenly it is a global and European issue.
BBC LDN wrote:
You might like to listen to some of the nonsense being spouted by Labour when it comes to the economy - and one doesn't need to bring partisan issues into it at all. Labour constantly criticises every decision that the coalition makes on economic matters, decrying the total lack of progress by the Government, the stagnation in the economy, the brutal cuts. Yet these criticisms come without acknowledgement of the broader economic situation; Britain does not exist in isolation, untouched by the shockwaves reverberating through other economies, yet to hear Ed Miliband speak, one would think that the whole world was soaring back to the boom times while our incompetent overlords stumbled and bumbled and crushed the country into the ground. One would surely expect anyone with two brain cells to rub together to realise that that level of bullshit is nothing but partisan aggrandizement - deliberating obfuscating the facts to score cheap political points.
In making my comments about David Cameron, I did not say anything about agreeing with the policies of Balls and Miliband. I do believe what the government is doing, is not making things better, and is not improving the economy. Nor would the continuous borrowing and high spending.
The financial sector should be dismantled and rebuilt, and the whole capitalist system needs rethinking, but that is not likely to happen, whoever is in power.
BBC LDN wrote:
Or to put this another way, exactly what you're accusing the Prime Minister of doing.
Another example is that of Ed Balls, who told conference a few weeks ago that if he were the Chancellor, he would borrow more money to spend more to get the economy moving. Yet when the Chancellor delivered his Budget Statement to the House two weeks ago, Ed Balls immediately stood up and tore George Osborne a new one, mocking him for having to borrow more money in order to kickstart the stagnating economy. Of course, this is all part of the game of opposition politics - but you can't on the one hand accuse the governing party of doing all these things, while the party that you support openly commits the same grave acts that you apaprently find so contemptible.
I think the fact that Osborne has had to borrow more, shows that his plan was flawed. And whilst it would be better if Labour were not gloating and complaining, they realistically need to make as much political capital out of this. Another issue is the fact that the damage has been done now, with the VAT rises, and the demonising of the public sector, students, young people, the disabled, and those unable to work. Things which Labour would at least have had pangs of guilt or doubt about hitting, if they were to still be in power.
BBC LDN wrote:
Neither the Prime Minister nor the Conservative Party, nor the Lib Dems, nor the Coalition in union, have ever laid the blame for the crisis solely at Labour's feet. That is a gross misrepresentation, and I don't know whether it's because you don't understand the issues or you're playing the political game of skewing the facts, or you're just bullshitting because you don't like David Cameron, but it simply isn't true. There's an enormous amount of discussion from both coalition parties about the blame that Labour shares in getting us to this point, and that's apparently something that you're not ready to concede.
The way I see it, if it was not for the risk of banks collapsing, and people losing their money, Labour would not have had to build up the deficit to such a dangerously high level bailing out the banks [Who have yet to pay back the money, and thus helping to pay off the money the country owes]. Also with so many bankers and financial companies supporting the Conservatives, and the public image of these being trashed by Labour, I believe they manipulated things to make Labour's plans seem worse than they were, so the Tories could claim the markets did not find them credible.
BBC LDN wrote:
To Ed Miliband's credit, he has on more than one occasion acknowledged that Labour's record on that front isn't perfect, although such concessions only manifest themselves upon occasions of his choosing; when directly confronted with Labour's failings in this respect - for example, in failing to properly regulate the UK banking industry; or in spunking away Britain's £22bn cash surplus, spending like drunken sailors on shore leave, and holding the country's purse as we racked up our biggest debt since WWII, while blindly chanting the mantra that "the days of boom and bust are over" - Ed Miliband will immediately deny any hint of poor judgement on Labour's part, and default to the standard fare of how poorly the country's economy is doing.
The public sector, and public sector services like Hospitals, Transport, and Schools were in a disgraceful state back in 1997, that spending was necessary for human dignity and to be a civilised society. So don't you dare try to make out that all the increases in spending Labour brought about were somehow wasted.
One thing I do agree with, is talking about the end to Boom and Bust was ridiculous, because if you have and support a capitalist, market driven ideology, you will have to accept the cycles of good times and bad times.
BBC LDN wrote:
You said yourself that Europe is in crisis, Martin. It's not within our power to fix it, and it's not our responsibility alone to fix it either. However, we as a nation have maintained a certain level of distance from the Eurozone, and that has proven to be a wise decision, given the relative strength of our economy compared with the Eurozone as a whole. Credit for that has to be given not only to the coalition, but also to the Labour government before it who, under a slightly different ideology admittedly, still recognised that we could not sacrifice the strength that we had built and strived so hard to maintain for the short-term benefits of joining the Euro, without having a clear understanding of the long-term implications, and more importantly, what the implications might be of 'hard times' in the Eurozone upon the British economy.
I would not have liked us to be in the Eurozone, or to adopt the Euro. I also have some doubts about some of the policies that Europe produces. However I think it is a bit ridiculous to want to be part of the trading agreements, but to not want to accept the same rules and practices that are commonplace throughout Europe.
BBC LDN wrote:
In that respect, the Conservative and Labour ideologies are fundamentally united - Britain's interests must come first. It serves no-one at all - not Britain, and not Europe - to throw ourselves into the sea of turmoil as a life-raft to which all others might cling. Ultimately, the weight of all that clings to us for help will simply drag us down, and the crisis will deepen.
I would feel a little better about Britain's interests, if we did not have a Tory led coalition which is destroying the fabric of society in this country, but on this I doubt we could ever see eye to eye.
BBC LDN wrote:
Your characterisation of Mr Cameron as having virtually spat in the faces of every citizen of continental Europe in having exercised the right to veto is very emotional and dramatic, but as with the factual distillation of Messrs. Miliband and Balls, it's little more than partisan rhetoric, the kind of angry and bilious chatter that is spouted on the likes of FOX News.
Perhaps you should consider that Britain is the only one not prepared to compromise in order to try to bring some stability to Europe as a whole, and instead we throw our toys out of the pram, when we don't get our way.
BBC LDN wrote:
A decision had to be made. To vote one way would subjugate Britain's right to put her needs first, relegating our priorities below those of Europe's, and capitulating to the Franco-German hegemony, despite the fact that - as you indeed concede - we are not in the Eurozone, and our involvement in the treaty is somewhat counterintuitive on that basis, given our distance on many of the most important matters that will form part of its formation and ratification. Surely you must see the conflict in being outside of the Eurozone, yet being forced to commit to structural, taxational, constitutional and penalty issues that apply to Eurozone countries? Surely you must see why it was necessary for the Prime Minister to request and then demand certain exemptions in order for Britain to subscribe to the new treaty?
I personally agree there should be a financial transaction tax, not set by Europe but by our own government. I think America should also bring this in, so it is a more level playing field, and it would encourage these renegade destroyers (financial institutions) to not make frivolous or dangerous transactions and hedge bets. Our PM who is a millionaire and friend to the financial sector, has no intention to punish them for the damage caused in 2008. This would bring us in line with Europe, but not controlled by them.
BBC LDN wrote:
It's not a question of ideologies - and what the fuck are you talking about in saying that David Cameron is trying to impose his ideologies on Europe? Seriously, what the shitballs are you talking about there? How is he "pushing his ideological views on Europe" by putting Britain's interests first? Are we invading Europe? Did I miss a memo somewhere? - it's a question of common sense. Committing Britain to the new treaty would be like doing business with the guy across the street, but instead of just selling him fruits from your garden, you also have to pay some of his bills, and commit to taking care of him and paying for him if he ends up unable to work, and he gets to tell you how you grow your fruits, decorate your house and raise your kids. Sure, you can still sell him the fruits, and maybe you'll actually get some great decorating tips out of it, and maybe, just maybe, the kids won't grow up to be thieving little shits, but you're putting a lot of faith in an agreement that's very one-sided just so that you can maintain the status quo, keep selling the goods, and keep the relationship alive. At some point, a line has to be drawn, and everyone needs to take a step back to evaluate what's best for themselves, each other and the greater good. But 'more of the same' isn't always the way forward.
Cameron's ideology is austerity - small government - free markets - dominant private sector - anti public sector/services. You talk about how he want's to put Britain's interests first, but what if you do not believe his views are in Britain's interests?
It is hard for David Cameron to help to try to stabilise and strengthen the Euro, when he is against it even existing. I did not like Gordon Brown as PM, but back in 2008 he was working towards leading Europe in a single direction to try to get through the crisis and recession.
BBC LDN wrote:
That's not treating our European neighbours disgracefully, nor is it repugnant; it's called leadership.
So deciding not to participate unless you get special rules just for yourself is not leadership, its being a spoilt brat having a tantrum.
BBC LDN wrote:
I asked you why you thought what you did, and basically all I got back from you was "waaaaah, Cameron's a dick, waaaaah, I hate Conservatives". Take a step back from the partisan issues that are blinding your judgement here, and look at the bigger picture. This isn't some Tory arsehole singlehandedly and arbritrarily deciding to destroy Europe in the hope of turning the EU into a Conservative paradise. This was a difficult decision that had to be made - one way would have effectively bent Britain over and let Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy take turns at fisting us, with very little clear benefit for Britain, and a massive exposure to the risk of European collapse, along with the consequences of us then being dragged down with the sinking ship; the other way was to recognise that very real risk, and to put our national interests first.
With all this talking about being partisan, you are not coming across as unbiased yourself about this situation with talk about fisting.
I do not agree that we should be part of any new treaty, but my comment was about the way David Cameron has approached this summit, and this decision. Being the only one, out of 27 countries, to just flat out say no, and refuse to take part in compromise for the greater good, will not help Britain one bit, and in fact, may make things much worse for us, especially if Tory policies continue to have this destructive effect over our economy, quality of life, and this growing anger in society.
BBC LDN wrote:
The Prime Minister was elected to serve the people of the United Kingdom, not those of Europe.
I, for one, think his decision was the right one.
I agree we should not be part of any new treaty, and that we should re-evaluate our involvement with the Euro, but at this time, keeping the Euro going is important, even if you are against it, as it is the will of the majority, and in a democracy that is what pushes things forward. Its why the Tories got into power, and made the coalition, despite the majority of voters combined, voted against the Tories.
I personally do not agree they United Kingdom is best served by David Cameron, or the Conservatives. So do not accept that his wishes and values, are what we should be fighting for, to the detriment of so many other countries.
