keg Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 looking at it the other way though whilst we may not be so free, thanks to camera phones and the like, we can also keep an eye on the bent ones keeping an eye on us KW Not thought about it that way KW but it makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I believe the previous government passed more than 2000 new criminal laws. That's 2000 activities criminalised that had been lawful before they came to power. The rise of ever more repressive national governance and ever more expansive and unrepresentative supranational governance which no-one has voted for and which is accountable to no-one but its corporate sponsors (the EU is a prime example) is symptomatic of over-population. Its going to get progressively worse, fuelled by communications technology which is brilliantly adept at jerking the strings of the individual while simultaneously convincing him it brings him choice and liberation, and a shrinking world. As we become more densely packed on this overcrowded planet more and more people will become utterly dependant on big governments and big corporations for everyday survival. It is not in the interests of the political or the corporate world to reverse this tendency and they will continue to do everything in their power to entrench it, usually hand -in-glove and without any but the most simplistic and infantilised dialogue with the common man. China, incidentally, has built is colossal boom almost entirely on debt. Many people will not be aware of this but China is the most indebted country on Earth. It is the workshop powering a circular, total loss production line of mindless consumption. The system is not self-replicating and at some point it will crash. Well said, although don't forget that many of the new laws were for offences that had previously been covered inadequately by existing laws. We're the first to complain when a villain gets off on a "technicality". You describe the future well, I think, China is already feeling the strain of that debt and our own debt is enough to sink us even with emergency measures such as letting people spend their pension pots early and holding interest rates at unprecedented levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I am dreading the carnage that will arrive when rates do go up as surely they must. Many people have not seen 13 or 14% as we and many of us on here did when we bought our first house in the 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I believe the previous government passed more than 2000 new criminal laws. That's 2000 activities criminalised that had been lawful before they came to power. The rise of ever more repressive national governance and ever more expansive and unrepresentative supranational governance which no-one has voted for and which is accountable to no-one but its corporate sponsors (the EU is a prime example) is symptomatic of over-population. Its going to get progressively worse, fuelled by communications technology which is brilliantly adept at jerking the strings of the individual while simultaneously convincing him it brings him choice and liberation, and a shrinking world. As we become more densely packed on this overcrowded planet more and more people will become utterly dependant on big governments and big corporations for everyday survival. It is not in the interests of the political or the corporate world to reverse this tendency and they will continue to do everything in their power to entrench it, usually hand -in-glove and without any but the most simplistic and infantilised dialogue with the common man. China, incidentally, has built is colossal boom almost entirely on debt. Many people will not be aware of this but China is the most indebted country on Earth. It is the workshop powering a circular, total loss production line of mindless consumption. The system is not self-replicating and at some point it will crash. are you suggesting that we repeal laws ? surely some were brought in to protect us from harm/ terrorism, others to do with information technology, It seems every country is in huge debt, who does control the purse strings and ultimately us, or is it each country owes to each other, much like the last boom in this country, when everyone became rich by selling houses to each other until they realised it was all make believe Edited March 23, 2014 by islandgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) are you suggesting that we repeal laws ? surely some were brought in to protect us from harm/ terrorism, others to do with information technology, It seems every country is in huge debt, who does control the purse strings and ultimately us, or is it each country owes to each other, much like the last boom in this country, when everyone became rich by selling houses to each other until they realised it was all make believe I'm not suggesting that we repeal all laws but we certainly have too many. The default response of governments to events has become the blanket use of legislation as a blunt instrument, partly to control behaviour but partly also from a fear of doing nothing. Legislation for legislation's sake. The old classroom cliché that what is not prohibited is compulsory is fast becoming a reality. And that is a terrible council of despair because it presupposes that human beings are incapable of making judgments for themselves but must be led through life like toddlers by an arbitrary state machine which at the end of the day is controlled by people who are just as flawed as the rest of us. The plethora of legislation drawn up in response to the technology of the information age underlines my point that this technology subjugates as much as liberates. The problem of debt, both public and private, has been created by fostering false expectations on an industrial scale. Bad news doesn't win votes and doesn't sell products. But adversity is the framework on which human life is built. It cannot and should not be sweetened away. All you do is roll the misery over for another time and another generation. You really can't have your cake and eat it. Yet we seem further away than ever from learning that lesson. Edited March 23, 2014 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Paradoxically the increase in petty legislation has had the effect of allowing guilty people to get off on technicalities and making some crimes so complex to prosecute that the CPS just don't bother to prosecute. I may be boring in returning to the case of my stolen trailer but it does appear very odd that somebody caught red handed in possession of a valuable stolen item can just say he borrowed it but refuses to say from whom and that is considered a reason not to prosecute? My possibly twisted logic would say that if the person was not prepared to say who it was allegedly borrowed from then they should take the rap? That is just the tip of a very big iceberg that miscreants regularly use to their advantage. It is a bit like the onus being on the property owner to ensure that anybody trying to break in isn't harmed by the property, how screwed up is that??!! More to the point perhaps is how the hell did we ever get to a point where such ridiculous legislation gets through? Things are so complex that the only real winners are the legal folks. Maybe that is progress but we sure do seem to let a lot of very antisocial behaviour go unpunished while crimes with lesser direct impact on others are hammered at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 some were brought in to protect us from harm/ terrorism, others to do with information technology, there is the problem for every bit of "protection" legislation you can wave good bye to some of your freedoms. who knows what the correct balance should be i know i dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I am dreading the carnage that will arrive when rates do go up as surely they must. Many people have not seen 13 or 14% as we and many of us on here did when we bought our first house in the 90s. sadly I remember the time when they peaked admittedly not for long at just over 20% then settled to a lower 18%!!! twas 1981 and guess what wonderful person was in power. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 sadly I remember the time when they peaked admittedly not for long at just over 20% then settled to a lower 18%!!! twas 1981 and guess what wonderful person was in power. KW Yes, and only two years into her first parliament having inherited a country comprehensively bankrupted by her predecessors in the pursuit of just the kind of schoolboy Marxism espoused by Tony Benn. An economy is like an oil tanker: you work the controls and nothing happens for a long time, often not until after the person who pulled the lever has left the bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yes, and only two years into her first parliament having inherited a country comprehensively bankrupted by her predecessors in the pursuit of just the kind of schoolboy Marxism espoused by Tony Benn. An economy is like an oil tanker: you work the controls and nothing happens for a long time, often not until after the person who pulled the lever has left the bridge. funny thing is the cons seemingly only ever inherit problems, yet when they supposedly sort the issue they get voted out, perhaps its best to leave to god and providence. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 sadly I remember the time when they peaked admittedly not for long at just over 20% then settled to a lower 18%!!! twas 1981 and guess what wonderful person was in power. KW I don't think it reached quite that high? I remember it at about 16/17%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 funny thing is the cons seemingly only ever inherit problems, yet when they supposedly sort the issue they get voted out, perhaps its best to leave to god and providence. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I don't think it reached quite that high? I remember it at about 16/17%. oh it did. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yes, and only two years into her first parliament having inherited a country comprehensively bankrupted by her predecessors in the pursuit of just the kind of schoolboy Marxism espoused by Tony Benn. An economy is like an oil tanker: you work the controls and nothing happens for a long time, often not until after the person who pulled the lever has left the bridge. I, like many others no doubt, took out a fixed rate mortgage at that time and though rates rose alarmingly mine was at 6% and i still admire her for all she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 funny thing is the cons seemingly only ever inherit problems, yet when they supposedly sort the issue they get voted out, perhaps its best to leave to god and providence. KW who was in power in times of boom and bust when, as i mentioned earlier everyone sold houses to each other until it went bosom up, Yes, and only two years into her first parliament having inherited a country comprehensively bankrupted by her predecessors in the pursuit of just the kind of schoolboy Marxism espoused by Tony Benn. An economy is like an oil tanker: you work the controls and nothing happens for a long time, often not until after the person who pulled the lever has left the bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) funny thing is the cons seemingly only ever inherit problems, yet when they supposedly sort the issue they get voted out, perhaps its best to leave to god and providence. KW Perhaps it is. Unfortunately the economic and electoral cycles seem to be synced to guarantee the maximum instability. Government A drives the country to the wall. Government B gets in to try and clear up the mess (assuming there is such a Government B and that both it and the electorate are capable of understanding what caused the mess) and barely gets the job half done when the casualty starts to feel better again and begins to resent the nasty medicine its having to take and so in protest takes another punt on Government A. Ad infinitum. who was in power in times of boom and bust when, as i mentioned earlier everyone sold houses to each other until it went bosom up, Post Thatcher, both Labour and Conservative. Or rather New Labour and Blue Labour as they are now. (See in brackets above). Edited March 23, 2014 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 sadly I remember the time when they peaked admittedly not for long at just over 20% then settled to a lower 18%!!! twas 1981 and guess what wonderful person was in power. KW See Gimlet's reply, he says it so much better than I can. According to the Guardian, April 1980 was the Uk's highest point at 17%, data for 20% I cannot find anywhere, any references please KW? http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/13/interest-rates-uk-since-1694 In my lifetime ( 47 years), Labour has spent and the Tories then sort the mess out. Sadly a lot of the electorate forget this and New communism try and trick them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I'm not sure anyone can forget the mess of British politics, and the Tories are quite capable of being equally to blame, the recession in the early 80,s with high unemployment and the demise of British industry, followed by economic boom with unsustainable growth (see earlier post's about buying and selling each others houses) coupled with the rich's need to be richer so the poor can have some when it trickles down, I remain cynical of all politicians and no lover of new/ middle/old Labour. it would be great to trust them /anyone but then again life would get boring without an argument In my lifetime ( 47 years), Labour has spent and the Tories then sort the mess out. Sadly a lot of the electorate forget this and New communism try and trick them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Don't get me wrong, the Tories have made some absolute howlers with the ERM being one of the biggest and I agree that most are untrustworthy these days. The recession in the early 80s was caused by inheriting a basket case that the IMF would not touch and like the current state of affairs, will take a while to get out of. A large part of the cause of that basket case was unreasonable wage demands creating an inflation spiral and the subsidies paid to uneconomical industries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Don't get me wrong, the Tories have made some absolute howlers with the ERM being one of the biggest and I agree that most are untrustworthy these days. The recession in the early 80s was caused by inheriting a basket case that the IMF would not touch and like the current state of affairs, will take a while to get out of. A large part of the cause of that basket case was unreasonable wage demands creating an inflation spiral and the subsidies paid to uneconomical industries. Correct. Islandgun is also right, though, to point to the folly of relying on property price inflation to provide artificial growth. Germany is about the only major economy in Europe that isn't fiscally bankrupt. It also has one of the largest and most affordable rented housing sectors and generates genuine income by making things and selling them beyond its shores rather than relying on a debt-fuelled and inflationary merry-go-round of re-selling a finite housing stock. (Admittedly it is greatly helped by being the default currency pace-setter in the Eurozone which means its exchange rate is underwritten by weaker members which then entrench Germany's competitive advantage by having to buy the goods it swamps the market with). The British house price spiral took off under the Thatcher government but as an adjunct to production-based growth brought about through deregulation of industry and inward investment, not as a substitute for it. This economic springboard was squandered by the Major government but the real damage was done by Gordon Brown when he deliberately increased the money supply and engineered a tidal wave of "cheap" debt to create the illusion of prosperity behind which smokescreen he set about building a command economy based on mass state dependency funded by ruinous borrowing and colossal rates of taxation. The first obvious symptom of this debauch was a property price boom like no other and an accompanying debt time-bomb which is propping up a still grossly over valued property sector. The problem now seems to me to be that the present government does not understand this. It seems content to repeat the mistakes of the past by re-inflating the property bubble, this time through mass immigration and a bonfire of planning laws rather than making genuine supply-side reforms and drastically slashing government spending and taxation. Edited March 23, 2014 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I agree with all but your last sentence, how much more can you do to cut spending and the size of the state ? Also selling my house now and we are looking at a 10-15% drop in price from 12 months ago. Government has advised estate agents that property prices are 'inflationary' and they are responding. Just MHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I agree with all but your last sentence, how much more can you do to cut spending and the size of the state ? Also selling my house now and we are looking at a 10-15% drop in price from 12 months ago. Government has advised estate agents that property prices are 'inflationary' and they are responding. Just MHO. Average house prices are still around 6 times average income. That is an unsustainable level of debt. They need to be half that. The Government hasn't even begun to cut the size of the state, in fact it has increased it. Every pound it saves it offsets by spending £1.20 somewhere else. It seems in thrall to the leftist delusion that the retreat of the State brings economic contraction. In truth the reverse is the case. In the context of the housing market, the added pressure on demand brought about by mass immigration does more harm than good when the sector is already over-indebted. It might be great news for corporate house builders who are sitting on money and land banks but for everyone else it locks in inflation for the future. Its part of the problem, not the solution. Edited March 23, 2014 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Again a comprehensive political analysis from some knowledgeable people, a little of which I understand ? why then are house price increases used as the marker for a healthy economy, why the right to buy was so important to the Tories in the eighties when renting is more desirable to reduce the level of debt, and finally would it not have been better to keep some of the industries that went under, also in the eighties even if there was a strong union presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.